The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan

                          UFO UpDates Mailing List
                                  Jan 2001

  Jan 6:

   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Stonehill - Paul Stonehill [49]
   Art Bell: Late Night Madness Returns - Royce J. Myers III [27]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Gates - Robert Gates [77]
   We Of The First Sin - Christopher Kelly [141]
   Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - Bob Young [94]
   Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - BYoung - Bob Young [68]
   eXpose News Update - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [28]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Georgina Bruni [321]
   Argentina Blinded By Lights In The Night - Scott Corrales [100]
   Secrecy News -- 01/05/01 - Steven Aftergood [109]
   Re: A Heads-Up - This Will Generate 'Sightings' - Wendy Christensen
   [23]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [34]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Bruni - Georgina Bruni
   [50]
   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Nolane - Richard D. Nolane [21]
   eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01 - Royce J. Myers III [19]
   Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - Gates - Robert Gates [122]
   Re: We Of The First Sin - Velez - John Velez [24]
   Apologies To UFO UpDates Archive Readers - UFO UpDates - Toronto [26]
   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Velez - John Velez [79]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Manso - Luis R. Gonzlez Manso [58]
   Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - MacDonald - Michael MacDonald
   [40]
   Re: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01 - Hatch - Larry Hatch [29]
   Re: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01 - Hatch - Larry Hatch [32]
   Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [33]
   Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [122]
   Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - GT McCoy [47]
   Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - MacDonald - Michael MacDonald
   [44]
   Re: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01 - Murgia - Joe Murgia [46]
   Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [45]
   Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [53]
   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [100]
   Re: We Of The First Sin - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [37]
   Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [24]
   Re: Xpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - Hatch - Larry Hatch [46]
   Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - Hatch - Larry Hatch [41]
   Re: We Of The First Sin - Peterborough - Kelly Peterborough [38]
   I Quit My Job & NASA Astronaut Musgrave on UFOs - Joe Murgia [59]

  Jan 7:

   Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - MacDonald - Michael MacDonald
   [25]
   Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - Ticchetti - Thiago Ticchetti [84]
   Re: We Of The First Sin - Hammond - Elizabeth Hammond [17]
   '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - UFO UpDates - Toronto [176]
   Satellite Prediction And Observation - Alfred Lehmberg [35]
   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Persky - Alex Persky [83]
   Re: Argentina Blinded By Lights In The Night - - Bob Young [25]
   Re: I Quit My Job & NASA Astronaut Musgrave on - Larry Hatch [43]
   Re: We Of The First Sin - Hatch - Larry Hatch [65]
   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Stonehill - Paul Stonehill [26]
   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Stonehill - Paul Stonehill [56]
   SOS OVNI & French DMI - Perry Petrakis [51]
   Argentina: Response to Corralito Incident - Scott Corrales [24]
   Chile: Money In Exchange For Silence On - Scott Corrales [39]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [168]
   Incontrovertible Proof! - Georgina Bruni [78]
   Strong Evidence for Alien Life on Two New Planets - Scott Corrales [51]
   London UFO Studies Meeting - John Hayes [22]
   Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - Velez - John Velez [80]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - - Serge Salvaille [37]
   Spiderlings - Greg St. Pierre [49]
   Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows - Kelly Peterborough [57]

  Jan 1:

   Test - UFO UpDates - Toronto [1]
   Sean Morton and Ed Dames - Royce J. Myers III [15]
   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Ledger - Donald Ledger d [27]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [131]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Bruni - Georgina Bruni
   [343]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate - - Georgina Bruni [27]
   Re: 2001 UFO Flap - Serge Salvaille [35]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - - Brad Sparks [39]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Ledger - Donald Ledger [64]
   Happy New Year! - Anthony Chippendale [5]
   Re: The New Millenium - Hatch - Larry Hatch [59]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Hatch - Larry Hatch [76]
   'AUFON Weekly' Posted At Midnight - Stefan Duncan [18]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch - Larry Hatch [37]
   Re: IUR & Rendlesham Debate - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [29]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Hurley - Matthew Hurley [45]
   [canufo] Most Interesting Published Information In - Chris Rutkowski
   [120]
   P-47: Kubrick & Clarke Sighting - Tom Rouse [47]

  Jan 2:

   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - - Bob Young [29]
   Re: Most Interesting Published Information In - Riccardo Melfi [28]
   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Sparks - Brad Sparks [56]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Sparks - Brad Sparks [29]
   Re: [canufo] Most Interesting Information In - Anthony Chippendale [25]
   Re: The New Millenium - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [79]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - - Brad Sparks [66]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate - - Jenny Randles [106]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Randles - Jenny Randles [168]
   Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In - Brad Sparks [86]
   Where's the Monolith? - Steven L. Wilson, Sr [112]
   Another Millennium Come and Gone... - Scott Carr [38]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - - Brad Sparks [292]
   Re: Pelicans - Gates - Robert Gates [63]
   Re: Pelicans - Gates - Robert Gates [23]
   Re: Pelicans - Gates - Robert Gates [18]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Velez - John Velez [69]
   Re: Millenium [Was: Gersten Generates More... ] - Robert Gates [35]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Velez - John Velez [111]
   Sighting Submission from TheUFOConspiracy.com - Champ Bradford [54]
   NASA's Goldin Thinking Outside of the Box - Kurt Jonach [69]
   Gersten Gets A Job? About time... - Royce J. Myers III [77]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch - Larry Hatch [57]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch - Larry Hatch [39]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [123]
   Bowden's UFO CD - Dave Bowden [13]
   Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In - Anthony Chippendale
   [26]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni - "Georgina Bruni [97]

  Jan 3:

   Fantasy Prone Personality? - Minna Laajala - UFO-Finland [17]
   Barry Greenwood Alive and Well at UHR! - John Velez [26]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - - Brad Sparks [52]
   Filer's Files #1 -- 2001 - Truncated - UFO UpDates - Toronto [276]
   My Favorite Martian - Bob Young [13]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - - Brad Sparks [507]
   Recent Clinton Comment - Grant Cameron [16]
   Arthur C. Clarke's DNA Set For Space Odyssey - Steven L. Wilson, Sr
   [31]
   Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In - Geoff Dittman [40]
   P-47: Arthur C. Clarke on UFOs - Brett Holman [101]
   Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In - Brad Sparks [67]
   P-47: Object Said To Fall In Finnish Lake, 2 Jan - Joel Carpenter [13]

  Jan 4:

   New 'UFO' In The Skies! - John Velez [16]
   Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - Kenny Young [76]
   Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In - Serge Salvaille [75]
   Historical Artwork Website Additions - Matthew Hurley [5]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch - Larry Hatch [28]
   Re: Recent Clinton Comment - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [26]
   Re: My Favorite Martian - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [36]
   Re: Re: Another Millennium Come and Gone... - - Ron Cecchini [46]
   Corso Files Update - Robert Gates [25]
   Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - Ticchetti - Thiago Ticchetti [36]
   Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - Sparks - Brad Sparks [86]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - - Brad Sparks [50]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Randles - Jenny Randles [82]

  Jan 5:

   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Velez - John Velez [46]
   Re: My Favorite Martian - BYoung - Bob Young [25]

  Jan 8:

   Re: Satellite Prediction And Observation - Young - Bob Young [28]
   Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - BYoung - Bob Young [45]
   Re: We Of The First Sin - Peterborough - Kelly Peterborough [72]
   Re: Worldwide UFO Disclosure Imminent? - Terry Rhodes [7]
   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [73]
   Re: Satellite Prediction And Observation - Klotz - Jim Klotz [24]
   Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - UFO UpDates - Toronto [24]
   Re: Spiderlings - Ed Gehrman [49]
   Re: Spiderlings - Jim Mortellaro [73]
   Re: Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows - UFO UpDates - Toronto [112]
   Re: I Quit My Job & NASA Astronaut Musgrave on UFOs - Joe Murgia [46]
   The Dalnegorsk Update - Paul Stonehill [19]
   Re: Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows - McCoy - GT McCoy [93]
   Re: UFO Skeptics - Easton - James Easton [36]
   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Velez - John Velez [74]
   Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Nolane - UFO UpDates - Toronto [24]
   Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Murray - Marty Murray [68]
   Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Parmantier - Franois Parmantier [79]
   Re: Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows - Velez - John Velez [30]
   Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Rivera - Jean-Luc Rivera [31]
   Re: Spiderlings - Cecchini - Ron Cecchini [17]
   Re: Worldwide UFO Disclosure Imminent? - Bowden - Dave Bowden [18]
   Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - Kelly Peterborough [44]
   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [46]
   Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [36]
   Secrecy News -- 01/08/01 - Steven Aftergood [54]
   Re: I Quit My Job & NASA Astronaut Musgrave on - Josh Goldstein [29]
   'Would You Believe...' (on TV) - Ron Cecchini [37]
   Re: Spiderlings - St. Pierre - Greg St. Pierre [18]
   Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens' - Bill Chalker [100]
   From Earth To Mars In As Little As Two Weeks - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [43]
   Re: We Of The First Sin - Cashman - Mark Cashman [36]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Cashman - Mark Cashman [35]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Roger Evans [28]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Donald Ledger [26]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - GT McCoy [66]
   Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - - Josh Goldstein [65]

  Jan 9:

   Re: We Of The First Sin - Evans - Roger Evans [35]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Kelly Peterborough
   [57]
   Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Gates - Robert Gates [29]
   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Stonehill - Paul Stonehill [57]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Jim Mortellaro [51]
   Re: UFO Skeptics - Gates - Robert Gates [61]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Robert Gates [13]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Gates - Robert Gates [26]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Kelly Peterborough
   [35]
   UFO UpDate:An Interesting NSA Story: Secrets Can Be Kept - Robert Gates
   [11]
   Re: Satellite Prediction And Observation - Velez - John Velez [32]
   Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - Velez - Larry Hatch [79]
   First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation - Bill Chalker [272]
   Re: We Of The First Sin - Hatch - Larry Hatch [31]
   Proven DNA Technique For Claims Abduction - Bill Chalker [116]
   Disappearance At Sea Baffles Man's Family - UFO UpDates - Toronto [45]
   Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Hatch - Larry Hatch [62]
   Stargate Magazine In Italy - Philip Mantle [17]
   All Links Are Not Lynx - Loren Coleman [10]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Roger Evans [66]
   Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List - Easton - James Easton [10]
   Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps - Serge Salvaille [54]
   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Persky - Alex Persky [13]
   Re: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation - Brad Sparks [18]
   Re: Worldwide UFO Disclosure Imminent? - Rhodes - Terry Rhodes [17]
   Re: Disappearance At Sea Baffles Man's Family - - Kenny Young [20]
   Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Ledger - Donald Ledger [50]

  Jan 10:

   AUFON Guests - Stefan Duncan [26]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Roger Evans [25]
   Re: UFO Skeptics - Evans - Roger Evans [45]
   Ed Dames and Sean David Morton - Royce J. Myers III [9]
   Re: Spiderlings - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [29]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - Kelly [53]
   Filer's Files #02 - 2001 - George A. Filer [427]
   Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps - Bill Chalker [84]
   Re: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation - Bill Chalker [57]
   Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - McCoy - GT McCoy [35]
   Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps - Sean Liddle [39]
   Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - TimHaley [26]
   Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List - Gates - Robert Gates [32]
   Request Regarding Dalnegorsk - Paul Stonehill [8]
   Double Spirals - Paul Stonehill [49]
   Re: UFO Skeptics - Velez - John Velez [37]
   "No More French Participation in the UFO Coverup!" - Larry W. Bryant
   [450]
   Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Hatch - Larry Hatch [55]
   Re: UFO Skeptics - Rimmer - John Rimmer [52]

  Jan 11:

   Advanced Propulsion Technologies Workshop - Georgina Bruni [250]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Roger Evans [59]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Greg Sandow [32]
   Re: UFO Skeptics - Ledger - Donald Ledger [78]
   Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Young - Bob Young [41]
   Re: Worldwide UFO Disclosure Imminent? - Hale - Roy J Hale [30]
   Re: UFO Skeptics - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [50]
   Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps - Serge Salvaille [37]
   Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Petrakis - Perry Petrakis [59]
   Re: "No More French Participation in the UFO - Joe McGonagle [15]
   Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Ledger - Donald Ledger [49]
   Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List - Gates - Bob Young [16]
   Re: UFO Skeptics - Ledger - Donald Ledger [37]
   Re: UFO Skeptics - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [25]
   Re: UFO Skeptics - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [25]
   Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List - Evans - Roger Evans [32]
   Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - Hatch - Larry Hatch [59]
   Re: UFO Skeptics - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [45]
   Re: "No More French Participation in the UFO - Sean and Karen [12]
   Secrecy News -- 01/11/01 - Steven Aftergood [95]
   Re: Advanced Propulsion Workshop - Kelleher - Colm Kelleher [14]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 2 - John Hayes [430]
   Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Murray - Marty Murray [37]
   Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps - John Velez [61]
   Re: Serious Flaws In Sirius Mystery - Nick Balaskas [173]
   Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Clark - Jerome Clark [58]
   Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [26]
   Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - Murgia - Joe Murgia [51]
   Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [44]
   Re: UFO Skeptics - Velez - John Velez [79]
   Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Nolane - Richard Nolane [55]
   Re: UFO Skeptics - Roberts - Andy Roberts [21]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Roger Evans [55]

  Jan 12:

   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Greg Sandow [60]
   Re: Serious Flaws In Sirius Mystery - Cecchini - Ron Cecchini [23]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Greg St. Pierre [15]
   Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - St. Pierre - Greg St. Pierre [17]
   Re: UFO Skeptics - Ledger - Donald Ledger [29]
   Re: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - Jim Mortellaro [74]
   Re: Ed Dames and Sean David Morton - Gates - Robert Gates [17]
   New Scientist Newsletter 13 January 2001 - Ron Cecchini [33]
   Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps - Bill Chalker [45]
   Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps - Bill Chalker [117]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - - Brad Sparks [579]
   Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Parmantier - Franois Parmantier [74]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Roger Evans [100]
   Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [78]
   Where Can Evidence Be Sent? - Stefan Duncan [17]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Kevin Randle
   <KRandle993> [36]
   Moon Hoax Spurs New Site - UFO UpDates - Toronto [84]
   Secrecy News -- 01/12/01 - Steven Aftergood [73]
   Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps - John Velez [52]
   Re: Where Can Evidence Be Sent? - Sean and Karen [18]
   Re: Where Can Evidence Be Sent? - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [49]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Brad Sparks [130]
   The French 'Secret' Military Intelligence UFO - Richard Nolane [14]
   Re: New Scientist Newsletter 13 January 2001 - - Nick Balaskas [39]

  Jan 13:

   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Nick Balaskas [38]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Hale - Roy J Hale [24]
   Re: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation - Brad Sparks [70]
   Unresolved Question [Was: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01] - Larry Hatch [66]
   'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - UFO UpDates - Toronto [7]
   Space Age Gear - 'Space Diving' - GT McCoy [7]
   Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - ebk - Peter B. Davenport [23]
   Re: Where Can Evidence Be Sent? - Liddle - Sean Liddle [17]
   Re: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation - Bill Chalker [34]
   The Alien Question: An Expanded Perspective - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [1080]
   UFO NEWSWIRE - Stefan Duncan [26]
   Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Hatch - Larry Hatch [26]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Josh Goldstein [71]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Josh Goldstein [66]

  Jan 14:

   Re: The Alien Question: An Expanded Perspective - - Josh Goldstein [34]
   Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps
   [28]
   Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - St. Pierre - Greg St. Pierre
   [54]

  Jan 15:

   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Brad Sparks [28]
   Could This Be True? - Sean Jones [24]
   I Can See For Miles... - Kurt Jonach [241]
   Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [39]
   Hot Gossip - The Real X Files - Jan 2001 - Georgina Bruni [76]
   Re: - Georgina Bruni" [111]
   'The Devil`s Grave'? - Thiago Ticchetti [12]
   Re: Unresolved Question - Evans - Roger Evans [41]
   Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps - Serge Salvaille [34]
   Re: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Briggs - Mike Briggs [26]
   Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Murgia - Joe Murgia [17]
   Re: Double Spirals - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [29]
   Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Evans - Roger Evans [28]
   Ufology's 'Dirty Little Secret' - Marc Davenport [73]
   Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Davenport - Peter B. Davenport
   [53]
   Dr. Robert Schoch & Voices of the Rocks - Diana Botsford [33]
   Hot Gossip - Weird World - Jan 2001 - Georgina Bruni [111]
   Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps - Bill Chalker [62]
   Re: Hot Gossip - The Real X Files - Jan 2001 - - Joe Murgia [90]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Jones - Sean Jones [37]
   Re: Could This Be True? - Haggard - Michael Haggard [34]
   Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - St. Pierre - Greg St. Pierre
   [24]
   Re: Could This Be True? - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [53]
   Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - St. Pierre - Greg St. Pierre
   [59]

  Jan 16:

   Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Gates - Robert Gates [29]
   Filer's Files #3 - 2001 - Truncated - George A. Filer [269]
   Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Hatch - Larry Hatch [92]
   Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Hatch - Larry Hatch [57]
   Re: Hot Gossip - The Real X Files - Jan 2001 - - Georgina Bruni [14]
   EJUFOAS - Call For Papers - Philip Mantle [66]
   Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Charles Chapman [30]
   Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - Charles Chapman [14]
   TCI: Additional Unusual Surface Features (Part One) - Mac Tonnies [51]
   Secrecy News -- 01/16/01 - Steven Aftergood [142]
   Re: Filer's Files #3 - 2001 - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [39]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Roger Evans [20]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Jan Aldrich [30]
   Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - St. Pierre - Greg St. Pierre
   [20]

  Jan 17:

   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Steven Kaeser [27]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Daniel Muoz [26]
   Re: Filer's Files #3 - 2001 - Truncated - Gary Hart [22]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Charles Chapman [45]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - John Tenney [48]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Larry Hatch [68]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Larry Hatch [52]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Steven Kaeser [48]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Steven Kaeser [57]
   Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Hatch - Larry Hatch [37]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Jan Aldrich [58]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) - - Wendy Connors [19]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Neil Morris [24]
   Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing? - Katharina Wilson
   [50]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts - Andy Roberts [71]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Serge Salvaille
   [26]

  Jan 18:

   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Roger Evans [26]
   Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's - Roger Evans [42]
   Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's - Stan Friedman [89]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks - Brad Sparks [34]
   Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's - Ed Gehrman [23]
   Re: Filer's Files #3 - 2001 - Truncated - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein
   [43]
   Re: Astronomers Close-In On Alien Signal - - Kelly Peterborough [51]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Larry Hatch [60]
   Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's - Georgina Bruni [20]
   Japanese Researcher - Philip Mantle [12]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Evans - Roger Evans [41]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Luis R. Gonzlez Manso
   [14]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 3 - John Hayes [308]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts - Andy Roberts [28]
   Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's - John Velez [58]
   Secrecy News -- 01/18/01 - Steven Aftergood [146]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [51]
   1700's Massachusets UFO Report Sought - Stefan Duncan [19]
   Book Reviews - Sean Jones [102]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks - Brad Sparks [69]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Jones - Sean Jones [89]
   Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's - Katharina Wilson [29]
   Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's - Katharina Wilson [39]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks - Brad Sparks [58]
   UFO vs IFO [was: Clark vs Evans] - Roger Evans [50]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Jan Aldrich [55]
   Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans - Roger Annette Evans [69]

  Jan 19:

   Re: UFO vs IFO - Sparks - Brad Sparks [94]
   Science Stops, Stores and Starts Light - Kurt Jonach [84]
   Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [81]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - David Rudiak [65]
   An FT Over Matlock, UK - Kelly Peterborough [39]
   Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's - Greg St. Pierrre [11]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Robert Gates [36]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Gates - Robert Gates [42]

  Jan 20:

   Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans - Roger Evans [93]
   Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans - Roger Evans [59]
   Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - Bruce Maccabee [180]
   Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's - Stan Friedman [75]
   The Klass Files On-Line - Ron Cecchini [18]
   For Australian Skywatchers... - Wendy Christensen [9]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Rimmer - John Rimmer [40]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Sean Jones [17]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Larry Hatch [33]
   Re: An FT Over Matlock, UK- Ledger - Donald Ledger [57]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - James Bond Johnson
   [19]
   Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [45]

  Jan 21:

   Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's - Jim Mortellaro [36]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) - Roger Evans [84]
   Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans - Roger Evans [67]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Neil Morris [57]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - James Easton [465]
   Bush'S Unusual Reference In The Inaugural Address - Stephen G. Bassett
   [100]
   The Cydonian Imperative - 1-20-01: Martian - Mac Tonnies [87]
   [LA-F] Interesting Article (Conspiracy Theory) Re - John Rimmer [94]
   Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [75]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) - - Neil Morris [93]

  Jan 22:

   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) - - Ed Gehrman [82]
   Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans - Roger Evans [99]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) - - Roger Evans [94]
   Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural - Brian Cuthbertson [69]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Donald Ledger [33]
   P-47: Blue Book 1950 - Joel Carpenter [208]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Jan Aldrich [73]
   Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - King - Jeff King [25]
   Hale's Sites Updated - Roy J Hale [14]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Steven Kaeser [68]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Steven Kaeser [44]
   Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural - Kenny Young [25]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) - - Roger Evans [64]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) - - Neil Morris [129]
   Telescope & UFOs - Adam Lowe [38]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Sean Jones [25]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) - - Sean Jones [33]

  Jan 23:

   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Brad Sparks [39]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) - - Roger Evans [164]
   Pre-1947 UFO Encounters - Chris Aubeck [27]
   Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural - Brian Cuthbertson [34]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) - - Ed Gehrman [81]
   Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural - Josh Goldstein [45]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Robert Gates [26]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) - Robert Gates [49]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) - - William Sawers
   [100]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) - - Robert Gates [36]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - GT McCoy [109]
   Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [112]
   Filer's Files #4 -- 2001 - George A. Filer [382]
   Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural - Marty Murray [37]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)? - Larry Hatch [74]
   Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly - Kurt Jonach [86]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) - - Neil Morris [28]
   AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged - Roger Evans [86]
   AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged - Roger Evans [86]
   Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans - Roger Evans [28]
   Re: AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged - Roger Evans [66]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Steven Kaeser [33]
   Re: Pre-1947 UFO Encounters - McGonagle - Joe McGonagle [14]
   Re: AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged - Roger Evans [98]
   Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) - - William Sawers
   [59]
   Re: Filer's Files #4 -- 2001 - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [44]

  Jan 24:

   Secrecy News -- 01/23/01 - Steven Aftergood [134]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Evans [33]
   Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans - Serge Salvaille [58]
   Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [63]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [55]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Evans [37]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [167]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Young - Bob Young [17]
   Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [88]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Donald Ledger [60]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gates - Robert Gates [78]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [227]
   More Pre-1947 Cases - Chris Aubeck [178]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [70]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Johnson - James Bond Johnson [20]
   Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [35]
   Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - Velez - John Velez [34]
   Re: More Pre-1947 Cases - Velez - John Velez [53]
   Original Alien Jigsaw Web Site - Katharina Wilson [11]
   Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [47]
   Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter - UFO UpDates - Toronto [27]
   Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly - Velez - John Velez [40]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Brad Sparks [77]
   Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter - Velez - John Velez [50]

  Jan 25:

   Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter - - Jim Deardorff [46]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [29]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Donald Ledger [48]
   'Captain Edward J. Ruppelt: Summer of the Saucers' - Wendy Connors [9]
   Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter - - Brian Cuthbertson [43]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Evans [193]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Evans [61]
   Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly - Jonach - Kurt Jonach [33]
   Alien Autopsy Archive Updated - Philip Mantle [11]

  Jan 26:

   Re: More Pre-1947 Cases - Russo - Edoardo Russo [27]
   Joseph Smith [was: More Pre-1947 Cases] - Chris Aubeck [139]
   'Six Days In Roswell' - Ron Cecchini [8]
   Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter - - Kelly Peterborough [35]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Brad Sparks [67]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 4 - John Hayes [257]
   New at Magonia Online - 01-2001 - Mark Pilkington [11]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [37]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Liddle - Sean Liddle [32]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - James Easton [106]
   Exopolitics: The Non-Terrestrial Politics Website - Alfred Webre [56]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Serge Salvaille [83]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - James Easton [42]
   Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - Young - BobYoung [69]
   The Skeptical Believer/The Cydonian Imperative - Mac Tonnies [14]
   Re: Family Videos Close Encounter - Murray - Marty Murray [28]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 4 - Corrections - John Hayes [17]
   Re: Joseph Smith - John Velez [70]
   Re: New at Magonia Online - 01-2001 - John Velez [21]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [305]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Annette Evans [79]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Haggard - Michael Haggard [25]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [46]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Donald Ledger [34]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Young - Bob Young [74]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Blanton - Terry Blanton [13]
   Re: Exopolitics: The Non-Terrestrial Politics - Bob Young [9]
   Re: Secrecy News -- 01/26/01 - Steven Aftergood [115]
   Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter - - Jim Deardorff [43]

  Jan 27:

   Re: Joseph Smith - Sparks - Brad Sparks [59]
   Editor Wanted For UFO + PSI Magazine - John Hayes [77]
   Re: Alien Autopsy Archive Updated - Zeigermann - Ralf Zeigermann [19]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Donald Ledger [82]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [74]
   Idaho MUFON? - Michel M. Deschamps [6]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Annette Evans [128]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [86]
   Re: Family Videos Close Encounter - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [36]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Rimmer - John Rimmer [28]
   Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [152]
   UFO Shuts Down Russian Airport - Todd Lemire [18]
   Re: Editor Wanted For UFO + PSI Magazine - - Joe McGonagle [14]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Aubeck - Chris Aubeck [64]
   Re: Idaho MUFON? - Syes - Dan Syes [11]
   Re: New at Magonia Online - 01-2001 - Sandow - Greg Sandow [20]
   Re: Exopolitics: The Non-Terrestrial Politics - Alfred Webre [40]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [51]
   Re: Idaho MUFON? - Lillian - Janesse Lillian [14]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [59]

  Jan 28:

   Re: Joseph Smith - Gates - Robert Gates [71]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Gates - Robert Gates [64]
   UFO Pics - Steven L. Wilson, Sr [13]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Gates - Robert Gates [61]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Velez - John Velez [71]
   The Cydonian Imperative: 1-28-01 - Opinion Poll - Mac Tonnies [24]
   Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - Velez - John Velez [63]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Velez - John Velez [95]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Velez - John Velez [75]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [131]
   Re: UFO Pics - Hatch - Larry Hatch [23]
   Re: FO Pics - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [35]
   Re: UFO Pics - Young - Bob Young [19]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Hatch - Larry Hatch [57]
   Re: The Cydonian Imperative: 1-28-01 - Opinion - Larry Hatch [27]

  Jan 29:

   Re: Joseph Smith - Velez - John Velez [50]
   Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Stan Gordon [440]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Gates - Robert Gates [40]
   Re: UFO Pics - Velez - John Velez [39]
   Re: UFO Pics - Ledger - Donald Ledger [25]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Gates - Robert Gates [37]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [84]
   Re: Editor Wanted For UFO + PSI Magazine - Hayes - John Hayes [27]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Evans [106]
   Re: UFO Pics - St. Pierre - Greg St. Pierre [13]
   History Channel Jan 29 - Greg St. Pierre [8]
   Re: UFO Pics - McCoy - GT McCoy [39]
   Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Chris Aubeck [45]
   UFOs & Village Violence - Chris Aubeck [25]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [73]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - - Joe Murgia [20]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Keith - Rebecca Keith [17]
   Paranormal Aspects of Chilean Chupacabras - Scott Corrales [37]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Velez - John Velez [76]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Velez - John Velez [81]

  Jan 30:

   Re: UFO Pics - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [21]
   UFO*BC's New Website - Gavin McLeod [5]
   Re: UFOs & Village Violence - Dittman - Geoff Dittman [19]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Hatch - Larry Hatch [51]
   Filer's Files #5 -- 2001 [Truncated] - George A. Filer [272]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Liddle - Sean Liddle [27]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [37]
   X-PPAC Press Release - 1/30/01 - Stephen Bassett [43]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Cecchini - Ron Cecchini [43]

  Jan 29:

   Re: X-PPAC Press Release - 1/30/01 - Stephen Bassett [43]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Aubeck - Chris Aubeck [96]

  Jan 31:

   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [196]
   Chile: Eyewitness' Chupacabra Encounter - Scott Corrales [44]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [31]
   Book Search - Roy J Hale [10]
   Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Mancusi - Bruno Mancusi [35]
   Lawn & Media [was: Joseph Smith] - John Velez [50]
   Re: UFOs & Village Violence - Aubeck - Chris Aubeck [36]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Cecchini - Ron Cecchini [34]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [23]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Annette Evans [42]
   Re: UFO Pics - McCoy - GT McCoy [6]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Gates - Robert Gates [32]
   Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - - Robert Gates [45]
   'Solid Light' UFO Events - A Theoretical Basis? - Bill Chalker [23]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Evans - Roger Evans [12]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger [55]
   To Be or Not To Be - Jim Mortellaro [43]
   Re: Book Search - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [18]
   Re: Lawn & Media [was: Joseph Smith] - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [36]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [48]
   Red Dwarfs/Alien Life - Roger Evans [47]
   Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen - Skavhaug - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [65]





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

                                    Test

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:39:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:39:44 -0500
Subject: Test





Please pretend you never saw this.....





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

                          Sean Morton and Ed Dames

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 04:25:03 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:42:09 -0500
Subject: Sean Morton and Ed Dames


List,

I am currently in the stages of completing exposes on both Sean
David Morton and Ed Dames. If anyone out there has any info
(good or bad) on these two, I would greatly appreciate hearing
about it. Hopefully, the stories should be completed by the end
of next week as I finish up research and interviews. Any
assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated and I thank you
in advance for your time.

Regards,

Royce J. Myers III eXpos: The Watchdog of UFOlogy "Don't Trip
On Your Open Mind." eXpos News
http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3 UFO Hall o' Shame
http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog UFO Dirtbag for January
2001 - A Preview...
http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog/wsn77FF.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

                   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger d<ledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 11:47:29 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:43:04 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Ledger

 >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 03:48:33 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List

 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:31:10 +0000
 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List

<sno>

 >Hello Don:

 >One good point that Easton made was that there is some middle
 >ground, a narrow strip indeed.

<snip>


Hi Larry,

Perhaps this is true but Easton does not adhere to this belief.
Like some ufologists his is a kneejerk reaction never for a
moment cosidering the other side of the argument. He's proved
this time and again. When refuted on a point he skirts around it
with much retoric and little fact - it's a classic political
style. Confuse them with empty words. Don't confront the
question directly and above all never give a straight answer.

In this instance if you reference Easton as sober second thought
on the UFO question, it would be like a skeptic, while
attempting to be fair and giving the benefit of the doubt, using
Adamski as the norm in UFO investigation and opinion.

In my opinion he has no more credibility than did Adamski.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

                   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 16:14:31 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:43:35 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni


From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:35:58 -0000

Re: Malcolm Scurrah

 >>I don't know how to answer that, but let's just say that you
 >>were mistaken. Based on the information above, will you
 >>now accept that you made a mistake?

 >No - sorry, but I cannot. If I had then I gladly would.
 >But again here you twist facts somewhat.

 >He noted only at first that the event had occurred 'around the
 >same time' - narrowing it down to me as around the end of the
 >year' and 'November/December' on two separate occasions -
 >as the best that he could do. Although he certainly made clear
 >that he was not sure of exactly when it had occurred or that
 >there was - >therefore - any positive link with Rendlesham -
 >he certainly never said - this was an unconnected incident.

Around the same time is entirely different from actually stating
it was in December 1980.

 >You can witter on about my taking nine years to get it right -
 >sadly an indication of incomplete research on your part - but
 >the above is what Mal Scurrah said to me when he first got in
 >touch ten years or so ago and its what I have always reported
 >that he said.

Are you now saying that Scurrah said it was November/December or
was that your conclusion. I understand he said it was
October/November.

 >2: David Alpin read - before we planned the 'Strange But True?'
 >programme - my l991 book 'From out of the Blue'. Pity you didn�t
 >read it carefully as well. You only have to look at page 131 of
 >that text to know that you are talking nonsense. Because here I
 >faithfully report exactly what I was told by Mal Scurrah without
 >any misleading at all.

I did read it Jenny but you set much of it out in a fictional
way, so it really doesn't add up as a serious book on the
subject. Am I to assume that the pseudonym "Martin" in the book
is actually Malcolm Scurrah?

 >I say of the dating: 'He only knows that the events he relates
 >took place in late fall or winter l980. They may refer to the
 >case we discuss in this book.If so, then it indicates that there
 >was British involvement...'

 >Now - since that is _precisely_ what Mal Scurrah has always
 >told me - please explain to this list why you are accusing me of
 >getting anything wrong for nine years when I clearly didn�t?

It would help if you used their correct names when discussing
people in your books. Then I ask you, why did you suddenly
change the story by writing it up as December 1980 and linking
it to the Rendlesham Forest incident, in your 1997 book UFO
Crash Landing?

 >David Alpin read this - but he decided not to confuse people on
 >screen by discussing any uncertainty over the date.

So are you saying it was David Alpin's decision to link it to
the Rendlesham Forest case?

 >Even so I ensured that what appeared in the Strange But True?
 >book was consistent with Mal Scurrah's position. I was asked to
 >use fairly vague words like 'around the same time' so as it did
 >not appear to directly contradict what LWT planned to put on
 >screen, but I insisted on using words that made clear enough
 >that there was no certain connection between the two events.

 >And I did.

You were asked to use 'fairly vague words like around the same
time'. Don't you consider that to be going against what you
always preach about the media and UFO research in general? The
fact that the programme was specifically about the Rendlesham
case, yet you included a story that was not confirmed as being
anything to do with it.

 >3: I was not a 'researcher' on the TV show. The company LWT
 >employed such people and one of them certainly spoke to Mal
 >Scurrah. If he says now that he told that person that there was
 >no connection between these two events then that fact was never
 >conveyed to me by anyone at 'Strange But True?'.

But you are always pointing that that you were the person who
was heavily involved and did all the research for this programme.
Are you now saying differently.

 >As for the incident not being worthy of a three page discussion
 >if not directly tied in to Rendlesham - that's an odd thing to
 >say. You discuss several sightings around the time of the main
 >ones .

Of course it is worthy of a three page discussion, but only as
an event that was separate from the actual December sightings.
Not, as you clearly stated, connected with the actual week of
events. I did relate many other cases but I put them all in a
separate chapter and gave the correct dates that these took
place. Scurrah's piece was written into a chapter entitled
"Pandora's Box" a section for all the myths and rumours, things
that were nothing to do with the case but had somehow found
their way into the story.

 >Indeed this is _all_ that he told us in interview about the
 >date.

 >'I was working (at the base)... till the end of l980... On the
 >night in question either late autumn or winter l980, we were
 >taking part in.....'

Hardly a suggestion that it was connected to the Rendlesham
case.

 >I am not suggesting that he didn�t say to a researcher what he
 >now claims that he did. Not at all. I am merely pointing out
 >that the estimated date I have always cited for this incident
 >fitted in with the witnesses various own references given in his
 >own words - such as 'end of the year', 'around the same time'
 >and as here - 'late autumn/winter l980'.

 >I don't think anybody - except perhaps you, Georgina - could
 >argue this is an unreasonable position to have adopted -
 >especially as it is utterly apparent that I did not hide the
 >lack of clarity about the date or its proven link to Rendlesham
 >in either of my published writings around this time.

Scurrah was used in the Strange But True? programme, which was
exclusively dedicated to the Rendlesham Forest incident. Viewers
would have had no idea that Scurrah was discussing another event
because the storyline resolved around that specific case. So in
one sense, viewers were, in my opinion, deceived!

 >6: When writing Crash Landing in l997 I again said much the same
 >- and, given that we now knew from other sources that radar
 >tracking were allegedly made around the weekend of the main
 >case, took the position that it was not improbable that these
 >events were connected . Although I again made clear that we were
 >not certain of the date.

No Jenny, you quoted his case as specifically being December
1980 in your 1997 book. To quote:

'Scurrah was not absolutely certain of the date or time, but it
was very late at night during December 1980 and would appear to
have been during the few day period when Rendlesham Forest was
buzzing with UFOs.'


Best wishes,

Georgina Bruni


"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the
Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni. Published
by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk
Countries outside UK: www.netstoreusa.com
View and listen to Georgina talking about the book at:
www.relaxwithabook.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 16:14:37 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:45:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Bruni


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles
 >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:24:58 -0000

  Re Lighthouse theory:

Jenny I've had to cut through your lengthy chapter and get to
the important points of this debate.

 >1: I have been one of the most outspoken critics of the
 >'lighthouse' theory for 17 years as anyone reading my work on
 >this case will be well aware.

But we are discussing the "now" Jenny.

 >You only need to look long and hard at some of what the
 >witnesses saw and do so having familiarity with UFO
 >investigation to realise that there are objects being described
 >in this case that very clearly were not UFOs.

You really should read my book and not rely on theories. The
very idea that these events can be explained away as not being
UFOs, is not facing up to the facts. They are still
"unidentified", that said, they are nothing to do with the
lighthouse as I prove in "You Can't Tell The People".

 >>1. Witnesses, such as Cabansag, who has never spoken before,
 >>but insists that the witness statement was not written or typed by
 >>him. He was just told to sign it. He was too scared to disobey
 >>that order.

 >Yes, but the point is not whether he actually typed it up it but
 >if the USAF deliberately made him lie in those words.

 >Surely, if the statement is basically a summary of what happened
 >en the above is largely irrelevant. If its an outright lie
 >then why are these witnesses not taking these statements to
 >congress and saying en masse - we were forced by our own
government to sign deliberately fictitious statements? After all
 >if there are half a dozen of these witnesses and they all stick
 >together with the eyes of the UFO Community closely on them
 >what do they have to fear?

Would you take on the USAF? These people have already suffered
and are well aware that to take on the authorities is an
unrewarding task. Besides, how sure are we that these statements
were typed by the USAF, they could have been done by another
agency. The idea that they would be comforted at having the UFO
community behind them would be enough to put them off doing
anything.

 >>Cabansag saw the lighthouse - he also saw the UFO,
 >>which was right there in front of him. He said it was not the
 >>lighthouse!

 >It really means nothing except that the witness saw a
 >light that he identified as a lighthouse and another light that
 >looked different and so he assumes was not the lighthouse.

Cabansag did not just refer to another "light" as you describe
it. You really are not being fair to the witnesses. Here's
exactly what he said:

      "....but as we got closer we could see a light, and our
      radio transmissions were cutting out. I remember what I
      saw, it was to the right of the lighthouse. It was cone
      shaped - egg shaped, with lights running around its belt
      from left to right. They were blue, white and red lights,
      flashing, sometimes rapid, sometimes slow. Then we saw
      flakes of metal coming from it. It was difficult to
      describe. We were all trying to make sure what we'd
      seen.... It wasn't the lighthouse, it was to the right of
      the lighthouse. I saw the lighthouse, this wasn't it, it
      was to the right of the lighthouse."

What do you think that was? Can you identify that object? A
star? A lighthouse? A mirage? A beacon? Can you explain what the
"flakes of metal coming from it" were? Do the flashing lights
really look like known landmarks or stars?

 >I am not here arguing it was the lighthouse - as I keep on
 >telling you I am not convinced that it was (although it remains
 >a possibility). I am merely saying that a witnesses opinion is
 >only that not proof of anything.

A witness opinion is the most important thing. Without the
witness, as I explain in my book, the case is very difficult.
Your response in my opinion, is a lame excuse and I think you
need to do better than that. And don't forget that I did not
just rely on witness testimony but used it to further my
investigations, which you always fail to address.

 >>2. Penniston, claims he actually walked up and touched the
 >>object. He also did not type his statement and wrote to me
 >>pointing out that it had been summarised. Penniston said it was
 >>not a lighthouse!

 >Much as before. That a witness touched the UFO has been alleged
 >since l983. Its in Sky Crash. So this isn't news. Again Penniston
 >said all of this in 'Strange but True' six years ago. And - as I
 >noted in Crash Landing - he and Burroughs decided to provide
 >only a summary version of their story on the record because
 >Penniston was afraid of the repercussions on his career. So the
 >fact that the written statements - when they appeared - differed
 >from the verbal testimony of the witnesses over the years is
 >not a big deal nor in any way a surprise to me as I put it in
 >print BEFORE those statements surfaced.

It's true that Penniston discretely talked to Brenda Butler and
Dot Street in 1983, and it's also true that Steve Roberts talked
to the researchers just after the events and that their stories
were reported in Skycrash. What is news is that Penniston claims
the typed statement was not done by him and what is more - was
summarised.

 >Again I discuss this in my l998 IUR article on the witness
 >statements. So this is not something that progresses us much as
 >you seem to think it does and the fact that you think I ought to
 >article in one of Ufology's top journals over two years ago is
 >curious.

But you were not aware that Penniston was denying he typed
the statement so how could you have reported this as fact.
Discussing theories is much different from reporting the facts.

 >>4. I interviewed Lt Fred "Skip" Buran several times. He was the
 >>officer who sent Penniston's patrol out to investigate. He
 >>talked about how they received word from London airport that
 >>there was something unusual tracked on radar. He said that
 >>because of the late hour and holidays, there were no aircraft
 >>flying, so they usually shut down their department at Bentwaters
 >>and left it to Heathrow to deal with.

 >Again the tie in with Heathrow is long known and in print from
 >me. It was also known to my contact at RAF WAtton as they
 >reported their radar sighting upwards to the CAA and here
 >learned of the event at Heathrow. Again I've said all this
 >before.

Who's trying to score points here Jenny. I merely presented Skip
Buran's testimony to point out that this came directly from the
Flight Commander on duty that night. Nobody had ever talked to
Buran so his new testimony is important to the case. Paul Begg's
Watton source, that you call your own, has never been named and
you yourself have for a long time had doubts about his story.

 >I checked with both Watton and the MoD and both deny any records
 >showing that any radar base - let alone Heathrow - tracked the
 >object seen at 3 am inside the forest. They may be lying, of
 >course, but we cannot assume that. Its equally likely - surely -
 >that any radar tracking made were found not to connect into the
 >Rendlesham case.

But what then do you have to say about the written confirmation
sent to researcher Nick Redfern in 1989, who had the sense to
write to the RAF and received written facts that UFOs were
tracked at Bentwaters during the incident. So although you
failed to turn up any evidence, you really ought to give credit
to somebody who did! Nick Redfern did a great job getting hold
of this information. Isn't it time you looked at the work done
by others and stopped playing the "Theory Game"?

 >>5. I also interviewed Nigel Kerr, a radar operator at RAF
 >>Watton, who tracked the UFOs on radar.

 >>Can you track a lighthouse, stars, mirage, lightship!

 >No need to teach me about the alleged events at Watton - as you
 >well know - since this was my first contact with the case in
 >January l981 and its something I have extensively discussed like
 >everywhere.

 >Incidentally, in case anyone is wondering, if Nigel Kerr is this
 >mans real name this is not the same source as my witness from
 >Watton. So there are two independent sources to this incident.
 >That in itself is useful and seems to affirm something did
 >happen - not that I have ever doubted that it did.

But you did doubt it and published your doubts. Nigel Kerr does
not tell the same story as your (or Paul Beggs) anonymous
source. Kerr was not a second or third hand source as your
Watton source was, who related only what he had heard. Kerr was
the actual radar operator on duty that night who tracked the
Rendlesham UFOs. I believe that he is an important "new" witness
to these events. So you cannot claim that you had interviewed
any of the radar operators. This new evidence is important to
the case because he was the actual witness who claims the
objects were tracked on radar. Combine Kerr's evidence with Nick
Redfern's and you have a case for the Rendlesham UFOs.

 >I am totally aware of the importance of the radar incident and
 >have always stressed it - as Georgina well knows. But we are
 >talking about a radar track of something that is not provably
 >connected directly with the events in Rendlesham - although
 >there are good circumstantial grounds for suspecting the
 >possibility.  But you cannot automatically argue that what
 >Watton tracked was what Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston
 >saw. It may, or may not be.

Really Jenny, just where are you going with this? (see above)
How much constructive evidence do you sceptics require?

 >Even then it was only a tracking of an unidentified object.

Absolutely! You cannot track lighthouses, stars and mirages.

 >It is obvious that the object seen by - for example - Gordon
 >Levett - or the Webb family - during those few days could not
 >possibly have been the lighthouse. I have never for one second
 >argued otherwise and I doubt any rational skeptic has. These
 >people were locals. They knew the lighthouse. The object they
 >saw moved across an arc of sky and obviously a lighthouse
 >cannot do that under any circumstances. I've said this myself
 >often. Odd that you didn�t notice that in my writings. But then
 > it was a non skeptical point so you may have missed it if that's
 >all you were looking for in my work.

So after all that, I think you are admitting that it wasn't the
lighthouse.Do you ever get tired of sitting on the fence Jenny?

Incidentally, Gordon Levitt's dog did not die as a result of the
UFO sighting. This is another thing I did not name you as
promoting. You really should try to get your facts right though.

 >Unfortunately, this is a specious argument anyhow. It sounds
 >plausible but it attacks the wrong issue. Nobody in their right
 >mind suggests that the lighthouse was tracked by Watton radar or
 >was seen by some of the witnesses flying through the air. So
 >arguing as if they do is just plain silly.

We have a breakthrough!

 >>7. Former police officer Dave King who originally thought it
 >>could have been the lighthouse the witnesses saw, has now had
 >>second thoughts. Dave was at a talk I did in Woodbridge recently
 >>and for the benefit of the audience, I took the liberty of
 >>asking him why he had thought it was the lighthouse. He replied
 >>that when he arrived (almost 5 hours after the first reported
 >>sighting) there was nothing to see but the lighthouse beacon.
 >>His full report is in the book.

 >But here - and with Vince Thurkettle - you report what I have
 >said myself on their stories. You chide me for not responding to
 >such points that you are here making - evidently unaware that I
 >have made many of the same comments before myself.

No, Jenny. You have never addressed the latest facts. You were
not aware that the incident began much earlier but based your
theories on the Halt memo and more recently the statements.

 >>8. I produced six photographs (see close ups in this month's UFO
 >>magazine) which depict a British police officer and a USAF
 >>captain (both names known to me) examine the landing marks.
 >>These pictures were taken by Master Sergeant Ray Gulyas when he
 >>was tasked with the job of measuring and photographing the
 >>landing site. They clearly prove that there was an
 >>investigation.

 >But who is arguing that there wasn't? Halt and his team were
 >doing field studies at the time of their sighting

These are not Halt's field investigation which came later.
Please read it properly.

 >>Note that none of the sceptics have even
 >>mentioned this important evidence. There's even the scuffed up
 >>area that Halt discusses in his tape. Now, if this was a
 >>lighthouse, then how did it land on the forest floor,

 >This is more daftness. Of course the lighthouse didn�t create
 >landing traces and I bet you cannot find one single comment
 >anywhere from anyone who ever argued otherwise. It does you no
 >credit to try to ridicule the skeptical position by arguing such
 >silly things.

Looks like I hit a nerve there. Well this is very interesting.
So you now agree that there are two good pieces of evidence
which knocks the lighthouse theory - and any others - out of the
case?

 >But all the photo shows is an area of forest illuminated in some
 >way - by sunlight or a light to aid the photo - and dimly
 >visible in it what might be a 'scruffed up' area. Its very hard
 >to read much into that image as you cannot even be sure this
 >scruffed up area is there. I do agree it is very useful and
 >interesting to have this photo but its hardly altering our
 >perception of the case.

Please buy yourself a copy of this month's UFO magazine and see
some of the pictures in close-up and then give me your opinion.

 >>and if>these were so-called rabbit scratchings how did these
 >>animals manage to leave 3 perfectly formed ground indentations
 >> (12ft triangular) at the very site where all this took place. And
 >>whywould USAF officers spend time measuring animal marks?

 >Where on the photo do you see these marks anything like clearly
 >enough to make that judgement? In reality are we not here back
 >to witness perceptions of the testimony of what they saw at the
 >site? Or have you got the photos taken close up of the landing
 >site during Halt's investigation? Now those would be very
 >exciting to see.

 >But otherwise we really are no nearer to making definitive
 >comments about the landing marks than we are from - say -
 >Colonel Halt's plaster cast of these traces. Which are actually
 >MORE useful in that regard than this dim photo. What you say
 >above simply is not arguable - one way or the other - from the
 >photo in your book as far as I can see.

Please give me patience!!!

As above, see UFO magazine. You ask if I have Halt's pictures,
well Jenny, I am amazed that you dismiss these important
pictures (taken soon after the initial landing). Halt's pictures
would not have shown the landing marks because it was at night!
These pictures are the best you can get to point out that animal
scratches did not form these marks.

 >>9. I produce a letter from the RAF officer who asked Halt to
 >>write the memo. This letter , addressed to the Ministry of
 >>Defence, is titled "Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOS)". When I
 >>asked Moreland why he had done that, he said, 'That's what Halt
 >>called them, he called them UFOs.'

 >And as you know - and as I reported a decade ago - I talked to
 >Moreland on base in l984, so again none of this is so
 >dramatically new data that I ought to be saying - wowie - to you
 >and thus discussing it.

Jenny, Jenny, Jenny, I was discussing his letter to the MOD!
Now, in all the years that you claim to have worked on this
case, you never managed to get that letter, which is important
for all the reasons explained in my book. Jeez! You are not
really doing much in discussing the new facts but seem to be
trying to prove yourself here.

 >The term UFO is a perfectly sound one for anyone to use in these
 >circumstances since it means 'Unidentified Flying Object' -
 >which is what these lights were. But UFO doesn't mean alien
 >spaceship or indeed anything at all necessarily exotic. And
 >surely you are not implying that what was meant here was that
 >these men clearly saw an exotic object just because the term UFO
 >was used?

I wrote two chapters to do with the UFOs, and I don't suggest
they were definitely extraterrestrial. But I do offer enough
evidence to prove that they were nothing  to do with your
sceptical theories.

 >>Now ask yourself why a Lt >Colonel with the USAF and a
 >>Squadron Leader with the RAF, would go to all the trouble of
 >>sending word to Her Majesty's Defence agency if it was nothing
 >>more than a lighthouse or anything as mundane!

 >Firstly, obviously they probably wouldn't if they thought it was.
 >But nobody is suggesting that they did. Anyhow that doesn't
 >effect at all whether it actually was a lighthouse.

So you really think that these experienced military men were
crazy enough to have consulted the MOD, if they thought it was
lighthouse. God help America, if the USAF have officers that
can't define what a lighthouse is, and God help the RAF.

Jenny, this is the sort of thing that makes the sceptics case so
ridiculous. Of course it effects whether or not it was a
lighthouse!

 >>10. I also name many of the senior officers who actually went
 >>out to check out the initial landing site. Why would these very
 >>experienced officers go to all this trouble if it was a
 >>lighthouse, lightship, mirage etc?

 >What they thought it was and what it actually was are not
 >necessarily the same thing. That's the first rule of Ufology's and
 >so this in of itself isn't evidence of anything.

Who gives a hoot what ufology thinks? We are discussing men who
are responsible for the defence of our countries here.

 >>11. Civilian witness Gary Collins, saw the UFO from a country
 >>road - he is familiar with the lighthouse and explained how the
 >>object hovered over his head and lit up the whole area in front
 >>of him.

 >But that isn't the same as proving that any of these people saw
 >what the airmen saw, or that what any of them saw was a real
 >UFO.

Read the book again Jenny! Gary's encounter and those of his
friends (airmen) is explained in full.

 >These are just some of the examples in the book, and there are
 >many more. I ask any serious researcher to consider the list
 >here and then look back at the enormous amount of time that has
 >been spent wasted on the sceptics theories.

 >>It is a pity that Jenny Randles continues to dwell on
 >>alternative theories. I believe this is why Jenny never
 >>progressed with this case.

 >Well, given that most of what you report above covers ground I
 >trod up to 17 years ago if I didn�t progress the matter then how
 >can you claim that you have?

Please re-read this post clearly! It is not about me, it is
about the case. Why do you have to turn this into a points
thing. All I am trying to do is challenge the sceptics. I could
not have investigated this case without the assistance of the
witnesses, those who were on the base and the researchers who
worked on this case.


Best wishes,

Georgina Bruni


"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the
Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni.
Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk
Countries outside UK: www.netstoreusa.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

              Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 16:27:14 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:46:57 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -


 >From: Steven R. LaPlume <slaplume@recon-inc.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 06:45:45 -0800

 >All I was trying to say was that the 'Debate' was more of a cat
 >fight betweeen two emotional beings and not, in my opinion being
 >handled like profesionals.

 >No disrespect intended. I guess I need to blanket apologise on
 >the post.

Steve

Check out the other posts. Jenny is the only one who is actually
responding. All the other sceptics have gone underground - so to
speak, when challenged with the facts.

Now, what does that tell you?

This List is specifically for debating. I don't think that it is
an unprofessional thing to do, but I certainly wanted to
challenge the sceptics, as much as for the witnesses (such as
yourself) and indeed the case as a whole.

I think it's important to present the facts and not allow the
sceptics theories to go unchallenged.


Best wishes,

Georgina Bruni


"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the
Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni. Published
by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk
Countries outside UK: www.netstoreusa.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

                              Re: 2001 UFO Flap

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:31:40 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:47:30 -0500
Subject: Re: 2001 UFO Flap


Had the events that occurred here been reported in the morning
newspaper, very few people would have believed in their reality.
Being dedicated to truth and subjectivity, we had no choice but
to record them in the independent publication, The Chronicles of
the Incredulous.

A couple of thousand years ago, there was this infamous
character who tried to poison the existence of his
contemporaries by inventing a medication that could cure
absolutely everything, from terminal bad breath to political
addiction; thus violating the implicit laws of society: mind
your own business.

He was sentenced to the following:

"You will spend the next 2000 years of your existence on a piece
of mud called 'Earth'.

"You will not remember who you are but will always feel and act
differently from other people.

"Of course, you will die, but persistent resurrections and
reincarnations - in male of female form - will provide for the
accomplishment of the sentence.

"And the difference shall remain."

The sentence is near its term now. Unfortunately, after so many
years, _they_ have lost track of the convict. But in the sacred
name of Justice, _they must recover him - her (?)

Now confronted to the fact that abducting and probing the minds
of over 6 billion individuals will be a long and tedious process,
_they_ have come up with a possible solution.

On April 1st of 2001, UFOs will sail across the skies to release
a tract. The tract will read:

"SEARCHING: male or female individual with pertinent background
in actual or past (consult a guru) life.

"EXPERIENCE: may have been laughed at, fired, despised, detested,
rejected, burnt or tortured, strangled, beaten up, maybe
crucified, otherwise ignored, possibly shot, but never elected.

"REASONS OF EXPERIENCE: sex, color or religion, disagreement with
fellow citizens about attitudes, behavior, clothing or opinion."









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

                Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:03:54 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:48:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:57:15 EST
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:20:36 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages

 ><snip>

 >>The ancient Hebrews (_very_ unlike modern ones) weren't very
 >>good with numbers. One book of the old Testament has some holy
 >>circular construction - or maybe a bird bath... I dunno - ten
 >>cubits in diameter so that it measured 30 cubits round-about.
 >>Not bad, they were off by a factor of pi/3. Less than a 5%
 >>error, its still enough to needle the fundamentalists a little
 >>bit!

 >Dear Larry, Jim, Roger and Royce:

 >Had a friend who was a chopper pilot and a fundamentalist
 >believer in the total correctness of what is printed in his
 >Bible. I called his attention to this passage, pointing out that
 >if his helicopter was designed based upon this unerring
 >engineering principle of the Old Testament, that the rotor
 >blades would not be fastened to the axle, or whatever that
 >thingamajig is that sticks up and turns around. He never seemed
 >to have an answer for this observation.

 >Oh, well. First Cydonia, now Caus: where's the metaphysics going
 >to end?


Hi Guys,

Ever heard of "rounding error" and "significant digits"? They
didn't have decimals back in Old Testament times and the number
of significant digits in a measurement was often just 1 digit.

Even today if we had a rounded off diameter of say 10 inches,
that means the actual value is anywhere between 9.5 and 10.5
inches. If it was 9.549 inches then to 4 significant digits the
circumference is exactly 30.00 inches and it is exactly
correctly Pi times the Diameter. At 1 Significant Digit there is
no error at all given this example.


Happy New Year,

Brad








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

                  Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:47:24 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:48:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Ledger


 >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:51:00 -0600
 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs

 >>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:15:09 +0000
 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs

 >>>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 02:59:44 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs

 >>>>From: Matthew Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs
 >>>>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:45:04 -0000

 ><snipped ref. to Mr. Hurley's VERY tasteful, understated, and
 >artfully minimalist historical site.>

 >>What puzzles me is if these things were showing up in paintings,
 >>where are the historical references to them? Where's the text?
 >>Are they there and we miss them because they are couched in
 >>terms of the day that we either don't recognize or we
 >>misinterpret?

 >It's rather like the ufological obvious damn near spitting in
 >our societal eye, isn't it? What a pathetic pronouncement on our
 >collective grasp of REAL courage. What a sad group of shallow
 >losers we _truly_ are.

 >Don't we get it? It doesn't MATTER that our carefully contrived
 >cultural walls come crashing down with the thrust of a concerted
 >investigation. It doesn't MATTER that that we come off the
 >meters of the *best and brightest's movers and shakers* as we
 >investigate new realities. It doesn't MATTER that it's the end
 >of the world as we know it in the aftermath of some colossal
 >revelation... What matters is that we embrace what IS, whatever
 >it is, show concerned respect for one another while we're doing
 >it, and -- well, I don't want to HAVE to insult the reader
 >implying I have to tell her the WHOLE freaking thing! He knows
 >what's there, and even different, each individual response would
 >still be very much the same. Any lie from the past and present
 >must certainly invalidate our future. Why should we put UP with
 >that? The evidence is just an unending series of stinging slaps
 >in our ignorantly arrogant faces.....

 >Sorry about the rant, Don, but you struck a ringing chord that
 >everyone should, immediately, just GET!

 >Lehmberg@snowhill.com

Believe me Alfred, you have a sympathetic ear here, but I was
covering the "usual" bases. If I don't ask the question someone
else will.

I for one don't think that these paintings represented some
nouveau thinking of the time or some classical representation of
the kingdom in Heaven.

I think they are paintings - or at least inclusions in the
paintings - of things seen in the skies of the time.

It's as simple as that.

Since the sky of the 'Christian' era meant Heaven, then the
painters of the time no doubt interpreted these objects as
having a connection with angels, or Heavenly interventions of
some type.

Could be they were 180 degrees out of phase on their
interpretations, but that's another argument.

When objects like these show up in paintings that are 3-400
years old, I wonder why we have to twist ourselves into pretzels
trying to explain what is so obvious.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

                               Happy New Year!

From: Anthony Chippendale <anthonyc@ufon.org>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 22:27:30 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:49:08 -0500
Subject: Happy New Year!


Happy New Year from The UFO Network (UK) and
Anthony Chippendale!


-Anthony Chippendale,
  The UFO Network (UK).
  http://www.ufon.org.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

                        Re: The New Millenium - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:30:52 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:49:38 -0500
Subject: Re: The New Millenium - Hatch


 >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:37:58 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:20:36 -0800
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:51:20 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch

 >>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:45:42 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>You are quite right of course, about the millennium starting at
 >>the stroke of midnight 2001. That's only a day or two so what
 >>the heck? The nice part is there's no Y2K+1 problem, that got
 >>fixed last year.

 ><snip>

 >>It has become convention to regard a new century as starting
 >>when the big digits roll over, yes. Those who think irrational
 >>numbers don't make any sense, that imaginary numbers don't
 >>exist, all had their fling a year ago - so did all those
 >>retired FORTRAN and COBOL programmers!

 >>My fridge is well stocked for the new millennium! [Burp!] and
 >>I just cracked a few to make sure they were nice and cold.

 >I used to think the same as you about 2001 being the new
 >millennium. However, since no one really knows when Christ was
 >born, and that there is, at best, a 5 year margin for error
 >according to biblical scholars, I don't think anyone can say
 >when the new millennium really starts. Thus the A.D. calendar is
 >merely a convenient tool for reference; it is not a massive stop
 >watch that started at a specific moment in time. Again,
 >fundamentalists believe that life starts at the moment of
 >(immaculate?) conception. That date would push the new
 >millennium to around March 25th of 2000 or so. Why not round
 >down to January? After all, what's 3 months among friends?

 >Actually, Bob Young wrote to me and probably put it best. He
 >said that the new Millennium is what anyone wants to make of it.

 >Have a happy new year!

 >Roger


Hello Roger!

Yes, the year of Christ's birth is quite vague, and our calendar
is arbitrary, I agree.

As long as everyone agrees on _some_ numbering system to avoid
confusion, its OK with me. I was merely making a technical
nit-pick.

This point is, when counting discreet objects, head of
livestock, pieces of fruit or whatever, it makes sense to count
the "first" object as number one (1) and so on.

But! When measuring distances, intervals of time, or other
continuous sorts of things, it makes more sense to count from
zero. For example: milepost zero of the Alaska Highway - _not_
milepost #1! There is a special monument saying exactly that in
British Columbia - I saw a photograph of it. I like that. When
you reach milepost #2 - should there be one - you have gone two
miles, not just one.

A lot of people have difficulty with this concept even though
its pretty simple.


Best!

- Larry Hatch








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

                   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:41:55 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:49:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Hatch


 >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:15:09 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs

 >>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 02:59:44 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs

 >>>From: Matthew Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs
 >>>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:45:04 -0000

 >>>Hello all,

 >>>For several years I have been intrigued by pieces of artwork
 >>>which appear to depict UFOs. I have now compiled a website of
 >>>images, dating from 1330 to 1710.

 >>>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html

 >>Hello Matthew:

 >>That is one interesting and beautiful collection there!

 >>The difficulty, for me at least, is distinguishing religious
 >>symbolism ( a rich, varied and imaginative factor ) from
 >>anything factual or historical.

 >>The 1530 Fresco from Kosovo is most intriguing. If it is Christ
 >>being carried away by a fanciful comet (or whatever) it could
 >>indeed me (mis)interpreted as some sort of craft. As for the
 >>Christ figure, if that's what was intended, it looks more like a
 >>simian than a religious figure!

 >>I presume we have the Apostles in the lower left-hand corner.

 >>Whoever created this fresco in 1530 must have raised some
 >>eyebrows back then in any case!

 >Hi Larry and List

 >For me the most striking is the painting by "the flemish artist
 >Aert De Gelder - 'The Baptism of Christ' painted in 1710 and
 >hangs in the Fitzwilliam Musuem, Cambridge".

 >I don't think there is any mistaking the disc-shaped object that
 >is emitting beams of light and illuminating John the Baptist and
 >Jesus. From where do you suppose de Gelder came up with that
 >idea?

 >I've shown the The Madonna with Saint Giovannino painted by
 >Domenico Ghirlandino at a few library talks to those interested
 >and never fail to get a few comments of puzzlement and surprise
 >after I tell them it was painted in the 15th century. I think
 >it's the guy with the dog that tends to bring it home. It has an
 >ordinariness about it - like this happens all the time.

 >So let's throw one of these 'chariots of the angels' into the
 >painting, they are up there all of the time anyway. "Swing low,
 >sweet chariot, comin' for to carry me home."

 >Anybody ever wonder about that?

 >What puzzles me is if these things were showing up in paintings,
 >where are the historical references to them? Where's the text?
 >Are they there and we miss them because they are couched in
 >terms of the day that we either don't recognize or we
 >misinterpret?


Hello Don:

Some of this at least must be simple religious symbolism. Put
yourself in the place of a medieval artist, compelled to somehow
represent the Almighty, heaven, the infinite.

It isn't so easy as it may sound. No doubt some of them used
simple geometric figures like the equilateral triangle, implying
inherent strength, or perhaps the circle which "has no beginning
or end". (That from a Catholic grade school education!) Fill the
circle with light and you have a solar disk of sorts.

The Kosovo fresco is different. It looks like it was inspired by
some astronomical event, maybe a comet or meteor... complete
with sparks and rays.

These events were regarded as more than symbolic, and were
considered by many then to be messages from the heavens... or
ominous signs portending great changes. We still have folks who
buy into that.

It would be really great to have a nice essay written by the
original artist for each of these works. He could explain his
inspiration for each image. Who knows? Maybe a few of them do
indeed refer back to rumors of strange craft maneuvering in the
sky.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

                      'AUFON Weekly' Posted At Midnight

From: Stefan Duncan <bward3@nc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:47:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:50:26 -0500
Subject: 'AUFON Weekly' Posted At Midnight


HAPPY NEW YEAR to UFO UpDates and all the List members!

To celebrate the New Year and the resumption of AUFON's weekly
newspaper, I am posting the Jan. 1, 2001 issue at midnight.

I will have a space created for well-wishers. Send me a brief
statement and possibly your hopes of Ufology in 2001. Send it
now because the time is coming quick for me to place them.

TALKSHOW: Hours have been moved up to 9pm to 11pm Mon-Fri., Sat.
from 11pm to 1am. We are now taking guests. Email me at
bward3@nc.rr.com


Stefan Duncan

AUFON newswire/weekly newspaper UFO Hotline 910-425-6962
aufon-subscribe@egroups.com   http://www.aufon.com
American UFO News address
5396 S.Sumac Circle, Fayetteville, NC 28304
The Stefan Duncan Show/AUFON
9p.m.-11p.m. M-F  11p.m.-1a.m. SAT. (EST)
  Request player http://www.previewnet.com/program_posting.htm
IP station # 66.26.25.107  produced by Previewnet.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

             Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:11:02 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:50:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:57:15 EST
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:20:36 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages

 ><snip>

 >>The ancient Hebrews (_very_ unlike modern ones) weren't very
 >>good with numbers. One book of the old Testament has some holy
 >>circular construction - or maybe a bird bath... I dunno - ten
 >>cubits in diameter so that it measured 30 cubits round-about.
 >>Not bad, they were off by a factor of pi/3. Less than a 5%
 >>error, its still enough to needle the fundamentalists a little
 >>bit!

 >Dear Larry, Jim, Roger and Royce:

 >Had a friend who was a chopper pilot and a fundamentalist
 >believer in the total correctness of what is printed in his
 >Bible. I called his attention to this passage, pointing out that
 >if his helicopter was designed based upon this unerring
 >engineering principle of the Old Testament, that the rotor
 >blades would not be fastened to the axle, or whatever that
 >thingamajig is that sticks up and turns around. He never seemed
 >to have an answer for this observation.

 >Oh, well. First Cydonia, now Caus: where's the metaphysics going
 >to end?


Hello Bob!

Fundamentalism is religion squared, its not supposed to make any
sense.

I think it was Isaac Azimov who pointed out that if Pi were
changed to a nice even 3.000 (exactly) by some natural law, all
our wheels and circles would instantly turn into hexagons!

The effects would be stunning, and disastrous of course. What
would happen to planetary orbits?



Best wishes

- Larry Hatch







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

                     Re: IUR & Rendlesham Debate - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 18:37:44 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:51:13 -0500
Subject: Re: IUR & Rendlesham Debate - Bruni


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: IUR & Rendlesham Debate
 >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:16:45 -0000

 >In my text (written before 'You can't tell the people') I
 >submitted the following:

 >'Now internet gossip columnist Georgina Bruni is to publish
 >her take on the events (said to include new witness
 >interviews and a complete demolition of the skeptics
 >arguments)...'


Jenny, you might at least get my title right dear - Editor In
Chief.

It is interesting how you continue to promote the fact that I am
involved in a gossip magazine as if that takes away some of my
credibility. Having been subjected to your public posts for more
than a year before publication of my book, suggesting that it
would be filled with gossip, you never let up, do you.

In fact being the Editor In Chief of a gossip magazine has been
beneficial to my research. One learns not to take every piece of
information for what it appears to be. Having said that, my work
on the Rendlesham Forest incident was a totally separate issue.

As far as I'm concerned, the book does demolish the skeptics
arguments regarding their theories that it was a lighthouse or
other known objects.


Georgina Bruni


"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the
Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni. Published by
Sidgwick & Jackson Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk
Countries outside UK: www.netstoreusa.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

                  Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Hurley

From: Matthew Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 19:17:47 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:51:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Hurley


 >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:15:09 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 02:59:44 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs

 >>>From: Matthew Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs
 >>>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:45:04 -0000

 >>>Hello all,

 >>>For several years I have been intrigued by pieces of artwork
 >>>which appear to depict UFOs. I have now compiled a website of
 >>>images, dating from 1330 to 1710.

 >>>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html

 >>Hello Matthew:

 >>That is one interesting and beautiful collection there!

<snip>

 >For me the most striking is the painting by "the flemish artist
 >Aert De Gelder - 'The Baptism of Christ' painted in 1710 and
 >hangs in the Fitzwilliam Musuem, Cambridge".

 >I don't think there is any mistaking the disc-shaped object that
 >is emitting beams of light and illuminating John the Baptist and
 >Jesus. From where do you suppose de Gelder came up with that
 >idea?

<snip>


Hello All,

Thanks for all your positive comments on my website. I'll try
and keep adding to it as and when.

I think the idea that flying saucers are a 20th century
phenomenon is a tad false when one looks at these images!

Credit must go to researcher Bob Dean who sparked off my
interest in these old paintings by showing some of them at a
talk I went to in Leeds several years ago.

Regarding the question why are they on the paintings , I think
it's one or more of the following theories :

1. The artist saw UFO's like people do today and decided to
    stick them in

2. These artists had arcane knowledge about UFO's which had been
    passed down (i.e. the relationship between certain religious
    events and UFO's)

3. They had an inner subconcious compulsion to paint them in.


Regards,

Matt









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

             [canufo] Most Interesting Published Information In

From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:18:21 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:52:31 -0500
Subject: [canufo] Most Interesting Published Information In


Hi gang,

Several people have asked me what I thought were the
most significant or interesting developments in ufology last
year. While tempted to say, "None whatsoever", I thought I would
post some of the most interesting things that impressed me last
year, and which I think should be of note for ufology in
general.

================================================================

1. Giant UFO in the Yukon Territory
        UFO*BC Special Report No.1

        by Martin Jasek

What can one say about a 40-page published report on a case
investigation that is a model and guidepost for investigative
ufology? Jasek did an amazing job of leading the investigation
of a 1996 multiple-witness case, tracking down reluctant
witnesses, sorting through official data and compiling his
report. What's more, he made the report widely available and
even sent it to government and military officials. Of most
significance is that he makes no assumptions about the observed
UFO, and, unlike many other "scientific" reports of this kind,
does not warn the government about impending alien takeovers and
conspirations.

2. Crop Circles: A plea for sanity
        UFOIN position statement

        by Jenny Randles

You either revere her or hate her for her Rendlesham
investigations, but Randles has been influential in ufology
since the 1970s. Spearheading UFOIN's "rational" approach to
ufology, she urged the group to support a declaration on crop
circles that stated the formations were almost all hoaxes. This
obviously doesn't sit well within some camps, but it sure was a
significant development, hence its inclusion here.

3. George Adamski's Flying Saucer
        UFON online publication

        by Jimmie Holman

Already a thorn in the side of implant "experts," Holman made
public his investigations into Townsend Brown's experiments with
vacuum pumps. Among the photos discovered and disseminated were
clear images of a six-inch-wide saucer-shaped part of the vacuum
device which is identical (not just simply similar) to the
Adamski saucer. Released to the public on IRC, the news caused a
flurry of speculation, including the classic, "Well, maybe Brown
simply copied the design from Adamski's photos."

4. The First UFO Sighting in North America
        UFO Updates, August 4, 2000

        by Christopher Pittman

ALthough the case had been previously published by NICAP, this
little-known sighting was brought back to the attention of
ufologists and is worth a historical nod. Pittman evaluated this
incident from 1638, presenting a comparison with more recent
reports.

5. The Study of Unidentified Flying Objects in the Soviet Union
        Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 70, No. 3, 2000

        by Yu. Platov and B. Sokolov

The coordinators of the Russian and Soviet official research
groups into anomalous phenomena finally have presented their
conclusions, which are that there are no such things as UFOs.
Mostly attributed to secret military launches that can now be
revealed, this is the East European equivalent of the Condon
Report. Of particular interest are the descriptions of the
bureaucratic formation of the research groups, which suggest
that perhaps the Russians were more Americanized than we
thought.

6. Earthquake Lights in Quebec
        Seismological Letters, February 2000

        by France St-Laurent

A study by dedicated researcher St-Laurent into the luminous
objects seen about the time of the Saugenay earthquake several
years ago concludes that the UFOs seen were caused by the quake.
While I disagree with the findings, I applaud France for his
hard work in tracking down witnesses and triangulating the
sightings. Even more significant is that he did it in English,
not his first language! Another great study of a single UFO
event.

7. Close Encounters of the Sixth Kind
        Report on cases involving injury, death or healing

        by Geoff Dittman

This website:

www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/2653/sixthkind.html

is an in-depth look at *really* close encounters as reported in
the literature. Dittman includes many tables and charts and
tries to make some sense of the data, which to others has led to
speculation on aliens' intentions. Again, a solid, scientific
study, unlike the wild speculation usually found within ufology.

8. YUKON UFO Workshop
        October 16, 2000

Jasek gets a second entry here for putting together an amazing
government-sponsored conference on UFOs in the Far North. In
addition to the witnesses and investigators, the event drew more
than 300 participants from the public - not bad considering the
population of the entire Yukon is only 30,000. (Could you
imagine if one in 100 people attended a UFO conference in New
York City?) On the agenda was a discussion of government and
military policy concerning UFOs. Of course, not a single
government or military official attended, though more than 50
were invited.

9. Aviation Safety in America
        NARCAP

        by Richard Haines

Supported by a grant from the International Space Science
Organization, Haines produced a huge report detailing pilots'
UFO encounters. Essential reading because of its thoroughness,
Haines concludes that there is no danger to travellers because
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena are much more maneuverable than
airplanes.

10. UFO UpDates
        Every day

        by Errol Bruce-Knapp

What can one say about UFO UpDates? It seems as though it is
read and written by a veritable Who's Who of ufology, both pro
and con. Arguments rage, sarcasm flies and slander slashes as
everyone gets their two cents in on every topic imaginable
within ufology. Recognizing that the 99% rule applies here, too
(99% of everything is crap), it may be difficult for newbies to
sift through the tirades, nonsense and name-calling in a search
for real information, but there's no doubt that UFO Updates
shapes ufology.

================================================================


So, that's just ten of the items which most impressed me last
year, as a historian, a researcher and an investigator.

For what it's worth.


--
Nobody in particular








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 1

                       P-47: Kubrick & Clarke Sighting

From: Tom Rouse <trouse7@HOME.COM>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 11:25:03 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:53:12 -0500
Subject: P-47: Kubrick & Clarke Sighting


Speaking of 2001: A Space Odyssey:

Vincent LoBrutto writes, in his biography of the late Stanley
Kubrick, of the time when Kubrick and Clarke witnessed an NL
event.

"On the evening of May 17, 1964, after one of their marathon
meetings, Clarke reports that he and Kubrick walked out onto the
director's veranda to refresh themselves. At 9:00 P.M. they
jointly witnessed what they perceived as a UFO glittering in the
smog-filled heavens above. Kubrick pressed Clarke for an
explanation, but Clarke drew a blank. Kubrick's paranoia
overwhelmed him. He feared that discovery of extraterrestrial
life would destroy the film plans as they slowly formed. They
phoned the Pentagon and filled out a standard government form.
Clarke discussed this occurrence with friend at the Hayden
Planetarium, who employed their computers to solve the
interstellar mystery. The director and his scenarist had
witnessed an Echo 1 transit and not a sign of extraterrestrial
life. Clarke relates: "I can still remember, rather sheepishly,
my feelings of awe and excitement and also the thought that
flashed through my mind: "This is altogether too much of a
coincidence. They are out to stop us from making this movie."

The location of this event was NYC.

I find it interesting that two grown, intelligent men, one a
scientist, could not identify a common satellite in transit
(over NYC?), and were compelled to call the Pentagon and fill
out forms. I was a kid in 1964 and could easily recognize
satellites in the night sky. Although I suppose it was possible,
I never entertained the notion that any were UFOs.

Does anyone have any corroborating information for the date in
question? Has anyone ever sought out or found a copy of the
forms they filled out?

What is of particular interest to me is a hypothesis that some
films, classics of the genre, i.e.: The Day The Earth Stood
Still, The Thing From Another Planet, 2001: A Space Odyssey and
of course, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, may represent
more than just idle entertainment.

I always remember:

"The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most peoples
minds is to let it go in through the medium of an entertainment
picture when they do not realize that they are being
propagandized."

--- Elmer Davis, chief of the Office of War Information in a
letter to Byron Price, chief of the Office of Censorship,
January 27, 1943.

(Hollywood Goes To War, Kopps and Black, 1989)

Have a great millennium!


TR








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 15:06:31 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 01:54:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:03:54 EST
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Ever heard of "rounding error" and "significant digits"? They
 >didn't have decimals back in Old Testament times and the number
 >of significant digits in a measurement was often just 1 digit.

 >Even today if we had a rounded off diameter of say 10 inches,
 >that means the actual value is anywhere between 9.5 and 10.5
 >inches. If it was 9.549 inches then to 4 significant digits the
 >circumference is exactly 30.00 inches and it is exactly
 >correctly Pi times the Diameter. At 1 Significant Digit there is
 >no error at all given this example.

Brad,

Good point. Most believers would undoubtedly say that there is
"rounding off" in the Bible, but the message is still there. The
real Fundies, though, usually have none of it. Creation was in 7
days, not 10, or rounded to 7 billion, or whatever. And they
want everybody else's children to be brainwashed in the public
schools with the notion that their "7 days" is equal,
scientifically, to any other set of scientific finding. Just
'cause they say so.

Of course, they never discuss (probably don't even know about)
the two Genesis stories,. the one in the First Chapter (where
The Flood lasts 40 days) and the one in the Second Chapter
(where it lasts a year).

Ooops!


Clear skies,

Bob Young








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                Re: Most Interesting Published Information In

From: Riccardo Melfi <rmelfi@microtec.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 15:17:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 01:55:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Most Interesting Published Information In


 >From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca>
 >To: canufo@egroups.com
 >Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:18:21 -0600 (CST)
 >Subject: [canufo] Most Interesting Published Information In Ufology In
2000


 >Hi gang,

 >Several people have asked me what I thought were the
 >most significant or interesting developments in ufology last
 >year. While tempted to say, "None whatsoever", I thought I would
 >post some of the most interesting things that impressed me last
 >year, and which I think should be of note for ufology in
 >general.

 >================================================================

<snip>

 >6. Earthquake Lights in Quebec
 >Seismological Letters, February 2000

 >by France St-Laurent

 >A study by dedicated researcher St-Laurent into the luminous
 >objects seen about the time of the Saugenay earthquake several
 >years ago concludes that the UFOs seen were caused by the quake.
 >While I disagree with the findings, I applaud France for his
 >hard work in tracking down witnesses and triangulating the
 >sightings. Even more significant is that he did it in English,
 >not his first language! Another great study of a single UFO
 >event.

Just for your information France St Laurent is a Lady and a very
knowledgeable one. Not a gentleman.


Riccardo Melfi

A.Q.U.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 16:29:58 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 01:56:10 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Sparks


 >Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 11:47:29 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger d<ledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 03:48:33 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List

 >>>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:31:10 +0000
 >>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List

 ><sno>

 >>Hello Don:

 >>One good point that Easton made was that there is some middle
 >>ground, a narrow strip indeed.

 ><snip>


 >Hi Larry,

 >Perhaps this is true but Easton does not adhere to this belief.
 >Like some ufologists his is a kneejerk reaction never for a
 >moment cosidering the other side of the argument. He's proved
 >this time and again. When refuted on a point he skirts around it
 >with much retoric and little fact - it's a classic political
 >style. Confuse them with empty words. Don't confront the
 >question directly and above all never give a straight answer.

 >In this instance if you reference Easton as sober second thought
 >on the UFO question, it would be like a skeptic, while
 >attempting to be fair and giving the benefit of the doubt, using
 >Adamski as the norm in UFO investigation and opinion.

 >In my opinion he has no more credibility than did Adamski.


 >Don Ledger

Hi Larry & Don,

I think I have to agree with Don, reluctantly. I have gone
'round and 'round with Easton (and now Ridpath privately) on a
fundamental element of scientific data in the Rendlesham case --
the compass readings of direction to the UFO (as well as the
route of the ground party) done while the sighting was underway
instead of afterward from memory. This is a virtually unique and
highly valuable documentation to have in the history of the UFO
and yet I cannot get Easton to even acknowledge the data and the
huge discrepancy with his precious lighthouse. Ridpath is
somewhat more accommodating but won't accept that it utterly
destroys the sacred Lighthouse Theory.

The skeptics now try to argue that the readings were inaccurate.
They can't explain the fact that even if there were no magnetic
compasses at all (there were at least two, Halt's and
Nevilles'), and no readings taken by multiple compasses at
different times, then the Halt team's route to Burrow Hill still
would confirm the exact same direction to the UFO -- so the
compasses can't be inaccurate. The skeptics' obstinacy in the
face of the independently confirmatory data is at minimum highly
unscientific.

I think Don is right that it is a partisan thing -- the only
thing that matters to them is that their side wins, not what the
truth is.


Brad








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                  Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 17:09:26 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 01:56:34 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Sparks


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 16:14:31 -0000


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:35:58 -0000

 >Re: Malcolm Scurrah

<snip>

 >No Jenny, you quoted his case as specifically being December
 >1980 in your 1997 book. To quote:

 >'Scurrah was not absolutely certain of the date or time, but it
 >was very late at night during December 1980 and would appear to
 >have been during the few day period when Rendlesham Forest was
 >buzzing with UFOs.'

Jenny & Georgina,

Jenny you also posted the following:

 >Thus, when I wrote 'The UFOs that Never Were' - in l999 - I
 >adapted the estimated date for his sighting to 'late November'
 >(see p .167) to best tie in with the overall consensus of all
 >the comments made by the witness across 10 years - since that
 >was, of course, the proper thing to do under the circumstances.

That would appear to a major shift in the understanding of the
date to go from "December 1980" to "late November" 1980. If it
happened any time in November, and that is now your best
understanding Jenny, then it cannot corroborate the Rendlesham
incident.


Brad Sparks







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                Re: [canufo] Most Interesting Information In

From: Anthony Chippendale <anthonyc@ufon.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 22:48:23 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 01:59:44 -0500
Subject: Re: [canufo] Most Interesting Information In


 >From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca>
 >To: canufo@egroups.com
 >Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:18:21 -0600 (CST)
 >Subject: [canufo] Most Interesting Published Information In Ufology In 2000

<snip>

 >3. George Adamski's Flying Saucer
 >      UFON online publication
 >
 >      by Jimmie Holman

 >Already a thorn in the side of implant "experts," Holman made
 >public his investigations into Townsend Brown's experiments with
 >vacuum pumps. Among the photos discovered and disseminated were
 >clear images of a six-inch-wide saucer-shaped part of the vacuum
 >device which is identical (not just simply similar) to the
 >Adamski saucer. Released to the public on IRC, the news caused a
 >flurry of speculation, including the classic, "Well, maybe Brown
 >simply copied the design from Adamski's photos."

Hi Chris & List

Having had the pleasure to be on of the first people to hear of
Jimmie's discovery regarding Adamski's photos I have to agree
with Chris that this has to be one of the true highlights of the
year 2000! And I am sure that Jimmie & the rest of us at The UFO
Network will bring even more revelations in 2001.


Anthony Chippendale

The UFO Network UK,
http://www.ufon.org.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                     Re: The New Millenium - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 17:58:14 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:00:46 -0500
Subject: Re: The New Millenium - Mortellaro


 >Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:30:52 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: The New Millenium


 >>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:37:58 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:20:36 -0800
 >>>Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:51:20 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch

 >>>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:45:42 EST
 >>>>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>You are quite right of course, about the millennium starting at
 >>>the stroke of midnight 2001. That's only a day or two so what
 >>>the heck? The nice part is there's no Y2K+1 problem, that got
 >>>fixed last year.

 >><snip>

 >>>It has become convention to regard a new century as starting
 >>>when the big digits roll over, yes. Those who think irrational
 >>>numbers don't make any sense, that imaginary numbers don't
 >>>exist, all had their fling a year ago - so did all those
 >>>retired FORTRAN and COBOL programmers!

 >>>Snip

 >Yes, the year of Christ's birth is quite vague, and our calendar
 >is arbitrary, I agree.

 >As long as everyone agrees on _some_ numbering system to avoid
 >confusion, its OK with me. I was merely making a technical
 >nit-pick.

 >This point is, when counting discreet objects, head of
 >livestock, pieces of fruit or whatever, it makes sense to count
 >the "first" object as number one (1) and so on.

 >But! When measuring distances, intervals of time, or other
 >continuous sorts of things, it makes more sense to count from
 >zero. For example: milepost zero of the Alaska Highway - _not_
 >milepost #1! There is a special monument saying exactly that in
 >British Columbia - I saw a photograph of it. I like that. When
 >you reach milepost #2 - should there be one - you have gone two
 >miles, not just one.

 >A lot of people have difficulty with this concept even though
 >its pretty simple.

Dear Larry and all,

I have a confession to make. I have stolen the 69 mile marker on
the New York State Thruway. True, this was a number of years
ago, but I am a thief notwithstanding.

On the same trip (northbound) on which I took that sign whilst
in the grip of something called Rheingold beer, now defunct and
lost to that great beer graveyard in the sky, I also took
another sign.

This was near our destination for that trip, a place called
"Moose Mountain Lodge," owned by a close friend and then young
man who was taken with me when we were kids. True. But this
young man's family had a small resort up in the Adirondack
Mountains and Moose Mountain (near Athol, NY) was our
destination. We were to have a "Thunder Melon Party" and our
decorations were to have been the signs we 'borrowed" over the
years.

On the way to his resort, we saw a sign which was hanging from
two chains. It read, "Love Valley, Horses for Hire!" Another
small resort owned by a neighbor of this family. Well, we took
that sign.

However we did not just leave the place sans advertising. You
see, the previous year, we took the "Love Valley, Horses for
Hire" sign that was up there. This particular year, the Love
Valley Sign was _brand, spanking new_! Yup.

We took the new sign, left the old one and proceeded to get
blasted on Melons scooped out of the skins and replaced with
melon juice, vodka, rye, bourbon and anything else we could lay
our hands on.

I understand that the owner swore the sign was stolen by aliens
who arrived in a flying saucer and abducted his daughter.

Not!

His daughter eloped with my then best friend. And as for the
UFO, it was Genesse Ale, expressing it's ketones to the poor
bastard in the form of hallucinations.


Jim









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 18:02:40 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:01:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -


 >Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:11:02 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages


 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:57:15 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:20:36 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages

 >><snip>

 >>>The ancient Hebrews (_very_ unlike modern ones) weren't very
 >>>good with numbers. One book of the old Testament has some holy
 >>>circular construction - or maybe a bird bath... I dunno - ten
 >>>cubits in diameter so that it measured 30 cubits round-about.
 >>>Not bad, they were off by a factor of pi/3. Less than a 5%
 >>>error, its still enough to needle the fundamentalists a little
 >>>bit!

 >>Dear Larry, Jim, Roger and Royce:

 >>Had a friend who was a chopper pilot and a fundamentalist
 >>believer in the total correctness of what is printed in his
 >>Bible. I called his attention to this passage, pointing out that
 >>if his helicopter was designed based upon this unerring
 >>engineering principle of the Old Testament, that the rotor
 >>blades would not be fastened to the axle, or whatever that
 >>thingamajig is that sticks up and turns around. He never seemed
 >>to have an answer for this observation.

 >>Oh, well. First Cydonia, now Caus: where's the metaphysics going
 >>to end?


 >Hello Bob!

 >Fundamentalism is religion squared, its not supposed to make any
 >sense.

 >I think it was Isaac Azimov who pointed out that if Pi were
 >changed to a nice even 3.000 (exactly) by some natural law, all
 >our wheels and circles would instantly turn into hexagons!

 >The effects would be stunning, and disastrous of course. What
 >would happen to planetary orbits?

 >Best wishes

 >- Larry Hatch


Hi Larry,

Maybe you were just being silly, but I kind of doubt Asimov
would say something like that that is so demonstrably untrue. A
polygon's perimeter cannot be as little as 3.000. It is the
inscribed polygon approximation by which we determine the value
of Pi (about 3.1416) in the first place - the greater the number
of sides the closer we get to the true value. A 6-sided hexagon
is not a very good approximation (it is about 3.4641 not 3.000)
but one thing we know for sure is that it approaches Pi from
above it not below it because angular sides are longer. If we
start at the 3-sided triangle and increase the number of sides
to approximate Pi we get:

3 sides pi =   5.20
4 sides pi =   4.00
5 sides pi =   3.63
6 sides pi =   3.46
7 sides pi =   3.37
8 sides pi =   3.31
   etc etc.
22 sides pi =  3.163

If I recall history of math correctly Archimedes used a 22-sided
polygon to make the best approximation of Pi until the
Renaissance. It was about 7% too high, not too low.

Best regards,

Brad








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

              Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 23:35:30 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:01:51 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 16:27:14 -0000

 >>From: Steven R. LaPlume <slaplume@recon-inc.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -
 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 06:45:45 -0800

 >>All I was trying to say was that the 'Debate' was more of a cat
 >>fight between two emotional beings and not, in my opinion being
 >>handled like professionals.

 >>No disrespect intended. I guess I need to blanket apologise on
 >>the post.

 >Steve

 >Check out the other posts. Jenny is the only one who is actually
 >responding. All the other sceptics have gone underground - so to
 >speak, when challenged with the facts.

 >Now, what does that tell you?


Hi,

I am afraid, Georgina, it actually tells you that most people do
not have the patience to deal with the sometimes petty
commentary that oozes out of your messages.

I am getting pretty tired of it myself. Not because I cannot
respond or would not happily debate the facts of this case in a
friendly way with anyone - but your incessant personalising
makes replying very tedious and unrewarding.

So no sceptics are running away from the case I suspect. But
they may be running away from you.

Which is a shame, but I can understand it.

Examples in point:

1: Despite my going to extreme lengths to make clear that I am
NOT a skeptic in the way that you keep alleging about this case
- you use this smarmy tone and call me a skeptic yet again in
your latest message. I doubt many on this list are unaware of my
truly open minded views on this case . So why do you harp on
this?

But it means I might as well give up trying to have any kind of
reasonable conversation with you.

2:  You keep implying to people on this list that I make claims
and/or don't credit others. To cover a couple of the things you
refer to  in your other message to this list today that are way
off beam - I fully credit Nick Redfern - as you have to be well
aware. I cite Paul Begg as the original source of the radar
story - always - again as you must well know (although he didn�t
pursue it with the witness as I did - after Paul passed the
witness on to me).

So making insinuations to the contrary is either sloppy or
unfair. Either way it makes replying to you a chore that few
will invite upon themselves. Since you have to endlessly clarify
the false impressions that you create rather than argue facts.

3:  You also make well disguised smears - like your nowty aside
about the matter of Gordon Levitt's dog. Here you suggest that I
promote the claim that the UFO killed it and you have discovered
the truth that it didn�t  but chose not to expose me as being the
origin of this false story.


What rubbish.

I have reported exactly what the truth is on this matter and you
are just misleading people to suggest that I do not.

Heres what you say in your other message to this list today -
commenting on a matter that you elaborate only slightly upon in
your book...


'Incidentally, Gordon Levitt's dog did not die as a result of
the UFO sighting. This is another thing I did not name you as
promoting. You really should try to get your facts right
though.'

Talk about kettle calling the pot black!

Heres what I actually report on the dog story

(From out of the Blue) (p.5) 'As for the dog. The following
morning it was still nervous and irritable. The vet suggested a
recurrence of an old medical problem, or perhaps it had been
poisoned. The vet didn�t know about the UFO, of course. ...Early
in the new year the dog's condition continued to deteriorate, as
Gordon struggled to forget what they had both witnessed. It was,
of course, just a coincidence. There could be no connection.
True a UFO (whatever a UFO might be) had to be powered by
something. Perhaps a radiation field. Possibly this had made the
dog go sick. Maybe... A long list of maybes. Compounded by only
two certainties. Gordon had seen that glowing mushroom in the
sky. And within weeks his faithful dog was dead - exact cause
unknown.'

Now that's the story as it was reported to me from the witness
first hand when I met him in his home three years (not 20 years)
later. Gordon did not seek to connect the death with the UFO -
reporting the vets comments about what he had assumed to be the
cause of death. But he raised the issue of the death of the dog
with me. And I truthfully recorded the story as he described to
me.

But - of course - a UFO that was supposedly irradiated (if Halts
testimony is correct) did fly just feet over the top of this
dogs head - so there obviously is at least the possibility of a
link here. Especially given the sighting just a couple of miles
away down the beach at Sizewell where a UFO very similar to that
seen by Gordon scared a dog and its postman owner and left
severe after effects on both.

Even so what surely matters in all of this is that I properly
advised my readers of the facts surrounding this matter - such
as the vets opinion as to cause of death - and told them what
the true situation was without forcing onto them the view that
the dog was killed by the UFO.

So how can you allege that you have now exposed my false claims?

This is the kind of inexplicable and arrogant tactic you
practice that gets right up peoples noses, I am afraid.

And its one reason why they are not rushing to debate this case
with you.


Best wishes,

Jenny Randles










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

               Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 18:36:25 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:03:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In


 >From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca>
 >To: canufo@egroups.com
 >Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:18:21 -0600 (CST)
 >Subject: [canufo] Most Interesting Information In Ufology In 2000


 >Hi gang,

 >Several people have asked me what I thought were the
 >most significant or interesting developments in ufology last
 >year. While tempted to say, "None whatsoever", I thought I would
 >post some of the most interesting things that impressed me last
 >year, and which I think should be of note for ufology in
 >general.

 >================================================================
<SNIP>
 >3. George Adamski's Flying Saucer
 >  UFON online publication

 >  by Jimmie Holman

 >Already a thorn in the side of implant "experts," Holman made
 >public his investigations into Townsend Brown's experiments with
 >vacuum pumps. Among the photos discovered and disseminated were
 >clear images of a six-inch-wide saucer-shaped part of the vacuum
 >device which is identical (not just simply similar) to the
 >Adamski saucer. Released to the public on IRC, the news caused a
 >flurry of speculation, including the classic, "Well, maybe Brown
 >simply copied the design from Adamski's photos."

No, I'm sorry, the Brown device is _not_ "identical" to the
Adamski hoax saucer. It is in fact just simply similar. It is
not fair or responsible scholarship to suddenly announce such an
alleged "discovery" and then not reveal there have been many
attempted explanations of the Adamski hoax and fail to explain
why each one was wrong and why this new one is right. I recall
there have been comparisons of the Adamski saucer to a chicken
brooder heat lamp and a vacuum cleaner apparatus, among others.


 >5. The Study of Unidentified Flying Objects in the Soviet Union
 >  Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 70, No. 3, 2000

 >  by Yu. Platov and B. Sokolov

 >The coordinators of the Russian and Soviet official research
 >groups into anomalous phenomena finally have presented their
 >conclusions, which are that there are no such things as UFOs.
 >Mostly attributed to secret military launches that can now be
 >revealed, this is the East European equivalent of the Condon
 >Report. Of particular interest are the descriptions of the
 >bureaucratic formation of the research groups, which suggest
 >that perhaps the Russians were more Americanized than we
 >thought.

Well if this is really like the Condon Report it also admits
perhaps between the lines there are unexplained cases left over.


 >7. Close Encounters of the Sixth Kind
 >  Report on cases involving injury, death or healing

 >  by Geoff Dittman

 >This website:

 >www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/2653/sixthkind.html

 >is an in-depth look at *really* close encounters as reported in
 >the literature. Dittman includes many tables and charts and
 >tries to make some sense of the data, which to others has led to
 >speculation on aliens' intentions. Again, a solid, scientific
 >study, unlike the wild speculation usually found within ufology.

I don't mean to belittle the tremendous amount of work that went
into producing this catalog, which is very much appreciated as a
genuine contribution, but it is just a catalog, nothing more.
What is "in-depth" and solidly "scientific" about it? This kind
of misdirected praise is a bit overboard. Now if the catalog
presented an exhaustive rather than a primitive typology and
symptomatology of cases, and categorized cases by reliability,
distance to object, duration of exposure, attempted to analyze
broad categories of possible causes, etc., that would be a
different matter. I also don't understand why most cases get
just a few lines of notes but some reason Michalak and Dr. X get
pages and pages.


 >9. Aviation Safety in America
 >  NARCAP

 >  by Richard Haines

 >Supported by a grant from the International Space Science
 >Organization, Haines produced a huge report detailing pilots'
 >UFO encounters. Essential reading because of its thoroughness,
 >Haines concludes that there is no danger to travellers because
 >Unidentified Aerial Phenomena are much more maneuverable than
 >airplanes.

I thought the NARCAP report concluded there was a potential
danger to aviation from UAP and that training was urged to help
pilots understand and safely avoid UAP in the air if and when it
occurs. I remember the maneuverability remark but I thought
that simply said that it greatly lessens the danger not
eliminates it. I thought there were quite a few fatality cases
listed. Did I misread something?

Thanks Chris for sharing your thought-provoking year-end wrapup
with us.

Brad Sparks







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                            Where's the Monolith?

From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 22:17:42 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:03:40 -0500
Subject: Where's the Monolith?


Where's the Monolith?

December 27, 2000
Web posted at: 11:58 a.m. EST (1658 GMT)

The world's largest radio telescope in Arecibo, Puerto Rico

THE SERIES
This is Part 5 in a five-part series exploring themes from the
classic science fiction film "2001: A Space Odyssey." The
Headline News companion series airs December 26-30. Episode
guide



"I Want To Believe"
-- UFO poster on the set of "The X-Files"

(CNN) -- One of the central characters of "2001: A Space
Odyssey" is neither a person nor a computer. Instead, it's a
giant, black, rectangular slab called the Monolith. It has a
knack for showing up just as things start to get really
interesting in the history of human evolution. Because of when
and where it appears, the Monolith also serves as proof that
there's intelligent life beyond our Earth.

Finding a real Monolith hasn't turned out to be so easy. One
person trying to find one is Paul Horowitz, head of the SETI
(Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) program at Harvard
University. Horowitz doesn't really expect to fine an alien
artifact buried somewhere on the Earth or moon. He's looking for
other signs, such as radio signals or laser beams from other
planets.

"The way I look at is the following," Horowitz says. "It's
plausible that there are other civilizations. It's entirely
plausible that they wish to communicate. After all, we got where
we are by being curious and communicating among ourselves. It's
hard to imagine turning that off." VIDEO Physicist Andrew LePage
comments on the possibility of other life in the universe

Was "2001" truly a space prophecy?


Chat with Andrew LePage, physicist and senior scientist of
Visidyne Inc., on the search for extraterrestrial life. Friday,
December 29, 2 p.m. ET


Horowitz says space travel is far more difficult and requires
much more energy than space communication.

"If you wanted to take a trip to the nearest star with the
technology we have now it would take you 50,000 years," he says.

"It may simply be that these advanced civilizations, being
composed of reasonably smart folks, have decided they're going
to do the efficient thing, and send messages, rather than do the
inefficient thing and send objects and do the risky, inefficient
thing and send moving creatures over these distances."

Ears to the sky

Horowitz's search for extraterrestrial signals is similar to the
work being conducted at the SETI Institute in Mountain View,
California. The Institute's best-known program is called Project
Phoenix. For about five weeks every year, Project Phoenix uses
the world's largest radio telescope in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, to
locate alien transmissions.

Another program called, Project SERENDIP, relies on a separate
receiver that's attached to the same radio telescope. It's
available year round, but most of the time SETI Institute
researchers have no control over where it's pointed. The
information collected by SERENDIP is used by the Institute's
wildly popular SETI@home experiment. The data is broken down
into packets and sent via the Internet to some 2.6 million
personal computers, where it's analyzed. Anyone with a computer
and an internet connection can help search for ETs.

Physicist Andrew LePage has written extensively on the various
SETI programs around the world. He believes researchers are
doing the best they can with the technology that's available.

"Even with this best technology we couldn't detect 'I Love Lucy'
reruns from the next star system over," LePage says. "The
signals from very powerful TV transmitters would still be too
weak for us to be able to detect. "We have to search for
civilizations much more advanced than ours, ones capable of
handling millions, billions, even trillions times more energy
than our civilization is capable of manipulating."

LePage says current SETI programs have only looked at a fraction
of the frequencies available for interplanetary communication,
or have examined only a small number of the nearby stars. He
concludes, "There could easily be millions of civilizations just
like our own scattered throughout the galaxy and we'd never know
it based on our searches to date." The Fermi Paradox


An artist's rendering of the SETI Institute's planned array of
satellite dishes designed to search for extraterrestrial
communications

The skeptics believe the reason that we haven't made contact
with extraterrestrial beings is that these creatures probably
don't exist.

This argument was best expressed by the late Nobel Prize winning
nuclear physicist Enrico Fermi. In 1950, Fermi is quoted as
asking if extraterrestrials are commonplace, why haven't we made
contact with them? This question became known as the Fermi
Paradox.

In the July issue of Scientific American, astronomer Ian
Crawford of University College London explains the problem this
way. He says that if there were at least one other Earth-like
civilization in the Milky Way, it could have easily populated
the entire galaxy by now.

Crawford's argument is based on the following scenario. A
society with rocket technology colonizes two other planets.
Several hundred years later, the two colonies each send out two
more colonies of their own. At that rate it would take from 5
million to 50 million years to colonize the entire galaxy.
That's a long period of time, but when compared to the age of
the Milky Way, it's a mere snap of the fingers.

If advance civilizations are abundant throughout the universe,
then Crawford wonders, "Would none of these billions of
civilizations, not even a single one, have left any evidence of
their existence?"

Horowitz admits it's something he worries about. But he thinks
the math works in his favor.

"How can it be," he wonders. "We're talking about odds of
advanced life in the galaxy, and we say the odds are so small
that there's only a chance of one civilization and guess what?
We're it! It only happened here. You know. I think the odds of
that being right are something like one in a hundred billion.
That's the only number in town."


� 2000 Cable News Network. 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                     Another Millennium Come and Gone...

From: Scott Carr <sardy_2000@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 19:42:51 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:04:02 -0500
Subject: Another Millennium Come and Gone...


Well, another Millennium has come and gone (the real one this
time?) and another apocalypse has seemingly been averted.

Where were all the antichrists? Where are all the predilectors
and suicide cults? The heretics and harbingers of destruction?
the false prophets and the New Jesuses (yes Bruce, I'm talkin'
about you!)? The new-agers and the doom-and-gloomers?

No explosions over Times Square?

No new World Wars?

No nuclear catastrophe?

We were barely able to elect an American president (I'm still
not 100% convinced that we did). Gas prices went up a bit, but
I'd hardly call that Armageddon�

No aliens on the White House Lawn (well, I guess if we couldn't
even get a president there, we could hardly expect the
saucers�). Still, I'd kill for another alien autopsy! Some more
lights over Phoenix. Heck, where's the Loch Ness monster when
you need her�

Ufology has been down right boring. It seems like the most
excitement we've seen all year has been the bitter feud between
Jenny Randles and Georgina Bruni. And even that doesn't hold a
candle to such falling outs as Randle-Schmidt of ages past�

Mulder is barely even on The X-Files this season�

This is certainly shaping up to be one boring Millennium. Where
are the mass suicides? The explosions? The toxic gas bombings?
The accidental release of government bio-warfare disease? Quick,
somebody clone someone-let Charles mansion out of prison-or at
the very least, let's see what Radium John is up to? Has anyone
heard from the Unibomber lately?

Has there been a goo video game or cartoon to throw hundreds of
Japanese TV junkies into epileptic seizures in a while?

Anyone bagged a bigfoot?


Has anything interesting happened this year?


Don't get me wrong-I'm not saying that I'm not glad that none of
this stuff has actually happened. I'm just a little
disappointed, is all-It would seem that the human race just
isn't quit as interesting as I'd given them credit for...


-Scott C. Carr
www.erols.com/sardonica







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 23:19:54 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:04:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles
 >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:24:58 -0000

 >>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:48:59 -0000

 >>>From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles
 >>>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 19:34:13 -0000


 >>I wrote a whole chapter entitled "Challenging the Sceptics",
 >>actually challenging them, but not one of the sceptics on this
 >>list has referred to the content of the book or to this
 >>particular chapter.

 >Hi,

 >Georgina - you state several times in this lengthy message that
 >I am a 'skeptic'.

 >Why do you keep doing this as if it is an incantation that will
 >lull this List into hating me? Clearly you don't listen to what I
 >say, or do not want to listen.

 >I have made my position on all of this abundantly apparent and
 >this list must be getting bored of my having to keep repeating
 >it, but you don't seem to want to hear what I have to say.


Hi Jenny, Georgina & List,

Let me step in here and comment because at long last there is
some discussion of substantive points on the Lighthouse Theory
(further on). Jenny, if I understand correctly Georgina merely
stated in her post that you dwelt on "alternative theories." I
don't think she said you were a skeptic, at least initially (and
in your latest post you've all but adopted the epithet
yourself). Correct me if I'm wrong by quoting directly, okay?
I've read the posting over and I don't see even once anywhere
that she labels you a "skeptic" let alone "several times."

Now I want to say at the outset that I am quite upset at just
discovering that James Easton has perpetrated a years-long
coverup to smear Col. Charles Halt, deliberately misquoting him
on the Lighthouse Theory by leaving out crucial words of Halt's
that the Lighthouse's "light was not red" like the Red UFO, that
"It's white." This is part of a systematic effort by debunkers
to depict Halt as a bungler who couldn't keep his lighthouses
straight and shouldn't be trusted on his explanations as to why
the UFO could not have been a lighthouse, that he recklessly
promotes "UFO hysteria" (Easton post Sept 4, UFO UpDates).

Since his August 1998 article "Resolving Rendlesham" Easton has
repeatedly claimed falsely that Halt was asked about the "Orford
Ness lighthouse" by Salley Rayl in the online MSN interview. But
those words appear nowhere in the interview. Easton charges that
Halt got the _wrong_ lighthouse, bungled the identity and
direction of the lighthouse with his answer, which should have
referred to the Shipwash beacon according to Easton.

The fact is that Rayl did _not_ name "the lighthouse" in her
question and Halt did not name "the lighthouse" in his answer.
No one mentioned Orfordness so there was no error in identifying
"the lighthouse" and it was in fact the Shipwash Sunk Lightship.
But that hasn't stopped Easton from recycling the same
fabricated Q&A over and over again in articles and postings in
order to depict Halt as such a confused witness that his
objections to the Lighthouse Theory should be disregarded. Ian
Ridpath has also raked Halt over for supposedly getting the
wrong lighthouse and everyone for being fools in not picking up
on the supposed error.

Here is how Easton always poses the Q&A, and notice that Halt's
sentences "The light was not red. It's white" _NEVER_ appear in
Easton's misquotations, nor are there any ellipses (. . .) to
indicate an omission:

EASTON:

      "Halt was asked [by Rayl] about the assertion he had been
      deceived by the Orford Ness [<-- NOTE] lighthouse and
      replied:

      " 'First, the lighthouse was visible the whole time. It was
      readily apparent, and it was 30 to 40 degrees off to our
      right.' " <MY SNIP>

(See Easton's various rehashings of this misquotation of Col. Halt:
http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/rend3.htm
   http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/newslet2.htm
   http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/newslet1.htm
   http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/sep/m26-017.shtml
   http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/aug/m22-003.shtml
   http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/aug/m18-002.shtml
   http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/aug/m17-005.shtml
   http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/dec/m09-009.shtml
   http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/sep/m13-013.shtml
   http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/aug/m14-001.shtml)

Now compare Easton's misquote with the actual quote. In
actuality, Rayl mistakenly claimed "the lighthouse" was a "red
beacon" and Halt corrected her, as follows, and again please
note that no one named "the lighthouse" specifically:

      RAYL: There are some people who say that you mistook the
      lighthouse [<-- NO NAME] lights, which obviously is a red
      beacon [sic] and you mistook that for the UFO. There was
      also a Russian satellite <MY SNIP>suggestions that perhaps
      this was experimental aircraft <MY SNIP>psychological
      warfare. What your responses to those? Let's take the
      lighthouse [<-- NO NAME] first ... [<--ellipses in the
      original]

      HALT: Let me take those one at a time. First, the
      lighthouse [<-- NO NAME] was visible the whole time. The
      light was not red. It's white. [<--OMITTED BY EASTON] And
      it was readily apparent, and it was 30 to 40 degrees off to
      our right. <MY SNIP>

Jenny, in earlier posts you asked me what evidence had Easton
suppressed and said you knew of nothing he had suppressed. I
gave you a number of important facts Easton has selectively left
out of his quotes of the Jan 1981 statements, such as the repeat
sighting in the opposite direction from the lighthouse. But this
alteration of Halt's interview to bolster the Lighthouse Theory
is the most outrageous to date.

 >1: I have been one of the most outspoken critics of the
 >'lighthouse' theory for 17 years as anyone reading my work on
 >this case will be well aware. I have always given the ideas time
 >of day. It is covered in all my books. But I have never been
 >convinced by it as a conclusive and wholesale resolution for a
 >whole host of reasons that I have set out many times. Some of
 >them are eerily similar to the reasons that you cite in this
 >message and use against me! (Such as the importance of local
 >civilian witnesses who could clearly recognise the lighthouse).
 >I find that a delicious irony.

Yes, as I understand it, Jenny states in her book UFO Crash
Landing?: "Burroughs (who had lived locally for 18 months and
was familiar with the woods) said he saw the lighthouse as well
as the UFO that night but never mentioned it because it was,
'just sitting there as always'."

Yet this same Burroughs is Easton's prime witness who supposedly
said in his Jan 1981 statement that they merely chased the
lighthouse on a straight line for 2 miles before recognizing it
was the lighthouse. This conflict between what he told Jenny and
Georgina and his alleged statement ought to tell us that at
least part of the statement concerning the purported (and
actually physically impossible) 2-mile lighthouse chase is a
fabrication by someone other than Burroughs, someone who forced
him to sign it. This is similar to what Cabansag and Penniston
told Georgina about official funny business with these
statements.

So Jenny, why do you then go on to credit Easton in your next
paragraph for casting skeptical doubt on the case, which has
been based in large part on the "abortive lighthouse chase"
passages in the Jan 1981 statements that are manifestly
forgeries? Do you not recognize Easton's favorite phrase
"abortive lighthouse chase"? How many times has Easton made this
claim using those now trite words ad nauseam and rehashed the
same old quotes from the Burroughs and Cabansag Jan 1981
statements?

 >2: I have - indeed - become far more tolerant of the skeptical
 >arguments in recent years thanks to the work of James Easton and
 >the data that has slowly become available demonstrating the
 >value of some of Ian Ridpath's long term suggestions.

Isn't the latter -- "Ian Ridpath's long term suggestions" --
nothing more than a euphemism for the Lighthouse Theory?

 >As they
 >both know - and as those involved at IUR in the recent debate
 >(eg Jerry Clark, Mark Rodeghier and Dick Hall) know] - and as I
 >have stated on this list before - I am not convinced they have
 >fully resolved this case but do believe they have made a case
 >for parts of the sighting that requires a more thorough
 >discussion.

 >3: As the evidence stands the role of the lighthouse in this
 >case seems evident to some degree, but cannot, IMO, be
 >responsible for the sum total of what was reported that weekend.
 >I have made absolutely clear - for example - that it cannot
 >explain the close encounter phase reported by John Burroughs and
 >Jim Penniston - and I have debated this in civil fashion with
 >both James Easton and Ian Ridpath on other lists recently. They
 >seem to believe that the close encounter effects (eg Oz Factor,
 >reality distortions, electrical charges) could be induced by
 >fear. I am more persuaded they have a genuine physical origin
 >because they are remarkably consistent with other close
 >encounters that have evidence and suggest a real physical energy
 >may be occurring.

It is clear that UFOs and each of two lighthouses _were_ seen at
the same time as the witnesses themselves claim, which proves
the UFO's were not misidentified lighthouses. The Halt team
sighting of the Steady Red Sun-Like Light cannot be dismissed as
a Strobing Lighthouse White Light of Orfordness, which was
_DARK_ 98% of the time (dark 4.9 seconds, flash 0.1 second), for
the following reasons:

(a) Wrong Direction

(b) Wrong Location for Visibility

(c) Wrong Color

(d) Wrong Duty Cycle (Steady vs. Strobe)

(e) Wrong Dynamics (Moving vs. Stationary,
     "Dripping/Shooting/Exploding")

(f) Wrong Shape (oval with dark "pupil" center, instead of
     strobing point source)

(g) Wrong Angular Size (1/3 to 1/2 full moon vs. point source).

Or as Col Halt is quoted as saying on the "Strange But True"
television documentary on the case, "A lighthouse doesn't move
through the forest; the lighthouse doesn't go up and down, it
doesn't explode...."

 >So to keep misleading this list into thinking I am some
 >egregious skeptic is not terribly good evidence that you are
 >able to properly assess what people say to you.

Again, I can't seen anywhere in Georgina's post that she calls you a
"skeptic" "several times," Jenny.

 >4: However, what is very apparent from the data for this case is
 >that there are aspects to it that were in the past considered
 >strange but that as time has gone by are now seen to be much
 >less strange. That is an inescapable conclusion.

 >You only need to look long and hard at some of what the
 >witnesses saw and do so having familiarity with UFO
 >investigation to realise that there are objects being described
 >in this case that very clearly were not UFOs.

 >What long term researcher out there would not argue that a star
 >like light that remains in the same general part of the sky for
 >hours and fades as the dawn sky lightens until it then
 >disappears is not very, very likely to be a stellar object?

Your information about dawn's light is astronomically incorrect.
Halt never describes any of the lights in the sky toward the end
as "fading" in dawn light and no one else does either. The end
of the sighting came after about 3:30 AM when Halt and company
got tired of it and left, having already done their duty by
reporting the alarming maneuvers to Eastern Radar and their own
Command Post at 3:25 AM. Halt's last report of the lights on
tape is at 4:00 AM when the group was apparently still hiking
back to their vehicles. Dawn was not until 5:57 AM (astronomical
twilight, not really noticeable) or 6:38 AM (nautical twilight),
sunrise 8:03 AM, according to the U.S. Naval Observatory's
online computation.

Furthermore, the Southern UFO Light did not "remain in the same
general part of the sky for hours." Within 10 minutes of first
seeing it at 3:15 AM, Halt clearly describes the Southern Light
as suddenly approaching at high speed (this part is on the Halt
tape along with alarmed responses) on a northerly heading until
reaching overhead position at perhaps several hundred feet to
2,000-5,000 feet, shining the 6-8-inch wide "pencil thin beam"
down to the ground 10-15 feet away for about 3-7 seconds. The
beam was suddenly cut off and the object "receded" evidently
back to the south, then headed _North_ again but not stopping
until over Bentwaters to shine down the beam there, which got
Halt concerned about the nuclear Weapons Storage Area there. At
this point, 3:25 AM, Halt radioed the Command post to relay the
report to Eastern Radar at Watton, which logged it in. (As I
recall, the log entry says Halt asked about radar tracks over
Bentwaters so this had to be after the "beam" phenomena
occurred.)

 >All my years experience as a UFO investigator teach me that this
 >is almost certainly what is being described here because the
 >witness testimony fits that so well. If - for instance - the
 >object was some sort of craft - even a plane - then as the dawn
 >sky lightened it would have become MORE visible. That it was
 >swallowed up by the lightening of the sky indicates the near
 >certain conclusion that it was a star.

Again, no one said anything about the lights being "swallowed
up" by the dawn's light. And dawn wasn't until after 6 AM, or 2
hours after the end of the sightings.

 >After you have investigated dozens of sightings of Venus in a
 >frosty morning sky you soon realise what processes of
 >mis-perception are at work.

 >Other parts of the case are equally vulnerable - such as the
 >alleged radiation levels, which are now clearly seen not to be
 >significant at all.

The levels were reported to be 10 to 25 times background, or 100
to 250 microroentgens per hour (or 0.1 to 0.25 milliR/hr).
Apparently these levels would be significant if accurately
measured.

The skeptics deny that these were reliably measured. I have yet
to see convin cing evidence that the radiation survey meter
used, the AN/PDR-27, was incapable of reliably measuring such
levels, which were within the built-in low-range setting of
0-0.5 milliR/hr. There are third-hand claims to that effect in
Ian Ridpath's writings but none have yet to be verified with the
reported manufacturer, Nuclear Research Corp., Warrington, Penn.
Ian Ridpath in email has told me nothing about what this company
has to say and he has not published it as of yet.

Based on this failure to prove the unreliability of the
radiation measurements by Halt's team, it is hardly correct to
say the readings are "clearly seen to be not significant at
all."

 >5: Now - not for one moment am I suggesting that because parts
 >of this case crumble on deeper study that all of it necessarily
 >does.

So far, none of the case "crumbles on deeper study." Unless you
mean the Larry Warren tales on the one side and the Lighthouse
Theory on the other.

 >I don't support that total reductionist perspective and
 >have always made that clear. But this is not - and never has
 >been - a straight fight between a lighthouse and a real UFO.

Never? It has _never_ been a "straight fight between a
lighthouse and a real UFO"? That isn't what Easton and Ridpath
have been saying for multiple years now.

Let's review just a few of Easton's statements over the years:

Easton here on UFO UpDates on Aug 23, 2000:

      If by 'the lighthouse theory', you mean the question of
      whether Orford Ness lighthouse was mistaken for a 'UFO',
      it's already established that it was.

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/aug/m23-003.shtml

Easton on Feb 3, 1999:

      The MoD presumably also now appreciates how it can be
      proven ... that Col. Halt's confirmed bearing for the 'UFO'
      he witnessed was exactly where Orfordness lighthouse stood
      and that h






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                            Re: Pelicans - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 00:32:49 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:05:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Pelicans - Gates


 >From: Brad Sparks <B47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:47:36 EST
 >Subject: Pelicans [Was Re: 'You Can't Tell The People']
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:54:55 -0800

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com
 >>>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:14:35 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:50:37 +0000
 >>>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'



 >>Hello Brad, Don and List,

<snip>

 >>>>The best that Easton has been able to come up with is that
 >>>>pelicans fly and there are pelicans in Washington state. That's
 >>>>not doing your home work. The first is a given and the second
 >>>>can be proved easiliy by looking in the Audubon's[sp]Societies
 >>>>Handbook. From this he solves the puzzle?

 >>>Actually, you are quite right but it is even worse than you
 >>>describe. Pelicans apparently show up very rarely if ever
 >>>around Mt. Rainier at 10,000 feet.

 >><snip>


 >>Actually, one will find at this site on CCRT's Bird Strike
 >>Research:

 >>http://www.ccrt.org/HTML/birdstrike.html

 >>Those American White Pelicans do fly at altitudes of 10,000 feet
 >>when thermal updraft depth allows it. A few studies have been
 >>conducted to predict Pelican hazard for aerial navigation.

 >Hi Serge,

 >You'll notice I was careful to say that pelicans would have been
 >_rare_ at 10,000 feet near Mt. Rainier, not that it was
 >impossible for them to fly at that altitude. This was based on
 >info developed by Kathleen Anderson as well as James Easton's
 >inability to document the prevalence of pelicans in the Mt.
 >Rainier area.

 >Now we have a good reason why pelicans might be rare at 10,000
 >feet around Mt. Rainier: It may be difficult to impossible for
 >thermals to form around a glacier-covered snow-capped mountain
 >where sunlight does not warm the ground to create "thermals."

 >>at:

 >>http://www.i-bird.com/LowGraphic/LGAmerWhtPelican.htm

 >>We find the distribution of the AWP in US. In Washington state
 >>it is considered "common... usually seen daily in proper habitat
 >>and season." It is considered accidental or absent in Eastern
 >>United States.

 >I notice that all of the data collection sites are near _lakes_
 >in Eastern Washington, roughly from Moses Lake to Pendleton,
 >Ore., not along the west coast or around Mt. Rainier or over
 >rugged mountainous areas. Three of the four sites report only
 >"Uncommon" occurrence "Not likely to be seen except by extensive
 >searching over several days."


Hi Brad,

Of course you realize that in pelican logic, the above paragraph
is absolute proof that Arnold saw pelicans, after all the
collection sites are near lakes, and its not much of a jump from
lakes to mountains...at least in the minds of the pelicanists.:)


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                            Re: Pelicans - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 00:38:45 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:05:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Pelicans - Gates


 >From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Pelicans [was: 'You Can't Tell The People']
 >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:19:57 -0800

<snip>

 >Now you guys are in my territory.

 >I live within sight of mount Rainier and grew up here. I've seen
 >and heard of many birds of the area, but do not remember over my
 >50+ year life anyone even speaking of Pelicans, and have never
 >seen one here.

 >I realize this is not science, but only my perspective from
 >western Washington State.


According to the pelicanists all witness testimony is utterly
meaningless, always to be doubted because they are either having
a dillusion, dileberate hoax, or misidentification of something
naturally occuring.

Since Jim tells us he has never seen any Pelicans, according to
the Pelican logic, he must be having a dillusion, pulling one
over on us, or mistakenly fingering a Pelican as a Seagull.

Didn't mean to pick on you Jim, but I couldn't resist a flight
into pelican fantasy land.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                            Re: Pelicans - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 00:39:51 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:05:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Pelicans - Gates


 >From: Brad Sparks <B47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:47:36 EST
 >Subject: Pelicans [Was Re: 'You Can't Tell The People']
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >I notice that all of the data collection sites are near _lakes_
 >in Eastern Washington, roughly from Moses Lake to Pendleton,
 >Ore., not along the west coast or around Mt. Rainier or over
 >rugged mountainous areas. Three of the four sites report only
 >"Uncommon" occurrence "Not likely to be seen except by extensive
 >searching over several days."

Hi Brad,

Of course you realize that in pelican logic, the above paragraph
is absolute proof that Arnold saw pelicans, after all the
collection sites are near lakes, and its not much of a jump from
lakes to mountains...at least in the minds of the pelicanists. :)

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

             Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 01:04:21 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:06:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Velez


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:23:37 -0500

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:11:07 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages ->Velez

 >>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >>>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:24:13 -0800

 >>>eXpos: The Watchdog of UFOlogy
 >>>"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind."
 >>>eXpos News  http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
 >>>UFO Hall o' Shame  http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog

 >>>CAUS Director Peter A. Gersten continues, in usual fashion, to
 >>>deliver strange messages via his CAUS Updates e-mail list. For
 >>>over the past month, Gersten has been doing a countdown to the
 >>>New Year paying a visit to the old school of New Millennium
 >>>madness. Many of Gersten's messages are disjointed and hint at
 >>>some new pending apocalypse.

 >>>This is not the first time Gersten has posted strange messages
 >>>via CAUS UpDates.

 >>Ahhhh, Barry Greenwood... where are you now? Your beloved>CAUS
 >>(Citizens Against UFO Secrecy) lies in a heap of ashes. Standing
 >>in the middle of it all is the madman Nero, playing his fiddle
 >>while everything all around him crashes and burns. No CAUS to
 >>fret. CAUS is no more.

 ><snip>

 >>What Barry Greenwood and all the former membership of
 >>CAUS _should_ have done was to immediately regroup under
 >>a new banner, and just move on from there. Gersten and Greer
 >>have been _enabled_ by the apathy of others to remove the
 >>power and the voice of the People from the political arena
 >>where UFOs are concerned. Gersten ruined the 'vehicle' by
 >>flattening its tires, and Greer has silenced everyone by
 >>appointing himself 'our voice' among our own elected officials.

 >>Am I the only one that sees something terribly wrong with all of
 >>that?

 >Barry Greenwood is alive and well and continuing his research on
 >other venues. Some are available on the web.

 >Greenwood archives:

 >http://www.project1947.com/shg/grnwood.htm#bibs

 >"UFOs:  Government Involvement, Security and Documents"

 >http://www.project1947.com/bg/ufogov.htm

 >He continue to publish the "U. F. O. Historical Revue"
 >back issues are  available at CUFON

 >http://www.cufon.com

 >Those that appreciate hard, verifiable information will like
 >these sites. Those who prefer spashy, sensation, and most
 >unfounded claims will quickly move on to something else.


Hi Jan,

Thanks for these links. I will check them out shortly. It'll be
interesting to see what he's been up to lately.

You wrote:

 >Those that appreciate hard, verifiable information will like
 >these sites. Those who prefer spashy, sensation, and most
 >unfounded claims will quickly move on to something else.

Only people who are _unfamiliar_ with Barry Greenwood, and what
CAUS represented as a ufological group under his direction,
could pretend to defend what Gersten did when he took over CAUS,
and pushed Barry and most of its grass roots membership out.


Regards,

John Velez


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

               Re: Millenium [Was: Gersten Generates More... ]

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 01:13:59 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:06:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Millenium [Was: Gersten Generates More... ]


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:45:42 EST
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 07:27:25 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >><snip>
 >
 >>>Below is the just the latest in a long string of messages from
 >>>Gersten. "Welcome to the twilight zone of the new millennium"??
 >>>Frankly, we've had enough... have you?

 >>>CAUS HIGHLIGHTS: Thursday - December 28, 2000
 >>>================<>================
 >>>3 MORE DAYs UNITL the NEW MILLENNIUM

 ><snip>

 >>He obviously isn't talking about any reality that I know of. In
 >>the reality of my world, the decade of the 90's only has ten
 >>years in it; not eleven (I think that's why they call it a
 >>'decade', Peter). It started with 1990 and ended at midnight on
 >>the last day of 1999. And despite the known lack of a year
 >>'zero', as I wrote before, most biblical scholars feel there is
 >>a 5 year margin of error on when Jesus was really born, etc,
 >>etc...

 >>Of course, maybe he's from Florida. The end didn't come last
 >>year and now he wants a recount to try again!


 >Not to burst your buboe, but the millenny yum yum really does
 >begin on January 1, 2001. I got that from the Milly, Emmy and
 >Yum Yum book on dates. Not UpDates mind you, just regular ones.

Hi Jim

You are absolutly correct.

For those who doubt, visit:

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/AA/faq/docs/millennium.html


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

             Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 01:58:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:07:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Velez


 >From: Jim Mortellaro  <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:29:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


Hi All,

Mr. Mortellaro writes:

 >Dear Errol and those who give a damn;

Oops I guess that's me!  ;)

Coupla things if I may:

 >I have a problem when folks get reamed on this or any other
 >List. It's one thing to be amusing or try to be so. But it's
 >quite another to lash out against someone just because that
 >person thinks differently than we do.

Gersten is not being criticised for his personal beliefs or
because he "thinks differently". You really ought to do a little
'homework' and find out just what it was that ruffled so many
feathers when he forced his way back into CAUS, took it over,
pushed Barry Greenwood and most of CAUS's original membership
out, and then completely trashed what was the _only_ solid, and
viable grass-roots UFO organization around. When you learn all
the details, I'm sure you'll agree that Mr. Gersten's tactics
were much, much less than commendable.

 >True, I have not been privileged with personal invitations as
 >some of you.

I'm still waiting for the day when you respond to comments I
have made to others, in other posts, directly to me, rather than
in this side-ways/carom shot fashion you have chosen to adopt.
When I have something to say to you I always say it to your
face. I don't bury little comments about you or that you have
made in my posts to others. I don't deal with people in that way
because I consider it cowardly. Unlike some others, I don't bad
mouth anybody behind their back to complete strangers, or drop
little comments here and there. What I can't say to your face
remains unspoken.

 >True, I cannot call anyone here my friend.

Ahhhh, poor Docca. :( Nobody wuvs me!  This isn't a "popularity
contest" Jim. We each comment, express opinions, offer info,
debate, criticise, support, and even clash with one other from
time to time. In the end it doesn't matter how many people may
like or dislike like you, the only thing that matters is the
quality of the contributions that you make over the long haul.

"Friends" true friends, need to be developed and nurtured over
time and it needs to be done live and in-person. Although it is
possible, you _can_ form some very good and lasting friendships
with people via e-mail. But, that's not what all this is about.

You, unrealistically, expect a large number of very independent
and strong minded individuals, (the members of this List) not to
have disputes or strong differences of opinion about issues as
well as people.

NEWSFLASH!

As long as there are more than two members participating on this
List, there will be clashes, disagreements, and disputes. And
yes, every once in awhile someone will get trashed. (Hopefully
deservedly when it does happen.)

A "panacea" List where nobody is ever criticised or where every
body is "fair" and agrees on everything doesn't exist. You'll
have to join a cult to find that kind of consensus.

 >I sat with Mr. Gersten in 1998 and had lunch with him. He's an
 >interesting guy with a mind full of interesting views on various
 >issues. I do not agree with a few of them. Maybe more than a
 >few. So what? By the same token, he doesn't agree with mine.

We're discussing Mr. Gersten's behavior in regard to Barry
Greenwood and CAUS Jim. Not his right to believe in whatever he
chooses to believe in. New Age or not.

As I said in my original, Gersten can say anything he wants to,
this is America. If he wants to take a viable and potentially
powerful grass roots/public vehicle and turn it into a New Age
church (and he's able to pull it off) then fine.

But, you should acknowledge and realize that; the people who
were there first, (original members of CUAS under Barry
Greenwood) were there for an entirely different purpose, and
they don't have to like what he did to Barry and CAUS or even
Mr.Gersten himself and his tactics. You can defend Gersten's
rights to hold any beliefs he wants to, I agree with that. But
the circumstances surrounding his take-over and ruination of
CAUS are defenseless unless you are;

a.   just completely unfamiliar with the circumstances
      surrounding this specific incident. (Currently under
      discussion)

b.   you're simply talking through your hat because you know
      nothing about what the incident in question.

  or,

c.   you're being 'contrary' for its own sake.

As a former subscriber to CAUS I am outraged that _anyone_ would
defend what Gersten did to Barry and to CAUS. In most cases it
pays to do your homework before jumping to the defense of
someone without knowing all the details of what is being
discussed. It's almost like you don't read what is being
written. Royce is strong in his criticism of Gersten but I
wouldn't catagorize it as "reaming" him!

Just to set your mind at ease:

Mr. Gersten can believe whatever he wants to and, he can do
whatever he wants to with CAUS. What you're hearing are the
complaints and laments of those who knew and respected Barry and
his work, and who supported CAUS as it originally existed. Some
people are genuinely and justifyably pissed at what happened,
and Mr. Gersten's role in it. You can try to 'twist the taffy'
by calling it a personal attack on Mr.Gersten's beliefs, but
that's not the case. Maybe you need to read postings twice
before responding Jim. You "react" to non-existent issues.

And.....

like it or not, _some_ of the people in Royce's "Dirtbag" gallery
actually _deserve_ to be there!

A former but oft quoted in absentia "acquaintance,


John Velez

(What is it you call me behind my back? Oh yeah, I remember, I'm
the self-appointed "King of The Abductees!) ;)


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                Sighting Submission from TheUFOConspiracy.com

From: Champ Bradford <mars_180@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:51:14 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:07:29 -0500
Subject: Sighting Submission from TheUFOConspiracy.com

Below is the result of a sighting submission to
theufoconspiracy.com.

It was submitted on Monday, January 1, 2001 at 19:23:40

--------------------------------------

Name: William H.

Date of Actual Experience: May 19, 1966

Approx. time of experience: 1 hour

Location of experience: Lexington, Kentucky

Brief description: Mother Ship Hovering Silently.

Brief description of emotions/feelings: awestruck, powerless

Drugs or Alcohol involved?: No

Experience missing time?: Yes

Approx. time lost: 50 minutes

Personal Contact?: No

Experience this before?: No

Reported to police or officials?: Yes

Age at time of experience: 19

Need help coping: No

Can someone contact you?: Yes

Description of experience: While returning to Lexington on a
balmy spring night in 1966 with four other passengers in an
automobile (including my mother, her mother and my cousin) I
looked up at the sky and thought "I know you're up there" when
all of a sudden we all witnessed a green streak tearing across
the sky at an impossible rate of speed.

The green streak became larger and larger and lit up the whole
neighborhood; as we rounded a corner, there it was!

A magnificent, incredible tier-shaped object of massive size,
all glowing a luminous green; it hovered silently.

We were all awe-struck and sat gazing for what seemed a few
minutes when all of a sudden it took off so fast it appeared to
vanish.

When we got home we realized over an hour had elapsed.

My grandmother (now deceased) went into denial, but my mother
and cousin remember it as I do, just as if it had happened
yesterday.

I have had a deep feeling that something else went on that
night, but have no conscious memory of it.

I called the local paper, and was met with an exasperated
operator who informed me that she had received over 100 calls.

I looked in the paper the next day and there was no mention of
the sighting.

I have in fact had many strange encounters ever since, and
remember strange figures in my room at night when I was a child.

Something is definitely going on.

The government is a pack of liars.

I sincerely hope that your site is not connected in any way to
the Fed; there are many people who need assistance with their
experiences, and do not need further humiliation or debunking.

Thank you.

---------------------------------------------

I encourage you to visit my website:

http://www.theufoconspiracy.com


Thanks,

Champ Bradford


www.theufoconspiracy.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                  NASA's Goldin Thinking Outside of the Box

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 01:09:14 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:07:57 -0500
Subject: NASA's Goldin Thinking Outside of the Box


------------------------------------------------------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Electric Warrior : News January 2, 2001
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0005.htm

------------------------------------------------------------

NASA's GOLDIN THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX

"We didn't lose the Mars Climate Orbiter because we used British
units instead of metric units." NASA administrator Dan Goldin
told readers of Silicon Valley's San Jose Mercury News, "We lost
it because of the failure of the system to catch this very, very
basic error."

Goldin's frank assessment appeared in an article entitled 'The
Search for Intelligent Software', in which he said that
high-assurance software could have prevented NASA's recent Mars
spacecraft losses: "Our software systems need to be
error-tolerant and have the capability to catch such mistakes
and to compensate for them."

The loss of 1992's big-budget Mars Observer, had prompted Goldin
to schedule a series of "faster, better, cheaper" Mars missions,
reasoning that the loss of a single mission might be damaging,
but not catastrophic, to NASA's Mars program.

But, even the most successful of these missions, Pathfinder and
Global Surveyor - still orbiting Mars - were not entirely free
of problems, and when the Climate Orbiter failure investigation
board was assembled in October 1999, Goldin called for systemic
analysis:

"Our systems should be robust enough to detect human and
machine-made errors. The findings may lead to a fundamental
change in the design of our future interplanetary missions,"
said Goldin.

Two months later, the Mars Polar Lander was lost, probably
because spurious signals from the lander legs deployed during
descent gave a false indication that the spacecraft had already
landed, prematurely shutting the engines down. The two
sub-systems had been independently tested.

Followed by a second review team assembled for Mars program
assessment, which resulted in a pair of top-to-bottom NASA
reviews completed last March, Goldin praised the efforts,
saying, "The American people have said loud and clear they
desire a government which costs less and does more."

Acknowledging that NASA's modular approach made development
easier, but hides interdependence, Goldin wrote for the San Jose
newspaper, "This is a very risky proposition in the 'one strike
and you're out' environment of space. That's why our software
architectures must be self-adaptive."

Citing problems with the way software is written today,
including its staggering cost, Goldin said, "Even as our
reliance on software is increasing, the tools we have for
developing and verifying our software are disturbingly
inadequate."

Goldin held out hope that a recent partnership between NASA Ames
Research Center and the University of California will
revolutionize aspects of everyday life and "strengthen the
amazing economic engine that is Silicon Valley."

------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED STORIES

The search for intelligent software
http://cgi.mercurycenter.com/premium/business/docs/soapbox31.htm
(San Jose Mercury News 7-day free archive)

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
January 2, 2001
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this article
or any portion thereof, provided The Electric Warrior is cited
as the source.

Images are created exclusively for the Electric Warrior Website.
They can be downloaded and cached for individual use, but may
not be reproduced or used in any other context without permission.

Web developers, the permanent URL address for this content is:
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0005.htm

eWarrior@electricwarrior.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                      Gersten Gets A Job? About time...

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 01:48:00 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:08:26 -0500
Subject: Gersten Gets A Job? About time...


Read on, I couldn't believe it either. He finally ran out of
money and had to do what most everyone does to support their UFO
research... go to work.

_________________________________________________________________

CAUS COMMENTARY: To Continue or Not to Continue?

As we begin a new millennium, I want to thank all those people
who have supported CAUS in the past as well as the few who
continue to do so in the present.

Three years ago, in January 1998, I resurrected Citizens Against
UFO Secrecy (CAUS) as an Internet-based organization and created
a web site and daily mailing list called "CAUS Updates."

During those three years, CAUS has filed three federal lawsuits
against various agencies of our government in the hope of
learning more about these enigmatic "strangers" in our skies, in
our homes, in our dreams and in our reality.  The lawsuit
against the Department of Defense is presently on appeal and
should be heard toward the end of the year.  During those three
years CAUS has grown from a few hundred members to several
thousands.  The CAUS web site continues to share the most recent
evidence of our contact with another form of intelligence.
"CAUS Updates" has been transformed into "CAUS Highlights" which
continues to be distributed free on a daily basis.

In 1998 I decided to forsake the general practice of law and
focus my energies on the directorship of CAUS.  For over two
years, member contributions, both financial and non-financial,
gift shop orders, and miscellaneous other income have allowed me
to devote more than a considerable amount of time to what once
had merely been a hobby.  Unfortunately these contributions,
except for a handful of loyal supporters, have ceased.  Only 3
members purchased any products from the CAUS gift shop during
the Christmas season. Only 16 members have recently contributed
to the $1-a-month-club.

Thus, two months ago, I decided to accept a position with the
Navajo County Public Defenders Office on a full-time basis.
Though now defending the rights of Native Americans, I will
still maintain my position as the director of CAUS and will
continue to pursue an end to UFO secrecy and champion our right
to know the truth about this intelligence that is interacting
with our species.  I would also like to continue the postings on
the CAUS web site and the distribution of the daily "CAUS
Highlights" as well as the "Non-UFO Sunday" messages.  But that
decision is yours to make for me.

The daily "CAUS Highlights" and "Non-UFO Sunday" messages are
sent to over 5000 people and read by many more.  Though my
"spare" time is now very limited, I would be willing to continue
to distribute the daily e-mails to the entire list if as little
as 10% (500) of the present subscribers join the
$1-a-month-club. Instructions on joining can be found on the
CAUS web site at: http://caus.org/dollar.html

During the past three years I, as well as CAUS, have planted
many UFOlogical seeds.  It appears that it is now time to be
patient and wait for the seeds to germinate, the "phenomenon" to
become re-active and pro-active, and long-prophesied "something"
to happen. In the meantime, in order to support myself, I have
reentered the world of trials and tribulations.  If you, the
CAUS supporters, want me to also continue in the world of the
"ufolawyer" I, along with the CAUS webmaster, will need your
help in return.


Peter A. Gersten

Executive Director
Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS)
"To leave the list, send an Email message to: majordomo@caus.org
with a one line message in the BODY of your email: unsubscribe
causlist"


CAUS
P.O. Box 2443
Sedona, AZ 86339
520-203-0567
http://www.caus.org


_________________________________________________________________

Regards,

Royce J. Myers III
eXpos: The Watchdog of UFOlogy
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind."
eXpos News    http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
UFO Hall o' Shame   http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog
(Dirtbag of the Month for January 2001...A Preview)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

             Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:40:40 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:08:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:03:54 EST
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:57:15 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:20:36 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages

 >><snip>

 >>>The ancient Hebrews (_very_ unlike modern ones) weren't very
 >>>good with numbers. One book of the old Testament has some holy
 >>>circular construction - or maybe a bird bath... I dunno - ten
 >>>cubits in diameter so that it measured 30 cubits round-about.
 >>>Not bad, they were off by a factor of pi/3. Less than a 5%
 >>>error, its still enough to needle the fundamentalists a little
 >>>bit!

 >>Dear Larry, Jim, Roger and Royce:

 >>Had a friend who was a chopper pilot and a fundamentalist
 >>believer in the total correctness of what is printed in his
 >>Bible. I called his attention to this passage, pointing out that
 >>if his helicopter was designed based upon this unerring
 >>engineering principle of the Old Testament, that the rotor
 >>blades would not be fastened to the axle, or whatever that
 >>thingamajig is that sticks up and turns around. He never seemed
 >>to have an answer for this observation.

 >>Oh, well. First Cydonia, now Caus: where's the metaphysics going
 >>to end?

 >Ever heard of "rounding error" and "significant digits"? They
 >didn't have decimals back in Old Testament times and the number
 >of significant digits in a measurement was often just 1 digit.

 >Even today if we had a rounded off diameter of say 10 inches,
 >that means the actual value is anywhere between 9.5 and 10.5
 >inches. If it was 9.549 inches then to 4 significant digits the
 >circumference is exactly 30.00 inches and it is exactly
 >correctly Pi times the Diameter. At 1 Significant Digit there is
 >no error at all given this example.


Hello Brad:

I surfed up the "history of pi" and found about 200 web pages on
Altavista. One of these:

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/math/math9/math9.html

..... had the interesting paragraph:

      "The importance of pi has been recognized for at least
      4,000 years. A History of Pi notes that by 2000 B.C., "the
      Babylonians and the Egyptians (at least) were aware of the
      existence and significance of the constant p," recognizing
      that every circle has the same ratio of circumference to
      diameter. Both the Babylonians and Egyptians had rough
      numerical approximations to the value of pi, and later
      mathematicians in ancient Greece, particularly Archimedes,
      improved on those approximations."

But yes, pi is indeed 3 if only taken to one significant digit.


Best

- Larry Hatch








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

             Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 03:10:14 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:09:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 18:02:40 EST
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >Hi Larry,

 >Maybe you were just being silly, but I kind of doubt Asimov
 >would say something like that that is so demonstrably untrue. A
 >polygon's perimeter cannot be as little as 3.000. It is the
 >inscribed polygon approximation by which we determine the value
 >of Pi (about 3.1416) in the first place - the greater the number
 >of sides the closer we get to the true value. A 6-sided hexagon
 >is not a very good approximation (it is about 3.4641 not 3.000)
 >but one thing we know for sure is that it approaches Pi from
 >above it not below it because angular sides are longer. If we
 >start at the 3-sided triangle and increase the number of sides
 >to approximate Pi we get:

 >3 sides pi = 5.20
 >4 sides pi = 4.00
 >5 sides pi = 3.63
 >6 sides pi = 3.46
 >7 sides pi = 3.37
 >8 sides pi = 3.31
 >etc etc.
 >22 sides pi = 3.163

 >If I recall history of math correctly Archimedes used a 22-sided
 >polygon to make the best approximation of Pi until the
 >Renaissance. It was about 7% too high, not too low.

Hello again Brad:

Pi times the _diameter_ gives circumference. Its the same as
_two_ pi times the radius since the radius is half the diameter.

Draw a hexagon with unit distance (say one inch) out to the
corners. Draw these six radii first, then connect the outer
points to form the hexagon.

All angles are the same... 60 degrees. Hence, all the sides are
of equal length, i.e. one inch. Six sides is six inches.

Divide by the "diameter" (two inches, not one) and you get
exactly 3.00000.....


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 13:05:09 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:09:39 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 23:35:30 -0000

 >I am afraid, Georgina, it actually tells you that most people do
 >not have the patience to deal with the sometimes petty
 >commentary that oozes out of your messages.

Steve was referring to our debate - that includes you Jenny.
 From the amount of private e-mails I'm receiving it is clear
that List members are enjoying this debate.

 >I am getting pretty tired of it myself. Not because I cannot
 >respond or would not happily debate the facts of this case in a
 >friendly way with anyone - but your incessant personalising
 >makes replying very tedious and unrewarding.

Then let's try to debate it more friendly, it is not meant to be
personal, I am simply trying to debate the case, it seems to be
you who keeps bringing up your personal research, and if I feel
that there are errors I should be able to point these out, as
you have done with my research. It works both ways Jenny.

 >So no sceptics are running away from the case I suspect. But
 >they may be running away from you.

They are also avoiding questions from others on this List, so
that is a lame excuse.

 >1: Despite my going to extreme lengths to make clear that I am
 >NOT a skeptic in the way that you keep alleging about this case
 >- you use this smarmy tone and call me a skeptic yet again in
 >your latest message. I doubt many on this list are unaware of my
 >truly open minded views on this case . So why do you harp on
 >this?

 >But it means I might as well give up trying to have any kind of
 >reasonable conversation with you.

I believe I pointed out that you are rather more "on the fence",
but I have to admit that judging by your latest work on this
particular case (The UFOs That Never Were), and your recent
posts as well as the article/reviews or whatever on my book, I
had judged you to be very much leaning towards to the sceptical.
However, if this offends you then let's drop it and concentrate
on why you think the lighthouse theory is still a possibility.

 >2:  You keep implying to people on this list that I make claims
 >and/or don't credit others. To cover a couple of the things you
 >refer to  in your other message to this list today that are way
 >off beam - I fully credit Nick Redfern - as you have to be well
 >aware. I cite Paul Begg as the original source of the radar
 >story - always - again as you must well know (although he didn�t
 >pursue it with the witness as I did - after Paul passed the
 >witness on to me).

No I do not keep implying this Jenny. I have mentioned it only
the once to point out that Nick Redfern had uncovered important
data regarding the radar. You failed to have taken this into
consideration when you pointed to your own research claiming
that no evidence was available to suggest the Rendlesham UFOs
were tracked. Nick actually received this confirmation from the
RAF. That was the point of the response. Now, I know you credit
Redfern in your book, but why then did you not take this
important information into consideration when you wrote on this
list that there appeared to be no evidence.

 >3:  You also make well disguised smears - like your nowty aside
 >about the matter of Gordon Levitt's dog. Here you suggest that I
 >promote the claim that the UFO killed it and you have discovered
 >the truth that it didn�t  but chose not to expose me as being the
 >origin of this false story.

At no time did I say you were the origin of the story, but
merely that you have promoted this story.

 >What rubbish.

 >I have reported exactly what the truth is on this matter and you
 >are just misleading people to suggest that I do not.

 >Heres what I actually report on the dog story

 >(From out of the Blue) (p.5) 'As for the dog. The following
 >morning it was still nervous and irritable. The vet suggested a
 >recurrence of an old medical problem, or perhaps it had been
 >poisoned. The vet didn�t know about the UFO, of course. ...Early
 >in the new year the dog's condition continued to deteriorate, as
 >Gordon struggled to forget what they had both witnessed. It was,
 >of course, just a coincidence. There could be no connection.
 >True a UFO (whatever a UFO might be) had to be powered by
 >something. Perhaps a radiation field. Possibly this had made the
 >dog go sick. Maybe... A long list of maybes. Compounded by only
 >two certainties. Gordon had seen that glowing mushroom in the
 >sky. And within weeks his faithful dog was dead - exact cause
 >unknown.'

 >Now that's the story as it was reported to me from the witness
 >first hand when I met him in his home three years (not 20 years)
 >later. Gordon did not seek to connect the death with the UFO -
 >reporting the vets comments about what he had assumed to be the
 >cause of death. But he raised the issue of the death of the dog
 >with me. And I truthfully recorded the story as he described to
 >me.

 >But - of course - a UFO that was supposedly irradiated (if Halts
 >testimony is correct) did fly just feet over the top of this
 >dogs head - so there obviously is at least the possibility of a
 >link here. Especially given the sighting just a couple of miles
 >away down the beach at Sizewell where a UFO very similar to that
 >seen by Gordon scared a dog and its postman owner and left
 >severe after effects on both.

 >Even so what surely matters in all of this is that I properly
 >advised my readers of the facts surrounding this matter - such
 >as the vets opinion as to cause of death - and told them what
 >the true situation was without forcing onto them the view that
 >the dog was killed by the UFO.

 >So how can you allege that you have now exposed my false claims?

I questioned Gordon Levitt and he was very annoyed that the
death of his dog had been linked to the UFO sighting, which he
said was nothing to do with it.

Now, I am aware that people change their minds and claim they
didn't say this or didn't say that... but

Levitt also signed an affidavit (don't have the file handy at
this moment, it was 1983/4) signed also by a solicitor, but this
detailed document does not mention the death of his dog as being
related to the UFO encounter. Brenda Butler and Dot Street told
me independently that the dog's death had no connection to the
UFO, and as you worked closely with the researchers, I could not
understand why you always wrote this story into the case. Maybe
you were not aware that it had no connection.

In the 'UFOs That Never Were' published in 2000, you state on
the first page of your chapter entitled "Rendle Shame Forest":


Referring to the UFO:

'A dog was even killed by its deadly energy trail.'


Best wishes,

Georgina Bruni


"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the
Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni. Published
by Sidgwick & Jackson Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk
Countries outside UK: www.netstoreusa.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                               Bowden's UFO CD

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 13:27:40 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:10:02 -0500
Subject: Bowden's UFO CD


Happy New Year to you all,

With reference to the free CD I offered regarding Chris Martin's
footage.

It has been about a month since I first made the offer, I guess
anyone who was interested would have been in touch by now.

The offer has now closed.

UK requests were sent out before Christmas and should have been
received by now.

Overseas request's were sent out this morning (Jan 2).

I would appreciate a short mail from all concerned confirming
delivery of the CD.


All the best,

Dave Bowden








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

               Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In

From: Anthony Chippendale <anthonyc@ufon.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:00:50 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:10:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 18:36:25 EST
 >Subject: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In 2000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >No, I'm sorry, the Brown device is _not_ "identical" to the
 >Adamski hoax saucer. It is in fact just simply similar. It is
 >not fair or responsible scholarship to suddenly announce such an
 >alleged "discovery" and then not reveal there have been many
 >attempted explanations of the Adamski hoax and fail to explain
 >why each one was wrong and why this new one is right. I recall
 >there have been comparisons of the Adamski saucer to a chicken
 >brooder heat lamp and a vacuum cleaner apparatus, among others.

Hello Brad,

I'm sorry but I _have_ to disagree with you on that point. The
photos are quite clearly, in my _opinion_, _identical_. See for
yourself at:

http://www.ufon.org/html/photo_comparison.html

This is not simply an "attempted" explanation of the Adamski
hoax, it is a _very_ good explanation, which I happen to
believe. As I have said before, I think it is more than likely
that Adamski got his photos from Townsend Brown, either in
collaboration with Brown, or without his knowledge.


Regards,

Anthony Chippendale

The UFO Network UK
http://www.ufon.org.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 2

                   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni

From: "Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:27:43 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:10:45 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 23:36:14 -0000

 >Georgina - do you never let up?


No

 >And how can you argue I was being unfair when I even revised
 >this estimate to November - taking it further away from the
 >sightings in Rendlesham - as soon as I discovered that the
 >witness had now mentioned October as a possibility AFTER
 >Strange but True had aired?

It was good that you did this, even though it was a sceptical
look at the case and of course Scurrah's November incident would
not now be connected. I'm not saying you corrected it for that
reason BTW.

 >Sorry - Georgina - but you seem to be looking for something here
 >that I doubt anyone else can see in what were fair and proper
 >comments on the dating of this incident.

Well, you say Scurrah mentioned it could have been
November/December and he says he told you he wasn't sure of the
month but it was either late October or early November. He even
gave an interview to UFO Magazine soon after the programme in
order to make his point.

We'll have to leave it at that then.

 >>It would help if you used their correct names when discussing
 >>people in your books.

 >And it might help if you read the reasons as to why correct
 >names are sometimes not used. Or do you consider it perfectly
 >okay to blab witness names in public even if they don't want this
 >or if it then might compromise their status in the military?

I cannot argue with you on that point, you are correct. So what
you saying is that Scurrah asked not to be named even though I
understand he retired in the late 1980s.

 >>So are you saying it was David Alpin's decision to link it to
 >>the Rendlesham Forest case?

 >Ultimately, yes, of course it was. He made the programme and I
 >merely advised. Other things of less than clear cut relevance
 >were included too that I personally would not have done (such as
 >the stuff about a government study at the Pentagon).

Well, this of course is TV. It is sad though that the programme
was considered to be an accurate account of the incident. That
really just leaves the witness accounts. But if you recall, in
my book I mention that according to Brenda Butler, Halt
discretely talked (they were separated during filming) to
Penniston and Burroughs regarding which story they were going to
do. We can all speculate on what that might mean. I have since
learnt (after publication) from Penniston that Halt pointed out
the wrong landing site during the Strange But True? filming. I
suppose it had been a long time.....

 >All I am saying is that David clearly knew what Mal Scurrah was
 >alleging as regards to the dating of his incident - its right
 >there in the on camera interview that he gave with David stood
 >just feet away. And equally in neither David's presence nor mine
 >did Mal Scurrah ever say - you know my sighting is a completely
 >different case. It has nothing to do with Rendlesham.

But at the same time he did not say it was.

 >But you seemed to be implying that I had misled David Alpin into
 >thinking that the two events were clearly related and that is
 >absolute rubbish.

I was going by what Scurrah told me personally, his published
interview in UFO magazine and what Brenda and Dot told me. I did
not imply that you had mislead David Alpin, I was trying to
understand why his story has been linked to Rendlesham Forest
December 1980 incident.

 >>You were asked to use 'fairly vague words like around the same
 >>time'. Don't you consider that to be going against what you
 >>always preach about the media and UFO research in general?

 >Stop being deliberately silly. 'Around the same time' was pretty
 >much word for word what Mal Scurrah had first told me. So in no
 >way was I misleading anyone by using such words. All I am saying
 >is that I was asked not to go into detail about the uncertainty
 >over dating in the book - but in no way would I ever - and
 >clearly did I ever - say anything other than what the witness
 >was himself reporting - or hide that we had no assurance about
 >the date. I just did not make a big issue out of it.

This is not being silly Jenny.

This is just my point. It is a big issue because it implied that
Scurrah's event was directly linked to the Rendlesham Forest
incident. The documentary and the book were specifically about
that case and by not pointing out that there was uncertainty
about when his event occurred, people would most certainly
believe that it was connected. Hence Rendlesham had taken on
another myth!

 >So why on earth are you making a big issue out of all this?

So we can cut through the fiction and get to the facts. Whatever
the case may be regarding Malcolm Scurrah, I think we can now
settle for the fact that his event was not connected with the
1980 December Rendlesham Forest incident. And that is all I
wanted confirmed.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to debate this Jenny


Best wishes,

Georgina Bruni


"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the
Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni. Published
by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk
Countries outside UK: www.netstoreusa.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 3

                         Fantasy Prone Personality?

From: Minna Laajala - UFO-Finland <ufofinland@saunalahti.fi>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:22:35 +0200
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:12:57 -0500
Subject: Fantasy Prone Personality?


Heya folks!


Could you help me with a huge and challenging problem?

I was reading a book called 'Alien Discussion', and found an
article from Keith Basterfield about quite a new (= ????)
phenomenon called 'Fantasy Prone Personality'.

Could you tell me where I could reach for more information about
this phenomenon?

Does anyone, who has been studying or in other ways been contact
with this phenomenon have a e-mail address, web-pages, or even a
snail-mail address?

Is there any published material in newspapers etc?

And most of all: what is your own, personal opinion? Does this
phenomenon really exist?


Please note, we have a new e-mail-address!


Minna L from Finland

ufofi@ufofinland.net
ufofinland@saunalahti.fi








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 3

                   Barry Greenwood Alive and Well at UHR!

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:47:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:13:18 -0500
Subject: Barry Greenwood Alive and Well at UHR!


Hi Jan, hi All,

Man, it's really been too long since I last visited the Project
1947 website. I've been yammering so much about Greenwood and
CAUS on the List recently that I thought I'd add a little
shameless plug for Barry's latest venture, The UFO Historical
Review. Jan provided a few links in his last post:

Greenwood archives:

http://www.project1947.com/shg/grnwood.htm#bibs

"UFOs:  Government Involvement, Security and Documents"

http://www.project1947.com/bg/ufogov.htm

He continue to publish the "U. F. O. Historical Revue"
back issues are  available at CUFON

http://www.cufon.com

The third link (above) will take you to UFO Historical Review
archives. Check it out. Anyone interested in subscribing and
supporting Barry Greenwood in his work can do so at the CUFON
website.

Thanx again Jan. It really is good to know that a guy like Barry
is still 'alive & kickin'! <LOL>

Barry: The check for my subscription is -in the mail- dude!  ;)


Regards,

John Velez

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 3

                Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 15:56:20 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:13:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -


 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 03:10:14 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 18:02:40 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Hi Larry,

 >>Maybe you were just being silly, but I kind of doubt Asimov
 >>would say something like that that is so demonstrably untrue. A
 >>polygon's perimeter cannot be as little as 3.000. It is the
 >>inscribed polygon approximation by which we determine the value
 >>of Pi (about 3.1416) in the first place - the greater the number
 >>of sides the closer we get to the true value. A 6-sided hexagon
 >>is not a very good approximation (it is about 3.4641 not 3.000)
 >>but one thing we know for sure is that it approaches Pi from
 >>above it not below it because angular sides are longer. If we
 >>start at the 3-sided triangle and increase the number of sides
 >>to approximate Pi we get:

 >>3 sides pi = 5.20
 >>4 sides pi = 4.00
 >>5 sides pi = 3.63
 >>6 sides pi = 3.46
 >>7 sides pi = 3.37
 >>8 sides pi = 3.31
 >>etc etc.
 >>22 sides pi = 3.163

 >>If I recall history of math correctly Archimedes used a 22-sided
 >>polygon to make the best approximation of Pi until the
 >>Renaissance. It was about 7% too high, not too low.

 >Hello again Brad:

 >Pi times the _diameter_ gives circumference. Its the same as
 >_two_ pi times the radius since the radius is half the diameter.

 >Draw a hexagon with unit distance (say one inch) out to the
 >corners. Draw these six radii first, then connect the outer
 >points to form the hexagon.

 >All angles are the same... 60 degrees. Hence, all the sides are
 >of equal length, i.e. one inch. Six sides is six inches.

 >Divide by the "diameter" (two inches, not one) and you get
 >exactly 3.00000.....


Hi Larry,

You are right as to _circumscribed_ circles but not as to
_inscribed_ circles and I should have explained better. In
Asimov's remark about what if Pi turned to exactly 3.000 by
natural law then all our wheels and circles would turn to
hexagons, who is to say natural law would prefer circumscribed
circle polygons to inscribed circle polygons? In any event, Pi
represents a relationship of diameter to circumference of a
_Circle_ not a Hexagon, so Pi cannot be 3.000.


Best regards,

Brad








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 3

                    Filer's Files #1 -- 2001 - Truncated

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:13:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:13:57 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #1 -- 2001 - Truncated

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:53:03 EST
Subject: Filer's Files #1 -- 2001
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


Filer's Files #1 -- 2001, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
January 2, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Webmaster
Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com Majorstar@Aol.com.


HAPPY HOLIDAYS AND A MERRY MILLENNIUM

UFO SIGHTINGS HAVE BEEN FEW IN DECEMBER -- But good UFO sighting
reports came in from New York, North Carolina, Florida, Indiana,
California, Washington, Chile and Turkey. Although there are
thousands of reports each year, the last five years have shown
that December and the Christmas Holidays have the least number
of reports. Perhaps people are too busy to report sightings
during this period, but more likely the UFO aircrews go on
vacation. Polls show that 7% of the total population have seen
UFOs, but only a small percentage are actually reported.

As we start the new Millennium, it is time to expose the fact
that alien, and most likely extraterrestrial presence has been
with us for many thousands of years. Today our newest technology
such as radar and satellites are picking up the UFOs on a
regular basis. There is also good evidence that UFOs may provide
a safety hazard to our aircraft. Important aircraft accidents
such as TWA Flight 800 and EgyptAir Flight 900 have numerous
reports of UFOs in the vicinity. Jeff Challender has put
together raw video footage from space shuttles orbiting Earth.
These show incontrovertible evidence that the NASA downloads
show UFOs moving at tremendous speed both in our atmosphere and
in space. I personally feel many of the ancient historical and
religious texts also tell the story of our visitors. Ancient
Sumerian, Indian, Greek, and Biblical texts reveal that our
Earth was visited by angelic messengers flying in strange craft
that are remarkably similar to those seen today.

Human nature has tendency to reject and bury those factors that
might be a threat. Politicians, scientists and high ranking
military appear to have the most to lose if it turns out these
unidentified flying objects are manned by non human
intelligence. Most of our readers realize that some UFOs may be
natural phenomenon or classified military aircraft. However, it
seems doubtful that humans have developed craft that can fly at
100,000 mph, but we should realize that we may have been fooled
on occasion by clever counter-intelligence efforts to hide new
aircraft.

Our world still faces major environmental problems in the new
Millennium. New diseases, an energy shortage and the threat of
international terrorism all point to difficult times ahead.
President Bush needs all the help he can get to overcome these
serious problems in the future. It will be interesting to see if
the new president is willing to publicize the UFO presence. His
father and President Clinton appeared willing to ignore the
problem.

Less than a hundred years ago the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty
Hawk, and now we are getting ready to visit other planets. For
the first time in history, we present a threat to other
intelligence's by venturing forth to other planets. The future
of our civilization may depend on the actions we take regarding
the visitors. We must learn more about the visitors who could
cleverly exploit us, using religion, sex or the entertainment
industry against us. There is evidence in the past, they
attempted to give us lessons on how to live as brothers. It is
time we matured and find ways to eliminate hatreds and wars as a
means of settling disputes. There may be accidental encounters
between the visitors and us. The fact they have not simply
destroyed us indicates they choose to keep us alive. Until we
know their plans and motives we must gain intelligence
information on their intentions.

During the last Millennium many great men have come and gone.
Leaders like Winston Churchill, Roosevelt, scientists such as
Einstein, Kepler, Tesla, and Bell. Its interesting that most of
the greatest men also had a curiosity about UFOs. In reflecting
about the past, I thought about those who had left there mark on
my life. A great actor who died this year, had a great effect on
me. I met Sir Alec Guinness in London and he was gracious and
friendly. He was in my opinion the true superstar of the "Star
Wars" movies. I think he knew there is a God the Creator or
Father of the universe when he stated with a sparkle in his eye,
"May the Force be with you!"

ASTROALERT: METEOR SHOWER TO WELCOME 2001

Periodically our earth travels through parts of the sky that are
more dangerous because of potential asteroids. As the Sun moves
through the galaxy it pulls the planets along with it. Once each
year we circle the sun, but we appear to be moving into an area
where there is more debris in space. Asteroids are relatively
dense bodies that range in size from 1 to 760 kilometers. An
asteroid or even the smaller meteoroids could cause severe
damage to the Earth. It is fortunate that we now have the
ability for space travel and an increasing ability to spot
danger in our skies. Tim Edward's writes, " One of the strongest
annual meteor showers will peak over North America during the
morning hours of Wednesday, January 3, 2001." The Quadrantid
meteor shower has the capability to produce 100 meteors per hour
at the time of maximum activity if viewed from dark rural sites
away from any sources of light pollution. Quadrantid meteors
should be seen in a remote region of the sky near the
intersections of Draco, Hercules, and Ursa Major. Gary Kronk has
provided a finder chart at:
http://comets.amsmeteors.org/meteors/showers/quadrantids.html.
Thanks to Tim Edwards tedwards@tcia.net

NEW YORK GLOWING SPHERE

NORTH MASSAPEQUA -- On December 2, 2000, 37 year old male and a
39 year old female were driving north on Hicksville Road in
Nassau County. Suddenly a bright green light was spotted by both
of them at exactly the same time. The witness said, "It would
have appeared to have been an airplane or such, except for the
fact that it was going straight down at rapid speed and then
disappeared." The speed was definitely greater than an object
falling from the sky. The object was directly in front of us at
11:15 PM and we only saw the object descending. We knew it
cannot have been fireworks or ground-launched incendiary device.
We looked down a few streets to see if we could see it where it
may have landed. Witness 2 believes it landed, and quite
possibly the light went out just before landing while moving to
the northeast. Witness 1 believes it disappeared from view --
perhaps the light went out but it was still there. The object
was in sight for about a minute. Less than 5 minutes later 3 or
4 helicopters were circling the neighborhood. Thanks to the
MUFON's Worldwide UFO Database. http://www.mufon.com/ 1 (800)
UFO-2166

NORTH TONAWANDA -- Roger Hoeft III writes that back in about
1978-79 my brother and his wife told me of strange goings on
that were occurring behind their home in Western New York. One
evening in the fall, after dark, we observed a ship gliding over
an empty field behind their home. This time it was observed from
the side and had the "cigar shape" that is, long and not too
high. There were several large picture windows, that I could see
with binoculars. I could only see light in the windows. We
watched as this one glided along at about 10 mph or so, and then
it turned on it's side and took off at great acceleration
towards the north. I presumed that it was an experimental
aircraft, since the Niagara Falls Air Force base was only about
10 miles away. Possibly this is where the craft I saw in '98
came from. Thanks to: Roger Hoeft III

NORTH CAROLINA OBLONG UFO SPOTTED

FAYETTEVILLE -- On November 30, 2000, Patricia Carter, her
husband Bob, and her sister-in-law, Judy were driving when both
ladies saw an object moving slowly across the sky at around 9:45
PM. Bob, thought it was a blimp. But I said, 'No way!' We saw
red lights in an elongated pattern, on or around the perimeter
of an oblong object. The object appeared to move at the speed a
blimp would move, but it was too elongated to be a blimp. There
didn't appear to be any other lights visible." "Then Bob stopped
to speak with a man at Gray's Creek," near Fayetteville, NC. We
were quite curious and persuaded Bob to turn the car around and
follow the lights. By the time the object was nearly out of
sight and traveling along north of the river. We lost sight of
the object because of a line of trees that obscured our vision."
See the Fayetteville Observer for December 2, 2000. Thanks to
Stefan Duncan of AUFON.

FLORIDA FLYING SAUCER SIGHTED

CORAL SPRINGS - On December 23, 2000, a 43 year old educator saw
a saucer shaped object with a dome at an altitude of 500 feet or
less. The object was north of Coral Springs, only 250 feet away
from the observers position at 8:00 AM. The saucer flew back and
fourth at high speed and appeared metallic. Its lights dimmed
and eventually disappeared. The witness said, "I felt helpless,
but I got a picture of it, but it turned out blurry." There was
rain and a cloud cover. Thanks to the MUFON's Worldwide UFO
Database. http://www.mufon.com/ , 1 (800) UFO-2166

INDIANA SHINY METALLIC UFO SIGHTED

MICHIGAN CITY -- The witness a 26 year old male was walking in
Dunes National Park on December 21, 2000. When he got to the top
of Mount Baldy at 8:45 PM, he looked down and noticed a shiny,
metallic like tent sitting on the ground about fifty feet away.
It had a dome with appendages. The witness states, "It sat there
for about two minutes, then began whining, and finally took off
at an incredible speed, making a high-pitched whining sound." I
also noticed a strange smell. The object changed color to a
bright red and finally fiery red heading higher and finally too
far away to see. I looked at my watch, noticed that roughly two
hours had passed. My memory and motor skills were effected by
the incident. I had involuntary actions that included paralysis
and a rash. Thanks to the MUFON's Worldwide UFO Database.

MICHIGAN INVESTIGATION OF FILMED UFO

DEARBORN -- A UFO video clip was filmed on Ford Road on
September 5, 2000, of an odd bright light in the northeast sky
at 6:50 AM. The object was only a few degrees above the horizon
and the Sun had not come up yet. The witness pulled into the new
Visteon building's parking lot and started filming. At first he
thought it may be a cloud, but it actually sat motionless and
then slowly moved to the southeast. The video shows a "ribbed"
disk shaped form which appears underneath the
"illuminated/reflecting" upper section of the object. The video
and other UFO investigations can be seen at this excellent web
site. http://members.home.net/tattoo89/UFO_1_Backup-1-1.mpg

NEW MEXICO WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE

OROGRANDE -- MUFON researcher Tony Rullan writes regarding Fred
Wilcoxson's assertion last week in your files that, White Sands
Missile Range (WSMR) has alleged underground bases. I tried to
see them from the top of the mountains (in public lands) west of
Orogrande. One day from 10 AM to 2 PM, I and two other MUFON
members saw from the highest peak, that 30 people went into a
tent west of Orogrande. I presume that the tent had an
underground entrance since it was too small for that many
people. Then a black helicopter landed and one man got off and
walked into the tent. The tent was a red inflatable type of tent
(not a normal tent). It looked like those kiddy tents build for
kids to jump in. Anyway, I did not see any airstrip or airport
for planes. We did see a whole bunch of helicopters (old types)
to the west of Orogrande (nothing suspicious here) and south of
where this tent was located. While I lived in El Paso, I met a
lady who worked as secretary in an underground base in WSMR. The
base she worked at, though, was on the East side of the range
close to the Organ Mountains. My friend Wayne, once ran into
another underground facility on the northern end of the range,
by the Oscura Mountains. He saw all the air ducts from above. He
does have permission to go into the range. With regard to Fred
Willcoxon's claim of discs flying out of a base near Orogrande,
I doubt this but anything is possible since WSMR is huge. Thanks
to Tony Rullan

ARIZONA UNIDENTIFIED OBJECTS

PINAL COUNTY -- I live in a remote area of the San Tan
Mountains. I have had several sightings over the last three
years always when there was no moon. There is no electrical
service in the area, so there is no light interference. At the
time, I spent almost every evening outside enjoying the stars
and the quiet. From within the mountains I observed a
helicopter, sometimes two that followed a large object closely.
It was completely dark with no lights, but made a strange sound.
I am familiar with aircraft and turbine engines, but these are
very quiet and have a strange sound. I assumed that it was a new
experimental aircraft from a facility within the San Tans
Mountains. Often these craft headed to Sacaton, where there is a
very strange facility surrounded by orchards on the Indian
Reservation. After finding this facility I became intrigued,
because it is a very odd facility. I am not claiming that it is
alien, but the facility and these sightings are interesting and
may worthwhile. Thanks to the MUFON's Worldwide UFO Database.
http://www.mufon.com/

CALIFORNIA UFO SHOWS UP EACH YEAR

SANTA BARBARA -- This letter was written to Dr. Leir. " On
December 17, 2000, my friend and I were on the roof when he saw
an object in the sky. The object was almost straight up in the
sky overhead, and about the size of Venus, but looked metallic
from a reflection of the sun. Atmospheric distortion was
evident, when comparing it to aircraft flying in the area. We
assume the object was at a higher altitude. Looking through
binoculars, I saw a puff of smoke or vapor from the UFO. We both
lost sight of the object when it split into three separate
smaller ones, and the total brightness went down. It split from
one to two and from two to three. (X to x    x to x) The split
off flew north east. When I moved I lost them in the field of
view. We viewed the object for about 7 minuets, just before 4:50
PM. This object has shown itself each of the past going back to
1992, during the Holidays. It has been witnessed by many
individuals and studied by MUFON. Thanks to James Brandt and Dr.
Leir.

WASHINGTON FLYING FLASHING LIGHTS

SEATTLE -- On December 23, 2000, four witnesses noticed strange
flashing lights. A 34 year old witness is now in the military,
his 33 year old wife and 13 their year old son were driving to
Tacoma. Upon entering the Seattle city limits around 8:00 PM,
they saw what looked like a flying police car's lights up in the
sky. The lights were within visual range of a large commercial
aircraft. The flashing lights came from the east and accelerated
suddenly for about a full second, increasing from helicopter
speed to full throttle jet fighter speed. It took about 20
seconds to cover the distance to the coast. Once over the water,
the flashing lights made a 180 degree turn and returned half the
original flight path. It then made a 90 degree turn toward the
South and moved quickly out of sight. It was 500 to 1000 feet in
altitude. The object was visible for several minutes. The object
moved from 500 feet to one mile away before disappearing. Thanks
to the MUFON's Worldwide UFO Database.

CHILE UFOs SIGHTED AGAIN

There have been a series of sightings in Chile's 2nd Region in
recent months. Local researcher Jaime Ferrer reports that a
luminous object with an almost-rhomboidal configuration was seen
on Monday, December 18, 2000, at 22:30 hours in the area known
as Ojo de Apache, two kilometers west of Calama. The witness
Mrs. Maria Angelica was walking home on a road with no lighting
in the area when she saw the UFO. She lives in terror, because
every night she hears violent stomping on her rooftop that she
feels are related to the UFO. She claims, her animal-owning
neighbors have lost many
animals to the intruders. What is 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 3

                             My Favorite Martian

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:25:14 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:14:21 -0500
Subject: My Favorite Martian


Ray Walston, my favorite Martian, has died at 86.

Mr. Walson was the lovable ET on the popular 1960s television
show, "My Favorite Martian". In the show his co-star was actor
Bill Bixy. The Martian figure wore two "bug" antennas and spent
most of the episodes trying to hide his identify from
Earthlings.

Uncle Martin once related that after a few episodes he thought,
"What am I doing here" I'm running around with two pieces of
wire sticking out of my head."

A rational being from Mars, after all. Well, well, I'll be
darned.


Clear skies,

Bob Young









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 3

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 18:26:39 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:14:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -


PART 2

Easton on Feb 3, 1999:

The MoD presumably also now appreciates how it can be proven ...
that Col. Halt's confirmed bearing for the 'UFO' he witnessed
was exactly where Orfordness lighthouse stood and that he placed
the lighthouse where in fact the beam from Shipwash lightship
could be seen.

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/newslet3.htm
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/feb/m03-017.shtml

(The above is one of those subtly snide commentaries by Easton
about how Col Halt couldn't get his lighthouses straight, and as
we've seen that is a nonsense based on fabrications made by
Easton in the interview quote.)

Easton on Dec. 9, 1998:

  The main point is that in the 'Rendlesham forest' case, the
  Orford Ness lighthouse is proven beyond any dispute, from the
  original witness statements, to have been sufficiently
  deceptive that a beacon light was followed for some two miles
  before being recognised as such. This was known all along,
  though never revealed.....

  Col. Halt's manifest misidentification of the lighthouse merely
  adds to the reasons why 'Rendlesham' has little, if any,
  remaining trustworthiness as evidence for nocturnal
  extraterrestrial visitations.

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/dec/m09-009.shtml

Easton on Sept 13, 1998:

  ... he should realise that the original witness statements
  recently uncovered have proven that the three US Air Force
  security police officers who first observed 'strange lights',
  pursued an unidentified light for some TWO MILES, before
  realising it was the 'beacon light' from a local landmark.
  [Easton's capitals in the original.]

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/sep/m13-013.shtml

So this case has all along been a fight between the Lighthouse
Theory and the UFO, ever since a newspaper first published
Thurkettle's Lighthouse Theory in October 1983 (according to
Georgina, thus Ridpath was not the first to publish the theory).


 >This is an extremely complex set of sightings during which many
 >witnesses over several days saw lots of curious things and some
 >of them - as time has revealed - are gradually being
 >established as having mundane explanations.

 >Once that is accepted one has to - in all honesty - carefully
 >assess all the data and concede the possibility that much more
 >of this case is potentially explicable than we might like to
 >think.

 >That is my stance - basically that all is potentially
 >resolvable, some parts have been revealed as almost certainly
 >now being resolved and whilst I personally think that some parts
 >do remain that are not successfully resolved by the skeptics
 >without bending and twisting too much of ther evidence it would
 >be foolish to deny that possibility exists and so it is
 >necessary to ask ourselves unpalatable questions.

 >Now to some of you my doing this may be regarded as skepticism
 >or even heresy. To me it is merely true objectivity. You can use
 >whatever name you like to define it but it will not prevent me
 >from being convinced it is the course that we have to adopt to
 >properly pursue UFO investigations.

 >>With regard to the lighthouse theory, stars, mirages, lightships
 >>etc, the evidence I produce against this is remarkable. Here's
 >>just some of the factual arguments against these theories.

 >I don't have the time to here discuss every point in minute
 >detail - and in any case some of your points are my own points
 >that I have previously made in my books and articles arguing FOR
 >the case (things you seem to forget I have been doing for 19
 >years!). So I am not going to answer them just by saying - 'I
 >already said that in such and such a place ' - because anyone
 >familiar with my writing on the case can judge that for
 >themselves.

 >But here are a few observations.

 >>1. Witnesses, such as Cabansag, who has never spoken before, but
 >>insists that the witness statement was not written or typed by
 >>him. He was just told to sign it. He was too scared to disobey
 >>that order.

 >Yes, but the point is not whether he actually typed it up it but
 >if the USAF deliberately made him lie in those words.

Two statements claim a physical impossibility -- a 2-mile chase
of the lighthouse. Doesn't that indicate that at least the
2-mile-lighthouse-chase parts are deliberate lies? Especially
since those parts are also now denied by the witnesses?

 >Surely, if the statement is basically a summary of what happened
 >then the above is largely irrelevant. If its an outright lie
 >then why are these witnesses not taking these statements to
 >congress and saying en masse - we were forced by our own
 >government to sign deliberately fictitious statements? After all
 >if there are half a dozen of these witnesses and they all stick
 >together with the eyes of the UFO Community closely on them what
 >do they have to fear?

You are grandstanding here and these are cheap shots. You know
perfectly well that average UFO witnesses are nobodies who have
no political power to do anything. And the "UFO Community" is a
joke, with zero power or clout.

 >>Cabansag saw the lighthouse - he also saw the UFO,
 >>which was right there in front of him. He said it was not the
 >>lighthouse!

 >Which is no different from the position others, like John
 >Burroughs, are quoted as saying years ago (eg in Strange But
 >True?) It really means nothing except that the witness saw a
 >light that he identified as a lighthouse and another light that
 >looked different and so he assumes was not the lighthouse.

And so why aren't you challenging the authenticity of Burroughs'
Jan 1981 statement, Jenny, which claims he was fooled by the
lighthouse for 2 miles through the forest and fields?


 >I am not here arguing it was the lighthouse - as I keep on
 >telling you I am not convinced that it was (although it remains
 >a possibility). I am merely saying that a witnesses opinion is
 >only that not proof of anything.

Well, when the witnesses such as Col Halt and his team make
measurements of compass directions to the UFO repeatedly and he
records the data on a real-time audio tape, it no longer becomes
just a "witness opinion" but substantial scientific data.


 >Bear in mind the critical issue over the witness statements
 >here. If they are accurate then they say that the witnesses saw
 >a beacon, were temporarily mislead by it but later recognised it
 >for what it was. They also saw a UFO and that looked different.
 >As such these statements - far from proving the skeptics right -
 >actually support the strangeness of the UFO because they
 >demonstrate that the witnesses clearly did see a lighthouse
 >that same night and whilst it was odd for a time they ultimately
 >figured out what it was.

Again, the statements say they were fooled by the lighthouse for
2 miles of futile pursuit, and they deny that they ever said
that.


 >Problem is, that if you argue that the statements are in fact
 >bogus you undercut this safety net. Because if the witnesses
 >didn�t chase the lighthouse as the statements allege before
 >recognising what it truly was then all their prior verbal
 >testimony (which differs) is the only thing we have to go on.
 >And that makes no reference to seeing the lighthouse AND the
 >UFO, just one light through the trees that they think was a UFO
 >and the skeptics argue might be the lighthouse.

These witnesses do say they saw _both_ UFO and lighthouse (as Halt says on
his sighting), and Cabansag explicitly says it was simultaneously: "While we
walked, each one of us could see the lights. Blue, red, white and yellow.
The [lighthouse] beacon light turned out to be the yellow light."

The solution to your conundrum is rather obvious from the fact
that the Jan 1981 statements claim the physically impossible
2-mile chases of the lighthouse when the lighthouse couldn't be
seen for 2 miles. Therefore, the statements about a 2-mile chase
are fabrications, rendering the rest of the statements suspect
but not necessarily useless or invalid for observational data so
long as caution is used.


 >Regardless of who is right here in this is either/or debate the
 >undermining of the l980 witness statements - curiously enough -
 >serves the skeptics as well as the witnesses, when you think it
 >through.

No it doesn't. See above.

 >In fact if you read my l998 article for IUR in which I discuss
 >at length these newly revealed statements soon after James
 >Easton supplied them to me (is this on line at the CUFOS site
 >Jerry?) - you will note how I used the statements to offer
 >reasons why the witnesses could be defended against the skeptics
 >as opposed to them being part of a negative attack on the case.

 >Have you read that article, Georgina? If not, why not?

 >>2. Penniston, claims he actually walked up and touched the
 >>object. He also did not type his statement and wrote to me
 >>pointing out that it had been summarised. Penniston said it was
 >>not a lighthouse!

 >Much as before. That a witness touched the UFO has been alleged
 >since l983. Its in Sky Crash. So this isn't news. Again Penniston
 >said all of this in 'Strange but True' six years ago. And - as I
 >noted in Crash Landing - he and Burroughs decided to provide
 >only a summary version of their story on the record because
 >Penniston was afraid of the repercussions on his career. So the
 >fact that the written statements - when they appeared - differed
 >from the verbal testimony of the witnesses over the years is
 >not a big deal nor in any way a surprise to me as I put it in
 >print BEFORE those statements surfaced.

But these admitted facts about the incompleteness and thus
inaccuracy of the Jan 1981 statements don't seem to impact your
defense of those statements, Jenny. You keep trying to present
it as either/or, when it's not. The statements have some valid
data and some invalid that are obvious fabrications that have
been inserted. Georgina's work makes this clear.


 >Again I discuss this in my l998 IUR article on the witness
 >statements. So this is not something that progresses us much as
 >you seem to think it does and the fact that you think I ought to
 >be debating something I did already debate in a published
 >article in one of Ufology's top journals over two years ago is
 >curious.

 >>4. I interviewed Lt Fred "Skip" Buran several times. He was the
 >>officer who sent Penniston's patrol out to investigate. He
 >>talked about how they received word from London airport that
 >>there was something unusual tracked on radar. He said that
 >>because of the late hour and holidays, there were no aircraft
 >>flying, so they usually shut down their department at Bentwaters
 >>and left it to Heathrow to deal with.

 >Again the tie in with Heathrow is long known and in print from
 >me. It was also known to my contact at RAF WAtton as they
 >reported their radar sighting upwards to the CAA and here
 >learned of the event at Heathrow. Again I've said all this
 >before.

 >But there is a problem. There was a sighting of a UFO by a civil
 >aircraft heading over Essex and this was reported to the CAA at
 >Heathrow. In retrospect it is fairly apparent that this was most
 >likely to be a sighting of the Cosmos re-entry at just after 9
 >pm on Christmas Night - that is six hours before the main event
 >in Rendlesham. When Bentwaters checked for radar reports (just
 >as did Watton) it is not a surprise that they were told
 >something like - 'actually its been a busy night we had a
 >sighting made at Heathrow too' - even if this is not directly
 >tied to the events at 3 am.

London Heathrow Airport Radar certainly couldn't and didn't
track the Cosmos re-entry over mainland Europe. Might as well
have tried to track Santa Claus and his reindeer.

 >I checked with both Watton and the MoD and both deny any records
 >showing that any radar base - let alone Heathrow - tracked the
 >object seen at 3 am inside the forest. They may be lying, of
 >course, but we cannot assume that. Its equally likely - surely -
 >that any radar tracking made were found not to connect into the
 >Rendlesham case.

I thought the reports were that UFO's were tracked over the
Bentwaters and Woodbridge bases, not over the Rendlesham forest.

 >>5. I also interviewed Nigel Kerr, a radar operator at RAF
 >>Watton, who tracked the UFOs on radar.

 >>Can you track a lighthouse, stars, mirage, lightship!

 >No need to teach me about the alleged events at Watton - as you
 >well know - since this was my first contact with the case in
 >January l981 and its something I have extensively discussed like
 >everywhere.

 >Incidentally, in case anyone is wondering, if Nigel Kerr is this
 >mans real name this is not the same source as my witness from
 >Watton. So there are two independent sources to this incident.
 >That in itself is useful and seems to affirm something did
 >happen - not that I have ever doubted that it did.

 >I am totally aware of the importance of the radar incident and
 >have always stressed it - as Georgina well knows. But we are
 >talking about a radar track of something that is not provably
 >connected directly with the events in Rendlesham - although
 >there are good circumstantial grounds for suspecting the
 >possibility. But you cannot automatically argue that what
 >Watton tracked was what Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston saw.
 >It may, or may not be.

You're confusing two different dates here Jenny. No one in their
right mind would argue that any RAF Watton radar tracking on Dec
28 would have anything to do with the
Burroughs-Cabansag-Penniston sighting on Dec 26. We're supposed
to be talking about radar confirmation of the Halt sighting on
Dec 28.

 >Even then it was only a tracking of an unidentified object. It
 >is obvious that the object seen by - for example - Gordon Levett
 >- or the Webb family - during those few days could not possibly
 >have been the lighthouse. I have never for one second argued
 >otherwise and I doubt any rational skeptic has. These people
 >were locals. They knew the lighthouse. The object they saw moved
 >across an arc of sky and obviously a lighthouse cannot do that
 >under any circumstances. I've said this myself often. Odd that
 >you didn�t notice that in my writings. But then it was a non
 >skeptical point so you may have missed it if that's all you were
 >looking for in my work.

Halt reported the Steady Red Sun-Like UFO moved through an arc of 30-40
degrees of sky and there are compass measurements of at least 10 degrees.

Burroughs was a "local" for 18 months and was quite familiar
with the lighthouse as you yourself admit Jenny. So why don't
the "rational skeptics" admit that?

 >Unfortunately, this is a specious argument anyhow. It sounds
 >plausible but it attacks the wrong issue. Nobody in their right
 >mind suggests that the lighthouse was tracked by Watton radar or
 >was seen by some of the witnesses flying through the air. So
 >arguing as if they do is just plain silly.

Col Halt felt it necessary to point out that lighthouses don't
fly through the air, to counter absurd debunker arguments. He
said "A lighthouse doesn't move through the forest; the
lighthouse doesn't go up and down, it doesn't explode...." It's
the skeptic arguments that are "just plain silly," Jenny.

 >What it doesn't do is demonstrate that what these witnesses saw
 >or what was on radar automatically has no explanation simply
 >because it wasn't a lighthouse. Like I said the lighthouse theory
 >is a huge misnomer because at best its role in the case is
 >partial.

 >>7. Former police officer Dave King who originally thought it
 >>could have been the lighthouse the witnesses saw, has now had
 >>second thoughts. Dave was at a talk I did in Woodbridge recently
 >>and for the benefit of the audience, I took the liberty of
 >>asking him why he had thought it was the lighthouse. He replied
 >>that when he arrived (almost 5 hours after the first reported
 >>sighting) there was nothing to see but the lighthouse beacon.
 >>His full report is in the book.

 >But here - and with Vince Thurkettle - you report what I have
 >said myself on their stories. You chide me for not responding to
 >such points that you are here making - evidently unaware that I
 >have made many of the same comments before myself.

But the difference between you and Georgina, Jenny, is that you
aren't pointing this out to the skeptics when they keep claiming
that the Police confirmed their lighthouse theory.


 >>8. I produced six photographs (see close ups in this month's UFO
 >>magazine) which depict a British police officer and a USAF
 >>captain (both names known to me) examine the landing marks.
 >>These pictures were taken by Master Sergeant Ray Gulyas when he
 >>was tasked with the job of measuring and photographing the
 >>landing site. They clearly prove that there was an
 >>investigation.

 >But who is arguing that there wasn't? Halt and his team were
 >doing field studies at the time of their sighting

 >>Note that none of the sceptics have even
 >>mentioned this important evidence. There's even the scuffed up
 >>area that Halt discusses in his tape. Now, if this was a
 >>lighthouse, then how did it land on the forest floor,

 >This is more daftness. Of course the lighthouse didn�t create
 >landing traces and I bet you cannot find one single comment
 >anywhere from anyone who ever argued otherwise. It does you no
 >credit to try to ridicule the skeptical position by arguing such
 >silly things.

Again, Col Halt has had to make such comments to counter the
debunkers' claims of a "thoroughly comprehensive" Lighthouse
Theory to explain away their sightings (recent Easton posting on
UFO UpDates Aug 17, 2000, and similar comments in the past).
What part of "thoroughly comprehensive" do you not understand
Jenny?

 >But all the photo shows is an area of forest illuminated in some
 >way - by sunlight or a light to aid the photo - and dimly
 >visible in it what might be a 'scruffed up' area. Its very hard
 >to read much into that image as you cannot even be sure this
 >scruffed up area is there. I do agree it is very useful and
 >interesting to have this photo but its hardly altering our
 >perception of the case.

What about Col Halt's observations recorded on tape of seeing
one-inch thick broken branches 15-20 feet high in the trees
overhead?

 >>and if
 >>these were so-called rabbit scratchings how did these animals
 >>manage to leave 3 perfectly formed ground indentations (12ft
 >>triangular) at the very site where all this took place. And why
 >>would USAF officers spend time measuring animal marks?

 >Where on the photo do you see these marks anything like clearly
 >enough to make that judgement? In reality are we not here back
 >to witness perceptions of the testimony of what they saw at the
 >site? Or have you got the photos taken close up of the landing
 >site during Halt's investigation? Now those would be very
 >exciting to see.

 >But otherwise we really are no nearer to making definitive
 >comments about the landing marks than we are from - say -
 >Colonel Halt's plaster cast of these traces. Which are actually
 >MORE useful in that regard than this dim photo. What you say
 >above simply is not arguable - one way or the other - from the
 >photo in your book as far as I can see.

 >>9. I produce a letter from the RAF officer who asked Halt to
 >>write the memo. This letter , addressed to the Ministry of
 >>Defence, is titled "Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOS)". When I
 >>asked Moreland why he had done that, he said, 'That's what Halt
 >>called them, he called them UFOs.'

 >And as you know - and as I reported a decade ago - I talked to
 >Moreland on base in l984, so again none of this is so
 >dramatically new data that I ought to be saying - wowie - to you
 >and thus discussing it.

 >The term UFO is a perfectly sound one for anyone to use in these
 >circumstances since it means 'Unidentified Flying Object' -
 >which is what these lights were. But UFO doesn't mean alien
 >spaceship or indeed anything at all necessarily exotic. And
 >surely you are not implying that what was meant here was that
 >these men clearly saw an exotic object just because the term UFO
 >was used?

 >>Now ask yourself why a Lt
 >>Colonel with the USAF and a Squadron Leader with the RAF, would
 >>go to all the trouble of sending word to Her Majesty's Defence
 >>agency if it was nothing more than a lighthouse or anything as
 >>mundane!

 >Firstly, obviously they probably wouldn't if they thought it was.
 >But nobody is suggesting that they did. Anyhow that doesn't
 >effect at all whether it actually was a lighthouse.

Well it seems apparent that Georgina is responding to the
skeptical arguments based on Chris Armold's allegations that it
was quickly "discovered" that the sightings were due to the
lighthouse and all interest in the case "evaporated." These
kinds of actions by Halt and Moreland prove that interest in the
case hadn't "evaporated" even 2+ weeks later.


 >Lots of strange things were reported to the US government
 >between l947 and l969 - under the cover term UFO - and I am sure
 >everyone on this list agrees that many of them were not 'really'
 >UFOs at all - even though senior military personnel may have
 >honestly forwarded them to Dayton, Ohio on that basis. So this
 >is really a non argument.

 >And, as both Halt and Moreland told me, there was an element of
 >diplomacy involved. The memo was as much to do with putting
 >something on record with the USAF's landlords as the 'chain of
 >command' had been bypassed . After all these events occurred off
 >base and on British land where the USAF really had no clear
 >jurisdiction. So reporting to the MoD - rather after the fact -
 >some 17 days later - may have been more a 'cover our backs'
 >exercise than a genuine desire to reveal all. Certainly it is
 >hard to see it as vital intelligence!

 >After all, if you really believe a spaceship has just invaded a
 >NATO base with nuclear weapons - a base owned by the MoD and
 >leased to the US - and you have audio tape, photos, samples and
 >plaster casts of the physical traces left behind do you:

 >(a) Immediately notify the MoD by the fastest means possible,
 >hand over all the evidence, put civil defence alert procedures
 >in motion,

 >or

 >(b) Wait two and a half weeks, send a one page letter and don't
 >even mention on it that you have audio proof of the events, plus
 >samples, plaster casts and photos of the damage left behind.

More cheap shot grandstanding. The "fastest means possible" for
notifying the Ministry of Defence was by _RADIO_ and that's
exactly what Col Halt did: Halt radioed in his report to the
MoD _DURING_ the sighting at 3:25 AM, did you forget? The RAF
Watton was part of the MoD. There was nothing more Halt could
do once the UFO "action" seemed to move over Bentwaters and he
reported it almost instantly to the Bentwaters Command
Post/Central Security Control (which reported to MoD). Halt
maintained radio contact to see if RAF Watton could pick up the
UFO on radar.

 >Do you need to phone a friend?

No, but Halt's immediate radio report to MoD/RAF Watton during
the sighting is the "final answer" to claims he didn't take
anything seriously or just sloughed it all off.

 >>10. I also name many of the senior officers who actually went
 >>out to check out the initial landing site. Why would these very
 >>experienced officers go to all this trouble if it was a
 >>lighthouse, lightship, mirage etc?

 >What they thought it was and what it actually was are not
 >necessarily the same thing. That's the first rule of Ufology's and
 >so this in of itself isn't evidence of anything.

 >>11. Civilian
 >witness Gary Collins, saw the UFO from a country >road - he is
 >familiar with the lighthouse and explained how the >object
 >hovered over his head and lit up the whole area in front >of
 >him.

 >He - like the many other civilian witnesses I report in Crash
 >Landing - saw SOMETHING, of course, and most of them very
 >obviously didn�t see the lighthouse given what they report. No
 >argument from me as I have made this point frequently over the
 >years myself. But that isn't the same as proving that any of
 >these people saw what the airmen saw, or that what any of them
 >saw was a real UFO.

 >It may, or may not have been. But arguing some people did not
 >see the lighthouse is - of course - correct - in so far as it
 >goes but irrelevant because I don't see anyone saying that this
 >case is explained away AS merely a lighthouse.

 >>These are just some of the examples in the book, and there are
 >>many more. I ask any serious researcher to consider the list
 >>here and then look back at the enormous amount of time that has
 >>been spent wasted on the sceptics theories.

 >I don't consider trying to resolve a case as being a waste of
 >time. I regard it as the basic responsibility of every
 >Ufologist. It is revealing that you consider it a waste of time
 >however.

It is a waste of time to have to re-argue the same points over
and over again because of dishonest refusal to deal with the
issues. Disagreeing over the details is one thing but outright
evasion and deception by misquotation is another (debunker
examples given earlier).

 >>I ask this because
 >>if they had really done their homework and looked into the
 >>evidence then they would have learnt far more than they have.

 >Well, with respect, from the above there is little that I haven't
 >reported and discussed at length myself before and so clearly I
 >have taken it seriously and learnt from it.

Jenny, you don't _confront_ the skeptics with all of your
contradictory data. I gave a classic example (above), in regard
to Burroughs. You've known all along about Burroughs but don't
confront Easton et al. about it when they keep bringing him up
as proof of an idiotic 2-mile lighthouse chase through the woods
and fields.

 >Yes, indeed, you have uncovered some new witnesses and added a
 >new perspective on the case, which is very helpful. No argument
 >and I have said that repeatedly. But you are here charging me
 >with ignoring your many important new anti skeptics arguments
 >and the above examples are really in the main no such thing. In
 >fact very few are anything we didn�t already have under
 >consideration and that I haven't spent half my life debating with
 >the skeptics!

When have you confronted the skeptics over Burroughs' knowledge
and familiarity with the lighthouse and how that isn't properly
reflected in his Jan 1981 statement?

 >>It is a pity that Jenny Randles continues to dwell on
 >>alternative theories. I believe this is why Jenny never
 >>progressed with this case.

 >Well, given that most of what you report above covers ground I
 >trod up to 17 years ago if I didn�t progress the matter then how
 >can you claim that you have?

 >Your idea of 'alternative theories' (alternative to what - BTW?
 >- do you mean assuming this was a spaceship?) is in fact my idea
 >of trying to find a way to make all the pieces fit and answers
 >that work.

 >That may, or may not, be possible in the end result. With some
 >cases you can resolve them with others you cannot. That's
 >Ufology's. So this case may ultimately prove to have insoluble
 >elements - i.e. be in a part a real UFO. But large chunks of it
 >are clearly not heading that way by all signs right now and not
 >to take that into account and so seek what you term
 >'alternative' answers is a failure to do ones job as a UFO
 >investigator IMO.

 >We are in this field to try to find answers - the simpler the
 >better - but to stand up and say - in this case we cannot only
 >IF we cannot. We are not here to prove cherished possibilities
 >of any kind. Or if we are then we are believers and not
 >researchers.


 >Best wishes,

 >Jenny Randles

Jenny I think we pretty much agree on the truisms and
platitudes, it's getting down to the specific facts that matters
here. Georgina has quite obviously assembled a mass of
investigatory data that command attention and it's not getting
the attention it deserves. You have pioneered the investigation
of this case along with others such as Brenda Butler and yes,
even Ian Ridpath. A synthesis of the data is essential.

The problem is in getting a clear picture using solid facts and
scientific logical reasoning. As I just emailed Ian Ridpath, any
serious analysis of this case must go through the events
_Chronologically_ with a detailed timeline so that absolutely
nothing is missed. It also must go through the events
_Geographically_ on a map so that again absolutely nothing is
missed. The skeptics appear to be terrified of doing these
elementary scientific tasks as it would explode their force-fit
explanations.


Best regards,

Brad Sparks







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 3

                           Recent Clinton Comment

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 2 Jan 2001 16:42:57 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:15:11 -0500
Subject: Recent Clinton Comment


On December 6, 2000 as his term as President was coming to a
close, President Clinton was interviewed in the Cabinet Room by
a reporter from the Discovery Channel. During this interview the
President was asked the question, "Do you think there is life
out there?" Clinton replied:


      "I don't know. But I think the - what we know from Mars is
      that the conditions of life may well have, for some sort of
      biological life, may well have obtained on Mars at some
      point in the past."

      "Now, we know that our solar system is just a very tiny
      part of this universe, and there are literally billions of
      other bodies out there. And we're only now learning about
      how many there are, where they are, how far away they are.
      And we can't know for sure what the conditions are on those
      bodies. We just can't know yet. But I think that we will
      continue to learn. And I hope we will continue to learn."










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 3

                Arthur C. Clarke's DNA Set For Space Odyssey

From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:56:57 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:15:26 -0500
Subject: Arthur C. Clarke's DNA Set For Space Odyssey


Sci-fi author Clarke's DNA set for space odyssey


HOUSTON, Jan 2 (Reuters) - Arthur C. Clarke will not be on board
himself and the timing might be off by a couple of years, but a
message penned by the science fiction writer and a DNA sample
extracted from his hair will set off on a space odyssey in 2003.

The 83-year-old author of "2001 - A Space Odyssey" is one of
55,000 people who have signed up to take part in a project
organized by Houston-based Encounter 2001 LLC to send a message
into deep space for anybody out there who may be interested.

"It's like a cosmic message in a bottle, an archive of
humanity," said Encounter 2001 spokesman Chris Pancheri.

The spacecraft is tentatively scheduled for launch by an Ariane
V rocket in French Guiana in the third quarter of 2003.

Checks will be conducted during a three-week orbit of the Earth,
then a giant "solar sail" will be unfurled which will carry the
craft on a 13.5-year journey beyond Pluto and on into deep
space.

"Fare well my clone!" is the brief handwritten message which
Clarke will send along with the DNA sample and a photograph of
himself to any extraterrestrials who may intercept the craft.

Pancheri said the project will cost about $25 million, which
Encounter 2001 hopes to recoup through sponsorship deals.

The idea has proved popular among schoolchildren, he said, who
view it as a new twist on the practice of burying time capsules
so that they can be discovered by future generations.

Further details can be found at the company's Web site:

http:/www.encounter2001.com



14:13 01-02-01

Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited.

Researcher Steven L. Wilson, Sr
To submit paranormal activity email Ndunlks@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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 3

               Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In

From: Geoff Dittman <gdittman@autobahn.mb.ca>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 06:59:45 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:15:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 18:36:25 EST
 >Subject: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In 2000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Regarding:

 >>7. Close Encounters of the Sixth Kind
 >>Report on cases involving injury, death or healing

<snip>

 >What is "in-depth" and solidly "scientific" about it? This kind
 >of misdirected praise is a bit overboard. Now if the catalog
 >presented an exhaustive rather than a primitive typology and
 >symptomatology of cases, and categorized cases by reliability,
 >distance to object, duration of exposure, attempted to analyze
 >broad categories of possible causes, etc., that would be a
 >different matter.I also don't understand why most cases get
 >just a few lines of notes but some reason Michalak and Dr. X get
 >pages and pages.


While I'd be the first to admit the project is not perfect (nor
for that matter complete) but the detail you demand above would
be near impossible. The project is limited to the information
available. I don't have access to the medical reports; hell in
many of these cases there aren't any medical files. And yes this
limits the reliability of the report (which I admit in the
report). However from an informative standpoint the project is
still very useful in my (biased) opinion.

The reason why Michalak and Dr. X are better documented in my
report is simply because these cases are (from a medical
standpoint at least) better documented period. I wish I had that
much available on all the cases included.

While my little project may not be perfect, I hope people find
it useful and interesting. Whether it deserves to be included in
a list of the more interesting works of the year is of course a
matter of opinion. We now know the opinion of various people on
what should *not* be included in a list of the more interesting
works in 2000; would anyone care to tell the list what should be
included?

Personally, I must concur with Rutkowski's inclusion of Martin
Jasek's excellent "Giant UFO in the Yukon Territory" report.
That is investigative reporting at its best!


Geoff Dittman








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 3

                       P-47: Arthur C. Clarke on UFOs

From: Brett Holman <b.holman@PHYSICS.UNIMELB.EDU.AU>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:20:05 +1100
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:16:09 -0500
Subject: P-47: Arthur C. Clarke on UFOs


Hi all,

This may be apropos of nothing, but I thought it might be
interesting to elaborate a little on Arthur C. Clarke's opinions
on UFOs - at least, as expressed in his published writings (all
I have to go on). His collected essays "Greetings, Carbon-based
Bipeds!" (published London, 1999; covering 1934-1998) contain
three pieces of interest. (Note that I am only attempting to
describe Clarke's beliefs, not evaluate their validity.)

First (pp. 114-8) is a 1953 opinion piece published in the
Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. Here he notes
that prior to visiting the US in 1952 and meeting with
impeccable witnesses, he thought that UFOs probably did not
exist, but if they did, they were probably extraterrestrial
spaceships. After this trip. he reversed his opinion - ie, UFOs
do exist, but they are probably not spaceships. He believed then
that a variety of natural phenomena could account for UFOs,
including (but not limited to) Menzellian mirages. He cites
astronomer Walter Maunder's 1882 observation of an elliptical
object as an example of an object which if seen in 1953, would
undoubtedly generate many UFO reports (indeed, writing in 1916
Maunder noted that at that time it would have been described as
Zeppelin-like), but was clearly an auroral event of some kind
(it appeared during an auroral display, and Maunder confirmed
this spectroscopically). Still, Clarke leaves room for doubt:
"The only thing to do, therefore, is to maintain an open mind
until the evidence is overwhelming, one way or the other. I
consider it still quite *possible* - though unlikely - that UFOs
may turn out to be of intelligent, extraterrestrial origin."

Secondly (pp. 119-22) is his review of Leslie and Adamski's
"Flying Saucers Have Landed" which also appeared in JBIS, in
1954 after Clarke's televised debunking of Adamski's saucer
photos. Leaving aside the substance of his review, he concludes
by reaffirming that the ETH is possible, but unlikely, and
overwhelming evidence is required due to the importance of this
question. "Books like `Flying Saucers Have Landed' do a real
disservice by obscuring the truth and scaring away serious
researchers from a field that may be of great importance. If
flying saucers do turn out to be spaceships, Leslie and Adamski
will have done quite a lot to prevent people of intellectual
integrity from accepting the fact."

I think these quotes show that initially Clarke was fairly
open-minded on the subject of UFOs, and recognised it as a
legitimate, and even important, field of inquiry. However, his
reservations about some of the wild-eyed speculations which then
passed for UFO research (eg, the contactee movement) clearly put
him off.

And judging from Clarke disparaging remarks in the novel "A Fall
of Moondust" (published 1961; chapters XXVI and XXVII), it was
indeed the contactees which were the cause of his low opinion of
UFO research. He refers to telepathic and physical encounters
with ETs, conspiracy theories, cults (with "gods in the sky"),
Atlanteans, lunar bridges - he describes it as a reaction to the
threat of nuclear warfare, seeking "salvation in the sky". In
this future, when space travel came along, mankind's
self-confidence was restored and belief in the "Flying Saucer
religion" waned. Also, it would seem that the failure of
scientists in detecting compelling evidence for the ETH during
the International Geophysical Year (when unprecedented scrutiny
was focused on the atmosphere and outer space) led Clarke to
conclude that no such evidence was likely to be forthcoming. (I
should also point out that the novel is set in ca. 2040, with
extensive colonisation of the inner solar system ... if
definitive evidence of the ETH had not been obtained by then,
the book's characters could be excused for considering ETH
believers to be nutty. However, the opinions expressed clearly
seem to be something like Clarke's own.)

Finally, one of the last pieces in "Greetings, Carbon-based
Bipeds!" (pp. 512-4) is entitled "More Last Words on UFOs"
(published 1997). (He wrote an earlier "Last Words on UFOs",
sometime in the 1970s, I think - I don't have a copy of that.)
Clarke now argues that UFOs are very common - he has seen 10 of
them himself, including the one with Stanley Kubrick which
turned out to be ECHO-1. He bases his disbelief of the ETH on
two failures - the failures of facilities like NORAD to track
all these incoming spaceships (when they can track everything
else) and the failures of aliens to look alien (evolution being
unlikely to produce human-like ETs, in his opinion).

So I think we can trace here the development of Clarke's
opinions on UFOs. Quite open-minded in the 1950s (and as a
science fiction author and spaceflight enthusiast, how could he
not *want* UFOs to be ET in origin?), by 1961 the lack of
concrete data obtained by science plus the excesses of the
contactee movement led him to dismiss the matter entirely. Since
then, I would say Clarke clearly hasn't delved very deeply into
the subject (and would consider that a waste of time, which
admittedly as an old man with much to do, he doesn't have very
much of) and nothing that he seen in that time has changed his
opinion. But clearly, as someone interested in the subject of
extraterrestrials, he still thinks about the problem from time
to time, and considers the ETH unlikely on general grounds
(without getting into specifics).

As evidence that Clarke *is* sometimes willing to go against the
weight of scientific opinion in his old age, witness his support
for cold fusion research, long after the matter ceased to be
scientifically respectable. So he doesn't seem to be a
knee-jerk, debunking skeptic, per se.

--
________________________________________________________________________
Brett Holman                             b.holman@physics.unimelb.edu.au
IT Manager, School of Earth Sciences * IT Support, Astrophysics Group
The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, AUSTRALIA * +61 3 8344 7307
http://astro.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~bholman/ * Remember: KLAATU BARADA NIKTO






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 3

               Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:11:26 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:16:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In


 >From: Anthony Chippendale <anthonyc@ufon.org>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In 2000
 >Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:00:50 -0000


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 18:36:25 EST
 >>Subject: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In 2000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>No, I'm sorry, the Brown device is _not_ "identical" to the
 >>Adamski hoax saucer. It is in fact just simply similar. It is
 >>not fair or responsible scholarship to suddenly announce such an
 >>alleged "discovery" and then not reveal there have been many
 >>attempted explanations of the Adamski hoax and fail to explain
 >>why each one was wrong and why this new one is right. I recall
 >>there have been comparisons of the Adamski saucer to a chicken
 >>brooder heat lamp and a vacuum cleaner apparatus, among others.

 >Hello Brad,

 >I'm sorry but I _have_ to disagree with you on that point. The
 >photos are quite clearly, in my _opinion_, _identical_. See for
 >yourself at:

 >http://www.ufon.org/html/photo_comparison.html

 >This is not simply an "attempted" explanation of the Adamski
 >hoax, it is a _very_ good explanation, which I happen to
 >believe. As I have said before, I think it is more than likely
 >that Adamski got his photos from Townsend Brown, either in
 >collaboration with Brown, or without his knowledge.


 >Regards,

 >Anthony Chippendale


Hi Anthony,

The T. Townsend Brown object has some superficial similarities
to the Adamski hoax model but it is absolutely conclusively not
"identical" or exactly the same.

Here are some obvious differences in the objects:

1. Brown's device has no "portholes" around the top
superstructure as Adamski's model does.

2. Brown's device has three _black_ or dark bulbs in a triangle
arrangement on the underside but Adamski's are _white_.

3. In between the three bulbs on Brown's device there is only a
small protruding knob almost 2x the bulbs in width. But
Adamski's model has a huge dark dome-like object so large it
touches the three bulbs and is about 4x the width of the bulbs.
There is a flat button in the center but it's almost exactly the
width of the bulbs (mayber 10% wider).

4. The Adamski model's upper structure has a parallel double rim
at the top, but the Brown device does not.

5. The three bulbs on the underside of Brown's device are
mounted on a flat disc. Adamski's three bulbs are mounted on a
curved concave surface.

As for the photos they are not even close. Above I was assuming
the theory that someone got hold of Brown's device and took
their own photos. But you seem to be saying that Brown's own
photo was taken and peddled as Adamski's, with all the shadowing
and lighting effects of Brown's. The obvious objections to that
are:

1. In Brown's photos the object is clearly made of shiny metal.
In Adamski's photo the surface is dull.

2. In Brown's photo the shadow of the object is to the upper
left. On the Adamski photo it's to the right.

3. There is a bright photo flash reflection off the shiny metal
near the leftmost bulb. No such flash on Adamski's.

4. There are shadows of the three bulbs in Adamski's photo but
none on Brown's.

In conclusion, similar but not identical.

You still need to explain why the previous explanations for what
Adamski used in his hoax are all wrong and yours is right.


Regards,

Brad Sparks






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 3

              P-47: Object Said To Fall In Finnish Lake, 2 Jan

From: Joel Carpenter <carpenter_joel@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:00:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:17:13 -0500
Subject: P-47: Object Said To Fall In Finnish Lake, 2 Jan



Starting the new millennium off right --


http://www.ortv.ru/owa/ort_win/ort_news1.news?parms=code=/owa/ort_win/~inrazdel=
catastrophes~inid=23558


"Tuesday, 02.01.2001 22:30 MYSTERIOUS INCIDENT IN FINLAND.

Uncommon events occurred today in Finland. In the lake near
Bennayes town directly from the sky fell some enormous
unidentified body. According to the evidence of eyewitnesses,
everything occurred within a few seconds. Was heard loud
whistle, then the sound of impact/shock. Enormous funnel/hopper
was formed on the spot of the incidence/drop in the
object/subject in ice. Scientists do not exclude, that the local
residents became the eyewitnesses of the incidence/drop in the
large meteorite. However, it will be possible to explain this
for sure only after the bottom of lake inspect divers."






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 4

                           New 'UFO' In The Skies!

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:05:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:17:58 -0500
Subject: New 'UFO' In The Skies!

Hi All,

Some of the UFO reports that will be coming in from now on will
be sightings of the new space station! For those who investigate
UFO sighting reports as an avocation, there is a terrific
resource available on the web which provides a minute by minute
update of the position of the space station over the earth.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/temp/StationLoc.html

I'm sure this little feature will come in handy to either
include or exclude the station as an explanation for any future
UFO sighting reports.  ;)


Regards,

John Velez


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 4

                       Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:48:04 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:18:22 -0500
Subject: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies


The following statement is from Stan Gordon, in response to the
recent discussion on UpDates regarding the Kecksburg incident.
This message is passed along with his permission.

-- KYOUNG

_____________________________________

Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:51:09 -0500
From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>


Hi Kenny:

I hope the new year is good for you. Thanks for forwarding the
UpDates discussions. For the last couple months I have been
putting a lot of time in my job, and I have also been
experiencing major intermittent computer problems. I am indeed
far behind on UFO related matters. I think the computer is now
at least useable.

My position on the Kecksburg case is that an object of still
undetermined origin did fall from the sky near that community on
December 9, 1965. The focus of this event should be that at
about 4:47 P.M. a fiery object passed over the Pittsburgh area
and moved towards Westmoreland County, then passed over the
Greensburg area. This object made apparent turns before slowly
falling into the woods that afternoon. Reporters as well as
civilians on the scene that day confirm the military presence.

To call multitudes of witnesses "liars" about what they
experienced that day in 1965 is an easy way out. Because of the
controversy, many of those involved with the case have provided
me with written affidavits and/or video or audio statements but
wish to remain anonymous. Since many of the original firemen who
were involved are now deceased, it is easy to dismiss their
claims. I do however have statements from some of them. Just
this morning a 23 yr. old woman e-mailed me stating that her
grandparents had been at the scene in 1965, and her grandfather
supposedly went down into the ravine. Unfortunately he passed
away long ago.

Around the Pittsburgh area this event is still talked about
since there are some many people who were either at the location
that night or had friends or relatives who were there or were
somehow involved. There remain unanswered questions to some
aspects of the Kecksburg event, and I surely don't have all of
the answers. But in the years that I have spent following up on
leads pertaining to the case, and having spoken directly to so
many witnesses and their families, there is no doubt in my mind
that an object did fall near Kecksburg and was apparently
recovered by the military.

Those who think that I have made a profit from this event have
no idea as to what I have invested in this research over the
years. I don't know if you saw the video documentary on this
event (Kecksburg The Untold Story) which I produced at my own
expense. It was an opportunity for some of those who were
involved, or who had important knowledge about the case to
relate their experiences. Many little known as well as new
details about the case were made public. The news media in the
Pittsburgh area have done many stories on the Kecksburg case. In
May of 1991, David Templeton wrote a feature story about the
incident called "The Uninvited" for the Pittsburgh Press Sunday
Magazine. They actually did some investigation into the matter.
In his article Templeton states " In all, The Pittsburgh Press
interviewed about 30 people regarding their experiences,
including firemen, residents and those drawn to Kecksburg that
night by curiosity. They offered similar accounts of the
landing, the craft and the military retrieval. Although
generally reluctant to talk about their experiences, many echoed
Hays's explanation for going public with their stories: "I
really want to know what it was," Hays says. "I'm tired of
people telling me I'm crazy."

There are so many people who were involved with the Kecksburg
case who are willing to testify under oath about what they saw
that day in 1965. Many key witnesses are no longer with us,
others are getting up in age, and some are experiencing poor
health. They would like closure on the case. Some of those who
have gone public have been verbally attacked, but these people
stand by their accounts and they want the truth about the
Kecksburg event to be made public.

Please keep me informed of any interesting UFO activity in your
area and I will do the same. May 2001 be a year of peace for
mankind.

Stan 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 4

               Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 13:10:37 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:19:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com
 >Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 18:36:25 EST
 >Subject: Most Interesting Information In Ufology In 2000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca
 >>To: canufo@egroups.com
 >>Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:18:21 -0600 (CST)
 >>Subject: [canufo] Most Interesting Information In Ufology In 2000

Hello Brad, Chris and List,

<snip>

 >>9. Aviation Safety in America
 >>NARCAP

 >>by Richard Haines

 >>Supported by a grant from the International Space Science
 >>Organization, Haines produced a huge report detailing pilots'
 >>UFO encounters. Essential reading because of its thoroughness,
 >>Haines concludes that there is no danger to travellers because
 >>Unidentified Aerial Phenomena are much more maneuverable than
 >>airplanes.

 >I thought the NARCAP report concluded there was a potential
 >danger to aviation from UAP and that training was urged to help
 >pilots understand and safely avoid UAP in the air if and when it
 >occurs. I remember the maneuverability remark but I thought
 >that simply said that it greatly lessens the danger not
 >eliminates it. I thought there were quite a few fatality cases
 >listed. Did I misread something?

<snip>

No.

From:
NARCAP Report 01-2000
Aviation Safety in America - A Previously Neglected Factor
Richard F. Haines
Chief Scientist
National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena
- NARCAP -
October 15, 2000

Quotings from the "Executive Summary" on page 2.

[Start of quote]

This paper addresses the question of whether there is reliable
data demonstrating a significant relationship between aviation
safety in America today and unidentified aerial phenomena [UAP]
(also called unidentified flying objects [UFO] or flying
saucers).

<snip>

I conclude that: (1) In order to avoid collisions with UAP some
pilots have made control inputs that have resulted in passsenger
and flight crew injury. (2) Based upon a thorough review of
pilot reports of UAP over the conterminous United States between
1950 and 2000 it is concluded that an immediate physical threat
to aviation safety due to collision does not exist because of
the reported high degree of maneuverability shown by the UAP.
However, (a) should pilots make the wrong control input at the
wrong time during an extremely close encounter the possibility
of a mid-air collision with a UAP still exists, and (b) if
pilots rely upon their instruments when anomalous
electromagnetic effects are causing them to malfunction the
possibility of an incident or accident exists. (3) Documented
UAP phenomena have been seen and reported for at least fifty
years by pilots but many of these reporters have been either
ridiculed or instructed not to report their sighting publically.
(4) Responsible world aviation officials should take UAP
phenomena seriously and issue clear procedures for reporting
them without fearing ridicule, reprimand or other career
impairment and in a manner that will support scientific
research, (5) Airlines should implement instructional courses
that teach pilots about optimal control procedures to carry out
when flying near UAP and also what data to try to collect about
them, if possible, and (5) (sic!) A central clearing house
should be identified to receive UAP reports (e.g., ASRS; Global
Aviation Information Network (GAIN). This unclassified clearing
house should collect, analyze, and report UAP sightings for the
continuing benefit of aviation safety as well as scientific
curiosity. Whatever UAP are they can pose a hazard to aviation
safety and should be dealt with appropriately and without bias.

[End of 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 4

                    Historical Artwork Website Additions

From: Matthew Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 20:53:46 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:20:02 -0500
Subject: Historical Artwork Website Additions


Hello All,

I have now added more images to my website :

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html


Regards,

Matt








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 4

             Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:54:19 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:20:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 15:56:20 EST
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 03:10:14 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages


 >Hi Larry,

 >You are right as to _circumscribed_ circles but not as to
 >_inscribed_ circles and I should have explained better. In
 >Asimov's remark about what if Pi turned to exactly 3.000 by
 >natural law then all our wheels and circles would turn to
 >hexagons, who is to say natural law would prefer circumscribed
 >circle polygons to inscribed circle polygons? In any event, Pi
 >represents a relationship of diameter to circumference of a
 >_Circle_ not a Hexagon, so Pi cannot be 3.000.


Hello ( sigh!)

Exactly! That was Azimov's point in the first place.

Azimov, in one of his essays on numbers and math (again if I
recall... I'm not about to dig it up) made reference to some
state legislator who proposed a law changing Pi to some easier
number like 3 exactly.

Of course he was jesting that all the wheels in said state,
possibly Utah, would instantly collapse into hexagons.

That was his way of showing how idiotic the proposal was.


Best!

- Larry Hatch







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 4

                   Re: Recent Clinton Comment - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 18:07:08 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:20:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Recent Clinton Comment - Mortellaro


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 2 Jan 2001 16:42:57 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Recent Clinton Comment

 >On December 6, 2000 as his term as President was coming to a
 >close, President Clinton was interviewed in the Cabinet Room by
 >a reporter from the Discovery Channel. During this interview the
 >President was asked the question, "Do you think there is life
 >out there?" Clinton replied:


 >      "I don't know. But I think the - what we know from Mars is
 >      that the conditions of life may well have, for some sort of
 >      biological life, may well have obtained on Mars at some
 >      point in the past."
 >
 >      "Now, we know that our solar system is just a very tiny
 >      part of this universe, and there are literally billions of
 >      other bodies out there. And we're only now learning about
 >      how many there are, where they are, how far away they are.
 >      And we can't know for sure what the conditions are on those
 >      bodies. We just can't know yet. But I think that we will
 >      continue to learn. And I hope we will continue to learn."


Dear Grant and all... make that "most" - and of course, EBK,

Was I not paying attention or was something, uh, not revealed
way up there in that quote?

Uh, like ... again!


Best,

Jim







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 4

                    Re: My Favorite Martian - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 18:41:35 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:21:01 -0500
Subject: Re: My Favorite Martian - Mortellaro


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:25:14 EST
 >Subject: My Favorite Martian
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Ray Walston, my favorite Martian, has died at 86.

 >Mr. Walson was the lovable ET on the popular 1960s television
 >show, "My Favorite Martian". In the show his co-star was actor
 >Bill Bixy. The Martian figure wore two "bug" antennas and spent
 >most of the episodes trying to hide his identify from
 >Earthlings.

 >Uncle Martin once related that after a few episodes he thought,
 >"What am I doing here" I'm running around with two pieces of
 >wire sticking out of my head."

 >A rational being from Mars, after all. Well, well, I'll be
 >darned.

Dear Robert Young,

Hey, you know, I've never before noticed that your name is
Robert Young! Wow Signal, man. Always loved that actor. And I
always loved Ray Walston, but not in the show that made him
famous.

But here's the _REAL_ reason for this post. I freely admit to
loving his portrayal of the devil. Damn but he was good in that
role. But when he played the "good guy" in The Stand, he did an
even better job. Which proves a really neat point. At least for
me.

Actors who play the bad guy have some redeeming features. It's
just that they sometimes don't know it which part to play. Like
when to be a dirtbag and when to be a nice guy. And to whom!
Without a script. And the really great actors hate using a
script.

Being on this august list helps to see this clearly.

Claro?

When one among us passes over, we are all reduced by the missing
soul. But it's worse when that happens while the body's still
alive.


Jim Mortellaro







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 4

                Re: Re: Another Millennium Come and Gone... -

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 20:00:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:21:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: Another Millennium Come and Gone... -



 >Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 19:42:51 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Scott Carr <sardy_2000@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Another Millennium Come and Gone...
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Well, another Millennium has come and gone (the real one this
 >time?) and another apocalypse has seemingly been averted.

 >Where were all the antichrists? Where are all the predilectors
 >and suicide cults? The heretics and harbingers of destruction?
 >the false prophets and the New Jesuses (yes Bruce, I'm talkin'
 >about you!)? The new-agers and the doom-and-gloomers?

<snip>

 >Has anything interesting happened this year?

 >Don't get me wrong-I'm not saying that I'm not glad that
 >none of this stuff has actually happened. I'm just a little
 >disappointed, is all-It would seem that the human race just
 >isn't quit as interesting as I'd given them credit for...

Uh-oh!  Don't be lulled, Scott!

1 Thessalonians 5

1. But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need
    that I write unto you.

2. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so
    cometh as a thief in the night.

3. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden
    destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with
    child; and they shall not escape.

Matthew 24

36. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
     of heaven, but my Father only.

37. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the
     Son of man be.

38. For as in the days that were before the flood they were
     eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until
     the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away;
     so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

40. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and
     the other left.

41. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be
     taken, and the other left.

42. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth
     come.

43. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in
     what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and
     would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

44. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think
     not the Son of man cometh.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 4

                             Corso Files Update

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:32:23 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:21:28 -0500
Subject: Corso Files Update


Went out to visit the Corso files web site (hadn't been their in
a couple of months and discovered the following:

----------

ATTENTION!

Corsofiles.com Will Cease Operations on 14 Dec 2000.



We apologize for the inconvenience, however, due to a business
disagreement with Phil Corso Jr., we will no longer maintain
this site.

Our group no longer has access to any of the Corso files, nor
the ability to fulfill orders or memberships.

Current Insider Club Members can download the remaining data
from "A New World If You Can Take It" in the members area until
14 Dec 2000.

Video orders will be fulfilled by Phil Corso Jr. Any
correspondence regarding this matter must be directed to him at:

Phil Corso Jr.
4828 North Kings Highway #227
Fort Pierce, FL 34951
561-468-0205

We deeply regret this situation.

Best Regards,

Corsofiles Support Team


----------

End Corso update

Apparently if you were a Corso insider, you are now an outsider.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 4

               Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - Ticchetti

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Qui, 4 Jan 2001 08:02 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:21:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - Ticchetti



 >Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:48:04 -0500
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies


 >The following statement is from Stan Gordon, in response to the
 >recent discussion on UpDates regarding the Kecksburg incident.
 >This message is passed along with his permission.

 >-- KYOUNG

 >_____________________________________

 >Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:51:09 -0500
 >From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>

 >Hi Kenny:
 >
 >I hope the new year is good for you. Thanks for forwarding the
 >UpDates discussions. For the last couple months I have been
 >putting a lot of time in my job, and I have also been
 >experiencing major intermittent computer problems. I am indeed
 >far behind on UFO related matters. I think the computer is now
 >at least useable.

<snip>


Hello,

As Kevin Randle wrote in his book 'A History of UFO Crashes':

"...until all the facts are know, the case must remain open".

Well the facts are that something did fall in Kecksburg. The
State Police, that time, claimed that nothing was found. The
captain Dussia said the same. But some eyewitness saw a flatbed
truck with a tarp covering its cargo as it was seen leaving the
area. Some witnesses were threatened by the military or by the
police, include Mrs. Kalp.


Project Mood Dust was activated, and they went to seacrh
something. Why can a single meteor cause all that mess? Or was
that a Soviet probe? It would be easier for the Air Force to say
it was a soviet probe than it was a bolide, wouldn't it?

You fellas that live in the USA or near Kecksburg should re-open
the case. I think that the Air Force knows more than we know.


Regards and peace,

Thiago Ticchetti






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 4

                Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 05:22:07 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:22:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - Sparks


 >Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:48:04 -0500
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies

<snip>

 >Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:51:09 -0500
 >From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>

<snip>

 >My position on the Kecksburg case is that an object of still
 >undetermined origin did fall from the sky near that community on
 >December 9, 1965. The focus of this event should be that at
 >about 4:47 P.M. a fiery object passed over the Pittsburgh area
 >and moved towards Westmoreland County, then passed over the
 >Greensburg area. This object made apparent turns before slowly
 >falling into the woods that afternoon. Reporters as well as
 >civilians on the scene that day confirm the military presence.

Hi Stan,

What are the names of the _reporters_ "on the scene that day"
Dec. 9, 1965, who "confirm the militarey presence"? I am
surprised you don't just prove your case right here by supplying
the names of the reporters and some sample quotes of what they
published in December 1965, instead of referring to a 1991
article (later on, below). Are you hedging your words here and
saying the reporters only confirm the military was there and not
that they witnessed the miliary recovering any fallen object?

 >To call multitudes of witnesses "liars" about what they
 >experienced that day in 1965 is an easy way out. Because of the
 >controversy, many of those involved with the case have provided
 >me with written affidavits and/or video or audio statements but
 >wish to remain anonymous. Since many of the original firemen who
 >were involved are now deceased, it is easy to dismiss their
 >claims. I do however have statements from some of them. Just
 >this morning a 23 yr. old woman e-mailed me stating that her
 >grandparents had been at the scene in 1965, and her grandfather
 >supposedly went down into the ravine. Unfortunately he passed
 >away long ago.

If he has passed away can we have his name and statement?

 >Around the Pittsburgh area this event is still talked about
 >since there are some many people who were either at the location
 >that night or had friends or relatives who were there or were
 >somehow involved. There remain unanswered questions to some
 >aspects of the Kecksburg event, and I surely don't have all of
 >the answers. But in the years that I have spent following up on
 >leads pertaining to the case, and having spoken directly to so
 >many witnesses and their families, there is no doubt in my mind
 >that an object did fall near Kecksburg and was apparently
 >recovered by the military.

Well after the posts here I have serious doubts and don't see
any evidence that the military recovered anything fallen from
the sky near Kecksburg.

 >Those who think that I have made a profit from this event have
 >no idea as to what I have invested in this research over the
 >years. I don't know if you saw the video documentary on this
 >event (Kecksburg The Untold Story) which I produced at my own
 >expense. It was an opportunity for some of those who were
 >involved, or who had important knowledge about the case to
 >relate their experiences. Many little known as well as new
 >details about the case were made public. The news media in the
 >Pittsburgh area have done many stories on the Kecksburg case. In
 >May of 1991, David Templeton wrote a feature story about the
 >incident called "The Uninvited" for the Pittsburgh Press Sunday
 >Magazine. They actually did some investigation into the matter.
 >In his article Templeton states " In all, The Pittsburgh Press
 >interviewed about 30 people regarding their experiences,
 >including firemen, residents and those drawn to Kecksburg that
 >night by curiosity. They offered similar accounts of the
 >landing, the craft and the military retrieval. Although
 >generally reluctant to talk about their experiences, many echoed
 >Hays's explanation for going public with their stories: "I
 >really want to know what it was," Hays says. "I'm tired of
 >people telling me I'm crazy."

This is all very tantalizing but here we are 26 years after the
event with this 1991 article and 35 years today, and _what_ is
this cogent evidence?

 >There are so many people who were involved with the Kecksburg
 >case who are willing to testify under oath about what they saw
 >that day in 1965. Many key witnesses are no longer with us,
 >others are getting up in age, and some are experiencing poor
 >health. They would like closure on the case. Some of those who
 >have gone public have been verbally attacked, but these people
 >stand by their accounts and they want the truth about the
 >Kecksburg event to be made public.

If they've passed away why can't their names and statements be
released?


Disappointed,

Brad Sparks








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 4

                Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 05:45:26 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:22:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -


 >Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:54:19 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 15:56:20 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 03:10:14 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages


 >>Hi Larry,

 >>You are right as to _circumscribed_ circles but not as to
 >>_inscribed_ circles and I should have explained better. In
 >>Asimov's remark about what if Pi turned to exactly 3.000 by
 >>natural law then all our wheels and circles would turn to
 >>hexagons, who is to say natural law would prefer circumscribed
 >>circle polygons to inscribed circle polygons? In any event, Pi
 >>represents a relationship of diameter to circumference of a
 >>_Circle_ not a Hexagon, so Pi cannot be 3.000.


 >Hello ( sigh!)

 >Exactly! That was Azimov's point in the first place.

 >Azimov, in one of his essays on numbers and math (again if I
 >recall... I'm not about to dig it up) made reference to some
 >state legislator who proposed a law changing Pi to some easier
 >number like 3 exactly.

 >Of course he was jesting that all the wheels in said state,
 >possibly Utah, would instantly collapse into hexagons.

 >That was his way of showing how idiotic the proposal was.


 >Best!

 >- Larry Hatch

Hi Larry,

The problem I have with this being "idiotic" is that it's
exactly the same kind of illogic that UFO debunkers always use,
which is based on popular conceptions and ridicule.  They start
with something "everybody knows," like UFO's are "only reported
by crackpots, drunks and mental cases."

Everyone "knows" Pi is not 3, right?  But . . . well, what is it
then?!  Is it 3.14?  Is it 3.1416?  Is it 3.141592653589?

To 1 significant digit, Pi is 3.  To 2 significant digits it is
3.1, to 3 d igits it is 3.14, etc.  There is no mathematical or
scientific rule requiring any particular number of significant
digits in order to be "right."  (There are, of course,
_engineering_ rules requiring a certain level of precision of Pi
for construction, manufacturing, etc.)

In fact, to an order of magnitude, Pi is 1.  How's that for
confounding expectations?

Best regards,

Brad






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 4

                  Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 22:56:25 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:23:04 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Randles


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 17:09:26 EST
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 16:14:31 -0000

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:35:58 -0000

 >>Re: Malcolm Scurrah

 ><snip>

 >Jenny & Georgina,

 >Jenny you also posted the following:

 >>Thus, when I wrote 'The UFOs that Never Were' - in l999 - I
 >>adapted the estimated date for his sighting to 'late November'
 >>(see p .167) to best tie in with the overall consensus of all
 >>the comments made by the witness across 10 years - since that
 >>was, of course, the proper thing to do under the circumstances.

 >That would appear to a major shift in the understanding of the
 >date to go from "December 1980" to "late November" 1980. If it
 >happened any time in November, and that is now your best
 >understanding Jenny, then it cannot corroborate the Rendlesham
 >incident.


Hi,

The basic facts are - and always have been - that at some time
during the last few weeks of l980 - the same period during which
the Rendlesham sightings occurred - a major radar visual
incident took place over the same part of the UK.

Mal Scurrah has never known - and still doesn't know - the date
on which this occurrence took place - except in general terms.
One day we may find out. Right now it is merely known to be
around the same time period (i.e. between October and December
l980 - to use the broadest parameters  the witness has ever
offered).

Rendlesham itself consists of sightings spread over at least a
week - don't forget - so we are not talking about something
having to have taken place at the precise same moment on a
specific date to be somehow relevant.

Nor was it inconsequential that Rendlesham came at the end of a
massive eastern England wave spread over the same time period
(October - December l980) when Mal Scurrah's radar encounter
took place - regardless of what estimates you apply . During
this several week period many other interesting close encounters
were independently described.

All of this is part of a pattern that it was important to
consider within any discussion of the Rendlesham case. And so I
did.

I really am baffled as to why anyone seems to be regarding this
issue with hostility or that it requires such pedantic debate.

What mattered was that

(1) the uncertainty over the dating of Mal Scurrah's sighting
was pointed out


(2) what we did know about its dating  - i.e. the general time
period possible - was indicated.

And I did both of these things in my various writings .

Initially citing December as the overall estimate was proper
because it best described the average of the testimony that the
witness had by then given to me (and I have quoted on this list
what this testimony was so you can see I did do this perfectly
reasonably).

I then modified it to late November , to take account of the
fact that much later the witness had suggested that it might
have occurred as early as October. Thus requiring a revised
average to slightly earlier in the year.

I defy anybody to argue that I have done anything here other
than properly and correctly reported what the witness has always
said about the dating of this event. A date that nobody (not the
witness, not Georgina, not myself) knows more than approximately.

So it is clearly not possible to argue  that this incident must
be unconnected with Rendlesham. It may - or it may not - be. We
simply don't know.

Which is what I have said about it since I first reported the
story in 'From out of the Blue' back in l991!

It is a shame that the same amount of effort to get to the truth
about the facts of a sighting isn't always put into case
investigation by the UFO community. If it was we might get
somewhere.


Best wishes,

Jenny Randles







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 5

                     Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:20:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 02:23:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Velez


 >From: Gildas Bourdais G<Bourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:12:54 EST
 >Subject: Boris Shurinov Website
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >To all List members,

 >I am pleased to announce the opening of a new web site, by
 >Rusian ufologist Boris Shurinov, in English, at:

 >http://borshurinov.narod.ru/ufobusiness/ufobindex.htm

 >It is called the "Black Page", and you will see why if you visit
 >it. It's not going to be welcomed by everyone!

<snip>

 >I wish him success with it!

 >Gildas Bourdais

Hi Gildas, Boris, All,

Thanks to Boris for the work he has put into creating this
English version for us. One of the pieces posted over at my AIC
website was by Antonio Huneeus regarding the Voronseh(?) UFO
Landing. Thanks to the enlightening information on Boris's
website I will be removing that article from AIC.

When I first joined the List I mentioned that prior to 1993 I
had only read one (1) "UFO book" in my entire life. That book
was "UFO's behind The Iron Curtain". Someone had given it to me
and I read it. After I became 'involved' myself, and because
UFOs are a 'global' phenomenon, my interest in Russian ufology
was reawakened. Mostly because I was interested in comparing
notes with what is being reported in the West. I encountered the
same problem with Russian material as with our own - you have to
wade through oceans of BS to find one or two good, solid pieces
of material.

It's good to have a 'filter' like Boris to help us Westerners to
skate past a lot of the crap we would have to look into piece by
piece ourselves if we didn't have him doing the work for us.

Boris, I have spent the last 6 years trying to cut through all
the crap that is associated with ufology. I appreciate what you
are doing and I look forward to seeing the completed website. I
will be adding a link from my AIC to your website in order to
help direct people your way. (Rather than to the 'Stonehills!)

On a personal note, I would like to see some information on
Russian abduction reports. If you ever post such material,
please let us know via the List.


Best of luck to you,

John Velez, Webmaster A.I.C.


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 5

                      Re: My Favorite Martian - BYoung

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:54:47 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 02:24:19 -0500
Subject: Re: My Favorite Martian - BYoung


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 18:41:35 EST
 >Subject: Re: My Favorite Martian
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Dear Robert Young,

 >Hey, you know, I've never before noticed that your name is
 >Robert Young! Wow Signal, man. Always loved that actor. And I
 >always loved Ray Walston, but not in the show that made him
 >famous.

Jim,

Yeah, I met him once about 25 years ago.  A really nice guy.

<snip>

 >Actors who play the bad guy have some redeeming features. It's
 >just that they sometimes don't know it which part to play. Like
 >when to be a dirtbag and when to be a nice guy. And to whom!
 >Without a script. And the really great actors hate using a
 >script.

 >Being on this august list helps to see this clearly.

 >Claro?

Si, right now it is, although there's some fair weather Cu
coming in from the West. Looks like no meteors tonight.

Bob


"Keep your eyes a little wide and blank" - Dr Miles Bennell's
instructions on how to look like a pod person, Invasion of the
Body Snatchers (1956)






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Stonehill

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 12:32:26 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:17:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Stonehill


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:12:54 EST
 >Subject: Boris Shurinov Website
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Stalinist ufology ...can be found on this site:

http://borshurinov.narod.ru/ufobusiness/ufobindex.htm

I do not know what is the main reason for sheer hatred that
drives Boris Shurinov when he mentions my name and work: his
anti-Semitism, the fact that I am from Ukraine, his dislike of
all things Western, his despair that few people read his
books...Alas, I am not the only target of this clown's attacks:
he equally denigrates Dr. Haines, Philip Mantle, and other UFO
researchers (including those in Russia and Ukraine). This is the
same person who phoned me several times years ago to find out
who among Western researchers are Jews. This is the same person
who told me that James Oberg is a CIA officer (although I carry
little respect for Oberg, I disagreed, but Shurinov listens only
to himself). This is the same person who used my name to promote
his book about Roswell (he claimed I "helped" him). Shurinov's
asistants are equally disgusting: one of them chided me for
being "bourgeoisie" because my computer was not set up with
Cyrrilic alphabet, and tried his best to find out my Russian
military sources. Another young Stalinist spends his time
searching UFO pages for my work to keep Shurinov updated...They
should "get a life". They should learn how civilized people
interact with each other.

Decent Russian researchers do not support Shurinov's "party
line" regarding Soviet and Russian ufology. So, he strikes at
them, too: at Subbotin, Kutovoy, and others. What irks the
clown, too, is the fact that I publish my articles in Russian,
and numerous Russian-language publications have carried my
articles for years. He does not allow anyone to possess original
opinions about Russia's ufology, and Shurinov strikes at anyone
who dares to disagree with him. He is largely ignored in the
West, and that truly bothers this clown of Russian ufology.

Years ago he wrote artciles full of hate for American
journalists who brought Soviet military UFO data out of Russia.
My book contains other data and information about Soviet
military UFO sightings and cases, and that makes this Stalinist
see red. Shurinov and his henchmen are remnants of Stalinism in
the realm of Soviet and Russian ufology. Western researchers
should keep this in mind when they read his ravings, his
slanderous writings, his hateful pages. Shurinov is, basically,
a gangbanger of ufology; his manner and ethics remind me of the
inner-city gangsters that I had met while attending high-school
in Los Angeles. There is an alternative, of course, to modern
Stalinists. http://ufo.psu.ru/ This site will keep you abreast
of developments in Russia.

Paul Stonehill









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                    Art Bell: Late Night Madness Returns

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:10:37 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:26:20 -0500
Subject: Art Bell: Late Night Madness Returns


If you haven't heard by now, Art Bell is coming back to the
airwaves on 05-Feb-01. First he left, then returned, then left
and is back again. Didn't he say he was never coming back to
radio...

I'm quite sure he'll pick right up where he left off and
continue to promote UFO hoaxes and generally further ruin the
credibility of legitimate UFO research and investigation.
Prepare for more and more of the likes of Robert Ghostwolf (aka
Robert Andrew Franzone), Richard Hoagland, Ed Dames, Jonathan
Reed and any other frauds you can imagine. Also prepare for him
to continue his antics of ignoring guest information that
contradicts any of the claims made by his guests.

Remember folks, Bell says its all entertainment even when its
presented as fact. At least Coast to Coast AM host Ian Punnett
had the nerve to challenge guests on the air. In fact, he's the
only person that has EVER responded to any communication
regarding the dubious nature of frequent Coast to Coast AM
guests.

Sit back as the madness takes off and Ufology gets the short end
of the stick... again. One can always hope that Bell has changed
and reconsidered some things during his absence, but I'm not
holding my breathe.


Regards,

Royce J. Myers III

"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind." eXpose: The Watchdog of UFOlogy
http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3 UFO Hall o' Shame
http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:20:05 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:29:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Gates



 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles
 >Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:07:52 -0000

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 18:26:39 EST
 >>Subject: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Sparks - Pt. 2
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Surely, if the statement is basically a summary of what happened
 >>>then the above is largely irrelevant. If its an outright lie
 >>>then why are these witnesses not taking these statements to
 >>>congress and saying en masse - we were forced by our own
 >>>government to sign deliberately fictitious statements? After all
 >>>if there are half a dozen of these witnesses and they all stick
 >>>together with the eyes of the UFO Community closely on them what
 >>>do they have to fear?

 >>You are grandstanding here and these are cheap shots. You know
 >>perfectly well that average UFO witnesses are nobodies who have
 >>no political power to do anything. And the "UFO Community" is a
 >>joke, with zero power or clout.

 >Hi,

 >Grandstanding? Cheap shots? In what way? I am asking a perfectly
 >reasonable question that deserves a reasonable answer .

 >If these documents are bogus and these witnesses were made to
 >sign false information onto the public record - information that
 >is now creating problems for their credibility because it
 >differs from their verbal testimony - this is an outrage against
 >civil liberties.

 >Surely we all agree with that?

Hi Jenny,

 From the point of view of someone who had family serve many
years in the military, not to mention has family serving now,
you should understand (as they do) that you essentially have
_no_ so called civil libertys in the military.

A glaring example in USA is the right of free speech, unless of
course you are in the military and you are told not speak ill of
your commanding officers and or the President of the US.

I am also aware of people who told one story verbally, but when
the official typed statement came out (which like these
witnesses, they did not type) they were ordered to sign the
statement and that then became the "official" understanding of
the incident. In this instance is was to coverup a firearms
accident on a govt installation. Everybody that "went along" got
taken care of in some way or another. The family (who knew the
truth) of the person that was shot was guaranteed full health
benifits, and all the kids college was paid for, only if they
went along with the so called "official story." When you are in
the military, its generally not a good thing to disobey orders.

 >We are also not dealing with hick farmers here but ex members of
 >the USAF - including officers - most of whom could band together
 >to protect each other if they were scared. Although surely their
 >best protection is being out in the open where whatever is said
 >or done about them has to be justified - rather than in secret
 >where they lack the security of justice being seen to be done?

What we in fact have is while these people were serving, they
saw something, an official statement was typed, they went along
with it while they were in the service. If some of them retired
from the AF, they may have concerns about their retirement and
such.

 >Dozens of media sources would take up their cause if they were
 >willing to go on record and say - my government forced me to
lie >in an official statement to create the impression I saw a
 >lighthouse when I really saw a UFO.

As a whole, the media would yawn especially when you tell them
the subject matter. Besides juicy political scandels sell far
more newspapers then accounts of UFOs and ET.

 >How can you possibly say I am taking cheap shots to ask why - if
 >we are to accept that this is what happened - nobody appears to
 >be willing to take that very serious matter up with what is
 >supposed to be one of the most democratic nations on earth?

 >Its a totally legitimate concern. Hardly grandstanding.

If you went to the media with a story about how the govt
allegedly forced a person to lie about a UFO landing you will
hear something like 'Gee, that is an interesting story, but we
will get back to you...' i.e. yawn.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                             We Of The First Sin

From: Christopher Kelly <tophar@pacific.net.au>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 15:31:11 +1100
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:34:08 -0500
Subject: We Of The First Sin


I have been popping in and reading this List for some time now
and I like many here are interested in UFOs. I, Also like many
would like to get to the bottom of just why we have so many
reports of UFOs/Aliens over so many years of our history on
this planet.

I have also been researching into the hows & why's this has been
happening. I surly cannot say I have found the answers, But I
think it was about time I shared what I have found/learnt with
others. If for no other reason than to get other peoples
feedback and opinions.

I started off my research looking into how I would go about
powering a space craft. I didn't even bother looking at solid
fuels. I went straight to magnetic power. As it became clear to
me very early on that solid fuels were at a stage there they
could not be taken any further. It took me many years of
researching and listening to professionals to start to
understand just a little of the mighty Magnetic energy that the
Universe users.

What I didn't know was that all life relied on magnetic energy
to exist, If you go into the very molecule of a magnet and then
you went even further into it's atoms and then even further into
what powers it's atoms and then even further into what powers
the power that powers the atoms. You end up in what I can only
decide as being the spirit world for want of a better word. I
know this as being The Opposing Matter World, and it seems to be
why the Physical World that we live can exist. It even became
very clear to me that the periodic chemical table that we have
falls very short of just how many chemicals there really are. It
was while I was looking into the periodic table that Robert
Lazar came on the seen. When he said about there being a element
115, it just fitted in to well with what i was researching.

Plus the ship he showed in detail was much better than what I
had come up with. I had shield the inside of my craft, which
made it way to heavy and my magnetic drives were around the
outside of the craft. Also I was having a lot of trouble
controlling my craft. But after I looked and looked again at
what Lazar had show us I was no longer wonder if they were real.
I was now without any doubt what so ever. The craft he showed
was just to close to the mark. My only question was how did he
get away with telling us about it?. This made me very suspicious
about Lazar. But the fact still remand that the craft he had
shown was in fact more than capable of flying.

But it took me some years to work out what Element 115 was and
how was it refined?. What I found scared the living daylights
out of me and changed the way I think and everything that I had
once believed. I went back to the Opposing Matter I had been
researching to look were 115 fitted in. What I found was not
very pleasing. The Greys seemed to be using the same element
that will in time become known as our soul. Yes a soul in a
element, and just like every snow flake that falls in different,
So is every soul. I know what you are saying. This is all bull
shit, But just read on and see if you do not come out with the
same conclusion that I have come out with after all the facts
are in.

Reincarnation looks to be very real indeed. As when we die our
element 115 (our soul) goes back to Mother Earth, As Mother
earth has a soul as well which is why there is life on Earth.
Her soul powers the magnetic fields, it powers the wind the
rain, it powers everything here. When the star lineaments are
right we come and go from the opposing matter world.

This is why the ancients were so keen on tracking the stars ect.
They knew Just how important the stars are to us and to when and
why we exist. This is really so interesting considering that
Women down through the ages have always held onto the belief of
reincarnation. It would seem they were right on the mark. And
because Mother Earth is conscious and therefor knows what's
going on. One does have to be good if one wants to stay with
Mother Earth. She seems to be able to reject those she feels are
not good for all life on Her planet. But it would seem the worst
that will happen to you by her rejecting you is that you will be
left to wonder the solar system for goodness only knows how long
before you are accepted back, if at all. Ok So this now brings
up the question about why are we lead to believe that down is
HELL?. how started this rumor?. and why did they start it?. Too
look at this we must go back to when this Element 115 was first
found and what and whom it was that started using it.

It would seem that a planet did exist in between Mars and
Jupiter. On this planet life got to a stage were they started
looking into element energy ect like we are, But they seemed to
have learnt more as they found element 115 and started to use
it. Once it became clear that using this element as a power
source was in fact Evil/bad for all living things. It seems to
have been outlawed. But there is always one smart ass that just
has to go against every one else. I think this is the one we
know as Satan or the devil. Well I sure don't know what exactly
what went on back then. All I am sure of is a big War broke out
and the good people that didn't want anything to do with using
E115, were being killed off in big numbers. And also in order to
get E115 to release it's energy, you need to use a element that
can only be found on the moon of a planet. The moons of a planet
in fact has opposing elements that help it to stay were it is.
without these elements the moon would come crashing down onto
the planet. Which is just what happened. Those that were using
E115 needed large amounts of this element that is only found on
a moon. But once they had removed a lot of it the moon could no
loner stay were it was and it crashed in the planet and now
there is only a pile of rocks circling the sun were the planet
used to be.

By the way does anyone remember that some years ago it was said
that the Americas were told never to return to the moon, by some
Aliens?.

Anyway, they moved from this planet before it was destroyed. A
Space Ark was built and they left. Just how long ago this was is
very hard to say. I get dates of 500,000 plus years and even
longer. They of course used a different time scale than we do.
So it's hard to put a figure on the right dates. To make things
easier or to standardize the hole think. Jupiter was used to
mark the years. I have only just found out about this in the
past few years. But if it is true and I believe it is, it would
put the time all the above happened even longer ago.

It would seem that those we now know as the Greys or Evil went
the way they did because they were sick of the way God had set
up the way we exist. They wanted to live forever in the physical
world. It wasn't enough that we are already eternal,( Unless you
end up in one of the Grey's reactors, when you not going to be
eternal for very long.) They had to be eternal in the physical
world. Like I said before, The planets soul has the right to
reject those it feels are not good for all life. I guess the
first Grey's didn't want to end up spending eternity floating
around the solar system. Once all this is taken into account. It
is not hard to understand some of the strange goings on's that
we have been having and it explains just why the Grey don't want
to be our friends nor do they want us getting too smart. Even
though the element they use it all powerful it still runs out.

So they need more and more and more. This also explain the
report or rumor we had so time ago about some good Aliens coming
and telling the Americans not to build Atom Bombs and to have
nothing to do with the race of Aliens that would follow them.
Just whom these good Aliens are I am not to sure but it would
seem that in order to keep a balance and to stay one step a head
of the Greys some of the original inhabitants moved into space
as well. But we can tell them apart from the Greys as they use a
different power source. They of course don't use E115 to power
there ships etc.

There is of course a lot more to all of this. I have really only
scratched the surface here. In my next article I will look at
why the Greys look the way they do and we will have a very close
look at the Greys craft. Also I had someone or something in a
dream I had tell me all we want to know is within us all. We
just have to look. Also in the same dream I was told not all
ET's out there are Evil.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                     Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 03:18:06 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:48:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies


 >Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:48:04 -0500
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies

 >The following statement is from Stan Gordon, in response to the
 >recent discussion on UpDates regarding the Kecksburg incident.
 >This message is passed along with his permission.

 >Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:51:09 -0500
 >From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>

<snip>

Hi, Stan, Kenny:

Thanks for making this available, by the way.

 >My position on the Kecksburg case is that an object of still
 >undetermined origin did fall from the sky near that community on
 >December 9, 1965. The focus of this event should be that at
 >about 4:47 P.M. a fiery object passed over the Pittsburgh area
 >and moved towards Westmoreland County, then passed over the
 >Greensburg area. This object made apparent turns before slowly
 >falling into the woods that afternoon. Reporters as well as
 >civilians on the scene that day confirm the military presence.

Not much new, here.

 >To call multitudes of witnesses "liars" about what they
 >experienced that day in 1965 is an easy way out.

I have checked the postings on this list which have mentioned
Kecksburg in the title and my email address for the words
"liars", "lie", "lies", "lying", and have found no matches.

I did, however, find one use of the phrase, "tall tales", and one
use of the phrase, "35 year old memories".

The point isn't what "multitudes" remember about the 1965 event,
nearly all of which can be explained by the Ontario meteor, the
three unsuccessful Kecksburg searches for its debris, and a
group of teenagers who ran through the woods flashing a camera
strobe. (Please note that Stan first published this little
tidbit in 1987 but has never mentioned it since. If I have
missed a brief mention somewhere during the last 14 years,
forgive me. I'm getting old an my eyesight isn't what it used to
be)

The point is that the key elements which suggest that something
more may have happened - armed troops, an object in the woods,
an armed convoy - have _all_ come from the same tiny group of
people.

The documentary evidence which has been uncovered and the
photographic and siesmic evidence supports the official
explanation of a meteoric fireball over Ontario. None of it
supports the tale or armed troops, an object in the woods, or an
armed convoy.

<snip>

 >Those who think that I have made a profit from this event have
 >no idea as to what I have invested in this research over the
 >years.

Those who have made lots of cash include writers, publishers,
printers, producers, advertisers, broadcasters, lecturers, etc.
who have been milking this thing on TV and in print since 1979.

 >I don't know if you saw the video documentary on this
 >event (Kecksburg The Untold Story) which I produced at my own
 >expense. It was an opportunity for some of those who were
 >involved, or who had important knowledge about the case to
 >relate their experiences. Many little known as well as new
 >details about the case were made public.

Like the testimony by the former newsman that all he saw was a
truck with something hidden under a tarp about the size of two
suitcases (another folded tarp?). How does that support the
story of a 6 X 17 foot long object, or a 10 X 12 foot, undamaged
object in the woods?

<snip>

 >In May of 1991, David Templeton wrote a feature story about the
 >incident called "The Uninvited" for the Pittsburgh Press Sunday
 >Magazine. They actually did some investigation into the matter.
 > In his article Templeton states " In all, The Pittsburgh Press
 >interviewed about 30 people regarding their experiences,
 >including firemen, residents and those drawn to Kecksburg that
 >night by curiosity. They offered similar accounts of the
 >landing, the craft and the military retrieval.

How many names of these 30, 1991 witnesses to the "craft" can
you list, or have ever been published, broadcast or publicly
identified? Let alone 30 witnesses with similar accounts of the
"landing, the craft and the military retrieval".

In 1991 only two or three people had publicly claimed that they
saw the object, itself, at Kecksburg. Two others claimed to have
seen it on Ohio Air Force bases. This statement in the Templeton
article was either a sloppily written or poorly edited sentence
which did what all promoters of this event have done at one time
or another, simply lumped together anyone who remembered or
claimed to have remembered events of that night, to make a more
exciting story.

I noted that Stan never mentioned the photographs of the Ontario
meteor and the article published in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal about the triangulation or the photos, the seismic
record and more than 100 written eyewitness reports 34 years
ago.

So, the Cover-up continues of documents and photographs which
demonstrate the true nature of the December 9, 1965, meteor.


May we have Clear skies, everybody,


Bob Young








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - BYoung

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:37:26 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:46:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - BYoung


 >From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies
 >Date: Qui, 4 Jan 2001 08:02 +0100

 >>Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:48:04 -0500
 >>From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies

 >As Kevin Randle wrote in his book 'A History of UFO Crashes':

 >"...until all the facts are know, the case must remain open".

Hello, Thiago:

Kevin Randle had not seen the 1966 article by Chamberlain and
Krause describing the photo triangulation when he wrote that.
Although the article, which I had sent him, was listed in the
book's bibliography, he has written to me that he had not read
the article at the time his manuscript was submitted.

 >Well the facts are that something did fall in Kecksburg.

Such a fact has never been established. The documentary evidence
which exists is that nothing was found. The photographic and
seismic evidence is that a meteor fell over Ontario.

<snip>

 >some eyewitness saw a flatbed truck with a tarp
 >covering its cargo as it was seen leaving the area.

In the video now being distributed by Stan Gordon, a former
newsman who was there in 1965 is interviewed. He described a
tarp covering something he couldn't see which seemed to be the
size of two suitcases. How does this support a 6 by 17 foot
object, or a 10 by 12 foot undamaged object, as related by the
witnesses of the crashed UFO in the woods?

 >Some witnesses were threatened by the military or by the
 >police, include Mrs. Kalp.

Please cite your sources for this. I can say that one man who
has made claims like this, and has said that he saw a UFO in the
woods, an armed convoy and armed troops occupying the town, has
threatened, in a newspaper, that he would sue anyone who says
that he is lying. He also bragged in a magazine interview that
this is what silenced his local critics. This may be why there
are local 1965 witnesses, including some elderly people who
doubt the crash and recovery tale, who will not speak publicly
about the 1965 event.

Who, then, is known to have threatened witnesses?

 >Project Mood Dust was activated, and they went to search
 >something.

There is no conclusive evidence that this happened. The three
Air Force men who were present from the nearest USAF
installation, a radar site 30 miles away, could have been simply
conducting a common UFO report investigation as outlined in Air
Force Regulation 200-2.

 >Why can a single meteor cause all that mess?

Because first reports were that an airplane had crashed, then
that a satellite may have come down. The meteor explanation came
_after_ three unsuccessful searches. And by the way, there were
also at least 6 other unsuccessful searcher in other locations.

<snip>

 >You fellas that live in the USA or near Kecksburg should re-open
 >the case. I think that the Air Force knows more than we know.

I live less than 200 miles away and have been there many times
and have searched State archives. Stan Gordon and his associates
are closer and have searched for documents since the early
1980s, but have found nothing that cannot be explained by the
Ontario meteor, which _did_ happen (after all, we have
pictures).

As tantalizing as this tale might sound, particularly in its
more dramatic and fantastic television and video retellings,
there is a lot, lot _less_ to the story than meets the eye. I've
been following it closely for more than ten years, now.


Clear skies,

Bob Young








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                         eXpose News Update - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:40:53 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:53:58 -0500
Subject: eXpose News Update - Myers


eXpose: The Watchdog of UFOlogy
eXpose News http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
UFO Hall o' Shame http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind."

~ART BELL RETURNS~
Controversial Coast to Coast AM radio host returns despite
saying he would never do radio again. Will Bell take
responsibility for what he broadcasts as truth vs. entertainment
or will UFOlogy prepare for another black eye?

~LYNCH MOUNTAIN UFOs~
Residents report seeing UFOs near mountain where military base
is located.

~NEON GREEN UFO SIGHTED~
Vermont UFO sighting said to be "meteor."

~MORE CAUS MADNESS~
CAUS Director Peter A. Gersten continues to send bizarre
messages. It just gets weirder with each message...

~eXpose eXpo~
*COMING SOON!* ED DAMES: Is Ed Dames exploiting a murdered
teenager for self promotion? Alleged Remote Viewer claims police
agency asked for his assistance in case of missing teen, police
agency denies claims. Full report available to subscribers of
THE WATCHDOG soon! See what Ed Dames is really like...

~UFO Hall of Frauds, Dirtbags, Dupes and Morons~
DIRTBAG OF THE MONTH FOR JANUARY 2001
Life of Lies. From his educational background to his association
with Star Trek creator Gene Rodennberry, eXpose reveals the lies
of Sean David Morton.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                       Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 12:23:01 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:52:19 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:48:21 -0000

 >I don't think it is true that 'I am bringing up personal
 >research'. You keep seeing that in my general comments on this
 >case. Although - yes - I am responding to the long list of
 >personal criticisms that you keep making. As I am sure you would
 >do.

Jenny, I am only commenting on the points you bring up.

 >I have no problem with criticism of my research, of course, as
 >it is there to be debated but it does have to be responsible
 >criticism that doesn't completely misrepresent the truth of what
 >was said in the first place.

But it is responsible criticism. It concerns the case and what
is speculation and what is the truth.

 >With any case the right approach - surely - is to listen to what
 >others say and take it seriously (and I very obviously have
 >listened to all sides of the discussion on this case).

Listening is not enough, one has to look at the evidence.

 >In other words, I think that sitting on the fence, listening to
 >all sides of the debate and trying to fit all the pieces of the
 >puzzle together in a variety of ways is what ufology ought to be
 >about more often. Because right now it is too concerned with
 >polarised opinions - either pro or skeptic - being so sure they
 >are right that it is considered important to fight some kind of
 >battle to prove a theory right.

No, Jenny, sitting on the fence and only listening to what
people have to say, is a very negative thing to do. Surely
getting down to the nitty gritty of investigation is what it is
all about. I am merely challenging those who still believe in
the lighthouse theory. Please let me see some real facts - not
speculation.

 >My position - as I have tried to state before - is that I don't
 >actually know what happened in December l980 because the
 >evidence is so complex and conflicting. So if accepting that is
 >being 'on the fence' - fine - I am proud of it. Because to form
 >any specific conclusion and insist that I KNOW what happened in
 >that forest 20 years ago would be dangerously deluding myself -
 >not to mention others.

You should really read my book again, it explains in great
detail what happened during that week. Whilst it doesn't offer a
positive answer as to what these "unidentifieds" were or where
they came from (not even the witnesses can answer that) it does
dispel the lighthouse theory and other so called "down to earth"
theories entirely.

 >So what's wrong with admitting that?

Nothing wrong in admitting to that. But you have a mass of new
evidence, which as someone who has taken an interest in this
case, should be looking at instead of sitting on the fence
listening to what others (who were not involved) have to say.

 >I am  more skeptical than I once was - certainly. Because parts
 >of the case have decreased in significance as deeper research
 >has been carried out.

Jenny, this is why people are questioning you. The evidence
presented in my book "You Can't Tell The People" is really
something. I must stress that this could not have been made
possible were it not for all those who contributed to this
investigation. Of course there are more witnesses to come
forward; answers from the MOD and more positive responses from
our government ministers (which I'm working on) but all in all,
you have an abundance of fresh information to play with. So
please get the hell off that fence and if you really are
interested in this case - do something really constructive -
take this information and work with it!

 >I do think we can say with reasonable assurance - for instance -
 >that it is likely that some witnesses saw the meteor at 2.50 am
 >on 26 December (the coincidence of timing here is just too great
 >to ignore) and that some of the second nights sightings are of
 >stellar objects (because of the physical characteristics of
 >these parts of the sighting and the way they match other
 >sightings proven to have this origin). And I am much less
 >convinced that the radiation readings mean anything than most
 >other people.

Jenny, there are pages of information in my book which prove
that the incident began much earlier than originally assumed. In
fact it started just after 23.00 hours on 25 December. So the 3
a.m. timing is erroneous.

You are also confusing matters here. By the second night I
believe you are referring to the night Halt made the audio
recording, but the second night (26th) is not the night,
according to the witnesses and indeed Halt - that he is
referring to. But UFOs did show up on the 26th. The fact that
there was another sighting on that night was confirmed to me by
former police officer Dave King and by Inspector Mike Topliss of
the Suffolk Constabulary Headquarters, Martlesham Heath,
Suffolk.

None of us can be sure of the radiation readings, not due to
your theories but because, as I report in my book, the Geiger
counter operated by Sgt Nevilles, was in fact broken.

 >So - to me - there are key parts of this case that are arguably
 >resolved or well on the road to being resolved.

Based on what - theories? So far, you have the wrong time and
the wrong date. It is no wonder that you are confused.

 >If this does not make you sit up and start asking questions
 >then it ought to do. And that isn't bias, debunking, skepticism
 >or any such thing. Its plain old fashioned common sense built
 >out of years of experience with the way UFO investigation can -
 >and does - often lead us from mystery to resolution.

Please see my replies above. Researchers are, and I know by the
amount of mail I am receiving, sitting up and taking notice of
the facts that I have presented along with first hand testimony
from the military personnel who were on the on the base, which,
I might add, could not have been achieved by sitting on the
fence!

 >But there are other aspects to the case that are open to
 >responsible debate and which could go either way according to
 >how the evidence stands right now. That includes the involvement
 >of the lighthouse which is clearly a possible factor in the
 >complicated equation that is this case - if not (and I have
 >never said otherwise) a  proven resolution.

Please explain the part the lighthouse plays in this incident.
Can you please be specific about this Jenny.

 >As I have repeatedly made clear I don't believe we can ignore
 >this option because it has sufficient similarity to what the
 >witnesses describe. Equally, as I have again always made clear,
 >I have great difficulty accepting the conclusion that these
 >witnesses were simply fooled by the lighthouse without some
 >other factor also being at work.

That is certainly sitting on the fence. Can you please explain
where the witnesses describe something that might be associated
with the lighthouse having been the UFOs. Please take into
consideration that some saw the UFOs from the east gate and the
lighthouse or its beam was not visible from that location,
neither in 1980 or indeed today.

 >Which is why I have considered possibilities such as the
 >intervention of a mirage effect on the lighthouse as a means by
 >which a mundane stimulus became temporarily extraordinary.

A mirage!

Put aside the witnesses for a moment.

What about the landing marks Jenny? What about the memo and
letter sent to the MOD? What about the senior officers who
checked the site the morning after and then contacted Suffolk
Constabulary Head Office, home then to Special Branch and MI5.
Could anyone seriously imagine that America's mighty fighting
power, the USAF, and the largest tactical fighter wing in the
USAFE, in charge of a twin military base on foreign territory
that housed short range nuclear weapons, would go to all that
trouble if they were not certain that something odd had landed
in the forest. Consider also that it was the height of the Cold
War with Britain's Prime Minister, days before the event,
threatening the USSR to stay out of the Polish crisis. Add to
this the problems with the IRA who were threatening to attack
Britain with a Christmas bombing campaign, plus the problems a
week, and indeed a few days prior to the incident when British
bomb disposal teams (twice) were called out to detonate
unexploded bombs on the Bentwaters domestic site - not far from
the weapons storage area. We are talking about a security risk
to the bases and indeed the United Kingdom. With all that in
mind, if something landed outside the perimeter fence, don't you
think it would be of concern to the USAFE and Britain's defence
agencies?

Do you really imagine that a Lt Colonel with the USAFE would
(and please note that he was later promoted to full colonel) in
view of all the aforementioned, author a memorandum which
clearly states that Britain was invaded by a series of
unexplained objects, one of which actually landed on British
territory?

No Jenny, it cannot be a mirage. I have only explained a
fraction of the argument against that theory, but the book is
full of evidence, and if you can't see that, then I don't know
what to suggest.

 >All I said was that there had been no confirmation of the radar
 >tracking of the object that fell into the forest on the night of
 >25/26 December. And there has not been. The position of Watton
 >and the MoD has always been officially that no unexplained radar
 >images were recorded. And there remains no hard evidence to the
 >contrary.

Regarding the first night:

RAF Watton (emergency desk) told the British press that they had
tracked an object earlier that night. (reported in the press -
check archives) and Lt Colonel Fred Buran (ret) confirmed that
Heathrow had tracked the object. Major Edward Drury (ret)
confirmed he had reported the incident to RAF Bawdsey who
confirmed they had tracked the UFO on radar.

 >What Watton told Nick Redfern is interesting but is actually not
 >very relevant to the above . Why? Because what they say is only
 >that at 3.28 am on the second night (the night Halt was out
 >there) Bentwaters called them to report the sighting of a UFO
 >made from the base - passing overhead at 37,000 feet. But Watton
 >add that their radar records for the night were not available.

Jenny, you are wrong my dear! The logs were available but the
RAF were unable to provide Redfern with copies. But what they
did do is provide a "verbatim" statement. I must add that it was
not "one" UFO but referred to "sightings of UFOS"

 >Now surely this 'evidence' is a very long way from Watton having
 >confirmed the tracking of the UFO that was seen to land inside
 >the forest two days earlier.   If not - how not?

You cannot track an object falling into the forest because when
it gets below a certain height radar does not pick it up.

 >So I am actually baffled as to the point you are trying to make
 >here.

Please read the above and tell me if you are still baffled

Regarding the case in general, in my book I present confirmation
from the Ministry of Defence that they looked into the incident.
In fact the department responsible was the Directorate of Air
Defence, which no longer exists. This department was responsible
for radar tracking. So after 20 years we now have confirmation
from the MOD that they did take an interest in the radar
reports.

 >>I questioned Gordon Levitt and he was very annoyed that the
 >>death of his dog had been linked to the UFO sighting, which he
 >>said was nothing to do with it.

 >>Now, I am aware that people change their minds and claim they
 >>didn't say this or didn't say that... but

 >>Levitt also signed an affidavit (don't have the file handy at
 >>this moment, it was 1983/4) signed also by a solicitor, but this
 >>detailed document does not mention the death of his dog as being
 >>related to the UFO encounter. Brenda Butler and Dot Street told
 >>me independently that the dog's death had no connection to the
 >>UFO, and as you worked closely with the researchers, I could not
 >>understand why you always wrote this story into the case. Maybe
 >>you were not aware that it had no connection.

 >You see - again - a whiff of arrogance in your words.

 >I met Gordon at his home 16 years ago. He told me in detail what
 >had happened. And he raised the death of his dog soon after the
 >sighting - otherwise how would I know about it? He did not
 >himself link it to the UFO, I agree he did not - never
 >suggesting that any 'energy' killed his dog  - but he did bring
 >the matter up during the same discussion. He told me what the
 >vet had suggested as to cause of death. And I have faithfully
 >reported what the vet said to make sure my readers knew the
 >facts , what was considered the possible cause of death and what
 >other factors just might have also been relevant - because, of
 >course, the UFO could potentially have been a factor.

 >How can you possibly know otherwise?

In your writings you claim the dog died within weeks of the
event but according to Brenda Butler and indeed Levitt himself,
the dog died much later than this. In fact Brenda said she
talked to Levitt almost a year later and his dog was very much
alive. So, although it was shocked after the sighting, which did
scare other animals, including a guard dog belonging to the
USAF, it is unlikely it died as a result of the incident but
with what the vet described.

 >So in what way can you claim I was 'not aware' or even suggest I
 >presented this matter unfairly?

Because there was absolutely no evidence that the dog's death
was linked to the UFO encounter.

 >Fine - you have your opinion - and that's okay by me - but isn't
 >this a bit of a double standard? Ian Ridpath, Vince Thurkettle,
 >David King etc have all in the past said they DO think the UFO
 >sighting and the lighthouse are connected. They cite cogent
 >reasons for this. You don't think so (which is fair enough) but
 >then go to considerable lengths to try to persuade them
 >otherwise and to infer that thinking this is some kind of crime
 >against Uology.

There is a difference. If a death (animal or not) was caused by
the UFOs then that is a serious problem. I can't see your point here.

I quoted Ian Ridpath because he went out and publicly promoted
the lighthouse theory. Vince Thurkettle was the forester who
originally suggested (and I mean only suggested) it could have
been the lighthouse the witnesses saw and PC Dave King was
officially sent out to investigate. They were all involved in
some way.

 >Yet here Gordon expresses an opinion (and that's all it is) that
 >he doesn't think the close encounter was connected with the death
 >of his dog. As it may, or may not, have been. Yet rather than
 >argue with him about radiation, energy fields, close proximity
 >and precedents (the sort of things that otherwise in this case
 >appear to impress you) - you happily accept Gordon is right and
 >seek to denounce me because I dare to suggest (and that's all I
 >have done) that there might be a connection here worth
 >considering.

Because it is clear that the dog, who apparently died a year
later, did not die as a result of the UFO! So why spend all
these years writing it into the story? It is interesting how you
are prepared to consider energy fields, radiation etc, but argue
that it could all have been a mirage effect.

 >>In the 'UFOs That Never Were' published in 2000, you state on
 >>the first page of your chapter entitled "Rendle Shame Forest":
 >>Referring to the UFO:
 >>'A dog was even killed by its deadly energy trail.'

 >Oh dear - this is a particularly horrendous example of your
 >tactics at work - nothing less than word manipulation. Unless
 >you are an incredibly sloppy reader then you have to know the
 >context in which this extraordinarily selective quote appears.
 >It introduces the 60 page chapter.
 >Here is the full context that you forget to provide for this
 >list - necessary as most wont bother to check it out for
 >themselves.

'You may not be aware of the fact, but a small triangular craft
smashed its way through pine trees in East Anglia in December
l980, leaving indentations on the ground and excessive radiation
in its wake. The effects were so obvious that the forest was
quickly felled on orders from the UK government. The many
witnesses include officers from the US Air Force, whilst its
passage across Suffolk was tracked by MoD radar. A dog was even
killed by its deadly energy trail.

An enormous security furor erupted after this case. During a
pursuit across miles of British soil, laser beams from a
hovering UFO were fired down upon the bunkers were atomic
missiles were covertly stored. The outcry almost ended the
centuries-old special relationship between Britain and the USA
as this astounding case became a political football.

Or, then again, none of these things really happened. It was -
as astronomer and UFO sceptic Ian Ridpath has said of the
debacle - a 'ghastly embarrassment to British Uology'.

 >Who on earth is right? '

 >Now - I ask those of you on this list who are on the outside
 >looking in at this debate to ponder just what Georgina has done
 >here .

 >She has extracted one sentence and presented it to you so far
 >out of the blatantly obvious context  to appear in a way that
 >meant something completely different from what was clearly
 >intended.

That was all just sitting on the fence again. But the fact is
Jenny that only you ever mentions the dog's death as being
connected with the incident. Only you!

Therefore the quote: 'A dog was even killed by its deadly energy
trail.' is a direct quote from you - whichever way you look at
it, it had nothing to do with the incident and that was my point
here.

So can we now conclude that Gordon Levitt's famous dog was not
killed by the UFO and that this myth can be taken out of the
story.


Best wishes,

Georgina Bruni

"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the
Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni. Published
by Sidgwick & Jackson Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk
Countries outside UK: www.netstoreusa.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                  Argentina Blinded By Lights In The Night

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 12:40:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:56:35 -0500
Subject: Argentina Blinded By Lights In The Night


Dear Friends,

This could well be the first UFO event of the millennium, who
knows?

It's worth noting that Southern Cone (Argentina, Uruguay and
Chile) has been affected by strange electrical phenomena for a
number of months, as readers of the INEXPLICATA updates can
remember (please visit the archives at inexplicata @ egroups.com
for more information), and only last month the Chilean village
of Calama was affected by allegedly UFO-related blackouts.

Scott Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology
www.inexplicata.com

===============================

SOURCE: "La Voz del Interior" (Cordoba, Argentina)
DATE: January 5, 2001

BLINDED BY LIGHTS IN THE NIGHT

***Julio Salguero decided to speak yesterday about the
unexpected experience he shared with his family in the early
morning hours of last Tuesday ***

STAFF (La Voz del Interior)

Rio Tercero. It was three thirty in the morning on January  2nd,
2001. Julio Salguero was on his way back to Corralito after
celebrating the New Year with his relatives in Villa Maria. When
he passed through Rio Tercero, he chose to traverse the 18
kilometer stretch of land devastated by recent rains, but which
represented the shortest way to reach the community. Very few
people transit the area nowadays.

At the time in question, some five kilometers before Corralito,
began the experience that Juilo recounted on many radio
receivers throughout the province yesterday.

"We were calmly driving along when suddenly my wife screamed:
"Be careful!" and we saw a light heading straight for us. I hit
the brakes. What I could see was a round, very powerful light,
like a welding light, over a meter in diameter. It seemed to be
heading straight for the car, but it suddenly stopped and backed
off. It remained at the hight of the power cables that are now
at the side of the road, moving up and down," he explained.

Salguero stated that he had not planned to make all of this
public, but it became known several days later due to a friend
from the FM Sol radio station in Rio Tercero, with whom he had
discussed the event.

"The light lit everything up  for a few minutes, without any
exaggerations, as if it were broad daylight, due to its
intensity. It then rose  some 30 meters into the air and
suddenly vanished. Neither I nor my family can state which way
it went, because we'd be lying. What we saw is that it vanished
suddenly, like a light being switched off, " he added, fully
aware that his story may be less-than-believable to some. Or
perhaps even to himself, before it occured, as he freely admits.

"There's a kid named Alejandrom Yori, who says he saw a powerful
light moving around the site all the way from Corralito,"
remarked Salguero, insisting that the announcer also speak to
his wife or children to corroborate the story. That evening,
Salguero was traveling with his whole family: his wife and four
children, ages 14, 12, 3 and 1, respectively, and a 14 year old
niece.

Salguero owns a cable TV system in Corralito (a small town with
2,200 residents) and also repairs electronic devices. He is
considered as a credible individual in his community and no one
suspects that he or his family would concoct such a story.

After calculating that the episode should have lasted some "two
or three minutes", Salguero says he kept his foot on the brake
but the engine running, and that he signalled with his
headlights "out of despair or for a lack of anything better to
do, since we were really scared. We couldn't sleep last night,"
he commented.

He also added that they saw nothing else aside from the bright
light, and that they didn't notice any effects upon the trees on
the roadside or on the road's dirt surface. The atmosphere was
perfectly calm but for the presence of the "powerful light in
the air."

They were even more surprised to learn that the town had been
deprived of electricity on a night without storms or high winds,
and even more so when they discovered that nearby Rio Tercero
had lost power at exactly the same time they had their
experience. "As far as I know, no reason for the power outage
has been found," he said.

Salguero described himself as "a believer in God", remarked that
he neither reads nor follows UFO-related subjects, and that he
would have rather not lived the experience. He further added to
dispell any suspicions: "I don't drink. Besides, it isn't my
word alone--it's also that of my wife, children and niece."

The 12 year old son, also named Julio, spoke to La Voz del
Interior and stated that he saw  "a light hovering over the high
voltage wire on the roadside" that evening. He added that "it
was white and didn't seem to be so large, but cast a lot of
light. It then became larger and changed colors, becoming even
more blue, sky blue, and then violet until it disappeared all of
a sudden."

He added that the saw the light some 30 meters from the car. "I
was very scared," he admitted.

On the day after the event, when he wasn't even thinking of
talking to the media, he called the Falda de Carmen station
where aerospace research is conducted. "I was told that
something similar happened some 10 years ago. They asked me if
the light was white in color and turned violet later. I thought
they were clear about [what it was], but they gave me no
explanations as to its nature. They just asked for my
information," he concluded.

Translation (C) 2001. Scott Corrales/Institute of Hispanic
Ufology (IHU) Special Thanks to Gloria Coluchi.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                          Secrecy News -- 01/05/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 14:25:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:00:37 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 01/05/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
January 5, 2001

**NEW COUNTERINTELLIGENCE BOARD ESTABLISHED
**CIA, PFIAB BLOCK HISTORICAL DECLASSIFICATION
**NEW REPORT ON COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY


NEW COUNTERINTELLIGENCE BOARD ESTABLISHED

The White House today is announcing the establishment of a new
interagency body, created by Presidential Decision Directive, to
coordinate counterintelligence (CI) activities across the
government.

"To deal with the new CI threat environment, the CI community
must be restructured and transposed from a largely reactive
state to a modern, innovative program that is much more
proactive," said John McGaffin, senior adviser to the National
Counterintelligence Center. Mr. McGaffin discussed the new
initiative several months ago at a meeting of the Security
Policy Advisory Board.

One of the first things the new entity will do is to ask what
information really needs to be protected. "The principle
activities of [the new organization] will include the
identification of the critical assets that must be protected by
CI," said Mr. McGaffin.

This is a potentially awkward question for many agencies,
because as soon as one asks what information is genuinely
sensitive, it immediately becomes clear that an enormous amount
of non-sensitive information is being protected for no valid
national security reason.

On the other hand, government bureaucracies are well-equipped to
deflect such inquiries. Neither the National Counterintelligence
Center nor the Security Policy Board, which was likewise created
by Presidential Decision Directive in 1994, have had any
fundamental impact on security policies.

The new initiative was reported today by the New York Times and
the Washington Post. The remarks of John McGaffin on CI-21 and
the new counterintelligence structure may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/spb/spab0900.html#CI-21


CIA, PFIAB BLOCK HISTORICAL DECLASSIFICATION

The Central Intelligence Agency and the President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) are seeking to prevent
declassification of entire categories of 30 year old documents,
according to the new Annual Report of the State Department's
Historical Advisory Committee.

"The Committee is gravely concerned that these blanket denials
will set a dangerous precedent and compromise the historical
record," wrote Committee chair Michael J. Hogan, an eminent
historian at Ohio State University.

The Historical Advisory Committee was established by Congress to
ensure the integrity of the historical record as presented in
the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series, the
official documentary record of U.S. foreign policy.

"PFIAB seeks a permanent exemption of its records from the
declassification statute on the dubious grounds that it provides
personal and private information to the President. It claims
that it 'owns' the documents of its predecessor agencies. The
Advisory Committee is firmly and unanimously opposed to PFIAB's
stance," the new Report states.

Meanwhile, "the CIA claims that the President's Daily Briefs
(PDBs) are not subject to declassification because they fall
under the category of privileged advice to the President and
are, therefore, exempt information.... The Committee is
unequivocally opposed to the CIA's position and believes that
this kind of blanket denial sets a dangerous precedent."

According to a 1991 statute, the FRUS series is required by law
to be "thorough, accurate and reliable." Efforts by CIA and
PFIAB to withhold significant historical information from the
FRUS editors would therefore seem to be in violation of the law.

The new Annual Report of the State Department Historical
Advisory Committee for calendar year 2000 is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/state/hac00.html


NEW REPORT ON COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY

A major new report to the President on the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John
M. Shalikashvili should help to resuscitate debate over the
Treaty and to enhance the prospects for its ultimate
ratification, which was blocked by Senate Republicans in 1999.

"At the end of my review of the Treaty's potential impact on
U.S. national security, I support the Treaty, just as I did when
I served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,"
Shalikashvili writes. "My discussions over the last ten months
have only strengthened my view that the Treaty is a very
important part of global non-proliferation efforts and is
compatible with keeping a safe, reliable U.S. nuclear
deterrent."

"I fear that the longer [the Treaty's] entry into force is
delayed, the more likely it is that other countries will move
irrevocably to acquire nuclear weapons or significantly improve
their current nuclear arsenal, and the less likely it is that we
could mobilize a strong international coalition against such
activities."

"I remain convinced that the advantages of the Test Ban Treaty
outweigh any disadvantages, and thus that ratification would
increase national security."

The new Shalikashvili report, released today, is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/ctbt/text/ctbt_report.html


******************************
To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message: subscribe
secrecy_news [your email address]
To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message: unsubscribe secrecy_news
[your email address]
Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email: saftergood@igc.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

               Re: A Heads-Up - This Will Generate 'Sightings'

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 17:07:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:02:44 -0500
Subject: Re: A Heads-Up - This Will Generate 'Sightings'


NASA Looks to Future Science Exploration Using Ultra-Long
Duration Balloons

Goddard's Wallops Flight Facility is preparing to launch a
revolutionary research balloon that could open a new era in
scientific research. The test flight of NASA's new Ultra-Long
Duration Balloon scheduled for Jan. 17, 2001, from Alice
Springs, Australia, will carry the hopes of many scientists who
see balloon technology as an economical means of studying space
and Earth science.

The upcoming launch will be the first global test flight of the
full scale Ultra Long Duration Balloon (ULDB) that will carry
scientific research to altitudes reaching 112,000 feet (34
kilometers) or 3 to 4 times higher than passenger planes fly.
The balloon will carry an experiment called NIGHTGLOW that was
designed for NASA's Long Duration Balloon (LDB). While the test
flight is expected to last about two weeks and circumnavigate
the globe, the ULDB is designed to support missions for up to
100 days. A typical LDB flight may last for up to three weeks.

For information on the Ultra Long Duration Balloon mission,
tracking of the balloon flight, as well as educational
opportunities and activities, visit NASA's Scientific Balloon
website at:

http://www.wff.nasa.gov/pages/scientificballoons.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 01:07:09 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:07:33 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 22:56:25 -0000

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 17:09:26 EST
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>>Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 16:14:31 -0000

Re: Scurrah

 >I then modified it to late November , to take account of the
 >fact that much later the witness had suggested that it might
 >have occurred as early as October. Thus requiring a revised
 >average to slightly earlier in the year.

Scurrah complained much earlier rather than later Jenny. He also
gave an interview to UFO magazine - and researchers, even those
not following this case were aware that he was objecting. In
fact Scurrah made the statement in UFO magazine in 1995. You
only corrected it in 2000.

 >So it is clearly not possible to argue  that this incident must
 >be unconnected with Rendlesham. It may - or it may not - be.
 >We simply don't know.

But we do know that it was not connected to December 1980
incident. Scurrah has been very sure about that!


Best wishes

Georgina Bruni

"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the
Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni.
Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk
Countries outside UK: www.netstoreusa.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:51:54 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:05:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Bruni


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles
 >Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:07:52 -0000

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 18:26:39 EST
 >>Subject: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Sparks - Pt. 2
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >But it is interesting that I don't see you anywhere reporting
 >(probably because you again have not read what I write on this
 >issue) that far from not doing what you demand that I should do
 >- I actually point out how none of the USAF people with King in
 >the forest on that first night were trying to suggest to him
 >that the lighthouse that they could now see WAS the UFO.

 >This - to me - is easily the most interesting thing about his
 >testimony.

Jenny, just to jump in here:

FYI there were no airmen in the forest with PC Dave King. King
The two USAF Law Enforcement officers left PC King and PC Brophy
at the edge of the forest. King confirmed this when I
interviewed him. One other thing that I think you should know
and which is written about in your books etc. The base
commander, Ted Conrad did not escort King to the forest - just
the LE's.

 >Recall - of course - that an hour earlier this lighthouse is
 >argued by some to have triggered a major close encounter. So the
 >fact that King is saying that he could only now see the
 >lighthouse from the site (and so could the USAF personnel out
 >there with him) is a pro UFO statement since we have to ask what
 >was different about the lighthouse an hour earlier that
 >apparently wasn't causing any sort of confusion now.

You should also know that King and Brophy were called out
approximately five hours after the first reported sighting, (not
one hour) when all the witnesses had returned to the base.

 >Now isn't it curious that I argue all of this quite plainly in my
 >writings on the case - but you conveniently don't seem to notice
 >or mention such things. All you - quite spuriously - allege is
 >that I am not doing what Georgina is doing by shouting at the
 >skeptics to argue over a less important aspect of Kings story!

Jenny you can no longer base your case on material that has
been proved to be erroneous. Dave King's testimony is very
important - all of it - including the fact that he is now aware
that the incident occurred almost five hours earlier.


Best wishes,

Georgina Bruni

"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the
Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni.
Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk
Countries outside UK: www.netstoreusa.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                     Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Nolane

From: Richard D. Nolane <raynaud@total.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 23:01:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:34:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Nolane


 >From: Gildas Bourdais G<Bourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:12:54 EST
 >Subject: Boris Shurinov Website
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >To all List members,

 >I am pleased to announce the opening of a new web site, by
 >Rusian ufologist Boris Shurinov, in English, at:

 >http://borshurinov.narod.ru/ufobusiness/ufobindex.htm

 >It is called the "Black Page", and you will see why if you visit
 >it. It's not going to be welcomed by everyone!

 >I wish him success with it!

 >Gildas Bourdais


Dear List members,

If you can read French, Boris published, in 1995, a quite fine
book about Soviet/Russian ufology titled "OVNIS EN RUSSIE: Les
deux faces de l'Ufologie Russe" (Trdaniel Publisher, Paris).

It's really the best book on the subject. You can find in it a
good investigation of the "flying saucers circus and business"
in Russia but, too, some quite fascinating cases unknown in the
West. A must! This book needs to be translated into English!


RDN







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                           eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 20:01:59 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:36:24 -0500
Subject: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01


eXpose is currently conducting an investigation into the claims
made by Sean David Morton. After conducting several interviews,
eXpose has been told that some organizations listed on Morton's
personal biography will be sending him cease and desist letters
for Morton to stop associating their organizations with him.
Additionally, several organizations that Morton lists as having
either worked at or having received an education from have
stated that they have no record for such a person. Today, eXpose
found that Morton's personal biography is no longer available
on-line:

http://www.delphiassociates.org/sean/sean.html

Fortune would have it that a copy of the site was saved and
there are several other sites that list Morton's bio. Is it a
coincidence that Morton's personal biography is no longer on the
web or is something else afoot? Stay tuned as this story
develops...



"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind." eXpose: The Watchdog of UFOlogy
http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3 UFO Hall o' Shame
http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                 Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 01:21:52 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:42:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - Gates


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Art Bell: Late Night Madness Returns
 >Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:10:37 -0800

 >If you haven't heard by now, Art Bell is coming back to the
 >airwaves on 05-Feb-01. First he left, then returned, then left
 >and is back again. Didn't he say he was never coming back to
 >radio...

 >I'm quite sure he'll pick right up where he left off and
 >continue to promote UFO hoaxes and generally further ruin the
 >credibility of legitimate UFO research and investigation.
 >Prepare for more and more of the likes of Robert Ghostwolf (aka
 >Robert Andrew Franzone), Richard Hoagland, Ed Dames, Jonathan
 >Reed and any other frauds you can imagine. Also prepare for him
 >to continue his antics of ignoring guest information that
 >contradicts any of the claims made by his guests.

Art is what you would call a "non confrontational host" which
appears to be his style.

Its always good to see the return of a classic so to speak. One
wonders of the opening show will feature Dames/Ghostwolf on the
first hour, Reed the second, and the latest in gloom-and-doom
climate change during the third hour.

 >Remember folks, Bell says its all entertainment even when its
 >presented as fact. At least Coast to Coast AM host Ian Punnett
 >had the nerve to challenge guests on the air. In fact, he's the
 >only person that has EVER responded to any communication
 >regarding the dubious nature of frequent Coast to Coast AM
 >guests.

Hoax to Hoax is the only media outlet that gives people that
would qualify as a "dubious nature" types the opportunity to
unload on the world their latest theories, revelations and
alleged pearls from government insiders.

 >Sit back as the madness takes off and Ufology gets the short end
 >of the stick... again. One can always hope that Bell has changed
 >and reconsidered some things during his absence, but I'm not
 >holding my breathe.

Some feel that John Velez's 1999 message about the show could
still be classified as current and correct. It is found at:

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/1999/jan/m06-023.shtml

In this message John responded to, Stephen Bassett, who was
telling everyone about "Disclosure 99" radio show on January 8/9
1999. Featured guests were Basset, Birnes, Greer, Hoagland,
Gersten, Brandenburg, and Firmage. Note to anyone responding to
this message, the below was written by John, and not by me.
Commenting on the Art Bell and guest appearances John wrote:


[Begin John Velez message from 1999]


Hi All,

LMAO! _These_ are the guys who are going to evaluate last years
progress (or lack of it) in ufology?

Isn't this also a list of names of the same guys that are at the
root of _what_is_wrong_ with ufology?

And Art Bell is hosting! Oh man, this is just too rich. Excuse
me while I drop off my chair (again) and roll around on the
floor laughing my keester off.

There is a physics lesson hidden in here somewhere. Let me see
if I can sus it out...

A. Art Bell is the most full of sh*t of the lot.

B. So it stands to reason that he has more 'mass' than the
others.

C. Therefore, his gravitational pull on the other smaller
'turds' causes them to...

D. gravitate towards Bell. - Where...

E. ... they eventually assume permanent orbits around their
primary.

How was that?

A good 'empirical' test of this theory would be to flush, and
then carefully observe - a toilet. (Following a substantial
bowel movement.) Same 'principle' applies here with only one
glaring exception: *Unless you are South of the Equator. In
which case the "planetoids" will orbit the "main mass" in a
counter clockwise direction!

Bell
Greer
Gersten
Hoagland

Talk about "piled high and deep!"

Actually I'm still waiting to see if Bell ever pays a price for
the Hale-Bopp/Mothership series. There _is_ a connection between
that and the deaths in the Heavens Gate Cult that neither one of
those two irresponsible bozos (Bell and the other jamoke from
the "Nearsight Institute" that propagated that hoax - apologies
to Bob Shell for using his 'moniker') ever had to answer for.
People died.

No one involved in the perpetration/propagation of that
disinformation was ever called to task. Phoney photos from
(allegedly) a Hawiian observatory showing the 'companion' were
circulated worldwide, the constant barrage of programs from Bell
that were _dedicated_ to Hale-Bopp (or Hale-Mary as Bell so
cutely christened it.) After the dust settled there were very
real bodies left behind in that little fiasco. But hush, hush,
mums the word! Remember never to mention any possible
connections.

Nor were they ever called to task for the 'side show' that he
and Hoagland staged in Phoenix. (Which helped to
create/contribute to a carnival atmosphere around a
"potentially" significant case) They made a slew of absurd
"predictions" on national radio (none of which ever transpired)
and no one ever mentions it or questions it. Just move on and
feed on the next thing. It's 'Short Attention Span Theatre' for
the masses.

If it wasn't for Bell, Hoagland would be retired from ufology,
Greer would be just another 'wrong number' and Gersten wouldn't
have a shot at further spreading his particular/peculiar brand
of popular fluff.

It's just one side show after another. Just show after show,
after show, year in, year out... well, you get the picture. Bell
is the King of the "Cliffhangers." He's a master showman and he
knows how to work a crowd better than any side show carny. But
in the final analysis that is all that he is; just another side
show carny.

It's true. Most comedy (things that are funny) have tragedy at
the core. Brings images of Emmet Kelly to mind. Actually, that
is _my_ image/evaluation/portrayal of the guys on Bells ufology
evaluation committee.

A bunch of tragic clowns who get to laugh all the way to the
bank. At the public's expense.

Peace,

John Velez (Speaking _strictly_ for myself. No response
necessary)

[End John Velez 1999 message]


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                       Re: We Of The First Sin - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 01:42:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:43:34 -0500
Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin - Velez

 >Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 15:31:11 +1100
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Christopher Kelly <tophar@pacific.net.au>
 >Subject: We Of The First Sin

 >I have been popping in and reading this List for some time now
 >and I like many here are interested in UFOs. I, Also like many
 >would like to get to the bottom of just why we have so many
 >reports of UFOs/Aliens over so many years of our history on
 >this planet.

 >I have also been researching into the hows & why's this has been
 >happening. I surly cannot say I have found the answers, But I
 >think it was about time I shared what I have found/learnt with
 >others. If for no other reason than to get other peoples
 >feedback and opinions.

Hello Chris,

You ask for "feedback." Quite honestly, there is sooo much, I
wouldn't even know where to begin. Best of luck to you in your
search for answers.


Regards,

John Velez


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                  Apologies To UFO UpDates Archive Readers

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:51:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:51:47 -0500
Subject: Apologies To UFO UpDates Archive Readers

Esteemed and god-like Miester Glenn Campbell is working his way
through the lines of code he wrote for the original software
that drives AliensonEarth/Ufomind.com and once the bugs have
been eliminated the archive should be good for millenia.....

We'll try to re-seed the first five days of January with the
posts that went out to subscribers, ASAP.


Errol Bruce-Knapp
Moderator
UFO UpDates - Toronto




  __  __  _____  _____   Instant Archives at:
/\ \/\ \/\  __\/\  __`\  http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates
\ \ \ \ \ \ \_/\ \ \/\ \  updates@sympatico.ca
  \ \ \ \ \ \  _\\ \ \ \ \  Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp
   \ \ \_\ \ \ \/ \ \ \_\ \  Host/Producer of 'Strange Days... Indeed'
    \ \_____\ \_\  \ \_____\  Saturdays @ 22:00 Eastern on CFRB 1010 + The Web
     \/_____/\/_/   \/_____/   http://cfrb.com & archived at:
                                http://members.xoom.com/strangedaysi/sdix.htm
   __  __          ____              __
  /\ \/\ \        /\  _ `\          /\ \__
  \ \ \ \ \  _____\ \ \/\ \     __  \ \ ,_\    __    ____
   \ \ \ \ \/\  __`\ \ \ \ \  / __ \ \ \ \/  /'__`\ /  __\
    \ \ \_\ \ \ \_\ \ \ \_\ \/\ \ \ \_\ \ \_/\  __//\__, `\
     \ \_____\ \  __/\ \____/\ \__/ \_\\ \__\ \____\/\____/
      \/_____/\ \ \   \/___/  \/__/\/_/ \/__/\/____/\/___/
        +-+-+-+\ \_\+-+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        |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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                     Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 01:55:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:59:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Velez

 >Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 12:32:26 -0800
 >From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:12:54 EST
 >>Subject: Boris Shurinov Website
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Stalinist ufology ...can be found on this site:

 >http://borshurinov.narod.ru/ufobusiness/ufobindex.htm

 >I do not know what is the main reason for sheer hatred that
 >drives Boris Shurinov when he mentions my name and work: his
 >anti-Semitism, the fact that I am from Ukraine, his dislike of
 >all things Western, his despair that few people read his
 >books...Alas, I am not the only target of this clown's attacks:
 >he equally denigrates Dr. Haines, Philip Mantle, and other UFO
 >researchers (including those in Russia and Ukraine). This is the
 >same person who phoned me several times years ago to find out
 >who among Western researchers are Jews. This is the same person
 >who told me that James Oberg is a CIA officer (although I carry
 >little respect for Oberg, I disagreed, but Shurinov listens only
 >to himself). This is the same person who used my name to promote
 >his book about Roswell (he claimed I "helped" him). Shurinov's
 >asistants are equally disgusting: one of them chided me for
 >being "bourgeoisie" because my computer was not set up with
 >Cyrrilic alphabet, and tried his best to find out my Russian
 >military sources. Another young Stalinist spends his time
 >searching UFO pages for my work to keep Shurinov updated...They
 >should "get a life". They should learn how civilized people
 >interact with each other.

 >Decent Russian researchers do not support Shurinov's "party
 >line" regarding Soviet and Russian ufology. So, he strikes at
 >them, too: at Subbotin, Kutovoy, and others. What irks the
 >clown, too, is the fact that I publish my articles in Russian,
 >and numerous Russian-language publications have carried my
 >articles for years. He does not allow anyone to possess original
 >opinions about Russia's ufology, and Shurinov strikes at anyone
 >who dares to disagree with him. He is largely ignored in the
 >West, and that truly bothers this clown of Russian ufology.

 >Years ago he wrote artciles full of hate for American
 >journalists who brought Soviet military UFO data out of Russia.
 >My book contains other data and information about Soviet
 >military UFO sightings and cases, and that makes this Stalinist
 >see red. Shurinov and his henchmen are remnants of Stalinism in
 >the realm of Soviet and Russian ufology. Western researchers
 >should keep this in mind when they read his ravings, his
 >slanderous writings, his hateful pages. Shurinov is, basically,
 >a gangbanger of ufology; his manner and ethics remind me of the
 >inner-city gangsters that I had met while attending high-school
 >in Los Angeles. There is an alternative, of course, to modern
 >Stalinists. http://ufo.psu.ru/ This site will keep you abreast
 >of developments in Russia.

 >Paul Stonehill

Hello Paul,

You call Boris a "Stalinist." You also refer to him as a
"hateful, slanderous, gangster" and you warn everyone to "stay
away." If you would take the time to see what is posted on his
website you'll see that his complaint about Western ufologists
was the amount of misinformation they were exporting out of
Russia. I would be pissed-off too if Russian ufologists came
over here and took home a load of sensational crap and
represented it as "American ufology".

There are two sides to every story. Your e-mail tirade against
Boris is more than just strong, it is vehement. Why does he (how
does he?) threaten you so? To the point where you run out onto
the List calling him a bunch of horrible names and accusing him
of the lowest sort of behavior. It all smacks of too much effort
Paul. A clearly 'defensive' (lashing out) kind of response.

If Boris is as full of it as you say, we're all intelligent
enough to figure it out for ourselves without the kind of "help"
that you are offering. Your note reveals far more about you than
it does about Mr. Shurinov.

Slow down Paul. Your 'panic attack' is showing.  ;)


Regards,

John Velez

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Manso

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 10:31:52 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 09:02:51 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Manso

 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 12:23:01 -0000

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:48:21 -0000

 >None of us can be sure of the radiation readings, not due to
 >your theories but because, as I report in my book, the Geiger
 >counter operated by Sgt Nevilles, was in fact broken.

I have read your book from cover to cover and did not read such
an amazing declaration. Can you refer me to the exact page?

You devoted a chapter (14 pages) to "challenging the sceptics"
with the following headings:

Drugged and drunken airmen? (1 page). You discount such
possibility just because "it would not look too good for
high-ranking Air Force commanders". Plus Penniston words that
nobody was checked for drinks or drugs. Not enough (to me, of
course).

The lighthouse theory explained (4 pages). You comment about Ian
Ridath and Vince Thurkettle saying that Vince later change his
opinion after you informed him of all the "facts". Of course, if
you tell him that one soldier said he had TOUCHED the UFO and
everything else, Vince would have doubts. Me too... if the
information were true. The only additional argument is your own
walk into the forest �15 years after? seeing a "very obvious"
lighthouse beacon impossible to mistake. Well, you say so;
others (Jenny) have said the contrary.

Rabbit Scratchings or Landing Marks? (7 pages). You devote the
main part of them to explaining how you obtained copy of several
photos about the indentations. Good work, but nobody negate its
existence, just its interpretation.

Tree Damage and radiation (2 pages). You mention the debate
about radiation readings without mentioning that the Geiger
counter was broken. On the contrary, you suggest that the
radiation "would surely have depleted" because they were
recorded a few days later.

Why are those radiation readings so important? At face value, I
would seriously doubt the existence of aliens travelling around
in spaceships leaking radiation, but this is another story. It
is obvious that the radiation readings are the ONLY strange
"physical evidence" that could support the idea of a material
UFO in the forest. And now you confess that the Geiger counter
was broken!!

Even if the readings were correct, there is a important check
missing. Nobody bother to check around the forest for similar
indentations or readings. So nobody really knows if these
results were really anomalous.

Yes, as you say, "the Americans must have thougth it was a ver
real event" and you have clearly explained the Cold War context
of the situation. To me, all this just explain what they did,
even to the extreme of a "denied" AFOSI investigation with drugs
and hypnosis trying to extract what really happened out there.
But the existence of an investigation do NOT imply that they
"brain-washed" the witnesses or that a real UFO was present.


Yours,

Luis R. Gonzalez Manso









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

               Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - MacDonald

From: Michael MacDonald <ocean@hfx.andara.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 08:48:42 -0200
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 09:05:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - MacDonald


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Art Bell: Late Night Madness Returns
 >Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:10:37 -0800

 >If you haven't heard by now, Art Bell is coming back to the
 >airwaves on 05-Feb-01. First he left, then returned, then left
 >and is back again. Didn't he say he was never coming back to
 >radio...

 >I'm quite sure he'll pick right up where he left off and
 >continue to promote UFO hoaxes and generally further ruin the
 >credibility of legitimate UFO research and investigation.
 >Prepare for more and more of the likes of Robert Ghostwolf (aka
 >Robert Andrew Franzone), Richard Hoagland, Ed Dames, Jonathan
 >Reed and any other frauds you can imagine. Also prepare for him
 >to continue his antics of ignoring guest information that
 >contradicts any of the claims made by his guests.

 >Remember folks, Bell says its all entertainment even when its
 >presented as fact. At least Coast to Coast AM host Ian Punnett
 >had the nerve to challenge guests on the air. In fact, he's the
 >only person that has EVER responded to any communication
 >regarding the dubious nature of frequent Coast to Coast AM
 >guests.

 >Sit back as the madness takes off and Ufology gets the short end
 >of the stick... again. One can always hope that Bell has changed
 >and reconsidered some things during his absence, but I'm not
 >holding my breathe.




Don't forget that Art bell has done UFOology some service by at
the very least opening the topic to general discussion. Instead
if slamming him, why don't you call him and ask him to have you
on the show? Then you can have your say.

Regards

Mike MacDonald


________________________________________________________________

Michael MacDonald / Johanna Eliot
Ocean Entertainment / Ocean Digital

902-423-9056
FAX 423-9058

1657 Barrington Street, #404
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada   B3J 2A1







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                     Re: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01 - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 05:57:53 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 11:20:58 -0500
Subject: Re: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01 - Hatch


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01
 >Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 20:01:59 -0800

 >eXpose is currently conducting an investigation into the claims
 >made by Sean David Morton. After conducting several interviews,
 >eXpose has been told that some organizations listed on Morton's
 >personal biography will be sending him cease and desist letters
 >for Morton to stop associating their organizations with him.
 >Additionally, several organizations that Morton lists as having
 >either worked at or having received an education from have
 >stated that they have no record for such a person. Today, eXpose
 >found that Morton's personal biography is no longer available
 >on-line:

 >http://www.delphiassociates.org/sean/sean.html

<snip>

Hello Royce!

I checked out the SDM website, and the Biography link seems to
be inoperative as you said.

I clicked then on the Photos link. This led to two choices: UFO
photos and Blessed Virgin Mary photos. That's all I need to
know. I passed on the Products page, maybe I'll check it out
later.

It would be interesting to see how this one plays out.


Best

- Larry Hatch

PS:  Somebody is still trying to sell my deceased Catholic
mother little bottles of Holy Water by mail. Its not terribly
expensive, but I wonder if its sanitary.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                     Re: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01 - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:25:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 11:24:48 -0500
Subject: Re: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01 - Hatch


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01
 >Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 20:01:59 -0800

 >eXpose is currently conducting an investigation into the claims
 >made by Sean David Morton. After conducting several interviews,
 >eXpose has been told that some organizations listed on Morton's
 >personal biography will be sending him cease and desist letters
 >for Morton to stop associating their organizations with him.
 >Additionally, several organizations that Morton lists as having
 >either worked at or having received an education from have
 >stated that they have no record for such a person. Today, eXpose
 >found that Morton's personal biography is no longer available
 >on-line:

 >http://www.delphiassociates.org/sean/sean.html

<snip>


Hello Again Royce:

I couldn't resist.

I went ahead and looked at SDM's product page. There was only
one product there, a subscription to some paranormal rag with
the obligatory pyramids on the cover.

Curious as to the price, I clicked on the Order Form. That's
where the fun starts. I found numerous products, and one of the
best ones reads:

    "THE JESUS PHOTOS! Alleged UFO contactee TIME PHOTOS
    (circa 31 AD) of Jesus & His Apostles! Two 8x10 photo set!
    Made for framing! STUNNING!             $20. _______ "


I'm not making this up. Exclamation points are in/of the
original.

Best wishes

- Larry Hatch.

PS:  No Holy Water for sale, that must be somebody else.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                 Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 06:41:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 11:28:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - Myers



 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 08:48:42 -0200
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Michael MacDonald <ocean@hfx.andara.com>
 >Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Art Bell: Late Night Madness Returns
 >>Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:10:37 -0800

<snip>

 >Don't forget that Art bell has done UFOology some service by at
 >the very least opening the topic to general discussion. Instead
 >if slamming him, why don't you call him and ask him to have you
 >on the show? Then you can have your say.

Mike,

Been there done that - remember the Reed UFO Hoax? I offered to
come on the show and confront Reed on the air. Bell won't put
anyone on the air that may actually shoot his guest out of the
water with some facts.

Bell also tends to ignore people. Just ask the professor of
mathematics at Washington State University that tried to contact
Bell several times about Hoagland's apparent false claim that he
first introduced the idea of water on Europa. I could go on with
examples but I'm not going to waste the List's time.

Sure, Bell has opened the UFO topic... to general ridicule. I'll
have my say in any forum I please and at any time I please. I
don't need Bell's radio program to voice my opinions.


Regards,

Royce J. Myers III

"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind."
eXpose: The Watchdog of UFOlogy
http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
UFO Hall o' Shame
http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

               Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 09:35:42 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 11:34:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - Lehmberg


 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 08:48:42 -0200
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Michael MacDonald <ocean@hfx.andara.com>
 >Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Art Bell: Late Night Madness Returns
 >>Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:10:37 -0800

 >>If you haven't heard by now, Art Bell is coming back to the
 >>airwaves on 05-Feb-01. First he left, then returned, then left
 >>and is back again. Didn't he say he was never coming back to
 >>radio...

<snip>

 >>Sit back as the madness takes off and Ufology gets the short end
 >>of the stick... again. One can always hope that Bell has changed
 >>and reconsidered some things during his absence, but I'm not
 >>holding my breathe.

 >Don't forget that Art bell has done UFOology some service by at
 >the very least opening the topic to general discussion. Instead
 >if slamming him, why don't you call him and ask him to have you
 >on the show? Then you can have your say.

 >Regards

 >Mike MacDonald


Honored motes;

Art Bell is like Von Daniken with the treble turned way up. I
mean that in a good way; let me pour this in your cup.

He drags the light, reluctantly, to places it won't go because
some are threatening ridicule -- so looking's OUT, you know?
Yes, the facts aren't checked out right, most are immature.
There's half-backed innuendo that can pander to ones fear. It
wanders into fantasy, and it wants to *rock* you first, but
where else would we hear it when we have that kind of,
righteous, thirst?

There's reason to be thirsty, and one does the best one can. One
hears some *stuff* one just won't find in mainstreams,
understand? There's reason to be thirsty, when decisions, out of
sight, so profoundly disrespect us as we court the jealous
right. There's reason to be thirsty when one sees without the
scales, and our population problem" is *addressed* by building
jails!?! There's reason to be thirsty when the world makes less
sense, and one can't see to either side to come down off a
swaying fence.

There's reason to be thirsty as the cosmos flash and glow with
all the special portents of the stuff we'd like to know. The
mainstream just won't touch the stuff -- keeps its worried
tongue in cheek, and shivers in its ermine boots at the
whispers, hints, or leaks. Foundations are yet crumbling. The
money's running scared. The word is getting out along with
falsehoods they've declared! The information curve's straight
up! The content's harsh and raw! The landed few are getting out
to float above it all. Their news is predigested, so you pick
and choose your own, and then put together puzzles that portend
you're not alone.

That's why I like Von Daniken, and the higher pitched Art Bell.
These are guys who "soar and cleave" to burst their stifling
shells. Some argue they're responsible for all the kookish
fringe. Some argue they have murdered (!) -- think of "Heaven's
Gate" and cringe. Some argue they're ALL charlatans and in your
pocket, friend (while accepting televangelists as honored
friends and kin!). But these are men who think out loud -- and
know there's something there. These are men (like one John
Ford), who've questioned, sought, and dared. These are men, and
women too, who point it out for me and you. These are folks that
bring _some_ light we otherwise would find denied!!!

What has *science* done but hide (?) from stuff we KNOW must
haunt our skies? The evidence is startling -- clear. *Science*
hides its smirking sneer. It tries to boot the anecdotal, all
the photographic -- totaled; all the history is deterred, and
what we're left's the *bag* we learn. Read forbidden books, my
friend, and come to know or comprehend that there's a lot to see
besides what some might stifle, lose, or hide. *Science* wallows
in a trough and Art Bell pisses folks, yes, off, but I'm
indebted to the clan that asks disturbing questions, man! They
stretch our limits, walk the brink , make us ponder, watch and
think . . .Friend, we NEED those frontiers WIDE if we expect to
soar and fly!

I would have my news, yes, pilfered, but true to life, pristine
-- unfiltered. I'm offended at the pap the mainstream feeds me
lap for lap. I'll get my news, one might contend, from Bell and
Howe, or Rense, my friend. These are people with the _guts_ to
look beyond, dismissed as nuts (?), but with the access to that
*edge* that some deny, dismiss, and hedge!!!

Bell does not deserve the MUD that's slung around -- such
*vicious* crud. Stephens, Oates, and like detractors don't
disclose the facts! They're CANCER! All they do is heap
discredit, proclaiming truth because they *said* it, shilling
for their own dark ends a status quo that _they_ pretend. Toe to
toe, Art made HIS case while all the rest project disgrace.
Cheapshot artists whine and pule to demonstrate that they're the
fools, but Bell must pay to move that freight as other items
fill his plate. "Other items" undersells... his situation's
truly hell.

Perhaps it's that that drove him under, or calling Y2K _his_
blunder, when (perhaps) it's _his_ attention kept the *focus* on
that mission? Non addressed, it was a BASTARD. Did he help AVERT
disaster? Very few proclaimed concern, and from these few, of
*it*, we learn. From Art Bell we'd get a taste of what we might
then hear too late. He exposed the programs, Jack, that haunt
those shadows queer and black. He allowed a venue, friend, for
different thinking some pretend is specious nonsense made to
pry... the dollars from your pocket -- lies! Sure and all it's
mostly bogus, but *enough* is brought in focus -- justifying the
alarm that MIGHT come up; there's little harm. The harm that's
found is secrets used to disrespect, yes, me and you, so let Art
be, and I'll decry, for me, what's worst -- but _I'll_ decide!

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

Excuse the hyperbole, but compared to his unethically noisy and
criminally unimaginative detractors (excluding our Mr. Myers),
Art Bell is a towering shrine to inspired ethics and incisive
accuracy.

--
~~~~
EXPLORE Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.
http://www.alienview.com
          **Updated All the TIME**
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/witches/237/lehmberg.html

JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually.
He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put
one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention
he gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail.
$350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected!

"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see
from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, burned at a
skepti-feebroid 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                     Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 07:56:33 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 11:38:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Art Bell: Late Night Madness Returns
 >Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:10:37 -0800

 >If you haven't heard by now, Art Bell is coming back to the
 >airwaves on 05-Feb-01. First he left, then returned, then left
 >and is back again. Didn't he say he was never coming back to
 >radio...

 >I'm quite sure he'll pick right up where he left off and
 >continue to promote UFO hoaxes and generally further ruin the
 >credibility of legitimate UFO research and investigation.
 >Prepare for more and more of the likes of Robert Ghostwolf (aka
 >Robert Andrew Franzone), Richard Hoagland, Ed Dames, Jonathan
 >Reed and any other frauds you can imagine. Also prepare for him
 >to continue his antics of ignoring guest information that
 >contradicts any of the claims made by his guests.


Hello, all, Royce,

Well, its not only entertainment, but good, ah, disinformation
too. Remember the media foucses on the bozos, and I believe Bell
knows this.

 >Remember folks, Bell says its all entertainment even when its
 >presented as fact. At least Coast to Coast AM host Ian Punnett
 >had the nerve to challenge guests on the air. In fact, he's the
 >only person that has EVER responded to any communication
 >regarding the dubious nature of frequent Coast to Coast AM
 >guests.

Dare to ask questions about the veracity of claims? Gee what a
concept! Well that's out the window now.

 >Sit back as the madness takes off and Ufology gets the short end
 >of the stick... again. One can always hope that Bell has changed
 >and reconsidered some things during his absence, but I'm not
 >holding my breathe.

No, it wouldn't be prudent, hard on the brain you know, could
cause death or permanent damage waiting for a thing that won't
happen.

Oh,  here is an update on the Leah Freeman Case (from
Coquille... Or, she was murdered when Ed Dames claimed
to have have been enlisted to find when she was missing.)

www.theworldlink.com

there isn't any good news on that front, and I resent the
Carpetbagger Dames for exploiting this tragedy too. The article
appeared in the 01-04-01 Thursday issue of the Coos Bay World
Newspaper.

I have always wondered why someone who lost relatives in the
Heaven's Gate/Hale-Bopp fiasco hasn't sued the klowns that may
have instigated the whole thing in the first place - Bell & Co.


GT McCoy









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

               Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - MacDonald

From: Michael MacDonald <ocean@hfx.andara.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 12:32:32 -0200
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 14:14:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - MacDonald


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns
 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 06:41:47 -0800

 >>Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 08:48:42 -0200
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Michael MacDonald <ocean@hfx.andara.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns

 >>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Art Bell: Late Night Madness Returns
 >>>Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:10:37 -0800

 ><snip>

 >>Don't forget that Art bell has done UFOology some service by at
 >>the very least opening the topic to general discussion. Instead
 >>if slamming him, why don't you call him and ask him to have you
 >>on the show? Then you can have your say.

 >Mike,

 >Been there done that - remember the Reed UFO Hoax? I offered to
 >come on the show and confront Reed on the air. Bell won't put
 >anyone on the air that may actually shoot his guest out of the
 >water with some facts.

 >Bell also tends to ignore people. Just ask the professor of
 >mathematics at Washington State University that tried to contact
 >Bell several times about Hoagland's apparent false claim that he
 >first introduced the idea of water on Europa. I could go on with
 >examples but I'm not going to waste the List's time.

 >Sure, Bell has opened the UFO topic... to general ridicule. I'll
 >have my say in any forum I please and at any time I please. I
 >don't need Bell's radio program to voice my opinions.


It's always easy to criticize. The real work is a bit more
daunting.

Anyhow, enough of that. I guess I don't have to read your
opinions anyway.

Best

Mike MacDonald


________________________________________________________________

Michael MacDonald / Johanna Eliot
Ocean Entertainment / Ocean Digital

902-423-9056
FAX 423-9058

1657 Barrington Street, #404
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada   B3J 2A1










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                     Re: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01 - Murgia

From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 11:41:30 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 14:17:23 -0500
Subject: Re: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01 - Murgia


 >Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:25:23 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01

 >Hello Again Royce:

 >I couldn't resist.

 >I went ahead and looked at SDM's product page. There was only
 >one product there, a subscription to some paranormal rag with
 >the obligatory pyramids on the cover.

 >Curious as to the price, I clicked on the Order Form. That's
 >where the fun starts. I found numerous products, and one of the
 >best ones reads:

 >"THE JESUS PHOTOS! Alleged UFO contactee TIME PHOTOS
 >(circa 31 AD) of Jesus & His Apostles! Two 8x10 photo set!
 >Made for framing! STUNNING!             $20. _______ "

 >I'm not making this up. Exclamation points are in/of the
 >original.

 >Best wishes

 >- Larry Hatch.

 >PS: No Holy Water for sale, that must be somebody else.


I actually have one of those photos. I bought it from an alleged
Pleadian contactee known as Adrian or Arkon or whatever he is
going by these days. Morton knows him and has promoted his case
on several occasions.

The photo is really neat. My ex-wife and I bought a copy a few
years back. We bought it because it's a neat photo. It's a
regular sized print. At the very least it is a great
conversation piece. I love the looks on people's faces when they
see it and I tell them what it supposedly represents. That alone
was worth the $5.00 we paid for the copy. It's a unique photo.

This contactee claims to have gotten this photo from the
Pleadians when they took him on their ship. He says they used a
time machine time camera that was able to photograph back in
time. Ok. Whatever.

What's funny is I saw Dolores Cannon lecture a couple of years
ago. She showed the same photo in one of her lectures. She said
it was taken by a woman in Spain who took a photo of a field in
her backyard and when the photo was developed, the figures
(Jesus and Company) appeared. I went up to her after the lecture
and told her I had a copy of that photo. She couldn't believe it
because the photo was supposed to be so rare. Well, she had to
believe it when I brought it in the next day. What a joke.

But I still like the photo and would buy it again just for the
entertainment value it has brought me.

And maybe, just maybe? Nah.


Joe In Tampa








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                     Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 08:44:35 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 14:20:04 -0500
Subject: Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - Myers


 >Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:25:23 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01
 >>Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 20:01:59 -0800

 >>eXpose is currently conducting an investigation into the claims
 >>made by Sean David Morton. After conducting several interviews,
 >>eXpose has been told that some organizations listed on Morton's
 >>personal biography will be sending him cease and desist letters
 >>for Morton to stop associating their organizations with him.
 >>Additionally, several organizations that Morton lists as having
 >>either worked at or having received an education from have
 >>stated that they have no record for such a person. Today, eXpose
 >>found that Morton's personal biography is no longer available
 >>on-line:

 >>http://www.delphiassociates.org/sean/sean.html

 ><snip>

 >Hello Again Royce:

 >I couldn't resist.

 >I went ahead and looked at SDM's product page. There was only
 >one product there, a subscription to some paranormal rag with
 >the obligatory pyramids on the cover.

 >Curious as to the price, I clicked on the Order Form. That's
 >where the fun starts. I found numerous products, and one of the
 >best ones reads:

 >  "THE JESUS PHOTOS! Alleged UFO contactee TIME PHOTOS
 >  (circa 31 AD) of Jesus & His Apostles! Two 8x10 photo set!
 >  Made for framing! STUNNING!             $20. _______ "

 >I'm not making this up. Exclamation points are in/of the
 >original.


Pretty wild stuff. I wonder how these guys can actually live
with themselves and ot be totally embarassed by what they do.

Morton's site used to state that some poor old woman had
sent/donated some of the Virgin Mary photos to him and here he
is selling them for $20 a pop. My story on Morton is full of
many surprises...


Regards,

Royce J. Myers III

eXpos: The Watchdog of UFOlogy
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind."
eXpos News    http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
UFO Hall o' Shame   http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                 Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 09:02:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 14:22:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - Myers


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns
 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 07:56:33 -0800

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Art Bell: Late Night Madness Returns
 >>Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:10:37 -0800

<snip>

 >Hello, all, Royce,

 >Well, its not only entertainment, but good, ah, disinformation
 >too. Remember the media foucses on the bozos, and I believe Bell
 >knows this.

 >>Remember folks, Bell says its all entertainment even when its
 >>presented as fact. At least Coast to Coast AM host Ian Punnett
 >>had the nerve to challenge guests on the air. In fact, he's the
 >>only person that has EVER responded to any communication
 >>regarding the dubious nature of frequent Coast to Coast AM
 >>guests.

 >Dare to ask questions about the veracity of claims? Gee what a
 >concept! Well that's out the window now.

 >>Sit back as the madness takes off and Ufology gets the short end
 >>of the stick... again. One can always hope that Bell has changed
 >>and reconsidered some things during his absence, but I'm not
 >>holding my breathe.

 >No, it wouldn't be prudent, hard on the brain you know, could
 >cause death or permanent damage waiting for a thing that won't
 >happen.

 >Oh,  here is an update on the Leah Freeman Case (from
 >Coquille... Or, she was murdered when Ed Dames claimed
 >to have have been enlisted to find when she was missing.)

 >www.theworldlink.com

 >there isn't any good news on that front, and I resent the
 >Carpetbagger Dames for exploiting this tragedy too. The article
 >appeared in the 01-04-01 Thursday issue of the Coos Bay World
 >Newspaper.

Agreed. Dames is the lowest of the low for doing this. Anyone
who exploits a murdered teenager is sick. And anyone who
promotes him is just as sick. Of course, good ol' Bell will have
no problem having Dames back on the show I'm sure... even if Bell
is aware of what Dames is doing.

I'm sure that many appearances by Richard Hoaxland, Robert
Fakewolf, Peter "Money" Gersten and the rest are in order. The
restaurant has reopened, but the menu still consists of
overpriced, frozen leftovers with lumpy gravy and no amount of
salt and pepper is going to make it taste any better. Anyone who
thinks Bell is doing UFOlogy a service is sorely mistaken...

Regards,

Royce J. Myers III

eXpos: The Watchdog of UFOlogy
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind."
eXpos News    http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
UFO Hall o' Shame   http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                    Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 13:41:10 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 14:29:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Bourdais


 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 01:55:16 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website

 >>Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 12:32:26 -0800
 >>From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website

 >>>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:12:54 EST
 >>>Subject: Boris Shurinov Website
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Stalinist ufology ...can be found on this site:

 >>http://borshurinov.narod.ru/ufobusiness/ufobindex.htm

 >>I do not know what is the main reason for sheer hatred that
 >>drives Boris Shurinov when he mentions my name and work: his
 >>anti-Semitism, the fact that I am from Ukraine, his dislike of
 >>all things Western, his despair that few people read his
 >>books...Alas, I am not the only target of this clown's attacks:
 >>he equally denigrates Dr. Haines, Philip Mantle, and other UFO
 >>researchers (including those in Russia and Ukraine). This is the
 >>same person who phoned me several times years ago to find out
 >>who among Western researchers are Jews. This is the same person
 >>who told me that James Oberg is a CIA officer (although I carry
 >>little respect for Oberg, I disagreed, but Shurinov listens only
 >>to himself). This is the same person who used my name to promote
 >>his book about Roswell (he claimed I "helped" him). Shurinov's
 >>asistants are equally disgusting: one of them chided me for
 >>being "bourgeoisie" because my computer was not set up with
 >>Cyrrilic alphabet, and tried his best to find out my Russian
 >>military sources. Another young Stalinist spends his time
 >>searching UFO pages for my work to keep Shurinov updated...They
 >>should "get a life". They should learn how civilized people
 >>interact with each other.

 >>Decent Russian researchers do not support Shurinov's "party
 >>line" regarding Soviet and Russian ufology. So, he strikes at
 >>them, too: at Subbotin, Kutovoy, and others. What irks the
 >>clown, too, is the fact that I publish my articles in Russian,
 >>and numerous Russian-language publications have carried my
 >>articles for years. He does not allow anyone to possess original
 >>opinions about Russia's ufology, and Shurinov strikes at anyone
 >>who dares to disagree with him. He is largely ignored in the
 >>West, and that truly bothers this clown of Russian ufology.

 >>Years ago he wrote artciles full of hate for American
 >>journalists who brought Soviet military UFO data out of Russia.
 >>My book contains other data and information about Soviet
 >>military UFO sightings and cases, and that makes this Stalinist
 >>see red. Shurinov and his henchmen are remnants of Stalinism in
 >>the realm of Soviet and Russian ufology. Western researchers
 >>should keep this in mind when they read his ravings, his
 >>slanderous writings, his hateful pages. Shurinov is, basically,
 >>a gangbanger of ufology; his manner and ethics remind me of the
 >>inner-city gangsters that I had met while attending high-school
 >>in Los Angeles. There is an alternative, of course, to modern
 >>Stalinists. http://ufo.psu.ru/ This site will keep you abreast
 >>of developments in Russia.


 >Hello Paul,

 >You call Boris a "Stalinist". You also refer to him as a
 >"hateful, slanderous, gangster" and you warn everyone to "stay
 >away." If you would take the time to see what is posted on his
 >website you'll see that his complaint about Western ufologists
 >was the amount of misinformation they were exporting out of
 >Russia. I would be pissed-off too if Russian ufologists came
 >over here and took home a load of sensational crap and
 >represented it as "American ufology".

 >There are two sides to every story. Your e-mail tirade against
 >Boris is more than just strong, it is vehement. Why does he (how
 >does he?) threaten you so? To the point where you run out onto
 >the List calling him a bunch of horrible names and accusing him
 >of the lowest sort of behavior. It all smacks of too much effort
 >Paul. A clearly 'defensive' (lashing out) kind of response.

 >If Boris is as full of it as you say, we're all intelligent
 >enough to figure it out for ourselves without the kind of "help"
 >that you are offering. Your note reveals far more about you than
 >it does about Mr. Shurinov.

 >Slow down Paul. Your 'panic attack' is showing.  ;)


Thank you for your wise comment.

Here is mine.

First, as Richard Nolane, points out in another message, Boris
Shurinov's book is great! (Chourinov in French "Ovnis en Russie,
Guy Trdaniel, Paris, 1995 ISBN 2-85707-781-5. It is the book of
a courageous man who has not been afraid to criticize sharply
both the Soviet establishment and the more recent wave of crap
which has come out of Russia. That makes him a very special
"Stalinist"!

Secondly, I've known Boris since 1996 and all he has said and
done is along the same lines. For instance, he made a perfectly
good investigation on the TNT hoax, and exposed it publicly -
twice in Italy. The first time, it was at a conference in
Cagliari, Sardinia. He was sharply denounced as a KGB man by
Italian ufologist Maurizio Baiata, who had the rights of the
video for Italy. Nevertheless, Boris did it again, at the CUN
conference in San Marino in 1999.

BTW, I would like to know the opinion of Paul Stonehill on that
TNT video. Does he believe it? Has he investigated on it? (like
all Russian ufologists would be wise to do).

Yes, I think that the web page of Boris Shurinov is going to be
interesting! Of course, if he makes mistakes, then they will
have to be exposed - with real arguments, not with insults.


Gildas Bourdais









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                    Re: We Of The First Sin - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:24:26 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 15:52:24 -0500
Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin - Mortellaro


 >Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 15:31:11 +1100
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Christopher Kelly <tophar@pacific.net.au>
 >Subject: We Of The First Sin

<snip>

Dear Christopher,

Interesting followup to your monograph were the guests on Jeff
Rense last evening. Perhaps you should go into the Rense
Archives and audit the radio show from last evening, Friday,
Jan. 5, 2001. There are similarities to your suggested paradigm.
You should be comparing the theories of such as those men on
Rense with your own. You need something to bounce your theories
off other than us "no-goodnicks" on UpDates, Errol Bruce-Knapp
not included, just his 'guests'.

I'm no expert, nor am I an X-Spurt. Just a guy looking for
truth. And I believe that there is a kernel of truth buried
somewhere in your and Michael Roll and Ron Pearson's theory of
"Subatomic Life After Death." As I've said often here on
UpDates, truth has a way of creeping into the strangest of
theories. But yours demonstrates the theory of imagination
working on full throttle. And I don't mean that to be sarcastic.

On another list composed of people, like me, who perceive that
they've been abducted, we've been discussing the fact that in
these times of "reality everywhere," our imaginations are on
idle. They should be on full throttle. However I would seriously
disregard any flakes who decide to malign your theories before
doing some genuine imaginative thinking of their own. In that
regard, good luck to you, Sir.

As for the details you've worked out, it doesn't ring any of my
personal "truth sense" chimes, but who knows what truth is in
these times. But as for the fundamental element of life after
death, the battles of good and (so-called) evil and the rest,
"mozel!" Which is "Goodness and health" to you, in Yiddish.

 From this person, good luck in your quest for truth. And may
your efforts be blessed with success. I am sure the answers are
within us.

Jim Mortellaro






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                 Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 12:04:15 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 15:55:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - Myers


 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 12:32:32 -0200
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Michael MacDonald <ocean@hfx.andara.com>
 >Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns
 >>Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 06:41:47 -0800


<snip>

 >It's always easy to criticize. The real work is a bit more
 >daunting.

Yeah, you're right because fact finding and presenting _actual_
evidence is hard when you have to go up against the super sleaze
that Bell promotes on his show.

 >Anyhow, enough of that. I guess I don't have to read your
 >opinions anyway.

That's right, you don't. But my opinions are backed by a lot of
facts...


Regards,

Royce J. Myers III

eXpos: The Watchdog of UFOlogy
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind."
eXpos News    http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
UFO Hall o' Shame   http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                      Re: Xpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 12:10:33 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 15:58:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Xpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - Hatch


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01
 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 08:44:35 -0800

 >>Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:25:23 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01

 >>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01
 >>>Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 20:01:59 -0800

 >>>eXpose is currently conducting an investigation into the claims
 >>>made by Sean David Morton. After conducting several interviews,
 >>>eXpose has been told that some organizations listed on Morton's
 >>>personal biography will be sending him cease and desist letters
 >>>for Morton to stop associating their organizations with him.

<snip>

 >>Hello Again Royce:

 >>I couldn't resist.

 >>I went ahead and looked at SDM's product page. There was only
 >>one product there, a subscription to some paranormal rag with
 >>the obligatory pyramids on the cover.

 >>Curious as to the price, I clicked on the Order Form. That's
 >>where the fun starts. I found numerous products, and one of the
 >>best ones reads:

 >>"THE JESUS PHOTOS! Alleged UFO contactee TIME PHOTOS
 >>(circa 31 AD) of Jesus & His Apostles! Two 8x10 photo set!
 >>Made for framing! STUNNING! $20. _______ "

 >>I'm not making this up. Exclamation points are in/of the
 >>original.

 >Pretty wild stuff. I wonder how these guys can actually live
 >with themselves and ot be totally embarassed by what they do.

 >Morton's site used to state that some poor old woman had
 >sent/donated some of the Virgin Mary photos to him and here he
 >is selling them for $20 a pop. My story on Morton is full of
 >many surprises...


Hello Royce and all:

I cannot find a single surprise here.

Morton sells BS, and certain five-watt types scarf it up. there
is nothing new in this.

In fact, I am glad if Art Bell returns. I'm sick of his weak
chicken-soup surrogates. If he wants to be the biggest trumpeter
of horse-crap in the Americas, he has to get back on the horn.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                     Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 13:06:44 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 18:00:16 -0500
Subject: Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - Hatch


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01
 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 08:44:35 -0800

 >>Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:25:23 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01


 >>I couldn't resist.

 >>I went ahead and looked at SDM's product page. There was only
 >>one product there, a subscription to some paranormal rag with
 >>the obligatory pyramids on the cover.

 >>Curious as to the price, I clicked on the Order Form. That's
 >>where the fun starts. I found numerous products, and one of the
 >>best ones reads:

 >>"THE JESUS PHOTOS! Alleged UFO contactee TIME PHOTOS
 >>(circa 31 AD) of Jesus & His Apostles! Two 8x10 photo set!
 >>Made for framing! STUNNING! $20. _______ "

 >>I'm not making this up. Exclamation points are in/of the
 >>original.

 >Pretty wild stuff. I wonder how these guys can actually live
 >with themselves and ot be totally embarassed by what they do.

 >Morton's site used to state that some poor old woman had
 >sent/donated some of the Virgin Mary photos to him and here he
 >is selling them for $20 a pop. My story on Morton is full of
 >many surprises...


Dear Sir:

Religion, like dope, is a comfort for the weak, dying, dimwitted
and/or distressed. I would never deny such people what little
comfort they can find.

Morton is different. I suspect he is crapping what he considers
to be a vast wasteland of credulous idiots - he may not be
entirely wrong of course - and furthermore playing this and
other Lists and groups like a harp.

For that reason, I'm going to bed, just to think this all over.

But not before I have one last beer or three, this being a
sentence without a verb, and thoroughly lacking in grace and/or
substance, but fortified with a well digested avocado, swimming
in olive oil. Best grease in town! [<== Haah! no verb.]


Best wishes,

- Larry Hatch








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

                   Re: We Of The First Sin - Peterborough

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 16:50:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 18:03:02 -0500
Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin - Peterborough


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:24:26 EST
 >Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 15:31:11 +1100
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Christopher Kelly <tophar@pacific.net.au>
 >>Subject: We Of The First Sin

<snip>

 >On another list composed of people, like me, who perceive that
 >they've been abducted, we've been discussing the fact that in
 >these times of "reality everywhere," our imaginations are on
 >idle.

The perception of reality is indeed an ultimately individual
pursuit and most people tend to - outwardly, at least - conform
to the standard media interpretation of what constitutes an
acceptable reality.

This secure media - polticial - and religious-driven reality
imposes a certain degree of stability to the world in which we
find ourselves. As Charles Fort said, his work was about the
damned data. And when you start venturing outside of sanctioned
parameters or jumping over fences, you discover whole new worlds
in media, politics, and religions.

A man who has worked in jails or prisons for a long time once
told me that there are different types of prisoners. The last
group he described to me were people who *want* to be
incarcerated - that when they are released, they commit another
crime just so they can go back to jail. He said jail was their
home, where they felt secure, it was a routine, it was safety.

In many respects, I think an awful lot of people like the
security of a well-run universe that is predictable and stable.
The media, politicans, religious, *and* scientists seem to
belong to this 'let's spin a web and make it the real reality'
group.

Safe.

Secure.

Sleep.


Kelly









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 6

               I Quit My Job & NASA Astronaut Musgrave on UFOs

From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 17:27:38 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 18:08:36 -0500
Subject: I Quit My Job & NASA Astronaut Musgrave on UFOs


Story Musgrave Interview Part One:

http://www.themestream.com/articles/276357.html

* * * * * * * * * *

Story Musgrave Interview Part Two

http://www.themestream.com/articles/275632.html

* * * * * * * * * *

Hi all,

I know there are some people on this list that have not seen
this interview with Musgrave so I am posting the links again.

I have posted it Themestream. Themestream is a website that pays
writers of articles two cents for every new reader that reads
your article. If you have a large following and write a lot, you
can do well. Anybody can do it. To read articles you just go to
the link. You do not have to join Themestream in order to read
the articles. If you do join, it's free. There are plenty of
topics and plenty of readers so I am sure you will find
something interesting to read there.

I have been sending out paranormal information to a mailing list
of mine for about three years now. To really do it right, I
needed to do it full time. So, I quit my job with City of Tampa
Television (My last day is in early February) and decided to
charge a yearly subscription. But when I found out about
Themestream, I decided to give it a try and see if it could help
pay the bills.

I was with the city for eight years and I was making great
money. But this stuff is just too important and life is just too
short to not do what you love.

I have about 600 list members. When I am able to focus on this
full time, I will be able to grow my subscriber base to a larger
number. I have a method of building that list and I know from
experience that it works. The only thing I need is time. And I
will have it come March.

When I start doing this full time, I will be very interested in
interviewing many of you. My goal is to have one of the largest
followings in the paranormal field and other related fields.
Once I get going, I will be a good place for many of you to
promote your books. We can do that through interviews with you.

I am giving this a try because I think these topics are very
important to our future. I enjoy doing it and I think I can make
an impact and make a difference in this world. Wish me luck

In February, I will be going to Norway for three weeks. If any
of you have any contacts over there or know of any people that
would make a good interview, let me know. I am aware of
Hessdalen and wouldn't mind interviewing somebody connected with
that research.

The "new" interview I just posted is from a couple of years ago.
I know that many of you may not have read it so I am posting it.
Story Musgrave is one smart guy. But I think he is very ignorant
when it comes to UFO evidence. I don't think he has been muzzled
by NASA or by any security oath. But I could be wrong. I have
seen Musgrave give positive/open minded comments when shown UFO
video from recent shuttle missions. So I know he is not a
debunker.

Here are the links again.

http://www.themestream.com/articles/276357.html

http://www.themestream.com/articles/275632.html

Feel free to share them with anybody you think might be
interested.


Take care,

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

               Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - MacDonald

From: Michael MacDonald <ocean@hfx.andara.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 19:51:20 -0200
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 14:24:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns - MacDonald


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bell Late Night Madness Returns
 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 12:04:15 -0800

 ><snip>

 > >It's always easy to criticize. The real work is a bit more
 > >daunting.

 >Yeah, you're right because fact finding and presenting _actual_
 >evidence is hard when you have to go up against the super sleaze
 >that Bell promotes on his show.

 > >Anyhow, enough of that. I guess I don't have to read your
 > >opinions anyway.

 >That's right, you don't. But my opinions are backed by a lot of
 >facts...


I'd like to hear your opinions. But not the rhetoric. There's
been too much of that here lately.


Mike MacDonald


________________________________________________________________

Michael MacDonald / Johanna Eliot
Ocean Entertainment / Ocean Digital

902-423-9056
FAX 423-9058

1657 Barrington Street, #404
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada   B3J 2A1










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

               Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - Ticchetti

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 22:44:15 -0200
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 14:30:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - Ticchetti


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:37:26 EST
 >Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies
 >>Date: Qui, 4 Jan 2001 08:02 +0100

<snip>

 >>As Kevin Randle wrote in his book 'A History of UFO Crashes':

 >>"...until all the facts are know, the case must remain open".

 >Kevin Randle had not seen the 1966 article by Chamberlain and
 >Krause describing the photo triangulation when he wrote that.
 >Although the article, which I had sent him, was listed in the
 >book's bibliography, he has written to me that he had not read
 >the article at the time his manuscript was submitted.

 >>Well the facts are that something did fall in Kecksburg.

 >Such a fact has never been established. The documentary evidence
 >which exists is that nothing was found. The photographic and
 >seismic evidence is that a meteor fell over Ontario.

 ><snip>

 >>some eyewitness saw a flatbed truck with a tarp
 >>covering its cargo as it was seen leaving the area.
 >>In the video now being distributed by Stan Gordon, a former
 >newsman who was there in 1965 is interviewed. He described a
 >tarp covering something he couldn't see which seemed to be the
 >size of two suitcases. How does this support a 6 by 17 foot
 >object, or a 10 by 12 foot undamaged object, as related by the
 >witnesses of the crashed UFO in the woods?

 >>Some witnesses were threatened by the military or by the
 >>police, include Mrs. Kalp.

 >Please cite your sources for this. I can say that one man who
 >has made claims like this, and has said that he saw a UFO in the
 >woods, an armed convoy and armed troops occupying the town, has
 >threatened, in a newspaper, that he would sue anyone who says
 >that he is lying. He also bragged in a magazine interview that
 >this is what silenced his local critics. This may be why there
 >are local 1965 witnesses, including some elderly people who
 >doubt the crash and recovery tale, who will not speak publicly
 >about the 1965 event.

 >Who, then, is known to have threatened witnesses?

 >>Project Mood Dust was activated, and they went to search
 >>something.

 >There is no conclusive evidence that this happened. The three
 >Air Force men who were present from the nearest USAF
 >installation, a radar site 30 miles away, could have been simply
 >conducting a common UFO report investigation as outlined in Air
 >Force Regulation 200-2.

 >>Why can a single meteor cause all that mess?

 >Because first reports were that an airplane had crashed, then
 >that a satellite may have come down. The meteor explanation came
 >_after_ three unsuccessful searches. And by the way, there were
 >also at least 6 other unsuccessful searcher in other locations.

 ><snip>

 >>You fellas that live in the USA or near Kecksburg should re-open
 >>the case. I think that the Air Force knows more than we know.

 >I live less than 200 miles away and have been there many times
 >and have searched State archives. Stan Gordon and his associates
 >are closer and have searched for documents since the early
 >1980s, but have found nothing that cannot be explained by the
 >Ontario meteor, which _did_ happen (after all, we have
 >pictures).

 >As tantalizing as this tale might sound, particularly in its
 >more dramatic and fantastic television and video retellings,
 >there is a lot, lot _less_ to the story than meets the eye. I've
 >been following it closely for more than ten years, now.


Hello Bob,

According to the reports in the Randle book, is it possible a
meteor land and then ascend as reported by a witness?

Don't you think it would be possible for a meteor fall in Canada
and another "thing" crash in Kecksburg?

The state police claimed that the found nothing in the place,
but the Air Force said it was a meteor... they searched
together. Who's telling the truth?

Murphy, the radio news director, recorded some reports from some
witnesses, but hours before the show goes to air, they called
asking to not reveal their reports and names...why? Just afraid
to be considerwd a looney?


Regards,


Thiago Luiz Ticchetti
Entidade Brasileira de Estudos Extraterrestres(Braslia/Brasil)
(EBE-ET VICE PRESIDENT)

www.ebe-et.com.br
ICQ 35119615








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                      Re: We Of The First Sin - Hammond

From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 20:12:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 14:33:22 -0500
Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin - Hammond


 >Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 15:31:11 +1100
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Christopher Kelly <tophar@pacific.net.au>
 >Subject: We Of The First Sin

 >I have been popping in and reading this List for some time now
 >and I like many here are interested in UFOs. I, Also like many
 >would like to get to the bottom of just why we have so many
 >reports of UFOs/Aliens over so many years of our history on
 >this planet.


Dear Christopher:

May I ask how old you are? Also, what reference or research
materials were used to help form your very interesting theories?
And, if I might make a small suggestion, the use of a good Spell
Checker would go a long way in making your presentations more
professional/credible.


Thank you,

Liz









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                    '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 14:50:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 14:50:54 -0500
Subject: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now





From: UFO UpDates - Toronto


Source: USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cti957.htm#readmore

12/29/00- Updated 10:58 AM ET

Tech Report

'2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

By Marco R. della Cava and Csar G. Soriano,

USA TODAY

At a packed 1968 press conference before the premiere of 2001: A
Space Odyssey, scientist Arthur C. Clarke was so excited he was
giggling. "The attention to detail that has been given to the
equipment and hardware in this movie is unprecedented," said
Clarke, who for four years had worked with director Stanley
Kubrick on the film version of his story about a computer run
amok during a manned mission to Jupiter. "The film's sense of
realism," he continued, "will make it impossible to believe that
the year 2001 is not going to be like this." Arthur, we have a
problem.

As the globe gets set to dock with the year Clarke and Kubrick
made famous, a review of the classic film often generates, well,
the giggles. A few examples:

Far from shuttling passengers into space, Pan Am is no longer in
business. Though still a healthy hotel chain, Hilton has yet to
open luxury suites in orbit. The rickety Russian-built MIR and
new International Space Stations are cold and forbidding, far
from the film's elegant Ferris wheel in space.

And despite Silicon Valley's brainpower, no one has invented a
computer that can feel anything, let alone fear, as was the case
with 2001's infamous HAL 9000. Arguably the film's star � who
can forget his eerie greeting, "Hello, Dave" � HAL gradually
develops suspicions about the mission and ultimately tries to
sabotage it.

Besides having a conscience, other things about HAL defy modern
times. HAL is a mainframe computer; nothing so large would ever
travel in space in our 2001. HAL is billed as infallible; this
is not the goal of modern machines.

"Today we make software that takes into account probability,"
says Peter Norvig, chief of computation sciences at NASA's Ames
Research Center in California. "In the '60s, computers were
based on logic for problems with definitive answers, such as
adding a column of numbers."

Wait! Sheath your light sabers, science fiction fans.

Let it be said that the very folks � from film critics to
Nobel-winning scientists � who point up 2001's shortcomings in
the crystal ball department are quick to note its meteoric
impact on how space is presented on film and perceived by the
human mind.

"At the time I didn't think it was the best movie I'd ever seen,
but I do think on some level it contributed to mankind's
fascination with humans in space," says Stanford University
physicist Douglas Osheroff, who shared the Nobel Prize for
physics in 1996. In other words, for a 33-year-old flick that
predicted space shuttle air hostesses would stick to the aisles
thanks to Velcro-like Grip Shoes, it's still worth a good, long
look.

If you can't wait for Warner Bros. to release a remastered
version of 2001 in theaters (early March for Europe and Japan;
maybe fall in the USA), Turner Classic Movies will air the movie
at the turn of the millennium on New Year's Day.

Fans also will want to keep an eye on A.I.: Artificial
Intelligence. The movie, due in June, is based on a screenplay
Kubrick had been developing for decades. After his death last
year, it was acquired by Steven Spielberg, who wants to
symbolically close the loop on the Kubrick legacy by releasing
A.I. in 2001.

No film 'as cerebral or as daring'

At the root of 2001's enduring appeal for Hollywood legends and
ticket-buyers alike (made for $10 million in 1968, it has
grossed $190 million worldwide) is its power as a work of
cinematic art.

"There have been many science-fiction films, but I don't think
any of them are as cerebral or as daring as this one," says film
historian Leonard Maltin. "It brought dignity to the
special-effects genre, and without it we might not have seen a
great many films that followed."

After its riveting opening images of the dawn of hairy man
backed by the thundering timpani of Richard Strauss' Thus Spake
Zarathustra, director Kubrick sets a visually lush yet verbally
Spartan tone. Five astronauts travel to Jupiter to try to
discover the communications source of a mysterious black
monolith unearthed on the moon. At one point minutes tick by
with only the sound of an astronaut's breath on the soundtrack;
imagine Darth Vader saying nothing.

"I like to describe the film as a giant Rorschach test," says
Keir Dullea, who played Dr. Dave Bowman, the character who
evolves from emotionless astronaut to the star child. "More than
any other film, its meaning has to do with your own experiences
you bring to it."

Despite Kubrick's high-art tone, the source of the movie's
longevity is a cautionary tale about mankind's origins and the
ever-intriguing notion that we are not alone in the universe.

"OK, we've arrived at 2001 and, yes, we have a space station but
it's not as big as the one in the movie, and we have space
shuttles but they're not carrying tourists and so far we haven't
found any monoliths, but the power of the movie is as strong as
ever," says Space.com's Andrew Chaiken, author of A Man on the
Moon, the basis for the Tom Hanks-produced HBO series, From the
Earth to the Moon.

"It may be taking longer for (space exploration) to happen," he
says, "but I think many people believe humanity's future is in
space."

Predicting just how man might occupy space long has been the
business of the story's author, now 82 and a near-recluse in his
Sri Lankan home.

Clarke acknowledges the impact of his collaboration with
Kubrick, saying in a statement that "perhaps no other year
before or since 1984 has been awaited with such eager
anticipation (and I like to think, with far less apprehension),"
alluding to George Orwell's bleak vision of a totalitarian
world.

Celebrated for having accurately predicted in 1945 that man
would use geosynchronous satellites for communication � that
became a reality in 1963 � Clarke and his visions were taken
seriously when 2001 launched production.

A modern analogy: If Bill Gates laid out his predictions for
computer use in 2034, folks today likely would take note.

As pictured in 2001, Clarke's future on some levels indeed
meshes with today. For instance, while on the orbiting Hilton
hotel, American scientist Dr. Frank Poole bumps into his Russian
counterparts who include two women. Normal today, the female
presence in space was a bold prophecy in the Cold War,
male-centric '60s.

They got the video screens right

A few other bull's-eyes: The Pan Am plane that shuttles Poole to
the Hilton vaguely resembles today's shuttle and hints at the
fixed-wing craft that could succeed it; while Poole dozes, a
panel on the seat in front of him plays a video image; and most
every spaceship control panel is dominated by video screens, not
the then-common dials and gauges.

But much of the movie is off target. Mostly 2001 is filled with
images and actions that are woven from a quilt of truth,
conjecture and fantasy. When Poole calls his daughter from the
Hilton space hotel, he chats with her on a video link (coming
soon) and is charged $1.70 ($8.77 in today's dollars, possible
but not likely) by Bell Telephone (buzzzzzz, wrong answer).

In hindsight, two key themes of the movie are revealed to have
this same crumbly foundation: space exploration and computer
development.

In 2001's 2001, men jet off to Jupiter, some in hibernation
mode. In the real 2001, NASA has had communication problems with
its unmanned Cassini spacecraft, now surveying the giant planet.

In the movie, an alien culture has made contact with humans �
unclear whether it is willfully or unintentionally � through
man's discovery of the monolith. Today, we are still hoping to
make contact with alien life, notably through the project known
as SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.

Interestingly, NASA recently announced that a likely place
beyond Earth that could shelter life is Europa, one of Jupiter's
four moons. In Clarke's follow-up, 2010, aliens warned mankind
not to disturb their habitat on Europa.

"You've got to give credit to Clarke there," says SETI
astronomer Seth Shostak, who notes that, in a nod to the
British-born scientist, NASA has renamed its next Mars orbiter
the 2001 Mars Odyssey.

Clarke's overly ambitious predictions for man's presence in
space are understandable given the tenor of his space-crazed
times. He could not foresee that the real engine of American
space exploration � Cold War-spawned competition � would grind
to a halt.

Of course, the exploration of computers has grown exponentially
since 1968. One current project makes a deliberate nod to 2001.

At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a room dedicated
to artificial intelligence is dubbed the Hal Project. Its aim is
to creative an interactive space that is "aware of the people
who are inside it so it can see them, listen to them, talk to
them and respond to their presence," says MIT graduate student
Michael Coen.

"We might be frightened of what computers can do today, like
allow someone to hack into your credit card, but we're not
frightened of the computer," he says.

Perhaps that's what Kubrick � the man behind The Shining � had
in mind with 2001: A Space Odyssey: a good old-fashioned scare.

If so, it worked then, it works now and likely it'll work in
3001, when the idea of traveling inside a spaceship could find
some journalist of the teleporting future laughing into his
thought processor.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                    Satellite Prediction And Observation

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:55:38 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 14:52:05 -0500
Subject: Satellite Prediction And Observation


GSBZ gently rational list motes!

One of the listers -- I think it was John Velez (or Juan Valdez,
but NOT Jose Jimenez), pointed out this killer *NAZA* website
packed with nifty java applications that allow one to predict
satellite overflights...

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/RealTime/JTrack/3D/JTrack3D.html

...great little printable maps of their precise tracks through a
scaled star field centered on the observer's ZIP code... slick
as snot on a doorknob.

well...

There are still peculiar NL's that zook soundlessly through my
night sky like luminous seed pearls not predicted by those
clever NASA simulations.  That is to say that they are not
reflected in the NASA data base John pointed out. They are not
trains, planes, or addled brains. They're not gas, they're slow
_and_ fast, and they don't make a sound at last.

These *lights* are off the beaten path, for sure.  They don't
follow NASA's schedule, and as I watch them they just get
curiouser and curioser. I've tried to catch them on video, but
they are too dim to resolve conclusively.

Any comments on the veracity of the data in those java
applications on the NASA site?  Yo! Adrian!

Lehmberg@snowhill.com


--
~~~~
EXPLORE Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.
http://www.alienview.net
                  **Updated All the TIME**
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/witches/237/lehmberg.html

JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually.
He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put
one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention
he gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail.
$350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected!

"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see
from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, burned at a
skepti-feebroid 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                     Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Persky

From: Alex Persky <alexvi@mail.ru>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 04:34:23 +0200
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 16:28:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Persky


 >Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 12:32:26 -0800
 >From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website

 >Stalinist ufology ...can be found on this site:

 >http://borshurinov.narod.ru/ufobusiness/ufobindex.htm

 >I do not know what is the main reason for sheer hatred that
 >drives Boris Shurinov when he mentions my name and work: his
 >anti-Semitism, [...] This is the
 >same person who phoned me several times years ago to find out
 >who among Western researchers are Jews.

Dear Colleagues,

I considered this Mr. Stonehill's post as quite doubtful from
the very beginning. In order to make the matter clear I called
Boris Shurinov by phone. He answered that nothing of this has
a basis in reality. Paul Stonehill's actions are likely related
with the appearance of Mr.Shurinov website in English and with
the articles he is going to publish there (the Russian version
of his website has been online for three monthes now).

Some words from myself. It's obvious that Paul Stonehill is
trying to discredit his opponent by methods that are dishonest.
He is playing with the topics that are very delicate ones for an
every Jew who has known what anti-Semitism is. I may assure you
that I could not even speak with a person who I suspect of
anti-Semitism or racism. I know Boris Shurinov as a convinced
internationalist. There are people on this List who know him
better than me and who can confirm the same.

You are trying to use the most dirty methods, Paul. I'm very
sorry. An American could bring an action against slander but
it's rather difficult for those living in Russia. You know, it's
so simple to fling mud at somebody...


Errol, I've always been sure that there's no place for personal
attacks here, what has happened? If somebody invent something,
it will be passed to the List? and we should discuss it, and
somebody should prove his innocence?

 >This is the same person who told me that James Oberg is a CIA officer
 >(although I carry little respect for Oberg, I disagreed, but Shurinov
 >listens only to himself).

Could you recall what you have written publicly about the same
person in Russian, please?


 >Shurinov's asistants are equally disgusting: one of them chided me for
 >being "bourgeoisie" because my computer was not set up with
 >Cyrrilic alphabet,

This is a mere misunderstanding, Paul. Here is the root of the
problem.

When the superior Western technology began to leak through the
Iron Curtain into the USSR in 1980s the terms "bourgeous", "made
by the decaying ones", "made by the damned capitalists" were
always used to mean "the Western" in Russian, with humor and
respect to the West and the Western (when the terms were applied
to the superior technology or anything which is superior to
domestic). Why? This is because the Communists had "outlawed"
the words "the West", "the Western", so people found another
ones which where "lawful" at that time.

The communist mafia fell in 1990s but these joking terms and
their meaning ("the Western-made") remained till these days. The
terms are widespread in Russia, so you don't need to feel hurt
by them. They are always said jokingly and respectfully. Don't
feel hurt by Mr.Shevtsov (he is the webmaster of UFOS website).
This is not his fault.


 >Another young Stalinist spends his time searching UFO pages
 >for my work to keep Shurinov updated...

Please give us the name of "another young Stalinist". Is he on
the List?


 >Years ago he wrote artciles full of hate for American
 >journalists who brought Soviet military UFO data out of Russia.

As far as I understand Paul means "Secret KGB UFO Files" and the
article entitled "Mystery of American Forgery" written by Mr.
Shurinov. In a few days I'll post the English translation of the
article (I'd done it for the List in December but the grammar
has to be checked first). The investigation results are
published in the article. If somebody is challenging the
investigation results then he should publish a disproof.


 >Shurinov and his henchmen are remnants of Stalinism in the realm of
 >Soviet and Russian ufology.

This is the first time when I feel myself obliged to write a
post related to the three monthes old affair. I didn't support
Boris Shurinov's idea to declare WWW-War on forgeries and false
promoters from the very beginning, because it won't give us
anything but it'll bring frenzy opponents to the website author.


Best regards,

Alex Persky
alexvi@mail.ru







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

               Re: Argentina Blinded By Lights In The Night -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 23:11:18 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 17:00:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Argentina Blinded By Lights In The Night -


 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 12:40:05 -0500
 >Subject: Argentina Blinded By Lights In The Night

 >It's worth noting that Southern Cone (Argentina, Uruguay and
 >Chile) has been affected by strange electrical phenomena for a
 >number of months, as readers of the INEXPLICATA updates can
 >remember (please visit the archives at inexplicata @ egroups.com
 >for more information), and only last month the Chilean village
 >of Calama was affected by allegedly UFO-related blackouts.

Scott, List:

The Sun is now at the peak of the solar cycle. See the diagram:

http://sec.noaa.gov/SWN/index.html

There have been many aurorae and geomagnetic events. These are
more important in the higher latitudes. These event often effect
the power grids. See this site for definitions of these events:

http://sec.noaa.gov/NOAAscales/#GeomagneticStorms


http://sec.noaa.gov/weekly/

gives a weekly summary and a prediction for the next 27 days.

This one shows the current auroral oval images by the POES
satellites for the Southern Hemisphere:

http://sec.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapS.html

It might be good to check these against the reported events.


Clear skies,

Bob Young









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                       Re: We Of The First Sin - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 21:16:59 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 17:08:25 -0500
Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin - Hatch


 >Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 16:50:37 -0500
 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:24:26 EST
 >>Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 15:31:11 +1100
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>From: Christopher Kelly <tophar@pacific.net.au>
 >>>Subject: We Of The First Sin

 ><snip>

 >>On another list composed of people, like me, who perceive that
 >>they've been abducted, we've been discussing the fact that in
 >>these times of "reality everywhere," our imaginations are on
 >>idle.

 >The perception of reality is indeed an ultimately individual
 >pursuit and most people tend to - outwardly, at least - conform
 >to the standard media interpretation of what constitutes an
 >acceptable reality.

 >This secure media - polticial - and religious-driven reality
 >imposes a certain degree of stability to the world in which we
 >find ourselves. As Charles Fort said, his work was about the
 >damned data. And when you start venturing outside of sanctioned
 >parameters or jumping over fences, you discover whole new worlds
 >in media, politics, and religions.

 >A man who has worked in jails or prisons for a long time once
 >told me that there are different types of prisoners. The last
 >group he described to me were people who *want* to be
 >incarcerated - that when they are released, they commit another
 >crime just so they can go back to jail. He said jail was their
 >home, where they felt secure, it was a routine, it was safety.

 >In many respects, I think an awful lot of people like the
 >security of a well-run universe that is predictable and stable.
 >The media, politicans, religious, *and* scientists seem to
 >belong to this 'let's spin a web and make it the real reality'
 >group.

 >Safe.

 >Secure.

 >Sleep.

 >Kelly


Dear Kelly:

As some 4-watt types around here used to say, "I can relate to
that."

In fact, I am overjoyed that I didn't snooze away the entire
weekend. You see, I have a terrible eating, drinking and smoking
habit which costs all sorts of funds better spent fishing, or in
some idiotic church, or down some other accidental drain where
the clever raccoons can play mischief.

In fact, I just got out of bed (Pacific Standard time) and
really appreciate the fact that this is still Sunday night, and
not Monday!

Usually, its a period of "missing time", which I blame on
Tetleys, Guinness, and a host of other contributors; most
especially those guilty parties in Germany and Holland. If the
"Dutch" ar busy, there are always some Italians brewing gripple
in the Holland Tunnel when the dice game slows down.

Its all their fault you see, never mine, when Monday sneaks up
too suddenly.

So far, and as near/far as I can see with these $15
non-prescription glasses, space aliens have little or nothing to
do with my personal observations.



Best wishes

- Larry Hatch









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Stonehill

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 22:28:09 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 17:12:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Stonehill


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 01:55:16 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Velez


Hello, John.

I stand by my words. But in no way do I tell you not to read
Shurinov's page - I even included its address in the beginning
of my message. I have to defend my name, and my book. This is
not a panic attack; I react to defamation vehemently. I do not
believe that Shurinov can threaten me, or Marina Popovich, or
anyone else.

The problem is that Shurinov wants those who disagree with him,
or even pay him no attention, but pursue independent research of
Russian ufology, to be silent. Or else, he uses Stalin's means
to try to silence his opponents. This will not be - we live in a
free world. You already mentioned, John, a few months back, that
you do not speak Russian. Too bad - if you could read Shurinov's
statements in Russian, you might become angry, too. It has
nothing to do with false reports about Russia - I have mentioned
some in my book, too. But his attacks reveal that he cannot
stand competition.

I do not question your intelligence. I do not tell you not to
read Shurinov's page-on the contrary. I do not offer you any
help. If you want to hear other voices from Russia - those who
do not share his 'party line', you know where to find me.


Paul Stonehill








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Stonehill

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 22:43:41 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 17:24:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Stonehill


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 13:41:10 EST
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 14:29:15 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Bourdais


I stand by my words.

As for my TNT appearance, I will repeat what I stated before:
independent researchers need to examine this film. And I do not
consider the film a hoax - it is too early to render any final
judgement. I gave a prolonged interview to the producers; they
took whatever they deemed useful. I was not too excited about
it, yet, I still think we should examine it before rendering
judgements. But you have to have the film in your hands to
examine it and we do not. Yes, other Russian researchers have
challenged the film, and Shurinov's interpretation of it. And
they are still investigating it - Mr. Kutovoy, and others. I got
angry at Shurinov because he has viciously attacked me in
Russian, constantly, in the last several months.

Once I recommended his book (in Russian) to James Oberg. But
after Shurinov's phone calls, I lost respect for him. But I
never heretofore called him anything publicly; to me he is a
Homo Sovieticus, but I paid him no attention. Yet, I did not
want to be silent after reading his Soviet-style verbal
assaults. Do read his pages; I just wish you could read his
words in original Russian. You would find out how he denigrates
me and other researchers; how he glorifies the KGB and uses
their advice about the TNT film. But to accuse him of being a
KGB agent - this is a joke. He clearly is not.

So, to be clear, my letter was a defense of my name, because I
read his statements in Russian some months ago and was
horrified. Now he is using other languages to attack me and
other people he disagrees with. But I am not telling you to stay
away from his pages-I just wanted to defend my name, and express
my opinion about this man, who to me is a clown of Russian
ufology, who attacks everything I write-and other independent
reserachers of Russian UFOs because we do not follow his "party
line". You want to read his pages-this is your right.

Here is a request - to you and others here:

Shrinov has belittled my article about the Yellow Emperor. He
called it "yellow". Read it for free here:

http://www.levymultimedia.com/January/0125mysteries.htm

And tell me your opinion. I really would like to know why it
could be considered "yellow"...

Next: in Russian he has poured buckets of dirt on my book. If
any of you serious UFO researchers who frequent this List want
to get a copy of it, please let me know; I will send it to you,
so that you can make up your own mind.

Besides the researchers I have mentioned before-in Russia-there
is also another one, well-respected, and well-known in Russia.
Shurinov sometimes refers to him and respects him. Mr. Gershtein
can tell you his opinion of my book, too, since he knows the
Russian scene well, and knows the cases and sightnings mentioned
in The Soviet UFO Files. He speaks English fluently. Here is his
site.

http://www.ufonav.spb.ru/

Thank you for your attention.


Paul Stonehill









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                            SOS OVNI & French DMI

From: Perry Petrakis <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 14:07:14 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 17:29:33 -0500
Subject: SOS OVNI & French DMI


In the most recent issue of our journal Phenomena, we publish a
summary of a report made by the French Directoriate for Military
Intelligence, issued internally, in 1995. Contrarily to the
COMETA deceiving appearance, this is as close as we can get to
an official assessment of the UFO problem since the report is
stamped "Ministry of Defence".

Incidentally, SOS OVNI is characterised in the report as being
the most serious private research UFO group in France.

Although we did not ask the head Intelligence Agency permission
to write down the article, we did ask them for permission to
reproduce the report in it's entirety. Surprisingly, they
accepted with, however, a few minor restrictions which makes it
difficult for us to copy the report at this very moment. More on
this at a later time.

It is interesting to note that the report, which was never to be
released to the public, is a full first hand assessment of the
UFO problem from the Military Intelligence point of view. Some
of the outstanding points are that the Agency insists on the
need to monitor ufology for the danger it represents for
undercover operations (ie. pseudo ufologists could use their
"title" to access scientists, the military and the media, for
foreign intelligence puposes). The belief in ET's could also be
used directly by foreign intelligence, to undermine the faith a
national community would have in it's politicians.

The Agency, much like the COMETA authors, leans heavily towards
the United States military agenda, suggesting the intelligence
community could do the above suggested : monitor ufology for
it's own purposes ; use the belief in ET's as a smokescreen for
very down to earth undercover activities, and use the sighting
reports as a breeding ground for interesting ideas, possibly
applicable to R&D in aeronautics.

Unlike the COMETA report, the Agency takes a much more careful
stance with Roswell, "reverse engineering" and the ET hypothesis
as a whole. Having said that, they do not rule out the ET theory
although they don't seem very keen on Roswell and "reverse
engineering".

This is the very first time in France that a UFO research
organization obtains a copy of such an unpublic and official
contemporary report and especially the right to use it. I
clearly hope that all those who thought of the COMETA report
(probably clumsily inspired by this one) as a major piece from
France will understand the significance of what has been
achieved.

With the official release, a few months back, of a complete
report to SOS OVNI by the French ministry of Defence, on a radar
visual case near Metz (which, to our knowledge has not been
identified yet), this looks like something of a breakthrough.

The front cover of our most recent issue can be seen at

http://www.sosovni.com


All the best to all of you,

Perry Petrakis










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                  Argentina: Response to Corralito Incident

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:05:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:27:41 -0500
Subject: Argentina: Response to Corralito Incident


SOURCE: Diario "La Voz del Interior" (newspaper) Cordoba-Argentina
DATE: January 5, 2001

MERELY A FAILURE IN THE POWER LINES

"Given the characteristics of the event which occurred in
Corralito, we are dealing with a short circuit or a failure in
the power lines," said Fernando Suarez Boedo, an astronomer and
science writer. The expert rejected the possibility that  a
meteorological or extraterrestrial phenomenon could have been
responsible for the flash of light seen in the early morning
hours of January 2nd.

Suarez Boedo noted that given the way in which the flash
occurred, the time and general characteristics of the
phenomenon, it was almost certainly some kind of failyure in the
high voltage transformers. "It could be a transformer failure,
leading to a voltage spike and the flash of light and subsequent
blackout. The very powerful electromagnetic fields formed around
power cables play a major role here," he explained.

He said that the shortcircuit could have been caused by a bird
or metal object colliding with the power lines. "It later melted
and nothing would have been found later," he added. Suarez Boedo
further maintained that the event's evidence discards the
possibility that it could have been extraterrestrial in nature.

#####

Translation (C) 2001. Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special Thanks to Gloria Coluchi.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                   Chile: Money In Exchange For Silence On

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 07:15:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:30:30 -0500
Subject: Chile: Money In Exchange For Silence On

Dear Friends,

The blazing hot summer experienced in the southern cone
(temperatures in excess of 100-110 F) has been worsened by a
renewal of Chupacabras activity in Calama. As mentioned in last
week's posting, unnamed agencies have been buying the silence of
local residents, but "the truth will out", as they say.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


SOURCE: La Estrella de Calama (newspaper), Calama, Chile
DATE: Saturday, January 6, 2001

AGENCY OFFERS MONEY IN EXCHANGE FOR SILENCE ON CHUPACABRAS

***Oddly, peasants affected by the animal deaths attributed to
the Chupacabras have been visited in past weeks by "unidentified
agencies" willing to purchase their silence***

The Chupacabas continues to cause unexplained phenomena and
"backlashes" among the population of various rural sectros in
Calama. An Internet website denounced the fact that "a
mysterious agency" is offering money in exchange for silence.

According to Internet website:

http://ufomiami.homestead.com/calamaUFO.html

the locals, who wished to remain anonymous, indicated that
strange noises have been heard on their rooftops over the course
of the past evenings, aside from the sense of fear portrayed by
their animals.

They remarked that the lack of street lights in certain areas
makes the situation all the more distressing: "dogs whine when
they begin to hear footsteps on the rooftops and a strong smell
of decay can be perceived throughout the entire day."

Some peasants noted that they have again started to lose
animals, but claim having received orders to keep silent
regarding any cattle deaths to avoid creating public alarm. "We
must stifle ourselves."

Furthermore, some of the affected parties claimed to have
received visits from "unidentified agencies", willing to "pay"
them a certain amount for each animal lost in exchange for their
silence. "Some are told that it's a loan they can use to acquire
new catle, and others are told that they can use it as they
will, provided they don't report the events."

# # # #

Translation (C) 2001. Scott Corrales/Institute of Hispanic
Ufology. Special thanks to Dr. Virgilio Sanchez Ocejo and Gloria
Coluchi








                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:19:47 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:37:25 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 10:31:52 +0100

 >>None of us can be sure of the radiation readings, not due
 >>to your theories but because, as I report in my book, the
 >>Geiger counter operated by Sgt Nevilles, was in fact
 >>broken.

 >I have read your book from cover to cover and did not read
 >such an amazing declaration. Can you refer me to the exact
 >page?

Page 212, when referring to Sgt Nevilles:

'It seems he did not even have time to repair his equipment
because during the incident he told Lieutenant Colonel Halt that
the headpiece on the Geiger counter was broken.'

Page 394, referring to the Geiger counter on the tape recording:

Lt Col Halt: Hey, this is an awkward thing to use, isn't it.?

Sgt Nevilles: Normally, you see, I carry it on my... on my ears
but this one broke.

Therefore it was a faulty Geiger counter. Now, whether or not it
functioned as it was supposed to is debatable. I am not familiar
with these things. However, I do point out that the instrument
was broken because I think it is important to pay attention to
details and, under these conditions how can we be certain that
it was functioning correctly. Maybe somebody who is familiar
with them can explain whether or not a broken headpiece would
interfere with the mission.

 >You devoted a chapter (14 pages) to "challenging the
 >sceptics" >with the following headings:

I believe the whole book is a challenge to the sceptics.

 >Drugged and drunken airmen? (1 page). You discount such
 >possibility just because "it would not look too good for
 >high-ranking Air Force commanders". Plus Penniston words
 >that nobody was checked for drinks or drugs. Not enough
 >(to me, of course).

This was an excuse offered by Philip Klass and some of the
senior officers, including General Gordon Williams. But when I
reminded these former commanders that these men were employed to
guard a NATO base which deployed nuclear weapons, they had to
think again. My point was that even suggesting the men were
drugged or drunk was easier to deal with than admitting they had
had an encounter with an "unidentified". I was surprised that
they would make such a suggestion in the first place. Penniston
did point out that nobody checked any of the witnesses during
the debriefing for drugs or alcohol. This was later confirmed by
others, including Major Edward Drury who was in the office when
the witnesses were being debriefed. You should be aware that
when personnel begin their shift they are - or should be checked
for drugs and alcohol during guard mount. I was advised that
this is especially so during the festive season.

 >The lighthouse theory explained (4 pages). You comment about
 >Ian >Ridath and Vince Thurkettle saying that Vince later change
 >his >opinion after you informed him of all the "facts". Of course, if
 >you tell him that one soldier said he had TOUCHED the UFO and
 >everything else, Vince would have doubts. Me too... if the
 >information were true.

Vince Thurkettle was never really sure about the lighthouse, as
you can read in the book, it was only a throwaway comment to a
journalist. You are wrong about suggesting Vince changed his
mind after I had informed him of all the facts. (see page 270)
where I state:

'Without revealing my thoughts on the subject I managed to talk
to the forester. Expecting to hear his well publicized views I
was pleasantly surprised to learn that he was not amused by it
all. "They take a cluster of facts and only pick up on those
that suit the situation," he told me. It was refreshing to know
that Vince is no longer so sure that the lighthouse was
responsible for the incident. Indeed, he was never really sure
to begin with. It was just a theory, after all.'

So in my first interview with Vince Thurkettle I did not offer
any opinion. This was the case with every interview I did, it's
the way I work so as not to lead the witness. It was after we
had discussed his theories that I presented him with information
that he was not aware of.

 >The only additional argument is your own walk into the forest
 >15 years after? seeing a "very obvious" lighthouse beacon impossible
 >to mistake. Well, you say so; others (Jenny) have said the contrary.

Actually it was 19 years after the incident and I was
accompanied by Jacquieline Davis, a former police officer with
the Metropolitan Police Force, trained by former SAS personnel
and has worked for 10 years in covert operations and is
considered to be the world's top female bodyguard. I would have
thought she would be pretty sharp. In fact she was the first to
point it out, if I recall. Can't compare her with Jenny. In fact
the reason for taking her with me (and she knew very little of
what the case was about at that time) was because of her
military and police training. Don't forget my book is about a
military case which includes the civilian police.

 >Rabbit Scratchings or Landing Marks? (7 pages). You devote the
 >main part of them to explaining how you obtained copy of several
 >photos about the indentations. Good work, but nobody negate its
 >existence, just its interpretation.

Well, the reason for going into the details was to present as
much information as possible concerning the photographs because
that way readers can understand their history.

 >Tree Damage and radiation (2 pages). You mention the debate
 >about radiation readings without mentioning that the Geiger
 >counter was broken. On the contrary, you suggest that the
 >radiation "would surely have depleted" because they were
 >recorded a few days later.

There was no need to mention the broken Geiger counter as it had
already been mentioned earlier. Besides, this chapter concerned
the sceptics theories and none of them had ever brought this up.
At this stage I was addressing the radiation readings.

 >Why are those radiation readings so important? At face value, I
 >would seriously doubt the existence of aliens travelling around
 >in spaceships leaking radiation, but this is another story. It
 >is obvious that the radiation readings are the ONLY strange
 >"physical evidence" that could support the idea of a material
 >UFO in the forest. And now you confess that the Geiger counter
 >was broken!!

I do not believe it is the only physical evidence. What about
the photographs of the landing site? One picture that has not
yet been seen in close up is the area that was mentioned in
Halt's audio recording - the scuffed up section.

 >Even if the readings were correct, there is a important check
 >missing. Nobody bother to check around the forest for similar
 >indentations or readings. So nobody really knows if these
 >results were really anomalous.

Researchers Brenda Butler and Dot Street checked the forest
within weeks after the incident. Vince Thurkettle did not look
for the landing sites until six weeks later. And if you recall,
there were people flown in from the USA to investigate the
sites, but we are unlikely to ever see that data.

 >Yes, as you say, "the Americans must have thougth it was a very
 >real event" and you have clearly explained the Cold War context
 >of the situation. To me, all this just explain what they did,
 >even to the extreme of a "denied" AFOSI investigation with drugs
 >and hypnosis trying to extract what really happened out there.
 >But the existence of an investigation do NOT imply that they
 >"brain-washed" the witnesses or that a real UFO was present.

Those I mentioned here were just some of the reasons for
explaining the case, as I'm sure you are aware, it's a rather
big book for one case. So it is impossible to list all the
details here. I was only trying to explain why it could not be
considered a "mirage" as Jenny seems to now think.

With regard to the AFOSI, you might have read what the deputy
base commander of the AFOSI for Bentwaters/Woodbridge told me.
When I discussed the UFO and pointed out that it was my opinion
that the AFOSI and CIA had silenced the witnesses, he replied.

'Well, it worked didn't it.'

What was featured in the book was the name of a AFOSI officer
who investigated the incident. This same name was later
confirmed by Jim Penniston - who said this was one of the agents
involved.(and I might add that I did not lead him into that
response) It is clear in my book were I discovered this name -
the sources are impeccable and they are also named. And please
read the acknowledgments where you can see I was in contact with
somebody of that name.

I also name the commander of the AFOSI at Bentwaters/Woodbridge
and the agents who were on duty. I did not name the British
subjects at Martlesham Heath (not regular civilian police) for
reasons that they may still be employed and I would not want to
breach any national security. My book has already caused concern
to the Ministry of Defence and I have been informed that senior
personnel including the Secretary of State for Defence, has
obtained a copy of the book. A book review and interview for
Focus, the in-house MOD magazine, was pulled after a memo was
circulated to certain MOD staff. That really annoyed me because
that magazine is read by all our high ranking military
personnel. And I so much wanted to target that audience.

I hope this helps


Best wishes

Georgina Bruni

"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the





                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                           Incontrovertible Proof!

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:51:23 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:41:39 -0500
Subject: Incontrovertible Proof!


Incontrovertible Proof! Alien Spacecraft Have Landed -
Documented Evidence

By Glenmore Trenear-Harvey (A former RAF Pilot)
Hot Gossip UK

Sceptics who dismiss reports of UFOs and ridicule the testimony
of experienced observers like military aviators, airline pilots,
radar operators and air traffic controllers, and say that it is
impossible for visitations from alien spacecraft to occur,
should consider the following incontrovertible proof and recant
from their outright disbelief!

I ask them to ponder on these two following - documented -
examples of visitation by alien spacecraft.

During the first sighting in 1969 the craft was observed to make
several passes before descending and landing. From a panel at
the base of the craft a creature emerged. The 'head' was larger
than that of a human and the body had a shiny, silver look.
After walking close to the craft it was seen to, apparently,
'sample' the terrain, before returning to the craft and shooting
off again into space at a considerable speed.

The other documented encounter was in 1975 where, after the
craft had landed, what appeared to be a 'probe' emerged and,
again, seemed to be searching for life-forms. Though no
'human-like' form was seen.

In both instances, photographic and electronic evidence exists
that has been confirmed by the US Government. (**Further details
are available at the foot of this column)

'You Can't Tell The People' There should be a subhead to this
title: "because they won't believe you." I have just read
GEORGINA BRUNI's book that takes its title from Baroness
Thatcher's statement to her "UFO's? You must get your facts
right, and you can't tell the people." Dealing with the only UFO
sighting in the United Kingdom to be officially acknowledged by
the Ministry of Defence (MOD), it recounts - in meticulous
detail - the remarkable events that took place twenty years ago
in Rendlesham Forest, adjacent to the US airbases at Woodbridge
in Suffolk.

 From the 'grunts' patrolling the security perimeter of the
airbase up to the commanding USAF Major General GORDON WILLIAMS
and the British Chief of Defence Staff, LORD HILL-NORTON, there
are extraordinary confirmations of what has, for years, been
always been denied by the MOD as having any "defence
significance."

Georgina, exhibiting the journalistic traits of a cross between
a terrier and a rotweiler, has relentlessly pursued witnesses to
the events. In many cases she has managed to get them to talk -
on the record - for the first time, about what an official US
Air Force document describes as: "mysterious sightings of
Unidentified Flying Objects." Fascinating stuff.

I have more than a passing interest in such events. During my
service as an RAF pilot at RAF Oakington, I was base liaison
officer with USAF Mildenhall and also flew, on occasion, into
USAF Bentwaters and I am therefore familiar with the aerodromes
involved. Subsequently, when living in the United States in
1965, I became an active member of NICAP - the National
Investigation Committee on Aerial Phenomena. With Rear Admiral
Roscoe Hillenkoetter (the CIA's Director of Central
Intelligence) and Colonel JOSEPH BRYAN III Chief of the CIA's
Psychological Warfare Staff (and former Special Assistant to the
Secretary for the Air Force) as key executives of NICAP, and
many CIA Intelligence Officers as overt or covert members, NICAP
was a serious organisation.

Learning of my latent interest, TIMOTHY GOOD, the acclaimed
author on UFO matters, sent me a copy of his recently published
book: 'Beyond Top Secret'. This well-documented tome publishes
material from declassified reports he has obtained from the
world's intelligence agencies. He presents a powerful argument
that over the years there has been a massive cover-up of UFO
sightings or reports of "structured aerial phenomena" and that
much material continues to be classified at a level beyond 'Top
Secret.'

The detailed reports by military and civilian aircrew, radar
operators and air traffic controllers make fascinating reading.
I have never encountered any unusual aerial activity in my
flying career. However I have spoken with other pilots who "know
what they have seen" but are too leery of ridicule to recount
their experiences in public.





                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

              Strong Evidence for Alien Life on Two New Planets

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 10:50:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:44:13 -0500
Subject: Strong Evidence for Alien Life on Two New Planets



SOURCE: Diario "La Nacion" (Argentina)
DATE: January 7, 2001

ASTRONOMERS DISCOVER STRONG EVIDENCE FOR ALIEN LIFE

**A star system only 75 light years away**

a. Two planets would have sizes similar to Earth
b. There could be water.
c. But temperature variations would allow for life very
    different from our own


LONDON.- Astronomers found the strongest evidence yet for alien
life in a solar system having characteristics similar to our
own. The discovery was made by SETI scientists working with NASA
and Britain's Jodrell Bank observatory, searching for life
beyond known boundaries.

Observations indicate that the star system, known as CM
Draconis, has two planets in the so-called "life belt",
sufficiently close for water to exist in liquid form, which
could suppose the presence of life. Instruments were employed
close to their design limits  when the observations were made,
thus, the discoveries have been treated with great caution.

Further details shall be provided during the annual meeting of
the American Astronomical Association to be held this week in
San Diego, California. If there were life in any of the planets
of the CM Draconis system, it would be subject to conditions
very different from those on Earth. At the system's center would
be two small red stars (colder than the sun) oscilating around
each other while the planets orbit both. A binary system such as
this one experiences constant variations in the duration of
night and day, and complex seasonal and meteorological
structures.

Laurance Doyle, the SETI researcher conducting the study, said
that the exact measurements of the candidate worlds are
uncertain, but that their diameters would be larger than Earth
(17,000 km versus 12,000 km) and some 9 times smaller than
Jupiter. Doyle also discovered a third Jovian-sized planet
orbiting beyond the other two. This is significant, as these
giant worlds, through their gravitation, would attract the
asteroids and meteorites which could otherwise crash into the
smaller planets. Jupiter may have played a similar role in our
own star system.

Doyle measured the light in a decreasing manner from the CM
Draconis stars, while its planets passed between them and Earth.
These stars are some 57 light years away from us. Similar
techniques have been employed in detecting more than 50 planets
orbiting other stars.

Professor Jill Tarter, SETI's director, stated that Doyle's work
represents powerful evidence of the existence of Earthlike
planets. "These are promising results," she said. "There might
be life, there might be none, but at least  we can see our work
is worthwhile."






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                         London UFO Studies Meeting

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 11:43:38 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:47:57 -0500
Subject: London UFO Studies Meeting


February 16th

London UFO STUDIES

Presents

Georgina Bruni Lecture

Author Of 'You Can't Tell The People'
(Rendlesham Forest Mystery)

Meeting to be held at:

The Unity Hall
Bramley Close
Walthamstow
London
E17

Doors Open 7-30pm

Admission at Door: �4-00 Children/OAPs �2
Details about meeting Phone: 0208-270-9919


Regards,
John Hayes

webmaster@ufoinfo.com

UFOINFO:- http://ufoinfo.com

Official Archives for UFO Roundup, UK UFO Network Bulletin,
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences, UFO + PSI
Magazine plus archives of Filer's Files and Oz Files.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                     Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 12:39:04 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:57:35 -0500
Subject: Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - Velez


 >Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 13:06:44 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01
 >>Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 08:44:35 -0800

 >>>Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:25:23 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: eXpsoe eXpo - 01-05-01


 >>>I couldn't resist.

 >>>I went ahead and looked at SDM's product page. There was only
 >>>one product there, a subscription to some paranormal rag with
 >>>the obligatory pyramids on the cover.

 >>>Curious as to the price, I clicked on the Order Form. That's
 >>>where the fun starts. I found numerous products, and one of the
 >>>best ones reads:

 >>>"THE JESUS PHOTOS! Alleged UFO contactee TIME PHOTOS
 >>>(circa 31 AD) of Jesus & His Apostles! Two 8x10 photo set!
 >>>Made for framing! STUNNING! $20. _______ "

 >>>I'm not making this up. Exclamation points are in/of the
 >>>original.

 >>Pretty wild stuff. I wonder how these guys can actually live
 >>with themselves and ot be totally embarassed by what they do.

 >>Morton's site used to state that some poor old woman had
 >>sent/donated some of the Virgin Mary photos to him and here he
 >>is selling them for $20 a pop. My story on Morton is full of
 >>many surprises...

 >Dear Sir:

 >Religion, like dope, is a comfort for the weak, dying, dimwitted
 >and/or distressed. I would never deny such people what little
 >comfort they can find.

Hola Laroo,

This is 'off topic' but I couldn't resist.  ;)

I am not a 'religious' man. In spite of that fact (and because I
was always searching for answers) I enrolled in a Interfaith
Seminary in the early 80's. My objective was to learn all I
could about the tenets and foundations of all the major
faiths/religions, find as many of the basic elements that they
shared, and from there, I could begin to peice together these
'common threads' into a (hopefully) larger picture/understanding
of 'Life, the Universe and everything."

(I know, the answer is 42! LOL)

During that time, I studied (apprenticed) under the tutelage of
a Rabbi, (Rebbe Jos. Gelberman) a priest, (Father Giles
Spoonhour) a Methodist Bishop, (Rev. John Mundy) and a Yogi.
(Devananda) None of these men were "weak, dying, (although we're
-ALL- "dying!") dimwitted and/or distressed.

Quite to the contrary, they were men od deep wisdom and
compassion. They were more 'alive' and 'at peace with
themselves' and well adjusted, than any other single group of
people I have ever met or encountered in life.

Like you, I don't harbor any 'religious' beliefs either Larry.
(If anything, I think that Jesus and Buddha and Mohammed were
probably abductees!~Nervous laughter~) But saying that those who
do believe must be 'dimwitted' or otherwise deluded is wrong
Larry. In fact "science" has recently disclosed that "prayer"
does have a real and beneficial effect. On the 'Pray-er' as well
as the 'Pray-ee,' the person it is focused on. Some of the most
beautiful (and deep) people that I have ever met attribute their
'qualities' to the daily practice of their faith.

Whether their respective 'religions' are real or not, I cannot
dispute or criticise their value to people. I cannot argue with
the results that both, materially and spiritually, benefit
sincere practitioners. It's ok 'not to believe' yourself, but
the statements you made up above are wrong and unfair. (And well
beneath you Larry! You're 'better stuff' than that.)

On behalf of all of the incredibly bright and decent folks that
I mentioned by name up above, I say, -Bad Call Larry!-

Regards,

*Rev. John Velez  ;)

------------------------

*I was ordained an Interfaith Minister at the Methodist
Sanctuary in New York on June 17,1985. Rabbi Gelberman and Rev.
Mundy jointly performed the ordination.  ;)


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 14:04:34 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 19:02:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles
 >Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:07:52 -0000

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 18:26:39 EST
 >>Subject: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Sparks - Pt. 2
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Grandstanding? Cheap shots? In what way? I am asking a perfectly
 >reasonable question that deserves a reasonable answer .

 >If these documents are bogus and these witnesses were made to
 >sign false information onto the public record - information that
 >is now creating problems for their credibility because it
 >differs from their verbal testimony - this is an outrage against
 >civil liberties.

 >Surely we all agree with that?

<snip>

Hello Jenny, Brad and List,

I am glad that we all reject bogus documents, doctored interviews
and misrepresentation.

Part of the controversy in the threads on the Rendlesham forest
case stems from the credibility given to skeptics in the whole
matter. The first name that comes to mind is James Easton, of
course, who is the main beam (...) of skeptical argumentation.

The more pertinent observations from Brad Sparks concern James
Easton's work on Rendlesham: Brad Sparks brings examples of
collage of 'evidence' that goes against scientific procedures.

Allow me to repeat this, Easton is a persistent reference
throughout the Rendlesham case, but his work has been rigorously
challenged by Brad Sparks.

And this has only produced flat brainwaves in this discussion.
The consequences of mischief by James Easton are yet a very
important matter.

Can you address this, Jenny?

Regards,

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                                 Spiderlings

From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:19:27 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 19:57:31 -0500
Subject: Spiderlings


Hellooo List,

I recall that some time ago a few Listers and I engaged in a
healthy discussion on the descent rate of Angel Hair, and the
aerodynamic properties thereof. To those for whom data relevant
to angel hair is an interest, the following is for ewe.

As today was a pleasant and warm day here in central Florida
(god, I love it here), I had the opportunity to sit outside for
a bit. As luck would have it, it seems that the newest members
of the local spider populace chose today to set off into the
wild blue (albeit low-altitude) yonder.

Sitting on my front patio this afternoon, looking southwest with
the roof just blocking the sun, I observed thousands of more or
less vertical spider webs drifting due east through the sky. Each
would glimmer brightly, the entire length visible for a moment.
Occasionally, several would be grouped together, giving one the
mental image of a group of brother and sister spiders shouting
"Go!" and bailing from some tree limb simultaneously like a
curious collection of eight legged paratroopers.

The length of some of these strands was particularly surprising
as a few of them were easily ten feet or more in length. Given
the increased surface area of these homespun parasails, one can
assume those characters were shooting for some serious distance.
Love to know how they leave their perch without getting those
things all tangled up in the same damn branch they're standing
on. Perhaps they hold their web all bundled up like base jumpers
before they leap, although with eight legs, that can't be too
easy either. Do they hold with the front four, jump with the
back four? Hold with the left four, leap sideways with the right
four? No, not that. They'd fall over when picking up the web.

I could detect no noticeable descent rate, as they were only in
view for a few seconds each, their middles bowing gently in the
direction of travel. Nor did I see any of them landing nearby. I
did wonder though, how they handle the landings. How does a
spider cut itself loose from it's 'chute? I'm fairly certain
spiders aren't issued survival packs before departure, so I
guess minuscule G.I. issue knives are out of the question. Do
their little spinnerets come equipped with cutters?

I suppose you should know that at roughly the same time, a
collection of criss-crossed jet contrails was drifting overhead,
also eastward. There was also a collection of older contrails in
various stages of dispersal, forming a tattered and sparse
cirrus cover (I see no connection, it's just part of the
observation).

Well, that's how I spent part of my much needed and all too rare
day off. My neighbors probably think I'm nuts, seemingly staring
at the edge of my roof for over an hour.

That's OK, it was worth it.


Greg St. Pierre
Palm Bay Fla.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 7

                     Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 15:42:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 20:01:09 -0500
Subject: Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/nyregion/07PLAN.html

New York Times | 7 Dec. 2001

As Search Continues for Plane, Skepticism About Crash Grows

By SHERRI DAY

A day after witnesses said they saw a small single-engine
airplane go down into the Hudson River and sink, searchers last
night still had found no evidence of a crash and had not
received any report of a missing plane.

That lack of information contributed to mounting skepticism
among the police that a plane crash had, in fact, occurred.

About 8:30 a.m. Friday two women who were driving into Manhattan
across the George Washington Bridge called the police to say
that they had seen a plane fly low over the bridge. They said
the plane, which appeared to be a white Cessna with blue
stripes, glided onto the river south of the bridge and then
sank. Two people on the ground later also told the police that
they had seen a small plane go into the Hudson.

Police officials said that about 2 p.m. yesterday the search
operation, which at one time included helicopters and scuba
divers, had been scaled back to two harbor boats.

Earlier in the day, the search was extended to Weehawken, N.J.,
some four miles south of the initial search area, after a man
there said he had seen large pieces of debris floating down the
river. As of early evening, police officials said, that siting
still had not been confirmed.

Since the police have been unable to uncover any evidence debris
or an oil slick that would suggest a crash, officials said that
they were increasingly doubtful that the witnesses actually saw
a plane go down, especially because authorities were on the
scene within 10 minutes of receiving the initial call.

"We're optimistic that there was no plane crash," said Sgt.
Brian Burke, a police spokesman, who added that if a plane had
crashed during the morning rush, more people on the bridge and
surrounding highways most likely would have seen the accident
and called 911.

But since the accounts of the shoreline witnesses were similar
to the women in the car, Sergeant Burke said, the police were
proceeding as if a plane had entered the water.

The Federal Aviation Administration's radar records were also a
factor in maintaining the search, he said, because they
confirmed the presence of a plane in the vicinity at the time.
The plane, flying in an area not monitored by air traffic
controllers, dropped below the radar's scanning range three
miles south of the bridge.

But Leigh Russo, one of the women on the bridge who reported the
plane had gone down, said she was positive about what she saw.

"I don't understand why they feel doubtful that there's a plane
in the water, because there's a plane in the water," she said in
a telephone interview from her home in Dumont, N.J. "I just know
that we were very concerned that somebody was down in that
water."

Ms. Russo, who is a human resources and labor director for a
retail company, said she, too, was surprised that more people
had not seen the plane go into the water.

"We're baffled as to why nobody else saw it except us," she
said. "But we saw it, and there's somebody down there
somewhere."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

              Re: Satellite Prediction And Observation - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 17:41:24 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:51:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Satellite Prediction And Observation - Young


 >Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:55:38 -0600
 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Satellite Prediction And Observation

<snip>

 >There are still peculiar NL's that zook soundlessly through my
 >night sky like luminous seed pearls not predicted by those
 >clever NASA simulations. That is to say that they are not
 >reflected in the NASA data base John pointed out. They are not
 >trains, planes, or addled brains. They're not gas, they're slow
 >_and_ fast, and they don't make a sound at last.

 >These *lights* are off the beaten path, for sure. They don't
 >follow NASA's schedule, and as I watch them they just get
 >curiouser and curioser. I've tried to catch them on video, but
 >they are too dim to resolve conclusively.

 > Any comments on the veracity of the data in those java
 >applications on the NASA site? Yo! Adrian!


Hi, Al, List:

There are a lot of satellites up there, and many not in this
database. This is probably true about many bright (usually low)
tumbling rocket boosters. These look wierd as the dim and
brighten when tumbling. Also, when satellites pass into the
Earth's shadow they will disappear, but slowly. Bright naked eye
satellites can be seen within two hours of sunset and sunrise,
at other times at night the Earth's shadow is to high.

This is a really cool site, I'll have to say.


Clear skies,

Bob Young








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - BYoung

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 17:55:51 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:54:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies - BYoung


 >From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies
 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 22:44:15 -0200

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:37:26 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >According to the reports in the Randle book, is it possible a
 >meteor land and then ascend as reported by a witness?

Thiago:

I'm not sure that I know about this. Can you give me a page
number?

 >Don't you think it would be possible for a meteor fall in
 >Canada and another "thing" crash in Kecksburg?

Theoretically, yes, of course. But the key 1965 witnesses were
looking directly toward the meteor cloud train low in the
western sky. I plotted the location of this and the direction
they were looking. There is a perfect match. Also many other
witnesses in western Pennsylvania also were looking _to their
west_, not toward Kecksburg, which they saw the fireball. The
times are so close that the possibilities of there being two
object, a fireball meteor and something else which looked like a
fireball meteor, was seen at the same time and in the same
direction, would be, well, astronomical.

 >The state police claimed that the found nothing in the place,
 >but the Air Force said it was a meteor... they searched
 >together. Who's telling the truth?

Both. The meteor was seen in the sky, no debris was ever found.

 >Murphy, the radio news director, recorded some reports from some
 >witnesses, but hours before the show goes to air, they called
 >asking to not reveal their reports and names...why? Just afraid
 >to be considerwd a looney?

Maybe. It has been said that they just didn't want to get into
some kind of "trouble". The Murphy program is very interesting.
He reported at the time that the only military people he saw
were in the _back seat_ of a police car. This fits the official
information that only three men were sent. He also reported at
the time that he never saw an object, itself.

There was a lot of excitement then, to be sure. In fact there
were at least six searches in other places, also not finding
anything.

Most of the rest is folklore.


Clear skies,

Bob Young








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                   Re: We Of The First Sin - Peterborough

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:29:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:57:02 -0500
Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin - Peterborough


 >Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 21:16:59 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin

 >>Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 16:50:37 -0500
 >>From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin

 >>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:24:26 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 15:31:11 +1100
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>From: Christopher Kelly <tophar@pacific.net.au>
 >>>>Subject: We Of The First Sin

 >><snip>

 >>>On another list composed of people, like me, who perceive that
 >>>they've been abducted, we've been discussing the fact that in
 >>>these times of "reality everywhere," our imaginations are on
 >>>idle.

 >>The perception of reality is indeed an ultimately individual
 >>pursuit and most people tend to - outwardly, at least - conform
 >>to the standard media interpretation of what constitutes an
 >>acceptable reality.

 >>This secure media - polticial - and religious-driven reality
 >>imposes a certain degree of stability to the world in which we
 >>find ourselves. As Charles Fort said, his work was about the
 >>damned data. And when you start venturing outside of sanctioned
 >>parameters or jumping over fences, you discover whole new worlds
 >>in media, politics, and religions.

 >>A man who has worked in jails or prisons for a long time once
 >>told me that there are different types of prisoners. The last
 >>group he described to me were people who *want* to be
 >>incarcerated - that when they are released, they commit another
 >>crime just so they can go back to jail. He said jail was their
 >>home, where they felt secure, it was a routine, it was safety.

 >>In many respects, I think an awful lot of people like the
 >>security of a well-run universe that is predictable and stable.
 >>The media, politicans, religious, *and* scientists seem to
 >>belong to this 'let's spin a web and make it the real reality'
 >>group.

 >>Safe.

 >>Secure.

 >>Sleep.

 >>Kelly

 >Dear Kelly:

 >As some 4-watt types around here used to say, "I can relate to
 >that."

 >In fact, I am overjoyed that I didn't snooze away the entire
 >weekend. You see, I have a terrible eating, drinking and smoking
 >habit which costs all sorts of funds better spent fishing, or in
 >some idiotic church, or down some other accidental drain where
 >the clever raccoons can play mischief.

 >In fact, I just got out of bed (Pacific Standard time) and
 >really appreciate the fact that this is still Sunday night, and
 >not Monday!

 >Usually, its a period of "missing time", which I blame on
 >Tetleys, Guinness, and a host of other contributors; most
 >especially those guilty parties in Germany and Holland. If the
 >"Dutch" ar busy, there are always some Italians brewing gripple
 >in the Holland Tunnel when the dice game slows down.

 >Its all their fault you see, never mine, when Monday sneaks up
 >too suddenly.

 >So far, and as near/far as I can see with these $15
 >non-prescription glasses, space aliens have little or nothing to
 >do with my personal observations.

Hey Larry! I think I am just as entitled as everybody else seems
to be on this List to get drunk once a year and philosofize.
Okay?


Thanks!

Kelly








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                   Re: Worldwide UFO Disclosure Imminent?

From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:09:59 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:58:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Worldwide UFO Disclosure Imminent?


The reality of extraterrestrials is about to be proven to the
world according to a video bought at the Leeds UFO Conference.

The date for this expose is due by the 20th January 2001
according to the video but there's not a whisper on this List!

I don't know if anyone knows any further details on this alleged
disclosure but it's the first I've heard.

Tel









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:23:31 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:02:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Mortellaro


 >Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 22:28:09 -0800
 >From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 01:55:16 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Velez

 >Hello, John.

 >I stand by my words. But in no way do I tell you not to read
 >Shurinov's page - I even included its address in the beginning
 >of my message. I have to defend my name, and my book. This is
 >not a panic attack; I react to defamation vehemently. I do not
 >believe that Shurinov can threaten me, or Marina Popovich, or
 >anyone else.

 >The problem is that Shurinov wants those who disagree with him,
 >or even pay him no attention, but pursue independent research of
 >Russian ufology, to be silent. Or else, he uses Stalin's means
 >to try to silence his opponents. This will not be - we live in a
 >free world. You already mentioned, John, a few months back, that
 >you do not speak Russian. Too bad - if you could read Shurinov's
 >statements in Russian, you might become angry, too. It has
 >nothing to do with false reports about Russia - I have mentioned
 >some in my book, too. But his attacks reveal that he cannot
 >stand competition.

 >I do not question your intelligence. I do not tell you not to
 >read Shurinov's page-on the contrary. I do not offer you any
 >help. If you want to hear other voices from Russia - those who
 >do not share his 'party line', you know where to find me.

Hello Paul, bListers and Errol;

The problem around these here parts is that folks like to not,
not tell other people what to do. And how to think. Or how to
act. Or how to anything.

The problem around these here parts two, is that this phenom is
so damned "personal" in nature that it literally "creates"
controversy, arguments (in lieu of dialogue or even debate) that
many of us, me included, can't see the point of view of other
people quite clearly enough to make sense out of it. This is why
I like to tell everyone, at every opportunity I have, to be more
patient with other peoples' philosophies. It's too important an
idea to avoid and unless we make the honest attempt, we will
continue to argue like the bunch of ill-tempered little snots we
are (all too often).

By the way, this is _not_ about you or Boris Good Enough or
anyone else. It's about all of us. We have little or no patience
with each other. When someone has a gripe with another of us,
that influences our decision about that person's pair of dimes
(credit for every pair of dimes to one Mr. Lawrence of
Hatchdom).

Whether it's Gersten, me, Boris, pelicans or for that matter,
you. If someone's got a gripe, you are wrong. No matter what you
have to say. Simple. Anything to the contrary is bovine
excrement. Maybe that's the wrong example, as my pop always told
me that the smell of cow manure is the most wonderful dirty
smell on the planet. And having spent my summers on a farm for
many years as a young snot, I can testify to the truth of it.

I guess though, that it much depends on the particular bull
what's dropping all that sh*t. Some bulls smell better than
others. There is, in fact, a theory which states that one's own
bull scheiss smells best.

The point? Why must there be one all the time, anyway.

Well, the point is that until we agree to attempt an
understanding of each other, until we make an attempt at
humanity in lieu of angry flaming of each other, we are gonna
continue to go where we've been headed for years.

Nowhere.

Only faster than ever before.

Last but not least, I shall not make that honest attempt except
to those who deserve the attempt. You others are just too far
gone for hope or help.


Jim Mortellaro

Purveyor of a small but potent amount of bovine excrement
mee-self, now and 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

              Re: Satellite Prediction And Observation - Klotz

From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 16:57:29 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:05:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Satellite Prediction And Observation - Klotz


 >Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:55:38 -0600
 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Satellite Prediction And Observation


 >GSBZ gently rational list motes!

 >One of the listers -- I think it was John Velez (or Juan Valdez,
 >but NOT Jose Jimenez), pointed out this killer *NAZA* website
 >packed with nifty java applications that allow one to predict
 >satellite overflights...

 >http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/RealTime/JTrack/3D/JTrack3D.html

 >...great little printable maps of their precise tracks through a
 >scaled star field centered on the observer's ZIP code... slick

<snip>

I may be stating the obvious, but Heavens Above does these
satelite viewing predict calcs for you and make it available in
convenient form.

http://www.heavens-above.com

You put in your (decimal) Lat/Long and the web site provides
satellite predictions for your location including special
reports available for MIR, the ISS and the Iridium satellite
flares.  I've been successfully using their Iridium predicts for
some time and I find them to be accurate to a second or less and
a few degrees of arc in the sky.

- Jim Klotz







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                          Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 20:23:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:07:36 -0500
Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI


 >From: Perry Petrakis <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: SOS OVNI & French DMI
 >Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 14:07:14 +0100

<snip>

 >Incidentally, SOS OVNI is characterised in the report as being
 >the most serious private research UFO group in France.

  Hello, list members,

"The most serious private research UFO group in France " ?
This is truly science fiction.

The problem with SOS OVNI is that its director, Perry Petrakis,
considers that almost all the UFO cases are bogus (he told it in
an interview to the Le Provenal newspaper three years ago). So
we have an organization which is selling a magazine pro-UFO to
get some money but which, off the record, is directed by people
who are thinking that 98% of the UFO case are bull shit and the
remaining are 1% hallucinations/modern myth and 1% something
that they cannot explain but that they think with mundane
explanations.

They are people of the "psycho-sociological" kind, not true
ufologists.

The DMI report was already known in some French ufological
circles before the publication in Phenomena. No scoop here.

RDN









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                               Re: Spiderlings

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 17:28:58 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:10:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Spiderlings


 >From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Spiderlings
 >Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:19:27 -0800

 >I recall that some time ago a few Listers and I engaged in a
 >healthy discussion on the descent rate of Angel Hair, and the
 >aerodynamic properties thereof. To those for whom data relevant
 >to angel hair is an interest, the following is for ewe.

There is absolutely no comparison with Greg's experience and the
following:

http://www.homestead.com/rustys_retreat/spiderstuff.html

Or this:

I agree; this is a strange phenomenon. But "angel hair" has been
reported under similar circumstances. In 1955, M.K Jessup
published a book called 'The UFO Annual'; it contained UFO
reports from all across the USA for that year. It is quite a
remarkable book but I doubt that listfolk are familiar with it.

One of my favorite reports in the collection is an occurrence
that took place Oct. 22nd., 1955, fifteen miles northwest of
Columbus Ohio. It was a clear day, and students at Jerome
Elementary School were playing outside when they all spotted an
object circling high above the school. Most teachers and the
principal saw the craft.

It was "cigar-shaped" and "dazzling" bright and "motionless". As
they all watched, the object took off at "tremendous" speed.

What they witnessed next was a most "beautiful scene".

"The air as high and far around as the teachers could see was
filled with the most beautiful soft white looking tufts of
cotton slowly floating to the ground."

But that's not all:

"For about forty-five minutes they watched the fibrous material
floating downward" and "the substance had long fibers very much
like as if someone had taken the strands of 'angel hair' and
pushed some bunches toward the middle or end, leaving a trail of
fibers attached to it. It was very fine and soft to the touch.
It did not stick to our hands, but when we held two ends and
pulled, it stretched without tearing.

Where it stretched, it had a shiny appearance. The part we held
between our fingers quickly seemed to go to nothing."

The substance turned their hands green but soon washed off. The
mysterious downpour covered a three mile area and attached
itself to trees and telephone poles and was quite a sight.

There's also a picture in this same book of a "cobwebby
substance" which was identified as radioactive, heavily damaged
cotton fiber that covered a half-mile square area in Horseheads,
NY, on Feb. 23, 1955.

Greg's encounter is a red herring. He must see the discrepancy
between what he experienced and the descriptions of "angel hair"
supplied to the 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                               Re: Spiderlings

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 20:39:26 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:13:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Spiderlings


 >From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Spiderlings
 >Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:19:27 -0800

 >Hellooo List,

 >I recall that some time ago a few Listers and I engaged in a
 >healthy discussion on the descent rate of Angel Hair, and the
 >aerodynamic properties thereof. To those for whom data relevant
 >to angel hair is an interest, the following is for ewe.

 >As today was a pleasant and warm day here in central Florida
 >(god, I love it here), I had the opportunity to sit outside for
 >a bit. As luck would have it, it seems that the newest members
 >of the local spider populace chose today to set off into the
 >wild blue (albeit low-altitude) yonder.

 >Sitting on my front patio this afternoon, looking southwest with
 >the roof just blocking the sun, I observed thousands of more or
 >less vertical spider webs drifting due east through the sky. Each
 >would glimmer brightly, the entire length visible for a moment.
 >Occasionally, several would be grouped together, giving one the
 >mental image of a group of brother and sister spiders shouting
 >"Go!" and bailing from some tree limb simultaneously like a
 >curious collection of eight legged paratroopers.

 >The length of some of these strands was particularly surprising
 >as a few of them were easily ten feet or more in length. Given
 >the increased surface area of these homespun parasails, one can
 >assume those characters were shooting for some serious distance.
 >Love to know how they leave their perch without getting those
 >things all tangled up in the same damn branch they're standing
 >on. Perhaps they hold their web all bundled up like base jumpers
 >before they leap, although with eight legs, that can't be too
 >easy either. Do they hold with the front four, jump with the
 >back four? Hold with the left four, leap sideways with the right
 >four? No, not that. They'd fall over when picking up the web.

 >I could detect no noticeable descent rate, as they were only in
 >view for a few seconds each, their middles bowing gently in the
 >direction of travel. Nor did I see any of them landing nearby. I
 >did wonder though, how they handle the landings. How does a
 >spider cut itself loose from it's 'chute? I'm fairly certain
 >spiders aren't issued survival packs before departure, so I
 >guess minuscule G.I. issue knives are out of the question. Do
 >their little spinnerets come equipped with cutters?

 >I suppose you should know that at roughly the same time, a
 >collection of criss-crossed jet contrails was drifting overhead,
 >also eastward. There was also a collection of older contrails in
 >various stages of dispersal, forming a tattered and sparse
 >cirrus cover (I see no connection, it's just part of the
 >observation).

 >Well, that's how I spent part of my much needed and all too rare
 >day off. My neighbors probably think I'm nuts, seemingly staring
 >at the edge of my roof for over an hour.

 >That's OK, it was worth it.

Hiya, Greg,

Hey, listen up. I wrote something recently about the inability
of some of us to appreciate and/or understand, the opinions of
others. And this post of yours is the perfect example of this.
Take them spider webs you were looking at for so long.

_NOT!_

Where do you get the mistaken idea these were spiders, let alone
spiders accompanying their webies? Silly man.

These were the planets Jupiter, Saturn and Venus playing on the
shiny, white underbellies of Pelicans. In fact, the droppings of
pelicans are known to be white-ish and sometimes, even look like
spider webs.

As a student of spider webs (I am a spider dweeb) and a student
of pelicans (god I love pelican guano, specially when it's
roasting over slow gin phizz), I have determined that people
like you, people who claim to know what you are looking at, are
often full of horse hockey.

So next time, consult an X-Spurt, OK? We are all over the place.
All's you gotta do is aks... "Hey Pelican Man?!??!!" And like
magik, we appear. All twelve of us.


Dr. Mortellaro
Ph.D., in Pelican and Bull guanno... guano... Whatever








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                   Re: Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 21:00:15 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:15:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows


 >Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 15:42:32 -0500
 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows

 >http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/nyregion/07PLAN.html

 >New York Times | 7 Dec. 2001

 >As Search Continues for Plane, Skepticism About Crash Grows

 >By SHERRI DAY

 >A day after witnesses said they saw a small single-engine
 >airplane go down into the Hudson River and sink, searchers last
 >night still had found no evidence of a crash and had not
 >received any report of a missing plane.

 >That lack of information contributed to mounting skepticism
 >among the police that a plane crash had, in fact, occurred.

 >About 8:30 a.m. Friday two women who were driving into Manhattan
 >across the George Washington Bridge called the police to say
 >that they had seen a plane fly low over the bridge. They said
 >the plane, which appeared to be a white Cessna with blue
 >stripes, glided onto the river south of the bridge and then
 >sank. Two people on the ground later also told the police that
 >they had seen a small plane go into the Hudson.

 >Police officials said that about 2 p.m. yesterday the search
 >operation, which at one time included helicopters and scuba
 >divers, had been scaled back to two harbor boats.

 >Earlier in the day, the search was extended to Weehawken, N.J.,
 >some four miles south of the initial search area, after a man
 >there said he had seen large pieces of debris floating down the
 >river. As of early evening, police officials said, that siting
 >still had not been confirmed.

Hello Kelly ...

It is nearly impossible to determine any debris floating down
the rive at this time of year and under the extant conditions on
the Hudson right now. Specifically, there is a huge amount of
floating ice debris throughout the entire length of the river,
from Manhattan Island north.

So much for the debris. Read on ...

 >Since the police have been unable to uncover any evidence debris
 >or an oil slick that would suggest a crash, officials said that
 >they were increasingly doubtful that the witnesses actually saw
 >a plane go down, especially because authorities were on the
 >scene within 10 minutes of receiving the initial call.

There were witnesses who claimed that the landing gear was down
when the plane went into the water. It seemed to make a good
landing, in terms of not flipping or otherwise engaging in any
movement other than a three point landing in the water. If
indeed the gear was down, the plane would have gone down very
quickly, nose first.

 >"We're optimistic that there was no plane crash," said Sgt.
 >Brian Burke, a police spokesman, who added that if a plane had
 >crashed during the morning rush, more people on the bridge and
 >surrounding highways most likely would have seen the accident
 >and called 911.

Sargent Brian Burk is a bloody lunatic. There were at least four
independent witnesses on the ground and three on the bridge when
the event was reported by each of the witnesses. That's about 7
people witnessing the event. _SEVEN!_

Because the authorities found not a trace of the plane, debris
or bodies, means there was not an event. Right. Why am I upset
over this scenario? Because when the call came on the
interagency police radios, I and a trooper from up county were
on a blood run for the American Red Cross, traveling south on
the Henry Hudson Parkway just south of the GW bridge. Lights and
siren. We both witnessed a plane, a small, single engine craft,
with blue markings which appeared to be attempting a water
landing. Neither of us saw the actual landing. Just the plane.
Now that makes about eight witnesses. One of which is a NY State
Police Trooper. The other an inebrient from Canal Street. OK,
OK. We can disregard me.

But the reason for this mail is to point to several facts.

1) Even witnesses, witnessing an event (not a UFO one)
    are not believed because there is no hard evidence.

2) Imagine if the plane was a UFO?

Right. And the check is in the mail. And don't warry, little
girl, I _AM_ sterile!

 >But since the accounts of the shoreline witnesses were similar
 >to the women in the car, Sergeant Burke said, the police were
 >proceeding as if a plane had entered the water.

Good thinking, Burke. You deserve a medal.

 >The Federal Aviation Administration's radar ecords were also a
 >factor in maintaining the search, he said, because they
 >confirmed the presence of a plane in the vicinity at the time.
 >The plane, flying in an area not monitored by air traffic
 >controllers, dropped below the radar's scanning range three
 >miles south of the bridge.

Pelicans. Pelican guano. Venus. But not a plane.

 >But Leigh Russo, one of the women on the bridge who reported the
 >plane had gone down, said she was positive about what she saw.

 >"I don't understand why they feel doubtful that there's a plane
 >in the water, because there's a plane in the water," she said in
 >a telephone interview from her home in Dumont, N.J. "I just know
 >that we were very concerned that somebody was down in that
 >water."

 >Ms. Russo, who is a human resources and labor director for a
 >retail company, said she, too, was surprised that more people
 >had not seen the plane go into the water.

Which brings me to point number ...

3) Surprised no one ELSE noticed a plane crashing into the
    water? What? In New York?

Right.

What's a Ark, Lord?

 >"We're baffled as to why nobody else saw it except us," she
 >said. "But we saw it, and there's somebody down there
 >somewhere."

Stupid people. Trying yet again to believe their senses. See
what happens when people think they're seeing something
important? Everyone believes they don't see anything. Which
proves another theorem of mine.... In the Big City or anywhere
else, never report a thing if you know what's good for you.
People will only call you a nutcase. Just keep your mouths shut,
your heads down and mind your own business.

It's safer for the reputation.

Jim








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

             Re: I Quit My Job & NASA Astronaut Musgrave on UFOs

From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 21:31:39 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:17:12 -0500
Subject: Re: I Quit My Job & NASA Astronaut Musgrave on UFOs


 >Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 20:52:52 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: I Quit My Job & NASA Astronaut Musgrave on UFOs

 >Dear Joe:

 >I just checked my informal hit-counter. This guy increments
 >any time a newcomer visits the "front page" of my website.

 >This count - 32,000+ - is considered a sort of success in
 >nebulous E-Biz terms, I suppose; but that would only amount to
 >perhaps 3200 dollars in the US feed the dog sort of sense.

 >As badly as I might have needed that 3.2K, say two or three
 >years ago, it will never add up to the work and attention put
 >into the contents over the years.

 >I feel a little like the chain-saw artist who said something
 >like this:

 >"Heck! They won't even haul it away!"

Larry,

I am aware of all of the pitfalls of what I am trying to do. But
I am tired of working at a job where I am not making a
difference. I have some very dedicated readers and I have a
great formula (It's a secret) on how to add new members to my
list. And, I believe I will be successful. As long as I try hard
enough and want it bad enough, (I do) I know that I will be
successful. I have been warned by everybody that what I am doing
is not going to work or is just too risky. But I will be fine no
matter what. Thanks for the warning. I appreciate it.

I will not just be covering paranormal topics. Anything is game
as long as it is interesting.

BTW, 32,000 hits on Themestream would only add up to $640.00.
Not a lot, but when I am writing multiple articles a day and my
list is huge, I will be able to pay my bills. My bills are not
very large. And, I am single again so I have no responsibilities
but myself. I am free. For now.

My work may be worth more than two cents a hit but right now it
is the best way to get my information read by the largest amount
of people. I am not looking to get rich.

I can cut down to eating twice a week if I have to. Macaroni and
Cheese may become my favorite cheap meal!

For those of you who care, my opinion on UFOs right now is that
they are real but that we don't have the hard evidence that
tells us what they are. At least the public doesn't have it. I
am open minded to many things but I want that proof before I
come to a conclusion about something.

Thanks again - Joe

"There's a difference between knowing the path and walking the
path." - Morpheus from "The Matrix"









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                            The Dalnegorsk Update

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:40:38 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:18:51 -0500
Subject: The Dalnegorsk Update

Greetings.

The RUFORS researchers discussed this article, and Mr. Gershtein
sent it to me.

Russian newspaper Komsomol'skaya Pravda in its December 1, 2000
issue published an article about the Dalnegorsk case (NLO svili
v Primorje gnezdo). Most interesting-to me- was their mention
that in the early 1990s Russian generals from the anti-aircraft
forces became concerned about the UFO activity in the area, and
contacted local UFO researchers. An exchange of information
ensued.

It is newsworthy when a major Russian newspaper mentions such
fact (the author actually quoted Valery Dvuzhilni, the chief
investigator of the Height 611 UFO crash). When I wrote my book,
I did not have this information.

If anyone is interested in getting a copy of the article, I will
send it; there is much more interesting information. Mind you:
it is in Russian; I will not do the actual translation for some
time yet.

Paul Stonehill










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

               Re: Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:11:44 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:22:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows - McCoy


 >Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 15:42:32 -0500
 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows

 >http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/nyregion/07PLAN.html

 >New York Times | 7 Dec. 2001

 >As Search Continues for Plane, Skepticism About Crash Grows

 >By SHERRI DAY

 >A day after witnesses said they saw a small single-engine
 >airplane go down into the Hudson River and sink, searchers last
 >night still had found no evidence of a crash and had not
 >received any report of a missing plane.

<snip>

 >About 8:30 a.m. Friday two women who were driving into Manhattan
 >across the George Washington Bridge called the police to say
 >that they had seen a plane fly low over the bridge. They said
 >the plane, which appeared to be a white Cessna with blue
 >stripes, glided onto the river south of the bridge and then
 >sank. Two people on the ground later also told the police that
 >they had seen a small plane go into the Hudson.

<snip>

 >Earlier in the day, the search was extended to Weehawken, N.J.,
 >some four miles south of the initial search area, after a man
 >there said he had seen large pieces of debris floating down the
 >river. As of early evening, police officials said, that siting
 >still had not been confirmed.

 >Since the police have been unable to uncover any evidence debris

<snip>

 >But since the accounts of the shoreline witnesses were similar
 >to the women in the car, Sergeant Burke said, the police were
 >proceeding as if a plane had entered the water.

 >The Federal Aviation Administration's radar records were also a
 >factor in maintaining the search, he said, because they
 >confirmed the presence of a plane in the vicinity at the time.
 >The plane, flying in an area not monitored by air traffic
 >controllers, dropped below the radar's scanning range three
 >miles south of the bridge.

 >But Leigh Russo, one of the women on the bridge who reported the
 >plane had gone down, said she was positive about what she saw.

Let me tell you a story that happened to me. I was a flight
instructor at a small grass airfield in western washington back
in the 70's.

 >"I don't understand why they feel doubtful that there's a plane
 >in the water, because there's a plane in the water," she said in
 >a telephone interview from her home in Dumont, N.J. "I just know
 >that we were very concerned that somebody was down in that
 >water."

I was teaching a student how to "slip" a plane - a very
effective way to use the side of the fuselage as an airbrake, we
even "slipped" Four Engine Douglases when I fought fire with
them.

 >Ms. Russo, who is a human resources and labor director for a
 >retail company, said she, too, was surprised that more people
 >had not seen the plane go into the water.
 >>"We're baffled as to why nobody else saw it except us," she
 >said. "But we saw it, and there's somebody down there
 >somewhere."

The paticular aircraft I was teaching "slips'' in was an Aeronca
Champion great little trainer with a snarling 65 h.p. under the
Cowl -it could also ''slip'' very well. You see the maneuver
involved a radical diplacement of the stick and rudder,causing
the Aircraft to look like it was carreening out of control and
if you didn't quite see the resultant landing you think that you
just saw a Crash.

Well, one day I was demonstating a "Slip" to a student, and
wanting to show the capablilities, of the aircraft, I really
slowed it down and placed it in the tightest possible slip, the
'Champ down like a rock. In full control of course. Across the
street, there were a group of people all watching the little
'planes take off and land. I had a skydiver girfriend who
calledthose folks "Wuffos" as :"Wuffo do you do that?" and I
think a little bloothirsty too,  in wanting to see someone go
splat or kaboom. They definitely weren't your "kid on the
airport fence'' types.

Anyway these folk were watching me as I disappeared (in the
slip) behind a large hangar at the same time the local garbage
truck had made a clanging thump on the opposite side of the
hangar. Hence to these particular Gouls, there was a crash. They
turned it in to: 911, and Radio ,TeeVee, and newspapers not  in
any particluar order, I might add.

My landing was sucessful, obviously, and I parked the Champ in
the above hangar. Here comes media and medics ,cops and firemen,
all looking for the non-exsistant wreck. The Airfield's owner
(who instilled in me a real mistrust of the News Media) sent the
reporter types on a wild goose chase to the other side of the
field looking for-the owner. He also apologized to the various
EMT's , Cop's etc. but "as you can see, no crash sorry.''

Oh, the Gouls were nowhere to be found.

I am not imparting in this case any Goulishness on the
witnesses, it still maybe unexplaned or, the owner of the Cessna
simply taxied into his/her riverside hangar. that would be worth
a look.

GT McCoy









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                          Re: UFO Skeptics - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:04:10 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:30:41 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Easton


The UFO Skeptics [UFOS] discussion list was set up with the
intention of providing a forum which would bring together
individuals and organisations who shared the same objective - a
critical, scientific appraisal of purported 'UFO' related
evidence.

UFOS has largely evolved from the 'UFO Research List', where I
wrote:

"A target for UFOS would be to achieve fifty or more
subscribers, many of whom are objective 'ufologists' -
interested in the subject, researchers, writers or otherwise -
who recognise how absurd popularised 'ufology' has become and
are prepared to say so in no uncertain terms.

That would be a considerable statement and one which could have
a significant impact. It might give those responsible for
promoting and supporting so much inane material something to
contemplate.

I do appreciate from private feedback how many have expressed
those sentiments".


I'm pleased to reveal that 'UFO Skeptics' has already exceeded
that long-term goal and within the first week of operation has
attracted an astonishing base of over 60 subscribers.

In addition to many well-known ufologists with vast experience
of case material, it's especially pleasing that members with
*world renowned* expertise in astronomy, space science, military
aviation, 'black projects' and other related matters have either
joined directly or accepted invitations to participate.

With several requests pending, the number of subscribers can be
expected to increase further.

If you *fully* support the list's objectives, you are invited to
subscribe and I'm sure will find the content highly informative.

Simple send a blank e-mail to:

debunk-subscribe@listbot.com


James Easton,
List Moderator.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                     Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:16:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:34:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Velez

 >Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 22:28:09 -0800
 >From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 01:55:16 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Velez

Hi Paul, hi All,

Paul writes:

 >I stand by my words.

So did Joe McCarthy Paul. You _are_ familiar with that era in
American history aren't you? If so, ... how could you?!

"Stalinist?"  Really Paul, your words reflect "panic" more
clearly than any other emotion in that posting you made. It was
a _vehement_ rending and tearing of the character of Mr.
Shurinov. That's why I responded to your post. You came out of
the box firing all your heavy artillary as if you were under
siege! I don't know Mr. Shurinov at all Paul, but your
'reaction' made me wonder just what he had that was
_threatening_ you to the point where you exploded like that.

As I said in my original, the post revealed far more about you,
than it ever did about Mr. Shurinov. Do you understand what I
mean Paul?


 >I have to defend my name, and my book. This is
 >not a panic attack; I react to defamation vehemently. I do not
 >believe that Shurinov can threaten me, or Marina Popovich, or
 >anyone else.

Paul you have every right in the world to respond to the attacks
and criticisms of others _face to face_. (An opportunity not
afforded to us all!) But the way you literally 'jumped out of
the box' swinging an axe with a mind to cutting off Boris's head,
you make the reader wonder why you are so threatened by this
man.

You lashed out in panic. It was not a calm, rational statement
of your beliefs, position, or work. It was a calculated and
intentional 'hatchet job' on Mr. Shurinov. A blatently defensive
one at that.

 >Or else, he uses Stalin's means to try to silence his opponents.

You really ought to stop using labels like "Stalinist" if you
want anyone (Western List members) to give you a fair hearing of
your views. That kind of thing, (calling someone a 'Red' or
worse yet a 'Stalinist' which Americans associate with bloody
murder and tyranny) is something that wears thin quickly, and is
considered widely to be a sign of ignorance in the person who
indulges in making such accusations/attributions.

Bottom line, (speaking strictly as a 'third party' reader) you
did yourself much more of a dis-service than you ever did to
Boris!

 >But his attacks reveal that he cannot
 >stand competition.

As opposed to yours? Just 'what' do you think that _you_ are
revealing about yourself Paul when you use terms like
"Stalinist?"

 >I do not question your intelligence.

Nor I yours. I was just inquiring about what has you so scared
of this man. A 'reasonable' question in consideration of the
magnitude of your reaction.

 >If you want to hear other voices from Russia - those who
 >do not share his 'party line',

"Stalinist, Party-line" gee, you're just full of little
_slanderous_ 'catch phrases' aren't you? Like I said Paul, it
doesn't play well with a 'Western' audience. We all have very
bad associations with that kind of thing. (ie; Joe McCarthy)

 >you know where to find me.

Yeah, I'm beginning to get a real good idea about where you're
at.

"Location, location, location!"  <LOL>

Regards,

John Velez, Dispassionate Observer

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                     Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Nolane

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 20:23:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:37:55 -0500
Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Nolane


 >From: Perry Petrakis <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: SOS OVNI & French DMI
 >Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 14:07:14 +0100

<snip>

 >Incidentally, SOS OVNI is characterised in the report as being
 >the most serious private research UFO group in France.

  Hello, list members,

"The most serious private research UFO group in France " ?
This is truly science fiction.

The problem with SOS OVNI is that its director, Perry Petrakis,
considers that almost all the UFO cases are bogus (he told it in
an interview to the Le Provenal newspaper three years ago). So
we have an organization which is selling a magazine pro-UFO to
get some money but which, off the record, is directed by people
who are thinking that 98% of the UFO case are bull shit and the
remaining are 1% hallucinations/modern myth and 1% something
that they cannot explain but that they think with mundane
explanations.

They are people of the "psycho-sociological" kind, not true
ufologists.

The DMI report was already known in some French ufological
circles before the publication in Phenomena. No scoop here.

RDN







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

             Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Murray

From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 16:31:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:10:56 -0500
Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Murray


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates Subscribers
 >Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 2:50 PM
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now



 >Tech Report

 >'2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >By Marco R. della Cava and Csar G. Soriano,

 >USA TODAY

 >At a packed 1968 press conference before the premiere of 2001: A
 >Space Odyssey, scientist Arthur C. Clarke was so excited he was
 >giggling. "The attention to detail that has been given to the
 >equipment and hardware in this movie is unprecedented," said
 >Clarke, who for four years had worked with director Stanley
 >Kubrick on the film version of his story about a computer run
 >amok during a manned mission to Jupiter. "The film's sense of
 >realism," he continued, "will make it impossible to believe that
 >the year 2001 is not going to be like this." Arthur, we have a
 >problem.

 >As the globe gets set to dock with the year Clarke and Kubrick
 >made famous, a review of the classic film often generates, well,
 >the giggles. A few examples:

 >Far from shuttling passengers into space, Pan Am is no longer in
 >business. Though still a healthy hotel chain, Hilton has yet to
 >open luxury suites in orbit. The rickety Russian-built MIR and
 >new International Space Stations are cold and forbidding, far
 >from the film's elegant Ferris wheel in space.

 >And despite Silicon Valley's brainpower, no one has invented a
 >computer that can feel anything, let alone fear, as was the case
 >with 2001's infamous HAL 9000. Arguably the film's star - who
 >can forget his eerie greeting, "Hello, Dave" - HAL gradually
 >develops suspicions about the mission and ultimately tries to
 >sabotage it.

<snip>

Howdy All!

When "2001 - A Space Odyssey" was first shown in theatres, I was
a highschool student at the time, and found the movie a little
hard to fathom. I was already an avid sci-fi reader, especially
Heinlein, and had read a couple of Clarke's books, including
"Childhood's End" and "Against The Fall Of Night." After seeing
the film I purchased the story in book form, and found it much
easier to understand.

Certainly, many of the things pointed out in this article as
having not happened as Clarke predicted are true. However, the
central theme of the film is that the human race, or its
ancestors, were doomed to extinction, and were saved by being
given knowledge from an alien source. From the monolith
mankind's ancestors learned the ability to hunt, and perhaps the
knowledge of violence and aggression, which has proved to be a
double-edged sword. One thing offsets the other. At each point
from there, we encounter more monoliths at critical points in
the development of our civilization, which then send signals out
to our alien benefactors, telling them that we have reached a
certain goal. I often wonder what Clarke's real feelings are
about this. Does he really believe that the human race has been
manipulated by an alien intelligence over the course of time?
This story - series of stories - seems so close to him, it
certainly is a valid question. In his telling of this tale,
whether he believes there may be some truth in it or not, he may
have come closer to the real truth than many of the
technological details discussed in this article. Clarke may be a
bigger visionary than anyone suspects. If nothing else, "2001"
set a technical standard for all sci-fi films which followed to
live up to, and it still stands a remarkable work of art and
vision.

Take care,

Marty Murray

The NAIL Online
http://members.home.net/mmurray31/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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                   Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Parmantier

From: Franois Parmantier <parcol@club-internet.fr>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:03:46 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:15:29 -0500
Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Parmantier


 >From: Perry Petrakis <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: SOS OVNI & French DMI
 >Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 14:07:14 +0100


Dear List members,

As a reader of Phenomena I would like to add some comments to
the publication of this report and about the standing position
of SOS OVNI that don't appear in the message. Perry Petrakis,
like Pierre Lagrange and other sociopsychological french
ufologits, had  violent and symptomatic reactions against the
Cometa Report. It was not necessary to insult its members, in
the last issue,  by qualify the COMETA as "Comit VSDsque" wich
means Committee of the VSD newspaper (the one that released
Cometa report in July 1999)!

 >In the most recent issue of our journal Phenomena, we publish a
 >summary of a report made by the French Directoriate for Military
 >Intelligence, issued internally, in 1995. Contrarily to the
 >COMETA deceiving appearance, this is as close as we can get to
 >an official assessment of the UFO problem since the report is
 >stamped "Ministry of Defence".

This means nothing. It can be objected that, unlike the Cometa
Report, this report has not been delivered to the President and
Prime Minister.

 >Incidentally, SOS OVNI is characterised in the report as being
 >the most serious private research UFO group in France

That's the point! Phnomna seems to be far much concerned by
some official acknowledgment and its close (too close?)
relations with the authorithies than by disturbing cases of
UFOs.  Those related in Phnomna are mostly those which can be
explained or communicated by the army, like the case close to
Metz, and ignore or criticise the others.

 >Although we did not ask the head Intelligence Agency permission
 >to write down the article, we did ask them for permission to
 >reproduce the report in it's entirety. Surprisingly, they
 >accepted with, however, a few minor restrictions which makes it
 >difficult for us to copy the report at this very moment. More on
 >this at a later time.

Too bad that this useful and interesting information was
delivered in the issue. Readers still wonder today how Perry
Petrarkis could get it.

 >It is interesting to note that the report, which was never to be
 >released to the public, is a full first hand assessment of the
 >UFO problem from the Military Intelligence point of view. Some
 >of the outstanding points are that the Agency insists on the
 >need to monitor ufology for the danger it represents for
 >undercover operations (ie. pseudo ufologists could use their
 >"title" to access scientists, the military and the media, for
 >foreign intelligence puposes). The belief in ET's could also be
 >used directly by foreign intelligence, to undermine the faith a
 >national community would have in it's politicians.

 >The Agency, much like the COMETA authors, leans heavily towards
 >the United States military agenda, suggesting the intelligence
 >community could do the above suggested : monitor ufology for
 >it's own purposes ; use the belief in ET's as a smokescreen for
 >very down to earth undercover activities, and use the sighting
 >reports as a breeding ground for interesting ideas, possibly
 >applicable to R&D in aeronautics.

 >Unlike the COMETA report, the Agency takes a much more careful
 >stance with Roswell, "reverse engineering" and the ET hypothesis
 >as a whole. Having said that, they do not rule out the ET theory
 >although they don't seem very keen on Roswell and "reverse
 >engineering".

This report is at least 6 years old. Even if we can't consider
the Cometa report as an update of this one, we can suppose that
the knowledges have changed and progressed since 1995.

 >This is the very first time in France that a UFO research
 >organization obtains a copy of such an unpublic and official
 >contemporary report and especially the right to use it. I
 >clearly hope that all those who thought of the COMETA report
 >(probably clumsily inspired by this one) as a major piece from
 >France will understand the significance of what has been
 >achieved.

Once again, Perry Petrarkis try to use this report in order to
debunk the Cometa Report but his intention was not the one of
the authors. To me, this relentless and someway ideological
battle raises many questions about the true motivations of this
standing.


Best regards,

Franois Parmantier










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

               Re: Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:37:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:18:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows - Velez


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows
 >Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:11:44 -0800

 >>Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 15:42:32 -0500
 >>From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Skepticism About Hudson Crash Grows

 >>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/nyregion/07PLAN.html

 >>New York Times | 7 Dec. 2001

 >>As Search Continues for Plane, Skepticism About Crash Grows

 >>By SHERRI DAY

 >>A day after witnesses said they saw a small single-engine
 >>airplane go down into the Hudson River and sink, searchers last
 >>night still had found no evidence of a crash and had not
 >>received any report of a missing plane.

Hello All,

It turns out it was a small craft that had permission to fly at
low altitude because they were conservationists following a
flock of birds! Ducks I believe the report said. The plane was
flying just a couple of hundred feet over the river but it never
crashed. The plane was out of some small airfeild upstate New
York.

Mystery solved!

Regards, sleep well.

John Velez
******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                     Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Rivera

From: Jean-Luc Rivera <JLRIV1@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 14:10:08 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:23:13 -0500
Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Rivera


 >From: Perry Petrakis <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: SOS OVNI & French DMI
 >Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 14:07:14 +0100

 >In the most recent issue of our journal Phenomena, we publish a
 >summary of a report made by the French Directoriate for Military
 >Intelligence, issued internally, in 1995. Contrarily to the
 >COMETA deceiving appearance, this is as close as we can get to
 >an official assessment of the UFO problem since the report is
 >stamped "Ministry of Defence".

Hi Perry and List members,

It would be fair to add, in order to replace this report in its
context, that it was written by a mere french private involved
since several years in ufological research who, in order to try
to spend as interestingly as possible his compulsory military
service, suggested the report to someone in the DRM.

He used mostly his own personal library during a few weeks to
write this report.

The report had the lowest possible security ranking.

IMHO, the important part is that some French intelligence
officers were interested enough by the subject to agree to it.


 >Incidentally, SOS OVNI is characterised in the report as being
 >the most serious private research UFO group in France.

It reflects the opinion of the writer at the time.

< rest of the message snipped >

It is a very good thing Perry and his group brought out this
report, known privately to some since it was written, into the
public eye. Sadly, it doesn't deserve so much hype.

It mostly represents a private - pun intended - opinion.

Best.

Jean-Luc







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                         Re: Spiderlings - Cecchini

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:02:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:25:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Spiderlings - Cecchini


 >From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Spiderlings
 >Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:19:27 -0800

 >Sitting on my front patio this afternoon, looking southwest with
 >the roof just blocking the sun, I observed thousands of more or
 >less vertical spider webs drifting due east through the sky.

<snip>

 >I suppose you should know that at roughly the same time, a
 >collection of criss-crossed jet contrails was drifting overhead,
 >also eastward. There was also a collection of older contrails in
 >various stages of dispersal, forming a tattered and sparse
 >cirrus cover (I see no connection, it's just part of the
 >observation).

No, Greg, there is a connection!

It's Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars!


Run awaaaaay...!











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

               Re: Worldwide UFO Disclosure Imminent? - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:39:27 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:29:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Worldwide UFO Disclosure Imminent? - Bowden


 >From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
 >Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:09:59 EST
 >Subject: Worldwide UFO Disclosure Imminent?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >The reality of extraterrestrials is about to be proven to the
 >world according to a video bought at the Leeds UFO Conference.

 >The date for this expose is due by the 20th January 2001
 >according to the video but there's not a whisper on this List!

 >I don't know if anyone knows any further details on this alleged
 >disclosure but it's the first I've heard.

Until you mentioned this, it is the first I've heard as well.
What was the video that pin-pointed this specific date?

I know you weren't at the conference (otherwise why ask for a CD)
are you sure your source is correct??

By the way, did you receive the CD? it's been a few weeks since
I sent it, I'd like to know if you got it.


All the best,

Dave Bowden









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                  Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:14:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:32:29 -0500
Subject: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down


http://www.nypostonline.com/news/regionalnews/20719.htm

New York Post | 8 Jan. 2001

FOWL' PLAY MADE PAIR THINK PLANE WENT DOWN

By LARRY CELONA and WILLIAM NEUMAN

The search for a small plane that two New Jersey women thought
they saw crash into the Hudson River turned out yesterday to be
a wild-goose chase.

A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pilot came forward to say he'd
been flying low over the river - counting ducks and other
waterfowl - at 8:30 a.m. Friday, the same time the women
reported the supposed crash.

His plane - a Partenabia Navion P68 Observer - matched the
description of the white-and-blue aircraft the women told cops
they'd seen flying over the George Washington Bridge before
dropping into the river.

The pilot, identified by police as Mark Konoff, told officials
he flew over the bridge and then came in low over the water to
conduct his survey.

Konoff was unaware of the search-and-rescue operation until he
learned of an FAA crash alert yesterday morning - and realized
the description of the plane and the flight path matched his
own.

The pilot "flew over the George Washington Bridge and then
descended over the Hudson at an altitude of about 100 feet,"
said Jim Peters, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation
Administration.

"He was looking for ducks, then he flew off."

At the same time, Leigh Russo, a human-resources executive from
Dumont, N.J., was driving across the bridge and used her cell
phone to call 911 - telling cops that she and a friend saw the
plane go into the water.

Police divers began searching the river immediately.

Konoff learned of the crash alert when he called the Federal
Aviation Administration to file a flight plan for the area
around Albany, Syracuse and Watertown in upstate New York -
where he was counting more ducks yesterday.

Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Craig Rieben described
Konoff's work as "routine."

He said the pilot would also have filed a flight plan with the
FAA prior to his Hudson River trip, although it might not have
been specific enough for officials to connect his aircraft to
the crash report any earlier.

"It's unfortunate that somebody thought we went down," Rieben
said.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                    Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:18:09 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:36:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Bourdais


 >Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 22:43:41 -0800
 >From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 13:41:10 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 14:29:15 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Bourdais

 >I stand by my words.

 >As for my TNT appearance, I will repeat what I stated before:
 >independent researchers need to examine this film. And I do not
 >consider the film a hoax - it is too early to render any final
 >judgement. I gave a prolonged interview to the producers; they
 >took whatever they deemed useful. I was not too excited about
 >it, yet, I still think we should examine it before rendering
 >judgements. But you have to have the film in your hands to
 >examine it and we do not.

Well, I am sorry to repeat that, to me, the case is juged. I
mean, of course, the sequence of the crashed UFO: first in the
woods, and then the autopsy. I hope that Boris Shurinov will
give his detailed argument in English, but anyway, the
discussion has brought already more than enough elements to
light to allow us to pronounce the sentence : it is a hoax !

 >Yes, other Russian researchers have
 >challenged the film, and Shurinov's interpretation of it. And
 >they are still investigating it - Mr. Kutovoy, and others. I got
 >angry at Shurinov because he has viciously attacked me in
 >Russian, constantly, in the last several months.

You seem to be linking his attacks with his critic of the TNT
film, is that correct?

<snip>

 >how he glorifies the KGB and uses
 >their advice about the TNT film. But to accuse him of being a
 >KGB agent - this is a joke. He clearly is not.
 >I have never heard Boris "glorify" the KGB.

I am glad to read that to call him a "KGB agent" is a joke. For
those who know his book in French, it is a joke too. In it he is
a sharp critic of the Sovietic establishment.

<snip>

 >Shrinov has belittled my article about the Yellow Emperor. He
 >called it "yellow".

Boris Shurinov has accused you of copying another author,
without giving his name. That's where I would like to hear your
answer. True or not true? I am ready to listen to serious
arguments.


Gildas Bourdais







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                    Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:18:12 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:40:28 -0500
Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Bourdais


 >From: Perry Petrakis <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: SOS OVNI & French DMI
 >Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 14:07:14 +0100

 >In the most recent issue of our journal Phenomena, we publish a
 >summary of a report made by the French Directoriate for Military
 >Intelligence, issued internally, in 1995. Contrarily to the
 >COMETA deceiving appearance, this is as close as we can get to
 >an official assessment of the UFO problem since the report is
 >stamped "Ministry of Defence".

On the surface, the position of Petrakis looks convincing. For
for those who know the situation, it's more like a joke.

The DRM report is not the important document that you claim to
be. First of all, we know the rather poor level of information
of these military at the DRM ("Direction du Renseignement
Militaire", meaning "Direction of Military Intelligence"),
created in 1992.

A good indication is that they invited two well known ufologists,
Jean-Gabriel Gresl and Alain Boudier, who had proposed it,
to brief them on ufos, in 1995.

They were just starting their UFO file!

The "DRM report" that you published, in you review Phenomena,
was written later by a young university graduate who happened to
be doing his military servive there. BTW, this young man was
obviously influenced by some ideas of Jacques Vallee, such as
his dubious speculations on the "Pentacle" memo. I cannot give
his name because it is confidential information, but I know who
he is. By contrast, the Cometa report, signed by some high level
names in the military establishment, is considerably more
significant.

Just one more word to put in perspective the repeated attacks of
Perry Petrakis against the Cometa in his little review
Phenomena. Please note that, for him, the ETH is an "exotic"
hypothesis. That explains a lot.


Regards to all.

Gildas Bourdais









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                          Secrecy News -- 01/08/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 16:20:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:42:31 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 01/08/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
January 8, 2001

**      FACT SHEET ON NEW COUNTERINTELLIGENCE STRUCTURE
**      NATIONAL ACADEMY BEGINS POLYGRAPH STUDY


FACT SHEET ON NEW COUNTERINTELLIGENCE STRUCTURE

The White House has released a fact sheet on its
Counterintelligence-21 initiative which sheds a little more
light on the new counterintelligence structure that was
established last week.

Upon inspection, CI-21 seems to be something less than a bold
new departure.  While the new Office of the Counterintelligence
Executive will coordinate up and down among the existing
counterintelligence enterprises, "the Office will not have an
operational role in CI operations and investigations and no
independent contacts or activities with foreign intelligence
services."

The new White House fact sheet on CI-21, which is a releasable
version of the closely held Presidential Decision Directive, is
available here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-ci-21.htm

Excerpts on counterintelligence policy from Friday's White House
press briefing may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2001/01/wh-ci-21.html


NATIONAL ACADEMY BEGINS POLYGRAPH STUDY

The National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences is undertaking a new review of the validity and
reliability of the polygraph, or "lie detector."

The 18 month review, which was proposed by Sen. Jeff Bingaman
and funded by the Department of Energy, will examine the
controversial use of polygraph testing for personnel security
screening.  And it "will include what is known about the effect
of medications, sleep deprivation, and  illnesses on the
physiological responses measured."

The first meeting of the study panel has been scheduled for
January 26-27 at the National Academy building in Washington,
DC.  Most of the meeting will be open to the public.

Further information, including the names of the proposed panel
members, may be found here:

http://www4.nas.edu/cp.nsf/Projects+_by+_PIN/BCSS-I-00-01-A?OpenDocument


******************************

To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message: subscribe
secrecy_news [your email address]

To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message: unsubscribe secrecy_news
[your email address]

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html


___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

               Re: I Quit My Job & NASA Astronaut Musgrave on

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 23:50:57 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:09:12 -0500
Subject: Re: I Quit My Job & NASA Astronaut Musgrave on


 >From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 17:27:38 EST
 >Subject: I Quit My Job & NASA Astronaut Musgrave on UFOs
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Story Musgrave Interview Part One:

 >http://www.themestream.com/articles/276357.html

 >* * * * * * * * * *

 >Story Musgrave Interview Part Two

 >http://www.themestream.com/articles/275632.html

 >* * * * * * * * * *

 >I know there are some people on this list that have not seen
 >this interview with Musgrave so I am posting the links again.

<snip>

 >I know that many of you may not have read it so I am posting it.
 >Story Musgrave is one smart guy. But I think he is very ignorant
 >when it comes to UFO evidence. I don't think he has been muzzled
 >by NASA or by any security oath. But I could be wrong. I have
 >seen Musgrave give positive/open minded comments when shown UFO
 >video from recent shuttle missions. So I know he is not a
 >debunker.

 >Here are the links again.

 >http://www.themestream.com/articles/276357.html

 >http://www.themestream.com/articles/275632.html

 >Feel free to share them with anybody you think might be
 >interested.


Hello Joe,

Thanks for posting the interview with Musgrave. I agree with
you, he was in need of some good UFO evidence. Did you or anyone
provide him with such?


Bon voyage with your new venture,

Josh Goldstein











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                       'Would You Believe...' (on TV)

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:54:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:20:19 -0500
Subject: 'Would You Believe...'  (on TV)


I don't see any mention of UFOs in the description, but here
you go anyway:

Would You Believe It?: Medical Marvels, Witchcraft and UFO's
Segments include a trip to the Mutter Museum in Philadelphia,
Pa., which specializes in medical oddities. Also: a glassmaker
recreates Ben Franklin's glass harmonium.

Thursday, 11 10:00 PM Discovery
Friday,   12  2:00 AM Discovery
Saturday, 13  4:00 PM Discovery


And some more reruns on this week.

By the way, "Dark Skies: The Awakening" (the series premiere
with Betty & Barney Hill, Majestic, et al) was on again last
night. I think the only reason I mention that is because I was
once again reminded that I'd not only like to have the complete
Dark Skies series (albeit one season) on video/DVD, but I also
wish The X-Files would QUIT IT ALREADY! with their damned
"stand-alone/monster" episodes.


UFOs: 50 Years of Denial
Documentary surveys the history of reported UFO sightings and
the controversy surrounding a possible cover-up of the facts by
the government.

Thursday, 11 7:00 PM The Learning Channel
Friday,   12 2:00 AM The Learning Channel

Search For Alien Life
Examining the search for extraterrestrial life. Included: inter-
views with NASA scientists, and the latest data and evidence.

Friday,   12 7:00 PM The Learning Channel
Saturday, 13 2:00 AM The Learning Channel

Encounters with the Unexplained: What Are Crop Circles? "What
Are Crop Circles?" investigates theories surrounding these
mysterious patterns that appear in corn fields in the middle of
the night. Theories include: extraterrestrials, electromagnetic
fields, clever hoaxers. Jerry Orbach hosts.

Sunday, 14 7:00 PM WBPX

Roswell
(the TV movie with Martin Sheen & Kyle MacLachlan)

Saturday, 13 6:00 PM SCI-FI











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                        Re: Spiderlings - St. Pierre

From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:30:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:26:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Spiderlings - St. Pierre


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Spiderlings
 >Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 17:28:58 -0800


 >Greg's encounter is a red herring. He must see the
 >discrepancy  between what he experienced and the
 >descriptions of "angel hair" supplied to the List.

Hello Ed,

You seem to be laboring under the impression that I thought I
was looking at angel hair. I thought nothing of the sort. If I
was not clear enough then I apologize. I merely posted the
experience as a basis of comparison for those interested in the
subject. My only concern at the time was that one of the little
critters might attempt a landing on my oversized melon.

Thanks for the links, though. I will check 'em all out, and I'm
already convinced that the phenomenon exists. You're preaching
to the choir! <G>


Greg St. Pierre









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

              Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'

From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:03:41 +1100
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:34:45 -0500
Subject: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'


This story will raise a few eyebrows. Our knowledge of who we
are and how we came to be is in for a big rethink. This story is
relevant to our search for who we are as a species.

The work I have been involved with re DNA PCR testing of
biological samples implicated in abduction experiences is
suggesting some interesting perspectives about the nature of at
least some of the alleged species involved, particularly the so
called Nordic types, reported and/or described in such cases as
Antonio Villas Boas and Travis Walton. Instead of casting the
net to recent visits it is implying a presence that has been
with us for some time. This is still speculation but it is
based on actual DNA evidence emerging from studies by the team I
am involved with.

See the following link for early information on this connection.
A more detailed and updated study report is being prepared:

http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1999/jun/g9.htm

You can assist this work by telling us of any compelling
biological sample implicated in abduction experiences. Because
of some funding we now have facilities that can undertake the
detailed and expensive work involved in this type of
archeological/forensic PCR DNA investigation. All evidence will
need to be subjected to an evaluation process to see if it
warrants the time, cost and resources necessary to get detailed
answers.

Funding offers are also encourage to further this work.

Please contact me if you can help,

Regards,

Bill Chalker Anomaly Physical Evidence Group (APEG)


_/_/_/-/_/_/_/_/_/_/-/_/_/_/_/_/_/-/_/_/_/_/_/_/-/_/_/_/

Today's Australian newspaper front page story focuses on
mainstream scientific work that may challenge the "out of
Africa" origin for man.

http://theaustralian.com.au/

DNA clue to man's origin By Leigh Dayton 09jan01

AUSTRALIA was once home to a group of Aboriginal people whose
genetic line has vanished from the Earth, according to
researchers who have analysed the oldest DNA ever recovered from
human remains.

The discovery based on 60,000-year-old genetic material from a
skeleton found near Lake Mungo in NSW in 1974 could topple the
leading theory of the origins of humanity, the Australian
scientists claim.

Until now, the oldest well-dated human DNA had come from a
Croatian Neandertal who died about 28,000 years ago.

But, unlike the stocky, big-browed Neandertals, Australia's
Mungo Man would not look out of place in any big city today.

"He was clearly anatomically modern," says Australian National
University anthropologist Alan Thorne, who led the research
team.

The findings are already creating an international stir.

"It's remarkable totally unpredicted," says anthropologist Alan
Mann, of the University of Pennsylvania. "What it says is that
the more we know (about human origins), the more confusing the
picture becomes."

The scientists obtained permission from the local Aboriginal
people to study bone chips, naturally flaked off from Mungo
Man's skeleton.

That work was conducted in laboratories at CSIRO Plant Industry
and the ANU, primarily by doctoral student Gregory Adcock, now
at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris. He also
recovered DNA, ranging in age from 8000 to 15,000 years, from
nine other early Australians.

ANU evolutionary geneticist Simon Easteal then compared the
fossil DNA with genetic material from 45 living Aboriginal
people, 3453 people from around the world and two European
Neandertals.

In a paper to be published in the US journal Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, Dr Thorne and his colleagues
present a new genetic tree based on their results. According to
the tree, Neandertals split first from the evolutionary line
leading to modern people. Mungo Man's lineage was the next to
branch off from the evolutionary tree. The last to branch off
was the ancestor of all contemporary people, including the
remaining ancient Australians.

In the paper, the Australians claim that their findings cast
serious doubt on the Out of Africa model of human evolution,
which is supported by most scientists.

That theory proposes that all living people are descended from a
group of fully modern Homo sapiens who left their African
homeland about 100,000 to 150,000 years ago.

Those people and their descendants spread around the world,
replacing existing populations of archaic people, such as the
Neandertals and the more ancient Homo erectus.

But if anatomically modern people from a lineage that emerged
before our most recent common ancestor were living in Australia
60,000 years ago, "a simplistic Out of Africa model is no longer
tenable", says Dr Thorne, co-founder of the competing theory of
Regional Continuity. That theory postulates that ever since
people began migrating out of Africa more than 1.5 million years
ago, there has been a single evolving species. Those early
humans remained on the same evolutionary path by sharing their
genes through interbreeding. Ultimately, they evolved into us
and colonised the globe.

But La Trobe University human geneticist John Mitchell is not
ready to scrap the Out of Africa model. He says the new data
suggests an earlier exodus from Africa of Homo sapiens than
previously supposed, and one that began as a trickle and peaked
100,000 to 150,000 years ago.

Still, Dr Mitchell says the research is impressive: "The sheer
ability to analyse 60,000-year-old DNA is revolutionary."









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                From Earth To Mars In As Little As Two Weeks

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:45:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:45:35 -0500
Subject: From Earth To Mars In As Little As Two Weeks



Source: CBC News

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/01/03/fuel010103

 From Earth to Mars in as little as two weeks

BEER-SHEVA, ISRAEL - Scientists at Ben-Gurion University have
shown that an unusual nuclear fuel could send space vehicles
from Earth to Mars in as little as two weeks. Spacecraft now
take between eight and 10 months to make the same trip.

The research shows a fairly rare nuclear material,
americium-242m (Am-242m), when used as an extremely thin
metallic film, is capable of sustaining nuclear fission. When
the film is less than a thousandth of a millimetre thick, the
high-energy, high-temperature products of fission can escape the
fuel and be used for propulsion in space.

Obtaining fission-fragments like this isn't possible with the
better-known uranium-235 and plutonium-239 nuclear fuels: they
require large fuel rods, which absorb fission products.

Long-time interest

Dr. Yigal Ronen, the author of the study, became interested in
nuclear reactors for space vehicles 15 years ago at a
conference. Speaker after speaker talked about the use of
nuclear reactors for powering space missions - and stressed that
the mass of any reactor would be the defining factor. It had to
be light in order to be efficient.

So Ronen decided to examine one aspect of reactor design - the
nuclear fuel itself. That led him to Am-242m.

By using this element, Ronen was able to cut the amount of fuel
necessary to reach maximum power. To achieve the same result as
uranium or plutonium requires only one per cent of the amount
(mass) when Am-242m is used.

But use of this fuel is still in the very early stages of
development. "There are still many hurdles to overcome before
americium-242m can be used in space," Ronen says.

Producing large quantities of Am-242m requires several steps and
is expensive. Design of the reactor, refuelling, heat removal
and safety provisions also need to be examined.

In spite of the hurdles, Ronen remains optimistic about the
future of this fuel. "I am sure that americium-242m will
eventually be implemented for space travel, as it is the only
proven material whose fission products can be made available for
high speed propulsion."

The study was published in Nuclear Instruments and Methods in
Physics Research A (455: 442-451,
2000).






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                      Re: We Of The First Sin - Cashman

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:07:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:48:53 -0500
Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin - Cashman


 >Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 15:31:11 +1100
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Christopher Kelly <tophar@pacific.net.au>
 >Subject: We Of The First Sin

 >I started off my research looking into how I would go about
 >powering a space craft. I didn't even bother looking at solid
 >fuels. I went straight to magnetic power. As it became clear to
 >me very early on that solid fuels were at a stage there they
 >could not be taken any further. It took me many years of
 >researching and listening to professionals to start to
 >understand just a little of the mighty Magnetic energy that the
 >Universe users.

 >What I didn't know was that all life relied on magnetic energy
 >to exist, If you go into the very molecule of a magnet and then
 >you went even further into it's atoms and then even further into
 >what powers it's atoms and then even further into what powers
 >the power that powers the atoms. You end up in what I can only
 >decide as being the spirit world for want of a better word. I
 >know this as being The Opposing Matter World, and it seems to be
 >why the Physical World that we live can exist. It even became
 >very clear to me that the periodic chemical table that we have
 >falls very short of just how many chemicals there really are. It
 >was while I was looking into the periodic table that Robert
 >Lazar came on the seen. When he said about there being a element
 >115, it just fitted in to well with what i was researching.

At the risk of getting those usual flames about how I "just
don't get it" or am an element of the conspiracy to suppress the
truth...

Where the heck does this junk come from?

Has this guy even taken a high school science class?

Sigh....

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                  Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Cashman

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:24:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 22:02:29 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Cashman


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 10:31:52 +0100

 >Why are those radiation readings so important? At face value, I
 >would seriously doubt the existence of aliens travelling around
 >in spaceships leaking radiation, but this is another story.

Hi, Luis!

I don't think anyone seriously supports the idea that UFOs are
carrying leaky fission reactors around. However, there are a
wide variety of mechanisms by which energetic phenomena in the
near surface area of the UFO could generate harder radiations.

The luminosity of UFOs alone is a strong indicator that UFOs
emit energy in the form of radiation, or energy that can result
in radiation.

Plasmas are electrically charged, and many of the signs in UFO
appearance and behavior suggest that UFO luminosity is based on
plasma enveloping or being emitted from the UFO. If that is the
case, there are a variety of reactions between emitted electrons
and shell electrons, or even accelerated electrons and nuclei
which can lead to the emission of radiation.

However, as pointed out by Paul Hill, the vast majority of
observations suggest that while UFOs might emit X-rays and other
short wavelength radiation, they do not emit gamma rays or other
types of radiation or particles which might lead to long term
instability in the nuclei of materials exposed. A few
observations suggest the possibility of harder radiation, but
those also do not seem to leave out the possibility of lesser
radiations being the cause.

I hope you find that interesting and useful.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:04:45 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 22:23:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:14:55 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down

Previously, Kelly wrote:

 >The search for a small plane that two New Jersey women thought
 >they saw crash into the Hudson River turned out yesterday to be
 >a wild-goose chase.

 >A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pilot came forward to say he'd
 >been flying low over the river - counting ducks and other
 >waterfowl - at 8:30 a.m. Friday, the same time the women
 >reported the supposed crash.

 >His plane - a Partenabia Navion P68 Observer - matched the
 >description of the white-and-blue aircraft the women told cops
 >they'd seen flying over the George Washington Bridge before
 >dropping into the river.

Hi, Kelly!

I find this all very amusing. When this story first hit UpDates,
there was the usual analogy about "What if this were a UFO?".
Some seemed annoyed that the witnesses weren't believed outright
that the plane had crashed in the water; never mind that no one
actually saw the damned thing actually hit the water.

Now that we know there was no crash and the witnesses were
mistaken, where are the UFO analogies that were once in
abundance?

Just another case where witness testimony needs to be validated.


King Roger
(in the second year of the millennium!)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 22:16:31 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 22:27:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:14:55 -0500
 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down

 >http://www.nypostonline.com/news/regionalnews/20719.htm

 >New York Post | 8 Jan. 2001

 >FOWL' PLAY MADE PAIR THINK PLANE WENT DOWN

 >By LARRY CELONA and WILLIAM NEUMAN

 >The search for a small plane that two New Jersey women thought
 >they saw crash into the Hudson River turned out yesterday to be
 >a wild-goose chase.

 >A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pilot came forward to say he'd
 >been flying low over the river - counting ducks and other
 >waterfowl - at 8:30 a.m. Friday, the same time the women
 >reported the supposed crash.

 >His plane - a Partenabia Navion P68 Observer - matched the
 >description of the white-and-blue aircraft the women told cops
 >they'd seen flying over the George Washington Bridge before
 >dropping into the river.

<snip>


That aircraft should have read Partenavia [with a "V rather than
a "B"] P.68 Observer.

Don't know where the Navion came from. That's a different plane
entirely.

Good ending though.

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:58:59 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 22:32:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:14:55 -0500
 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down


Hello Kelly,

 >http://www.nypostonline.com/news/regionalnews/20719.htm

 >New York Post | 8 Jan. 2001

 >FOWL' PLAY MADE PAIR THINK PLANE WENT DOWN
 >
 >By LARRY CELONA and WILLIAM NEUMAN

 >The search for a small plane that two New Jersey women thought
 >they saw crash into the Hudson River turned out yesterday to be
 >a wild-goose chase.

 >A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pilot came forward to say he'd
 >been flying low over the river - counting ducks and other
 >waterfowl - at 8:30 a.m. Friday, the same time the women
 >reported the supposed crash.

I too have done just that, with various State and Federal
agencies over the years. Ruff-legged Hawks were the worst, as
you had to fly right down in the Rimrocked Coulees to see the
dam' nests.

 >His plane - a Partenabia Navion P68 Observer - matched the
 >description of the white-and-blue aircraft the women told cops

I can see why they thought it a Cessna, the Partennavia - P68 is
used in concervation work because of its bubble-canopy for lack
of a better illustration the pilot and passenger set surrounded
by plexiglass. It is favored because of the fact it has two
engines, nice if you are over the Hudson or Coulmbia at on 200'
agl. The P68 is high winged and does resemble a Cessna, flies a
lot like one too, having flown one once.

 >they'd seen flying over the George Washington Bridge before
 >dropping into the river.

 >The pilot, identified by police as Mark Konoff, told officials
 >he flew over the bridge and then came in low over the water to
 >conduct his survey.

 >Konoff was unaware of the search-and-rescue operation until he
 >learned of an FAA crash alert yesterday morning - and realized
 >the description of the plane and the flight path matched his
 >own.

 >The pilot "flew over the George Washington Bridge and then
 >descended over the Hudson at an altitude of about 100 feet,"
 >said Jim Peters, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation
 >Administration.

Glad they said over they would have been in deep doo-doo if
someone said "under".

 >"He was looking for ducks, then he flew off."

 >At the same time, Leigh Russo, a human-resources executive from
 >Dumont, N.J., was driving across the bridge and used her cell
 >phone to call 911 - telling cops that she and a friend saw the
 >plane go into the water.

 >Police divers began searching the river immediately.

 >Konoff learned of the crash alert when he called the Federal
 >Aviation Administration to file a flight plan for the area
 >around Albany, Syracuse and Watertown in upstate New York -
 >where he was counting more ducks yesterday.

 >Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Craig Rieben described
 >Konoff's work as "routine."

Well routine isn't the really the word when you are trying to
aviod; powerlines, bridges, and other assorted objects

 >He said the pilot would also have filed a flight plan with the
 >FAA prior to his Hudson River trip, although it might not have
 >been specific enough for officials to connect his aircraft to
 >the crash report any earlier.

 >"It's unfortunate that somebody thought we went down," Rieben
 >said.

I'm thankful it came out Ok.

GT McCoy









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 8

                 Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now -

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:02:43 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 22:39:03 -0500
Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now -


 >From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now
 >Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 16:31:39 -0500

 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates Subscribers
 >>Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 2:50 PM
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>Tech Report

 >>'2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>By Marco R. della Cava and Csar G. Soriano,

 >>USA TODAY

<snip>

 >Howdy All!

 >When "2001 - A Space Odyssey" was first shown in theatres, I was
 >a highschool student at the time, and found the movie a little
 >hard to fathom. I was already an avid sci-fi reader, especially
 >Heinlein, and had read a couple of Clarke's books, including
 >"Childhood's End" and "Against The Fall Of Night." After seeing
 >the film I purchased the story in book form, and found it much
 >easier to understand.

 >Certainly, many of the things pointed out in this article as
 >having not happened as Clarke predicted are true. However, the
 >central theme of the film is that the human race, or its
 >ancestors, were doomed to extinction, and were saved by being
 >given knowledge from an alien source. From the monolith
 >mankind's ancestors learned the ability to hunt, and perhaps the
 >knowledge of violence and aggression, which has proved to be a
 >double-edged sword. One thing offsets the other. At each point
 >from there, we encounter more monoliths at critical points in
 >the development of our civilization, which then send signals out
 >to our alien benefactors, telling them that we have reached a
 >certain goal. I often wonder what Clarke's real feelings are
 >about this. Does he really believe that the human race has been
 >manipulated by an alien intelligence over the course of time?
 >This story - series of stories - seems so close to him, it
 >certainly is a valid question. In his telling of this tale,
 >whether he believes there may be some truth in it or not, he may
 >have come closer to the real truth than many of the
 >technological details discussed in this article. Clarke may be a
 >bigger visionary than anyone suspects. If nothing else, "2001"
 >set a technical standard for all sci-fi films which followed to
 >live up to, and it still stands a remarkable work of art and
 >vision.


Hello Marty and fellow Listerions,

Thanks for the summary of the story. One of the beauties of that
landmark film was that everything wasn't directly figured out
for viewers of challenged intelligence. I don't know, but I have
a hunch from what I've read that Arthur C. Clarke doesn't
believe we are really controlled by aliens. Then again, I have
never visited him in Sri Lanka. Maybe he has a monolith right
outside his door.

To me 2001 has always been an experience way beyond the story
line. When It opened in 1968 I was a California psychedelic
music hippie. It was standard practice for my peers and a vast
amount of young people to excperience 2001 on LSD. People used
to brag about how many times they had seen it on acid sitting
front center in the theatre with the largest screen and biggest
sound system. In that state you became Kerr Dullea, going
through multiple dimensions.

Yf you are one of the unfortunate few who have never seen 2001
on a very large screen, please don't miss the opportunity in the
future.


Take care,

Josh Goldstein












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

                       Re: We Of The First Sin - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:05:56 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:02:48 -0500
Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin - Evans


 >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
 >Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:07:50 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin - Cashman

 >>Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 15:31:11 +1100
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Christopher Kelly <tophar@pacific.net.au>
 >>Subject: We Of The First Sin

Previously, it was writ:

 >>What I didn't know was that all life relied on magnetic energy
 >>to exist, If you go into the very molecule of a magnet and then
 >>you went even further into it's atoms and then even further into
 >>what powers it's atoms and then even further into what powers
 >>the power that powers the atoms. You end up in what I can only
 >>decide as being the spirit world for want of a better word. I
 >>know this as being The Opposing Matter World, and it seems to be
 >>why the Physical World that we live can exist. It even became
 >>very clear to me that the periodic chemical table that we have
 >>falls very short of just how many chemicals there really are. It
 >>was while I was looking into the periodic table that Robert
 >>Lazar came on the seen. When he said about there being a element
 >>115, it just fitted in to well with what i was researching.

Mark replied:

 >At the risk of getting those usual flames about how I "just
 >don't get it" or am an element of the conspiracy to suppress the
 >truth...

 >Where the heck does this junk come from?

 >Has this guy even taken a high school science class?

 >Sigh....

Hi, Mark!

Sigh, indeed....

This piece of fairy dust caught my eye, also. I didn't want to
embarrass the guy by pointing out the how silly it all sounded.
But what the hell. It sounds silly.

Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 23:23:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:23:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:04:45 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:14:55 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down

 >Previously, Kelly wrote:

 >>The search for a small plane that two New Jersey women thought
 >>they saw crash into the Hudson River turned out yesterday to be
 >>a wild-goose chase.

 >>A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pilot came forward to say he'd
 >>been flying low over the river - counting ducks and other
 >>waterfowl - at 8:30 a.m. Friday, the same time the women
 >>reported the supposed crash.

 >>His plane - a Partenabia Navion P68 Observer - matched the
 >>description of the white-and-blue aircraft the women told cops
 >>they'd seen flying over the George Washington Bridge before
 >>dropping into the river.


 >I find this all very amusing. When this story first hit UpDates,
 >there was the usual analogy about "What if this were a UFO?".
 >Some seemed annoyed that the witnesses weren't believed outright
 >that the plane had crashed in the water; never mind that no one
 >actually saw the damned thing actually hit the water.

 >Now that we know there was no crash and the witnesses were
 >mistaken, where are the UFO analogies that were once in
 >abundance?

 >Just another case where witness testimony needs to be validated.

Yep! But sometimes witnesses are right! When I was working in
Toronto many a year ago now, I was on the third floor of a
building overlooking an intersection talking on the phone when I
glanced out the window and saw a guy laying on the road in front
of a car - then the most astonishing thing happened! The driver
ran out of the car, scooped up the person on the road in his
arms, and then PUT HIM IN THE TRUNK OF THE CAR! And then he sped
off. I was totally stunned, and immediately phoned the police to
report it. The police came within minutes and what an
interrogation they gave me! I described everything in detail.
They didn't believe me. Then one of them received a call, and
was told that other people had reported the same thing. However,
I was the only person to give my name. "Why?" I asked. "Because
if it was a Mafia hit, nobody wants to testify. But you have to
now." Yikes! My day was going from bad to worse! Then one
officer said to me that it have been a dummy, because it would
be impossible to pick up a man the way I described. It was no
dummy, I said, it was a real person, and furthermore, any one of
my six brothers could have done the same thing.

I was getting pretty sick of all the questions, and upset
because they still didn't believe it could possibly be a real
person, so I went next door with them to get a coffee, and lo
and behold I saw the guy that had been on the road - across the
street. Turns out they were students making a film without a
permit.

But the point is, I described exactly what I saw in detail and I
was right.

Empress Kelly









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

              Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 23:17:12 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:31:25 -0500
Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Gates


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates Subscribers
 >Date: Sunday, January 07, 2001 2:50 PM
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now


 >Source: USA Today

 >http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cti957.htm#readmore

 >12/29/00- Updated 10:58 AM ET

 >Tech Report

 >'2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >By Marco R. della Cava and Csar G. Soriano,

 >USA TODAY

 >At a packed 1968 press conference before the premiere of 2001: A
 >Space Odyssey, scientist Arthur C. Clarke was so excited he was
 >giggling. "The attention to detail that has been given to the
 >equipment and hardware in this movie is unprecedented," said
 >Clarke, who for four years had worked with director Stanley
 >Kubrick on the film version of his story about a computer run
 >amok during a manned mission to Jupiter. "The film's sense of
 >realism," he continued, "will make it impossible to believe that
 >the year 2001 is not going to be like this." Arthur, we have a
 >problem.

Hi Gang,

Truly the film had a sense of realism, after all, anybody that
is running Windows 95/98/ME could get the "impression" at times
that their computer is running amok..... :)

Instead of "Dave is that you" we see the blue screen of death,
and or "Such and such has caused a GPF/Invalid page fault.... :)


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

                   Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Stonehill

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:51:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 11:29:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Stonehill


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:18:09 EST
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:36:32 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Bourdais

 >Boris Shurinov has accused you of copying another author,
 >without giving his name. That's where I would like to hear your
 >answer. True or not true? I am ready to listen to serious
 >arguments.


Hello.

I quoted Mr. Krapiva, whose book contains the information about
the "Yellow Emperor". I have had the book for many years. May I
send you a copy of this book?. I never saw any other
Russian-language book about the Chinese Emperor (until
Shurinov's English page). Of coourse,Idid other research, too.

A Ukrainian researcher wrote to me, about seven months ago, that
there were other authors who wrote about the Emperor, but never
sent me anything. Until I see the book in my hands, I will go
with Mr. Krapiva as a source. If I see that Mr. Krapiva borrowed
someone else's information, I will ask Mr. Krapiva why this has
occurred, and I will re-write the article. I also got some other
information recently-from Asia and Ukraine-that should be
researched and used to expand the article. I do not have time
now to do so.

Please provide me with a P.O. Box if you need a copy of the book.

 >I am glad to read that to call him a "KGB agent" is a joke. For
 >those who know his book in French, it is a joke too. In it he is
 >a sharp critic of the Sovietic establishment.

Yes, I do not believe he is a KGB agent. Nor do I believe that
James Oberg is a CIA officer. I tried to answer Mr. Persky, but
probably my post was not correctly formatted. I will try again
because it is important to see what I said about Mr. Oberg in
Russian. I do not want to waste much time on Shurinov's
political persuasions - but I disagree with you. Do this: help
him translate his book, and get it published here, in English. I
truly dislike him for his personal attacks on me and his
attempts to interfere with my future book. But let the List
members read our books and see whose is better. My book is
titled 'The Soviet UFO Files'.

 >You seem to be linking his attacks with his critic of the TNT
 >film, is that correct?

No. But I realize that he began attacking me when the film came
out, and my book was published. Yet-again, he stated that my
articles to him were "nothing" as early as beginning of 1990s.

Yet, he goes ahead and uses my name to promote his book about
Roswell (and mine was but one name, by the way). I did _not_
help him and he did not ask me. Then why use my name? Why call
me before and later? I was polite until I saw the smut on his
pages. After that I considered him to be on a level of Flaco the
lowrider. It is my personal opinion; one that need not stop you
and others from reading his book. I hope his opinion of me does
not stop you from reading my book.

I read his analysis of the TNT film, and do not agree. I am not
the only one - but even if I were, it does not matter. It is my
opinion, and I will keep it until there is real proof that the
film is not genuine. If you want to believe otherwise - this is
your right.


Paul Stonehill









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 23:54:56 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:02:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:04:45 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:14:55 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down

 >Previously, Kelly wrote:

 >>The search for a small plane that two New Jersey women thought
 >>they saw crash into the Hudson River turned out yesterday to be
 >>a wild-goose chase.

 >>A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pilot came forward to say he'd
 >>been flying low over the river - counting ducks and other
 >>waterfowl - at 8:30 a.m. Friday, the same time the women
 >>reported the supposed crash.

 >>His plane - a Partenabia Navion P68 Observer - matched the
 >>description of the white-and-blue aircraft the women told cops
 >>they'd seen flying over the George Washington Bridge before
 >>dropping into the river.

 >I find this all very amusing. When this story first hit UpDates,
 >there was the usual analogy about "What if this were a UFO?".
 >Some seemed annoyed that the witnesses weren't believed outright
 >that the plane had crashed in the water; never mind that no one
 >actually saw the damned thing actually hit the water.

 >Now that we know there was no crash and the witnesses were
 >mistaken, where are the UFO analogies that were once in
 >abundance?

 >Just another case where witness testimony needs to be validated.

 >King Roger
 >(in the second year of the millennium!)

Dear Majesty,

Harumpffff!

Another on frequency of the Royalty cast. Well, you fairly
missed my point. Point being that it doesn't matter the subject.
Or the calibre of the witness. (Like the state police trooper
who saw a plane fitting the description flying low near the
water).

What mattered was the nearly instantaneous debunking of the
sighting before the evidence was in. Get it yet? Some claimed to
see something which others who should know better than to draw a
conclusion before the facts were in, did just that.

UFO, plane .. doesn't matter.

Also in the post was the fact that there were so few who
actually saw that plane. I was on that parkway, the bridge
traffic was heavy. The parkway traffic was heavy. Yet, no one
came across to claim for or against.

Doesn't that bother you? Bothers me.


Prince Jim

Not like you guys ... and I ain't got no portfolio needer. By
the way, what are you King of, anyway?








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

                          Re: UFO Skeptics - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 23:57:19 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:05:43 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Gates


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Easton
 >Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:04:10 -0000


 >The UFO Skeptics [UFOS] discussion list was set up with the
 >intention of providing a forum which would bring together
 >individuals and organisations who shared the same objective - a
 >critical, scientific appraisal of purported 'UFO' related
 >evidence.

As far as people can see the so called skeptics
list (should probably be debunk at all costs) will evolve into discussing
pelicans, light houses, venus, stars, and why all witnesses who
claim to see anything are mistaken, or have mis identified
some natural occuring something.


 >UFOS has largely evolved from the 'UFO Research List', where I
 >wrote:

 >"A target for UFOS would be to achieve fifty or more
 >subscribers, many of whom are objective 'ufologists' -
 >interested in the subject, researchers, writers or otherwise -
 >who recognise how absurd popularised 'ufology' has become and
 >are prepared to say so in no uncertain terms.

I always thought the current crop of debunkers have become
utterly meaningless and absurd while they operate under the
theory of "It can't be so therefor it isn't."

In essence, as Jim has outlined it, the skeptic list will be
somewhere where some fool can claim that UFO witness a saw a
seagull in flight, and all the lap dogs will instantly say "Oh,
that was a wonderful post, why hasn't anyone ever said that
before."

A person should also understand that if you ask a debunker "Are
you a debunker." He or she would likely say, "Absolutly not, why
I don't understand where you would get that idea from because
all I am is a skeptic."

 >That would be a considerable statement and one which could have
 >a significant impact. It might give those responsible for
 >promoting and supporting so much inane material something to
 >contemplate.

The skeptics have lacked meaning and substance for years.

<snip>

 >I'm pleased to reveal that 'UFO Skeptics' has already exceeded
 >that long-term goal and within the first week of operation has
 >attracted an astonishing base of over 60 subscribers.

I am glad Jim is astonished having 60 subscribers. One would
guess that he will direct his posts to that list more then the
others.

 >In addition to many well-known ufologists with vast experience
 >of case material, it's especially pleasing that members with
 >*world renowned* expertise in astronomy, space science, military
 >aviation, 'black projects' and other related matters have either
 >joined directly or accepted invitations to participate.

Great place for them to be.

 >With several requests pending, the number of subscribers can be
 >expected to increase further.

 >If you *fully* support the list's objectives, you are invited to
 >subscribe and I'm sure will find the content highly informative.

Don't even have to subscribe. You just have to understand the
words Pelicans, Lighthouse, Venus, misidentification, hoax,
stars and you have understood the entire list and most of the
postings without reading one message.  :)


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:15:43 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:08:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

 >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:04:45 -0600
 >From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >King Roger
 >(in the second year of the millennium!)

In fact we are in the first year of the millennium, i.e. 8 days
into it, not second year. This is of course explained by the
time experts at the Naval observatory who have gone to great
lengths to explain why the real millennium began on Jan 1 2001.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

                   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:19:25 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:13:33 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Gates


 >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:24:58 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 10:31:52 +0100

 >>Why are those radiation readings so important? At face value, I
 >>would seriously doubt the existence of aliens travelling around
 >>in spaceships leaking radiation, but this is another story.

 >Hi, Luis!

 >I don't think anyone seriously supports the idea that UFOs are
 >carrying leaky fission reactors around. However, there are a
 >wide variety of mechanisms by which energetic phenomena in the
 >near surface area of the UFO could generate harder radiations.

Imagine if you had told somebody 40 years ago about bullets that
would leave radioactive residue around the location where they
were expended, you would have been laughed out of existance.
People would have likely said something like "How could people
even shoot a gun that uses uranium as a projectile etc etc.
According to the media, in Kosovo where NATO was using the
depleted uranium bullets, there are sites that are contaminated
with radioactivity.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:39:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:18:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


Sorry there was no URL with this!

 From today's [Monday's] New York Times:

<snip>

Her report was strikingly specific: a single-engine white plane
with high wings and blue stripes had glided onto the water with
its wheels extended. A few seconds later, it disappeared beneath
the water's surface. The last thing she saw was the aircraft's
tail going into the river.

Louise Picca, Ms. Russo's car pool partner, who was driving, saw
the same thing. So did two people on the shore.

But a two-day search by New York City police helicopters, boats
and scuba divers turned up nothing: no debris, no oil slicks, no
missing-plane reports and no distress calls from a pilot who
might have lost control of the aircraft.

The mystery, though, appeared to be solved yesterday. Aviation
officials said there had indeed been a plane - a United States
Fish and Wildlife Service aircraft from Delaware whose pilot was
flying low to observe ducks, so low that the plane had bounced
on the water. But it had not crashed.

Pilot and plane were tooling around the skies of upstate New
York yesterday, the authorities said, and Ms. Russo and others
who were convinced that they had seen it crash into the Hudson
were left to ponder the questions that have always bedeviled
witnesses of phantom phenomena, from U.F.O.'s to the Loch Ness
monster.

Had they really seen what they thought they saw? Or was it
possible that their eyes had deceived them? Ms. Russo was
adamant yesterday.

"We saw a plane go into the water," she said in a telephone
interview. "If everybody's happy with this explanation, then
we're out of it. But I'm telling you that a plane went into the
water."

Ms. Picca, a hotel executive, also was not dissuaded by the
official account.

<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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

          UFO UpDate:An Interesting NSA Story: Secrets Can Be Kept

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:31:36 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:20:07 -0500
Subject: UFO UpDate:An Interesting NSA Story: Secrets Can Be Kept


An interesting NSA story is at:

http://www.sunspot.net/content/cover/story?section=coverpagename=story&storyid=1
150520223288

NSA Abandons 'Woundrous Stuff' At Former Top Secret Mountain
Base

Rather interesting story. Especially when you read the part
about the local dude who did the maintance on the facility. He
lied to everybody for 15 years about what was really going on up
their.

Who says secrets can't be kept!


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

              Re: Satellite Prediction And Observation - Velez

From: John Velez<jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 01:52:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:22:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Satellite Prediction And Observation - Velez


 >From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Satellite Prediction And Observation
 >Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 16:57:29 -0800

 >>Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:55:38 -0600
 >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Satellite Prediction And Observation

Hola Alfredo, hi All,

Alfred wrote:

 >>GSBZ gently rational list motes!

 >>One of the listers -- I think it was John Velez (or Juan Valdez,
 >>but NOT Jose Jimenez), pointed out this killer *NAZA* website
 >>packed with nifty java applications that allow one to predict
 >>satellite overflights...

 >>http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/RealTime/JTrack/3D/JTrack3D.html

"NAZA"!!!  LMAO!

You're right out of the 60's Alfredo! I love you man. Like Nixon
spelled with a Swastika instead of an 'x', your new NAZA tagger
should be adopted by all from here on out. It 'tells it like it
is!' Civilian agency my a**! There's more military personell at
NAZA now-a-days than at the GD Pentagon!

 >I may be stating the obvious, but Heavens Above does these
 >satelite viewing predict calcs for you and make it available in
 >convenient form.

 >http://www.heavens-above.com

Great link Jim! Thanks.  ;)


Juan Valdez, El Rey De Los Contactados  <LOL> ;)


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

                     Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - Velez

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:58:51 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:25:59 -0500
Subject: Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - Velez


 >Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 12:39:04 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01

 >>Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 13:06:44 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01

<snip>

 >>Dear Sir:

 >>Religion, like dope, is a comfort for the weak, dying, dimwitted
 >>and/or distressed. I would never deny such people what little
 >>comfort they can find.

 >Hola Laroo,

 >This is 'off topic' but I couldn't resist. ;)

 >I am not a 'religious' man. In spite of that fact (and because I
 >was always searching for answers) I enrolled in a Interfaith
 >Seminary in the early 80's. My objective was to learn all I
 >could about the tenets and foundations of all the major
 >faiths/religions, find as many of the basic elements that they
 >shared, and from there, I could begin to peice together these
 >'common threads' into a (hopefully) larger picture/understanding
 >of 'Life, the Universe and everything."

 >(I know, the answer is 42! LOL)

 >During that time, I studied (apprenticed) under the tutelage of
 >a Rabbi, (Rebbe Jos. Gelberman) a priest, (Father Giles
 >Spoonhour) a Methodist Bishop, (Rev. John Mundy) and a Yogi.
 >(Devananda) None of these men were "weak, dying, (although we're
 >-ALL- "dying!") dimwitted and/or distressed.

 >Quite to the contrary, they were men od deep wisdom and
 >compassion. They were more 'alive' and 'at peace with
 >themselves' and well adjusted, than any other single group of
 >people I have ever met or encountered in life.

 >Like you, I don't harbor any 'religious' beliefs either Larry.
 >(If anything, I think that Jesus and Buddha and Mohammed were
 >probably abductees!~Nervous laughter~) But saying that those who
 >do believe must be 'dimwitted' or otherwise deluded is wrong
 >Larry. In fact "science" has recently disclosed that "prayer"
 >does have a real and beneficial effect. On the 'Pray-er' as well
 >as the 'Pray-ee,' the person it is focused on. Some of the most
 >beautiful (and deep) people that I have ever met attribute their
 >'qualities' to the daily practice of their faith.

 >Whether their respective 'religions' are real or not, I cannot
 >dispute or criticise their value to people. I cannot argue with
 >the results that both, materially and spiritually, benefit
 >sincere practitioners. It's ok 'not to believe' yourself, but
 >the statements you made up above are wrong and unfair. (And well
 >beneath you Larry! You're 'better stuff' than that.)

 >On behalf of all of the incredibly bright and decent folks that
 >I mentioned by name up above, I say, -Bad Call Larry!-


Hello John:

Aw heck, you're right of course.

I should have qualified that bit of rancor. I know very well
that good and intelligent people embrace religious beliefs. I
don't quite understand why, or why so many.

By my third year of college my original religious beliefs were
pretty well shot to pieces; this after a twelve-year stretch of
parochial schools.

One of the first electives I took was Philosophy of Religion,
just to see what the basic arguments might be.

Sadly, these seemed (to me at least) to be exercises in
bolstering beliefs most everyone had or preferred in the first
place; sort of a philosophical kangaroo court.

The upshot was a general concensus that nobody could prove or
disprove the existence of any diety, an afterlife, or much of
anything else spiritual and that these were therefore left as
"matters of faith".

Religion remains a comfort for the sick and dying, those in
great distress, and no small number of dim-bulbs. Have you ever
searched the faces at a televised religious revival?

That's all I meant, and pretty much all I said.

I didn't mean to imply that good, caring and yes very
intelligent people cannot be religious! I know any number of
people just like that.

One of them, a man I greatly admired simply said: "I prefer to
believe in an almighty God." A very honest man. Note the word
"prefer".


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

               First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation

From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:13:17 +1100
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:33:49 -0500
Subject: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation


The World'S First DNA PCR Investigation Of Biological Evidence
 From An Alien Abduction

by Bill Chalker/Anomaly Physical Evidence Group (APEG)

Copyright 2001- B.Chalker/APEG Trust

A Sydney, Australia abduction experience from 1992, with
biological evidence, became the subject of the world's first DNA
PCR investigation, yielding intriguing results that have
suggested fascinating new lines of investigation and
speculation.

Dr. Kary Mullis received the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his
discovery of the PCR technique. Mullis is unique amongst Nobel
laureates in claiming that he may have had an alien abduction
experience. He confirmed this to me and indicated others had
similar experiences at his northern Californian cabin.

See my article on Mullis experience at the CUFOS web site:

http://www.cufos.org/iur_Spring99_addendum.html

Born in 1964, in Lebanon, Peter Khoury migrated to Australia in
1973. He met his future wife, Vivian in 1981, marrying in 1990.
They have 2 children. What might be Peter's first encounter
with a UFO occurred in Lebanon in the summer of 1971 at age 7.
He and seven other children had gone up onto the flat rooftop of
his neighbour's house to play. Peter was the last to walked
through a heavy door that leads onto the roof. He then saw all
his friends "frozen" like statues in front of him, while a
silent egg-shaped craft hovered above. All eight children later
found themselves on the ground after some time had elapsed, with
no memory of the intervening period.

In Sydney, during February 1988, Peter and Vivian saw a strange
light doing extraordinary movements in conjunction with a beam
of light effect.

A frightening and life changing alien abduction experience
occurred on July 12, 1988. Khoury had lay on a bed and was
overwhelmed by paralysis. A number of beings became apparent
around him. One of them, a tall thin golden yellow coloured
being, with large black eyes, inserted a long needle like object
into the side of his head. Khoury blackout. He regained
consciousness with a start and rushed into the adjoining room
where he found other family members in a switched-off state.
Rousing them, Khoury found that while they thought only some 10
minutes had passed, in reality it seemed between 1 to 2 hours
had passed. An injury to his head was verified.

At that time Peter Khoury had no real context to anchor his
disturbing experience. Eventually he became aware of abduction
experiences and entered the UFO field to initially understand
what happened to him. Eventually, frustrated with the problems
and politics that plagued his association with ufology he formed
a support group the UFO Experience Support Association (UFOESA)
during April, 1993.

Despite trying to focus on supporting others, Peter Khoury found
that strange experiences had continued for him. In retrospect,
the most striking one occurred on July 23, 1992, according to
diary entries.

He had been recovering from head injuries received in a job site
assault (he worked in the building industry in his own cement
rendering business). At about 7 am, having returned to his
Sydney suburban home from the train station, after dropping off
his wife, Khoury felt unwell and lay down on the bed to sleep.

He awoke with a start sometime later, becoming aware of
something alighting on the bed. He was shocked to see two
strange women kneeling on the end of his bed. Both were naked.
One appeared Nordic and the other Asian. Aspects of their
appearance were quite odd. The Nordic female had a very
elongated face and a sharply point chin. Her eyes appeared to
be blue and 2 to 3 times larger than normal. She had very fine
wispy blonde hair that seemed to be oddly blown up. Her skin
colour was quite light. The dark brown skinned Asian looking
woman seemed to have almost completely black eyes. Her hair was
black and set in a firm page-boy style.

Although no normal communication occurred, the Nordic woman
seemed to be in charge and Khoury got the impression she was
giving the Asian looking woman some sort of instruction. What
followed was quite disorientating for Khoury. The Nordic woman,
who seemed to be over 6 feet tall and apparently very strong,
reached forward and pulled Khoury's head to her breast. He
resisted, trying to pull away. She did this 3 times. Finally
Khoury, trying to cope with the shock and disorientating nature
of this experience, bit on her nipple apparently swallowing a
piece from it. The Nordic woman, although seemingly confused,
did not react with any pain and nor was there any sign of blood.
She seemed to convey to the other woman that this was not the
way things were supposed to happen. Khoury was overcome with a
coughing fit. Moments later, looking up again, he found that
both women had vanished.

The coughing caused Khoury to go to the bathroom to get a drink
of water. When he went to urinate he found it very painful to
do so, due to, it turned out, some very fine blonde hair wrapped
tightly under his foreskin. Khoury removed the hair and had the
foresight to place it in a plastic sachet bag with a seal. He
did that because he felt there was no way it should have been
there. It was unlike his wife's hair. Khoury concluded that
something extraordinarily bizarre had just occurred and linked
the 2 pieces of blonde thin hair (about 10-12 cm & 6-8 cm long)
to the strange tall, blonde haired Nordic looking woman.

Even though Vivian had been very supportive of him about his
1988 abduction experience, Peter refrained from telling her what
occurred for about 2 weeks. She accepted it far better than
Peter did, telling him it was something he has no control over
and they would deal with it as best as they could.

Like many other abductees Peter Khoury has had a number of
experiences. During November, 1996, while lying in bed with
Vivian beside him asleep, he felt an energy presence intruding
into the room. He opened his eyes. He saw what seemed to be
several hooded small figures (similar to his 1988 experience)
appearing to come through the mirror. As they came closer Peter
experienced paralysis and felt he was being floated horizontally
feet first towards the mirror. Touching the surface of the
mirror with his feet felt like he was going into water, like a
change of density, not something solid. Khoury felt a sense of
electrical static buzzing right through his body. He watched as
the reflection of his head approached his face. As soon as they
touched, he blacked out. He did not remember anything else
other than waking up in the bed again. There were other
episodes in about 1994 or early 1995 involving a light burst or
sound of an explosion, this being witnessed in part by Vivian.
On another occasion he felt a pins and needles paralysis
developing. He tried to wake Vivian. He was eventually after
great difficulty able to touch her. She woke up and
simultaneously it was like somebody ripped the sheets off him .
Peter likened it to as if something was sucked out of him. The
feeling had been engulfing him and as soon as he touched Vivian
the feeling was gone. Between 1996 and 1999 Khoury is unaware
of any experiences.

In 1996, Peter was hypnotically regressed by Pulitzer
prize-winning, Harvard psychiatrist John Mack to try to clarify
the 1988 experience. Under Mack's regression Peter described
being taken into an illuminated room. He was on a table with
one entity above him, speaking to him but with a sound like
birds chirping. It was one person - a shadowy tall figure - but
the sound seemed like 50 of them. Peter thought at the time,
how was he going to remember what the entity told him. The
recollection faded and everything went dark again. That was all
that came out in the session. Peter has had a couple of
regression sessions. He is not really satisfied with any of the
hypnotic recollections and feels more comfortable with the
consciously recollected details, such as those of 1988 and 1992.

Because of the bizarre and controversial nature of the 1992
episode, Peter was more comfortable describing his 1988
experience. The strange encounter with the 2 unusual women was
discussed and examined in a limited and fragmentary way. It was
not until 1996 that I heard from Peter Khoury about the hair
sample that had been recovered from what may have been an alien
abduction sexual assault case. By 1998, I began an
investigation into the hair sample, when biochemical colleagues
agreed to undertake what was the world's first PCR (polymerase
Chain Reaction) DNA profiling of biological material implicated
in an alien abduction experience. The analysis confirmed the
hair came from someone who was biologically close to normal
human genetics, but of an unusual racial type - a rare Chinese
Mongoloid type one of the rarest human lineages known, that lies
further from the human mainstream than any other except for
African pygmies and aboriginals. There was the strange anomaly
of it being blonde to clear instead of black, as would be
expected from the Asian type mitochondrial DNA. The study
concluded, The most probable donor of the hair must therefore be
as (Khoury) claims: a tall blonde female who does not need much
colour in her hair or skin, as a form of protection against the
sun, perhaps because she does not require it.

The original DNA results were reported in detail in the
following reports:

Strange Evidence, International UFO Reporter (IUR), Spring,
1999 issue, Volume 24, No 1, pgs. 3-16, 31.

UFO ABDUCTIONS & SCIENCE - A CASE STUDY OF STRANGE EVIDENCE,
Australasian Ufologist, Vol.3, No.3, 3rd, 1999, pgs. 43-56.

  The IUR report includes the full analytical report and
  methodology of this initial phase of the work.

The original DNA work was done on the shaft of the hair.
Fascinating further anomalies were found in the root of the
hair. Two types of DNA were found depending on where the
mitochondrial DNA testing occurs, namely confirming the rare
Chinese type DNA in the hair shaft and indicating a rare
possible Basque/Gaelic type DNA in the root section.

  This was very puzzling and controversial, until a 'Nature
  Biotechnology' paper appeared in 2000. It revealed recent
  findings on hair transplanting with previously incompatible
  hair, using advanced cloning techniques, developed in a
  possible cure for baldness. We seem to be seeing similar
  combined or "grafted" DNA in the sample recovered under
  controversial circumstances by Peter Khoury back in 1992.
  Perhaps even more controversial is that we have findings
  suggestive of nuclear DNA indicating possible viral resistance.
  The hair sample seems to show it contains 2 deleted genes for
  CCR5 protein and no intact gene for normal undeleted CCR5 -
  this CCR5 deletion factor has been implicated in aids
  resistance. To keep a very complex story somewhat
  uncomplicated, what seems to be suggested by the range of
  findings is possible evidence for advanced DNA techniques and
  DNA anomalies & findings, for which we are only now discovering
  or starting to make sense of in mainstream biotechnology.

A detailed follow-up report focusing on these new results is
being completed.

The nature of these genetic findings has lead to some
interesting possible connections with ancient cultures, myths
and archaeological finds such as the strange Taklamakan mummies
in China (tall European like peoples (Celtic?), some of whom had
blonde hair) and the stories of the female Basque God Mari and
the Gaelic Irish tales of the Tuatha da Danann. The Tuatha
tales describe powerful gods with orange or blonde hair and
other unusual attributes. While such cultural and mythic
connections are fascinating speculations, they provide for an
interesting perspective on the many stories of Nordic type
beings implicated in UFO abduction and contact cases.

Mari - the neolithic Goddess of Old Europe and the primary deity
in Basque mythology - has many manifestations, including as a
tree that looks like a woman or a tree emitting flames, a white
cloud or rainbow, or a ball of fire in the air, a sickle of
fire, as which she appears crossing the sky and seen enveloped
in fire, lying down horizontally, moving through the air .

The records from ancient Ireland describe a whole series of
invasions. The Lebor Gabala Erren ("The Book of the Taking of
Ireland" or the Book of Invasions), compiled during the 12th
century A.D. describes the coming of the mysterious Tuatha de'
Danann or Tribe of Danu. They were apparently tall, blond or
red-haired strangers, "expert in the arts of pagan cunning", who
supposedly interbred with the locals, while teaching them many
kinds of useful skills. The Lebor Gabala records their dramatic
entrance to Ireland as follows:

   "In this wise they came, in dark clouds from northern
   islands of the world. They landed on the mountains of
   Conmaicne Rein in Connachta, and they brought a darkness
   over the sun for three days and three nights. Gods were
   their men of arts, and non-gods their husbandmen."

According to the mythic tales the Tuatha de' Danann were
advanced enough to arrive in western Ireland (near modern
Connacht) by air. They divided into two social classes: gods as
teachers of medicine, smithing, communication or druidry, and
non-gods as farmers or shepherds. Although no one knows for
certain what the Tuatha looked like, descriptions, such as of
their female war-leader Eriu, indicate tall attractive people
with pale skin, high foreheads, long red hair and large blue
eyes. Other descriptions indicate blonde, golden hair with blue
eyes. The blonde haired woman in the 1957 abduction of Antonio
Villas Boas also had red body hair (pubic hair). She seems
remarkably like Peter's female visitor and the description of
Eriu. If the Tuatha cross-bred with local humans, they would
have left hybrid descendants who look somewhat like themselves.

Further focused DNA analyses of biological samples implicated in
alleged alien abduction experiences will help determine the
reality behind the claims of abductions and the validity of
speculations driven by DNA, historical, cultural and mythic
connections.

Some limited funding has permitted the purchase of specialised
equipment to further this fascinating and groundbreaking work.
Funding has permitted a DNA research presence, co-ordinated by
the APEG, in a friendly laboratory facility. The equipment
includes the PCR Express system, imaging and data transfer
equipment, specialised freezer and centrifuge plus controlled
water bath/gel processing equipment, and PCR & DNA consumables
(chemicals etc).

Further funding of this research is encouraged. Please contact
Bill Chalker for further details.

Anyone who believes they have legitimate biological evidence
implicated in UFO and abduction experiences are encouraged to
contact the APEG through Bill Chalker. Any such evidence will
need to be assessed for its potential as credible evidence
warranting the cost, resources and time involved in this DNA
focused study.

The APEG can be contacted through this writer at P.O. Box W42,
West Pennant Hills, NSW, 2125, Australia or via
bill_c@bigpond.com

About Bill Chalker:

Born in Grafton, New South Wales (NSW), Australia, in 1952 and
educated at the University of New England, graduating with an
Honours Science Degree (B.Sc. Hons.) with majors in Chemistry
and Mathematics. He lives in Sydney, Australia.

More than 2 decades experience in industry as a chemist,
laboratory manager and quality manager.

One of Australia's leading UFO researchers, who has written
extensively on the subject.

A contributing editor for the International UFO Reporter.

His book on the Australia UFO experience, The OZ Files: the
Australian UFO story, was published in Australia by Duffy &
Snellgrove in 1996.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

                       Re: We Of The First Sin - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 01:09:05 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:36:20 -0500
Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin - Hatch


 >Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:29:47 -0500
 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin

 >>Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 21:16:59 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: We Of The First Sin

<snip>

 >>Dear Kelly:

 >>As some 4-watt types around here used to say, "I can relate to
 >>that."

 >>In fact, I am overjoyed that I didn't snooze away the entire
 >>weekend.

<snip>

 >>Usually, its a period of "missing time", which I blame on
 >>Tetleys, Guinness, and a host of other contributors;

<snip>

 >>Its all their fault you see, never mine, when Monday sneaks up
 >>too suddenly.

 >>So far, and as near/far as I can see, [snip] space aliens have
 >>little or nothing to do with my personal observations.
 >>[ i.e. missing time -LH ]

 >Hey Larry! I think I am just as entitled as everybody else seems
 >to be on this List to get drunk once a year and philosofize.
 >Okay?

 >Thanks!

 >Kelly

Hello Kelly:

Fair enough!

- Larry Hatch








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

                  Proven DNA Technique For Claims Abduction

From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:16:36 +1100
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:40:06 -0500
Subject: Proven DNA Technique For Claims Abduction


A Proven Focused DNA Technique For Assessing Claims Of Alien
Abduction

By Bill Chalker

Many abduction cases exist where alleged biological evidence has
been reported. Few of these cases have been the subject of
investigations that try to adequately address the question of
whether such evidence supports or refutes the possible alien
reality behind such experiences.

Such events lend themselves to an established forensic DNA
profiling technique, which could help establish the credibility
of such claims.

Since most abduction cases imply a measure of unwanted assault
on the victims of such experiences, a forensic approach towards
verification of the alleged perpetrators is desirable.

Since DNA is the only building block of life that we know,
biological specimens recovered in alleged abduction cases would
provide researchers with a clear point of comparison.

A key claim by many abduction researchers is that abductions
involve some form of genetic agenda. This scenario would
require compatibility between aliens and humans. The claims of
sexual encounters are alleged to add further support to this
scenario. This very element amongst the extraordinary range of
fantastic claims made about abductions is one of major stumbling
blocks to the credibility of abduction claims. Mainstream
science argues that if alien life exists it is unlikely to be
compatible with human life. Hence any claims to the contrary,
such as alien abductions, are regarded as absurd.

Therefore this limited and focused DNA profiling technique goes
to the very heart of one of key claims behind the alleged alien
abduction agenda. It provides an opportunity for testing the
credibility of such claims. If such claims are true then there
should be some compatibility in the DNA of alleged alien
specimens, but some possible anomalies may be evident that would
perhaps not be readily reconciled with measures of human DNA
variability. One established way of undertaking this is to
undertake such analysis with the goal to establish a precise DNA
base sequence of mitochondrial hypervariable region I, spanning
nucleotides 16,000 to 16,400 of mitochondrial DNA. Such DNA is
present in hundreds of copies within each human cell, and
therefore acts as an easily amplified genetic marker for the
polymerase chain reaction (PCR), even in moderately degraded
samples, i.e. measuring the DNA variability beyond the
documented human consensus of the region of DNA
hypervariability.

This technique has been tested in one abduction case to date, in
an investigation undertaken by this writer of a biological
sample a blonde hair implicated in the abduction milieu of a
Sydney man, Peter Khoury, during 1992:

Strange Evidence , International UFO Reporter (IUR), Spring,
1999 issue, Volume 24, No 1, pgs. 3-16, 31.

UFO ABDUCTIONS & SCIENCE - A CASE STUDY OF STRANGE EVIDENCE ,
Australasian Ufologist, Vol.3, No.3, 3rd, 1999, pgs. 43-56.

See a brief summary of the case

DNA SAMPLE FROM ABDUCTION CASE RAISES BIG QUESTIONS Mystery
Blonde Leaves Hair Behind -- But Who Was She? which can be found
on the internet at several sites, including the UFO Folklore web
site:

http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1999/jun/g9.htm

and Alien Astronomer web site:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/abduct077.html


The original analysis confirmed the hair came from someone who
was biologically close to normal human genetics, but of an
unusual racial type - a rare Chinese Mongoloid type one of the
rarest human lineages known, that lies further from the human
mainstream than any other except for African pygmies and
aboriginals. There was the strange anomaly of it being blonde to
clear instead of black, as would be expected from the Asian type
mitochondrial DNA.

The original DNA work was done on the shaft of the hair.
Fascinating further anomalies were found in the root of the
hair. Two types of DNA were found depending on where the
mitochondrial DNA testing occurs, namely confirming the rare
Chinese type DNA in the hair shaft and indicating a rare
possible Basque/Gaelic type DNA in the root section.

This case confirms the utility of the DNA forensic approach,
however the real challenge ahead for researchers is to determine
if these anomalies are both valid and significant. To do this,
researchers in the controversial area of abductions should
cooperate with a testing programme focused on this specific area
of DNA profiling. Testing of a significant number of legitimate
samples would provide an opportunity for validation of the
unusual anomalies found to date. The further results would add
to the database of biological evidence of alleged alien
specimens. Such a strategy could help to determine if aliens are
a biological reality and if indeed any are visiting our planet
and abducting humans. Perhaps such information could also
provide for an interesting perspective on the many stories of
Nordic type beings implicated in UFO abduction and contact
cases.

The Anomaly Physical Evidence Group (APEG) has been formed to
focus attention on biological strategies in abduction
investigations. Preliminary funding has facilitated a small
laboratory presence addressing this exciting area. The APEG can
be contacted through this writer at P.O. Box W42, West Pennant
Hills, NSW, 2125, Australia or via bill_c@bigpond.com

Further funding of this research is encouraged. Please contact
Bill Chalker for further details.

Anyone who believes they have legitimate biological evidence
implicated in UFO and abduction experiences are encouraged to
contact the APEG through Bill Chalker. Any such evidence will
need to be assessed for its potential as credible evidence
warranting the cost, resources and time involved in this DNA
focused study.

About Bill Chalker:

Born in Grafton, New South Wales (NSW), Australia, in 1952 and
educated at the University of New England, graduating with an
Honours Science Degree (B.Sc. Hons.) with majors in Chemistry
and Mathematics. He lives in Sydney, Australia.

More than 2 decades experience in industry as a chemist,
laboratory manager and quality manager.

One of Australia s leading UFO researchers, who has written
extensively on the subject.

A contributing editor for the International UFO Reporter.

His book on the Australia UFO experience, The OZ Files: the
Australian UFO story , was published in Australia by Duffy &
Snellgrove in 1996.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

                  Disappearance At Sea Baffles Man's Family

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 15:06:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 15:06:43 -0500
Subject: Disappearance At Sea Baffles Man's Family




Source: St. Petersburg Times

http://www.sptimes.com:80/News/010801/Pasco/Disappearance_at_sea_.shtml

Disappearance at sea baffles man's family

Authorities say the man, whose body is missing, threw himself
overboard near Cuba.

By MATTHEW WAITE

� St. Petersburg Times, published January 8, 2001


After a Saturday of commercial fishing aboard the Hanna Lee,
Floyd Mooneyham walked off the end of the boat, into the waters
off Cuba, not to be seen alive again.

By the time the crew of the Hanna Lee could get the boat turned
around to go back for him, it was too late. The crew tossed a
floatation device to Mooneyham but watched as he went under.

A U.S. Coast Guard helicopter and the Hanna Lee searched the
waters northeast of Cuba for nearly five hours, from 6:15 p.m.
to nearly 11 p.m., but neither could find Mooneyham's body.

On Sunday, the Coast Guard said that Mooneyham, 32, was
apparently distraught and threw himself overboard. But family
and friends, searching for answers Sunday, said Mooneyham had no
reason to be distraught.

Something else must have happened.

"This is so bizarre," said Mooneyham's stepfather, Burt Ingalls.
"People who know Floyd know he wouldn't do this."

Fueling that suspicion is a conversation Ingalls had with the
captain of the Hanna Lee via the ship's satellite telephone.
Ingalls said he was told that Mooneyham had been sick for the
first two days of the fishing voyage and came out of his cabin
acting strange.

The strange behavior included claims of alien abduction and
fears that the extraterrestrials would be back for him.

Mooneyham had been home to Illinois for the holidays and had
been acting fine, Ingalls said. Ingalls said that Mooneyham
talked about fishing on the Hanna Lee, and how he looked forward
to going out fishing for swordfish and tuna again.

"I don't understand how three days later, I hear this story
about him walking off the end of the boat," Ingalls said.

Ingalls said from his home in Marsailles, Ill., that he would
call the Coast Guard and other agencies Monday to see whether
there would be any investigation or whether there would be an
effort to recover Mooneyham's body.

Sandy Osborne, a friend of Mooneyham's from Hudson, said that
the man had nothing to be upset about.

"He's not going to jump off a boat," she said Sunday. "He loves
to fish.

"He's married to that boat."

-----










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

              Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:15:50 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:11:07 -0500
Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Hatch


 >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:02:43 +0100
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now
 >>Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 16:31:39 -0500

 >>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates Subscribers
 >>>Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 2:50 PM
 >>>Subject: UFO UpDate: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>>Tech Report

 >>>'2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>>By Marco R. della Cava and Csar G. Soriano,

 >>>USA TODAY

<snip>

 >>When "2001 - A Space Odyssey" was first shown in theatres, I was
 >>a highschool student at the time, and found the movie a little
 >>hard to fathom. I was already an avid sci-fi reader, especially
 >>Heinlein, and had read a couple of Clarke's books, including
 >>"Childhood's End" and "Against The Fall Of Night." After seeing
 >>the film I purchased the story in book form, and found it much
 >>easier to understand.

 >Hello Marty and fellow Listerions,

 >Thanks for the summary of the story. One of the beauties of that
 >landmark film was that everything wasn't directly figured out
 >for viewers of challenged intelligence. I don't know, but I have
 >a hunch from what I've read that Arthur C. Clarke doesn't
 >believe we are really controlled by aliens. Then again, I have
 >never visited him in Sri Lanka. Maybe he has a monolith right
 >outside his door.

 >To me 2001 has always been an experience way beyond the story
 >line. When It opened in 1968 I was a California psychedelic
 >music hippie. It was standard practice for my peers and a vast
 >amount of young people to excperience 2001 on LSD. People used
 >to brag about how many times they had seen it on acid sitting
 >front center in the theatre with the largest screen and biggest
 >sound system. In that state you became Kerr Dullea, going
 >through multiple dimensions.

 >Yf you are one of the unfortunate few who have never seen 2001
 >on a very large screen, please don't miss the opportunity in the
 >future.


Hi Josh and all:

The film certainly did not hand you the story line on a silver
platter, it made you think a bit, and that's part of its charm.

At the end of the edited for TV version I finally saw, there
were scenes of an aging astronaut eating a meal in some vast
empty room. No waiters, no explanation how he got there (
presumably on/near Jupiter ) or who did the dishes etc. This
version just left me scratching my head and went headlong into
an even more nebulous image, that of some baby or fetus over the
Earth.

Sorry, I just don't get it, and I'll bet 75-cents that I'm not
alone. Keay Davidson mentioned that final scene in his article.

Question: Did Kubrick or Clarke ever go on record explaining
those two scenes to anyone's satisfaction?

If so, what exactly were the explanations? Earth being seeded by
fetuses? Whuffo? To provide a future staff for that lonely
restaurant up yonder?


Just curious

- Larry Hatch









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

                         Stargate Magazine In Italy

From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:55:56 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:13:48 -0500
Subject: Stargate Magazine In Italy


Dear All,

My friend and colleague Maurizio Baiata in Italy is the
editor/publisher of STARGATE magazine, a full colour glossy
publication covering all things 'mysterious'. Maurizio  is
looking for contributors to the magazine, so if you are
interested please contact him on: mbalien@tin.it

Whether he can pay for contributors I'm not entirely sure, but
it is a very well presented magazine that I believe sells fairly
well on the newsstands in Italy.

Please feel free to forward this message to inteested
parties elsewhere.

Regards,

Philip Mantle.


--
Philip Mantle,
1 Woodhall Drive, Batley, West Yorkshire, England, WF17 7SW.
Tele: 01924 444049. E-mail: pmquest@dial.pipex.com
www.beyondroswell.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

                           All Links Are Not Lynx

From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:33:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:15:17 -0500
Subject: All Links Are Not Lynx

:
:
:
:
:

Link to your heart's delight...

Cryptozoological Predictions for the Next Decade
http://www.forteantimes.com/artic/coleman2001/cryptopredictions.html

Top Cryptozoological Stories of the Year 2000
http://www.anomalist.com/features/features.html

Eastern Bigfoot - Of Momo and the Marked Homonids
http://www.llewellyn.com/fate/momo_bigfoot.htm

...and thank you for then feeling free to connect any or all of these to
your website.

Happy New Century to All!!






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:56:52 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:17:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 23:23:32 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

 >>Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:04:45 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Kelly wrote:

 >>>The search for a small plane that two New Jersey women thought
 >>>they saw crash into the Hudson River turned out yesterday to be
 >>>a wild-goose chase.

<snip>

I replied:

 >>Now that we know there was no crash and the witnesses were
 >>mistaken, where are the UFO analogies that were once in
 >>abundance?
 >
 >>Just another case where witness testimony needs to be validated.

Kelly now writes:

 >Yep! But sometimes witnesses are right! When I was working in
 >Toronto many a year ago now, I was on the third floor of a
 >building overlooking an intersection talking on the phone when I
 >glanced out the window and saw a guy laying on the road in front
 >of a car - then the most astonishing thing happened! The driver
 >ran out of the car, scooped up the person on the road in his
 >arms, and then PUT HIM IN THE TRUNK OF THE CAR! And then he sped
 >off. I was totally stunned, and immediately phoned the police to
 >report it.

<snip>

 >I was getting pretty sick of all the questions, and upset
 >because they still didn't believe it could possibly be a real
 >person, so I went next door with them to get a coffee, and lo
 >and behold I saw the guy that had been on the road - across the
 >street. Turns out they were students making a film without a
 >permit.

 >But the point is, I described exactly what I saw in detail and I
 >was right.

 >Empress Kelly


Your Empress-ness,

I agree that witnesses can be 100 percent correct. My position
is that the only way to know if they are correct is to validate
what the witness claims.

If you had initially reported to the police, "I just saw
students making a movie without a permit." and had described the
event you witnessed as support of your claim, then the police
would have likely asked, "Are you sure it was only a movie? Did
you see a camera and crew or did you just see someone stuffed
into the trunk of a car?" Their concern might have been that you
had actually witnessed a real murder or the like. They would
want some kind of validation of what you thought you had seen.
In your case, you described exactly what you saw, but the
implications of what you saw were not validated; i.e. that
someone had been harmed in some way.

As this relates to UFO sightings, many people get miffed when
their sightings are not accepted at face value; that they had
seen ET craft. I know that I would be pretty agitated if I
reported what I saw with my own eyes and no one believed me. On
the other hand, I would appreciate a vigorous investigation that
would, indeed, validate the implications of what I had seen.
Unfortunately, too many witnesses are simply blown off and their
unvalidated stories become part of a larger stew that does
nothing but simmer on low heat. On top of that, we have WAY too
many cooks in the UFO kitchen trying to stir the pot while
adding their own secret ingredients.


take care,

Roger










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

                      Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:07:16 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:20:53 -0500
Subject: Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List - Easton


A *final* word on the new list, for those who may be interested.

I'm pleased to announce that 'UFO Skeptics', which has attracted
[I'm sure for diverse reasons] 75 current subscribers and
rising, is now a public forum and postings can be viewed by
anyone with Internet access.

The list's URL is:

http://debunk.listbot.com


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

                Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:09:40 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:25:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps


 >From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'
 >Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:03:41 +1100

<snip>

 >This story will raise a few eyebrows. Our knowledge of who we
 >are and how we came to be is in for a big rethink. This story is
 >relevant to our search for who we are as a species.

 >The work I have been involved with re DNA PCR testing of
 >biological samples implicated in abduction experiences is
 >suggesting some interesting perspectives about the nature of at
 >least some of the alleged species involved, particularly the so
 >called Nordic types, reported and/or described in such cases as
 >Antonio Villas Boas and Travis Walton. Instead of casting the
 >net to recent visits it is implying a presence that has been
 >with us for some time. This is still speculation but it is
 >based on actual DNA evidence emerging from studies by the team I
 >am involved with.

 >See the following link for early information on this connection.
 >A more detailed and updated study report is being prepared:

 >http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1999/jun/g9.htm

<snip>

Hello Bill and List,

Went to the site and read the story. I'll try to precis it for
the ones who didn't:

In 1992, the witness wakes up, sees two naked women: one
Scandinavian blonde type, the other black haired Oriental type.
But some features in their faces (high cheeks, very large eyes)
give a definite [perceived] alien impression. The blonde grabs
the victim in the back of the head and forces his mouth to her
nipple, which he bites and swallows [sic!] - without a blink on
the part of the blonde. Then, blackout, awakening, and on to the
bathroom with a painful penis: under the foreskin he pull backs,
there are 2 blonde hairs wrapped tightly around. The witness
manages to remove the two hairs and puts them in a plastic bag.
Meanwhile, he's got this nipple caught in his throat that
bothers him for the next 3 days until it finally clears up.

In 1996, the witness reports his experience to Bill Chalker and
gives him the hair samples. DNA tests on the hairs show them to
be human but with distinct genetic sequences that would make
them a unique sample.

A few observations:

1. DNA collected must be free of any contamination: in this case,
the hairs were necessarily contaminated by the witness' penis.

2. The witness 'saves' the hair in a plastic bag but does not go
to the doctor for an alien nipple - and oh! boy, some evidence! -
that prevents him from breathing normally?

3. Biting off a nipple is the same as chewing off chicken
cartilage and produces _no_ blood?

4. This one is for adults only: true one can get long hair ends
caught under the foreskin, but two long hairs _twisted around_
the glans?


Regards,

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

                     Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Persky

From: Alex Persky <alexvi@mail.ru>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:58:07 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:28:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website - Persky


 >From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
 >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:51:23 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Boris Shurinov Website

 >Nor do I believe that James Oberg is a CIA officer. I tried to
 >answer Mr. Persky, but probably my post was not correctly
 >formatted. I will try again because it is important to see what
 >I said about Mr. Oberg in Russian.

Hi,

Don't try Paul, I've found your Russian post about Oberg at
eGroups, it's allright with it. This was my mistake, sorry.


Best regards,

Alex








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

               Re: Worldwide UFO Disclosure Imminent? - Rhodes

From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 04:10:25 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:32:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Worldwide UFO Disclosure Imminent? - Rhodes


 >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:39:27 +0000
 >From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Worldwide UFO Disclosure Imminent?

 >Until you mentioned this, it is the first I've heard as well.
 >What was the video that pin-pointed this specific date?

I was chatting with a guy who went to the conference and bought
a video, he hasn't got internet access and asked if I had heard
anything. He couldn't remember the name of the video. I'll call
him to find out the name.

 >I know you weren't at the conference (otherwise why ask for a CD)
 >are you sure your source is correct??

 >By the way, did you receive the CD? it's been a few weeks since
 >I sent it, I'd like to know if you got it.

I got the CD shortly after you sent it. Not much to go on, I'm
waiting for Roy's investigation to conclude.

Tel









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

               Re: Disappearance At Sea Baffles Man's Family -

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 15:50:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:34:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Disappearance At Sea Baffles Man's Family -


UFO UpDates - Toronto wrote:

 >Disappearance at sea baffles man's family

 >Authorities say the man, whose body is missing, threw himself
 >overboard near Cuba.

 >The strange behavior included claims of alien abduction and
 >fears that the extraterrestrials would be back for him.

 >Mooneyham had been home to Illinois for the holidays and had
 >been acting fine, Ingalls said. Ingalls said that Mooneyham
 >talked about fishing on the Hanna Lee, and how he looked forward
 >to going out fishing for swordfish and tuna again.

When I first read this I was thinking "what does this have to do
with UFOs?" but as the article went further, it was apparent
this does relate to UFOs, like it or not. This situation
disturbingly reminds me of a similar case happening in Ohio in
March of 2000 when a man reported seeing flying saucers before
plunging to his death out a hospital window. That report is at:

http://home.fuse.net/ufo/leap.html


ky
--
      U F O   R e s e a r c h
     http://home.fuse.net/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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 9

              Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:29:02 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:37:23 -0500
Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Ledger


 >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:15:50 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now
 >
 >>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:02:43 +0100
 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>Hello Marty and fellow Listerions,

 >>Thanks for the summary of the story. One of the beauties of that
 >>landmark film was that everything wasn't directly figured out
 >>for viewers of challenged intelligence. I don't know, but I have
 >>a hunch from what I've read that Arthur C. Clarke doesn't
 >>believe we are really controlled by aliens. Then again, I have
 >>never visited him in Sri Lanka. Maybe he has a monolith right
 >>outside his door.

 >>To me 2001 has always been an experience way beyond the story
 >>line. When It opened in 1968 I was a California psychedelic
 >>music hippie. It was standard practice for my peers and a vast
 >>amount of young people to excperience 2001 on LSD. People used
 >>to brag about how many times they had seen it on acid sitting
 >>front center in the theatre with the largest screen and biggest
 >>sound system. In that state you became Kerr Dullea, going
 >>through multiple dimensions.

 >>Yf you are one of the unfortunate few who have never seen 2001
 >>on a very large screen, please don't miss the opportunity in the
 >>future.

 >Hi Josh and all:

 >The film certainly did not hand you the story line on a silver
 >platter, it made you think a bit, and that's part of its charm.

 >At the end of the edited for TV version I finally saw, there
 >were scenes of an aging astronaut eating a meal in some vast
 >empty room. No waiters, no explanation how he got there (
 >presumably on/near Jupiter ) or who did the dishes etc. This
 >version just left me scratching my head and went headlong into
 >an even more nebulous image, that of some baby or fetus over the
 >Earth.

 >Sorry, I just don't get it, and I'll bet 75-cents that I'm not
 >alone. Keay Davidson mentioned that final scene in his article.

 >Question: Did Kubrick or Clarke ever go on record explaining
 >those two scenes to anyone's satisfaction?

 >If so, what exactly were the explanations? Earth being seeded by
 >fetuses? Whuffo? To provide a future staff for that lonely
 >restaurant up yonder?


Hi Larry,

If I remember correctly - according to the book-the fetus was a
Star Child and it set off all the nuclear weapons stockpile on
Earth. I don't think there were never meant to be sequels.
Eating is self explanatory.

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

                                AUFON Guests

From: Stefan Duncan <bward3@nc.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:54:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:48:10 -0500
Subject: AUFON Guests


AUFON LIVE "The only nightly live UFO broadcast in the world."
The latest sightings, related news, discussions, call in's,
emails, and guests. Stefan Duncan is the host. We are always
open to schedule guests. Call 910-425-6962 or email Duncan at
bward3@nc.rr.com  We can also pre-tape an interview. UFO
organizations are welcome to give updates and discuss current
investigations.

"If Art Bell is the King of Nye, then I, Stefan Duncan (in the
tradition of Napoleon) declare myself King of Dusk."

Jan.  4, Thomas Ginther  UFO/Ghost investigator The Bedford Case

Jan.  9, Billy Dee Family allegedly abducted by aliens

Jan. 10, Nathan Dinger North American UFO Society Director

Jan. 11  Thomas Gililand Author, UFO investigator, Adam's Lake
          UFOs

Jan. 15,  Bill Bean  aka. UFOman,  Ghost and UFO photographer

Jan. 16. Tim Swartz, author on time travel, alien implants,
          black projects, Telsa

Jan. 18. Jim Deardoff UFO investigator The Case of Billy Meier

          Jenny Randles (regular guest appearance to be announced)


AUFON newswire/weekly newspaper UFO Hotline 910-425-6962
aufon-subscribe@egroups.com   http://www.aufon.com

American UFO News address
5396 S.Sumac Circle, Fayetteville, NC 28304
AUFON LIVE hosted  by Stefan Duncan
9p.m.-11p.m. M-F  11p.m.-1a.m. SAT. (EST)
Just click on "AUFON LIVE" on top of the aufon website







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:54:54 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:50:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:15:43 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

 >>Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:04:45 -0600
 >>From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>King Roger
 >>(in the second year of the millennium!)

 >In fact we are in the first year of the millennium, i.e. 8 days
 >into it, not second year. This is of course explained by the
 >time experts at the Naval observatory who have gone to great
 >lengths to explain why the real millennium began on Jan 1 2001.

Hi, Robert!

'Time Experts'?

Nah. I suppose they feel that morning doesn't begin until 1:00
AM, either. Unless the Naval "time experts" can tell exactly
when Christ was born, then they are merely estimating, at best.
As I've pointed out before, biblical scholars from both the
Jewish and Christian camps have admitted that there is a 5 year
margin of error on Christ's birth. What on earth gives the Naval
observatory any more information than these guys?

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

                          Re: UFO Skeptics - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:52:34 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:54:02 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Evans


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 23:57:19 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Gates

 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Easton
 >>Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:04:10 -0000

Previously, Robert wrote:

 >as far as people can see the so called skeptics list (should
 >probably be debunk at all costs) will evolve into discussing
 >pelicans, light houses, venus, stars, and why all witnesses who
 >claim to see anything are mistaken, or have mis identified
 >some natural occuring something.

 >I always thought the current crop of debunkers have become
 >utterly meaningless and absurd while they operate under the
 >theory of "It can't be so therefor it isn't."

 >In essence, as Jim has outlined it, the skeptic list will be
 >somewhere where some fool can claim that UFO witness a saw a
 >seagull in flight, and all the lap dogs will instantly say "Oh,
 >that was a wonderful post, why hasn't anyone ever said that
 >before."

 >person should also understand that if you ask a debunker "Are
 >you a debunker." He or she would likely say, "Absolutly not, why
 >I don't understand where you would get that idea from because
 >all I am is a skeptic."

 >Don't even have to subscribe. You just have to understand the
 >words Pelicans, Lighthouse, Venus, misidentification, hoax,
 >stars and you have understood the entire list and most of the
 >postings without reading one message.  :)

Hi, Robert!

While I don't agree with Easton's views, I do feel that having a
List that casts a critical eye on UFO claims can be as much a
benefit as a List that seems to believe all UFO claims without
regard to common sense. While not everything seen in night sky
is an airplane, neither is it automatically an ET craft.

Mind you, I don't buy into Easton's Pelican theory in the
slightest and I have no desire to participate in his list.
However, I am once again amazed at your ability to read people's
minds and predict the future. You seem to know everything about
what will happen as it relates to the discussion of UFOs on this
list as well as others. Too bad your "gift" can't tell you beans
about the past. If so, then it would help clear up all the UFO
cases that are at the heart of all these discussions.


Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

                       Ed Dames and Sean David Morton

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:15:16 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:55:24 -0500
Subject: Ed Dames and Sean David Morton


Hi there. I am currently conducting an in depth look into both
Ed Dames and Sean David Morton. I've probably already posted
this before, but would ask that anyone with any information on
either of these individuals to please contact me. Thanks!

Regards,

Royce J. Myers III eXpos: The Watchdog of UFOlogy "Don't Trip
On Your Open Mind." eXpos News
http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3 UFO Hall o' Shame
http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

                          Re: Spiderlings - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:50:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:00:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Spiderlings - Gehrman


 >From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Spiderlings
 >Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:30:17 -0800

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Spiderlings
 >>Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 17:28:58 -0800

 >>Greg's encounter is a red herring. He must see the
 >>discrepancy  between what he experienced and the
 >>descriptions of "angel hair" supplied to the List.

 >Hello Ed,

 >You seem to be laboring under the impression that I thought I
 >was looking at angel hair.

Yes, I was under that impression. After rereading your post, I
realize that I jumped to conclusions that were not correct


 >I thought nothing of the sort.

My mistake.  Sorry.

 >If I
 >was not clear enough then I apologize. I merely posted the
 >experience as a basis of comparison for those interested in the
 >subject.

I'm certainly interested and I suppose a bit defensive; angel
hair is a poorly understood phenomenon that needs further
attention and study. But it's I who  should apologize, for
misreading your intentions.

 >You're preaching to the choir! <G>

And as we all know, that's a poor use of one's time.


Ed









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

                Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down

From: Kelly <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:57:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:03:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down


 >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:56:52 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 23:23:32 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

 >Your Empress-ness,

 >I agree that witnesses can be 100 percent correct. My position
 >is that the only way to know if they are correct is to validate
 >what the witness claims.

 >If you had initially reported to the police, "I just saw
 >students making a movie without a permit." and had described the
 >event you witnessed as support of your claim, then the police
 >would have likely asked, "Are you sure it was only a movie? Did
 >you see a camera and crew or did you just see someone stuffed
 >into the trunk of a car?" Their concern might have been that you
 >had actually witnessed a real murder or the like. They would
 >want some kind of validation of what you thought you had seen.
 >In your case, you described exactly what you saw, but the
 >implications of what you saw were not validated; i.e. that
 >someone had been harmed in some way.

 >As this relates to UFO sightings, many people get miffed when
 >their sightings are not accepted at face value; that they had
 >seen ET craft. I know that I would be pretty agitated if I
 >reported what I saw with my own eyes and no one believed me. On
 >the other hand, I would appreciate a vigorous investigation that
 >would, indeed, validate the implications of what I had seen.
 >Unfortunately, too many witnesses are simply blown off and their
 >unvalidated stories become part of a larger stew that does
 >nothing but simmer on low heat. On top of that, we have WAY too
 >many cooks in the UFO kitchen trying to stir the pot while
 >adding their own secret ingredients.

What was interesting about my witnessing of the 'accident' was
that I did tell the police exactly what I saw - that is, I did
not see the person actually being hit by a car, or, say, having
a heart attack and falling down. I emphasized that to the
police, and indeed, I suggested to 'them' that perhaps a film
was being shot. They said they had checked that out but that no
permits had been granted. What neither the police nor I thought
of was that it was students without a permit. So, Roger, you are
right - you can witness something, give the correct facts, and
still not come up with the 'truth'. However, in this case the
'truth' was discovered serendipitedly!

When it comes to UFO, I tend to think most people are honest in
their accounts of what they witness. There is very little to
gain by coming forward except ridicule. However, as to *what*
they witnessed or experienced - the jury is still out on that
baby. As I have demonstrated, you can have have facts and
accurate observations and still come to the wrong conclusion.
Science is notorious for this.

Kelly










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

                          Filer's Files #02 - 2001

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:58:09 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:06:24 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #02 - 2001


Filer's Files #02 -- 2001, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
January 9, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Majorstar@Aol.com. Webmaster
Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

UFO SIGHTINGS INCREASING IN NEW MELLINNIUM

UFO reports in December were at a low rate, but are increasing in January.
Reports have come in from New Zealand, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois,
Kansas, Oregon, Arizona, Canada, Scotland, and Switzerland.

TWO NEW PLANETS FOUND SIMILAR TO EARTH

LONDON -- According to the Diario "La Nacion" in Argentina,
"Astronomers have found the strongest evidence yet for alien
life in a solar system having characteristics similar to our
own." The discovery was made by SETI scientists working with
NASA and Britain's Jodrell Bank observatory, searching for life
beyond known boundaries. Observations indicate that the star
system, known as CM Draconis, has two planets in the so-called
"life belt," sufficiently close for water to exist in liquid
form, which could suppose the presence of life. Instruments were
employed close to their design limits. Thanks to translation by
Institute of Hispanic Ufology (C) 2001.

NEW ZEALAND DISCS START NEW MILLENNIUM

NEW PLYMOUTH - Five people in a car spotted five disc shaped
objects in the sky on January 1, 2001, at 12:01 AM along the
western shore of North Island. They were driving down Highway 3
and had the radio tuned to 94 FM. The witness says, "I knew
there was enough coverage in the area for good radio reception
but we started getting a static buzz when we left Inglewood."
This buzz continued for a minute so we decided to switch the
radio off. As we approached the next corner, I saw an orange
light over the trees that soon vanished. We retained speed
through the next few corners and something orange hovered above
us. It appeared to be about 100 feet above us and looked to be
between 30 and 50 feet long and the same in width (basically
circular). There were five of us in the car who could see it.
The object hovered soundlessly as we all stepped out of the car.
As we looked around we saw three other objects hovering and
swaying around in the air. They looked like they were changing
color from metallic glowing orange to metallic deep purple and
shades of blue. One more larger object appeared on the horizon
and sped towards the other four. Each seemed to react in a way
similar to an army unit and formed a line and disappeared almost
instantly over towards Mount Taranaki. As we left several
minutes later we realized we hadn't seen any traffic for half an
hour and only saw some as we entered New Plymouth. E-mail
interview.

SPACE SHUTTLE SHOWS UFO OVER CHICAGO

Jeff Challender writes, "The STS 106 Space Shuttle video shows a
UFO over Chicago." The September 14, 2000, includes the view of
Chicago, Illinois with the object passing above the city. You
can even make out the shore of Lake Michigan. As for seeing
these things from the ground, there have been numerous reports
of ground based sightings over the years which involved Mir, the
Shuttle, and various satellites. There was one such discussed at
a recent MUFON of Rhode Island meeting. A man reported observing
a satellite, which made a sudden 90 degree turn in orbit. That
is impossible for anything we have up there. As for speeds,
those objects which are comparable in velocity to the Shuttle,
or the Space Station, should be just as easy to see. Thanks to
Jeff Challender

EXTRATERRESTRIAL CONTACT?

Red Setter writes from Australia, I think I know why the UFOs
are not contacting us openly. Our race is stupid, closed-minded,
and shortsighted. Try to explain to some ordinary man how, for
at least 50 years, the governments world wide have been: lying
to their citizens, ignoring human abductions for biological
experimentation, ignoring livestock mutilations to get blood
serum for biology work, ignoring close contacts with the Shuttle
or other spacecraft, developing e.t. technology in secret,
shooting at e.t. craft when they have the chance, etc. Rather
than thinking you insightful, 99% of citizens will regard you as
a conspiracy fanatic! Another error on our part seems to be
denying the existence of a soul. We hypothesize without any
evidence that our self-aware brains are just computers, that die
when we die. But there is no evidence for that view (nor for
classical Darwinism); it is only an assumption. As Crick once
said, "The brain may be like a TV, but who inside is watching?"
The immortal soul may be a key concept to e.t, not the mortal
body. The Sumerian Annunaki were known as "Lady of the Earth" or
"Lady of the Mountain," etc. In 1967, an evil little grey alien
used an "electromagnetic suction device" to pull the soul out of
my chest by about a foot to do some kind of "soul I.D." He then
let it return naturally. Was he checking who I might be? A
well-known contactee here (K. Cahill) told the same "soul
vacuum" story in her book from 1994, dealing with a similar
e.t., even though I had never told anyone about my 1967 case.
Hence our collective world-view seems **very far** from that of
our advanced visitors; say as far as Dante's cosmology in the
"Inferno" differs from ours in the 21st century. It is not worth
their while to contact us. Thanks to Red Setter

NEW YORK BOOMERANG SHAPED OBJECT ON CHRISTMAS

BUFFALO -- On December 25, 2000, at 6:30 PM a homemaker was in
her back yard filling her bird feeders when she noticed
something unusual in the sky. This object was not a plane in the
clear sky or a falling star and it was not a flock of birds. It
was traveling much too fast. The witness stated, "What I saw was
something shaped roughly like a boomerang, that made no sound,
and left no trail in the sky. The only thing that defined it's
shape was what seemed to be dots of white light, several rows of
them." It wasn't light like starlight or streetlight or any
light I have ever seen, it was just glowing white dots. It
seemed to be traveling southeast. I watched it till the tree
branches obscured it and it disappeared over the housetops. The
shape never fluctuated from this boomerang formation. I was
standing there contemplating what I saw, when I noticed this
same shaped object with the white light lower on the horizon. It
was further south closer to the downtown area of Buffalo and now
seemed to be traveling west till it disappeared. This thing was
so strange! If I had not seen it twice I probably wouldn't have
reported it. My toes were getting numb from the cold so I went
inside. Thanks to Peter Davenport Director NUFORC
www.ufocenter.com

PENNSYLVANIA OVAL LIGHTS APPEAR ABOVE

PROSPECT PARK -- On December 26, 2000, The witness was driving
down Route 420 with his family when he saw an orange glow
appearing to become brighter and brighter at 11:15 PM. He
thought the glow was from the local power plant, but as he
reached Lincoln and Chester Pike four golden oval shaped objects
appeared about 100 feet above the intersection. There was no
noise. They just materialized terrifying his children. He pulled
his vehicle over into a McDonald's lot where several other
people were also watching. The oval objects then moved straight
up Route 420 to the firehouse on 10th Avenue. They stopped and
blinked their lights. Some type of brown gel material was
emitted and the lights and craft then suddenly vanished
completely. Thanks to Peter Davenport Director NUFORC
www.ufocenter.com

KENTUCKY UFO MYSTERY

LYNCH MOUNTAIN -- Since the beginning of December 2000,
residents of Appalachia, Virginia have see an unusual phenomena
in the night sky over Lynch Mountain. The wooded mountain,
located just over the state line in Kentucky, is approximately
14 miles west of Appalachia. According to local resident Christ
Light, "We have seen UFOs going from east to west and hovering
over Lynch Mountain. Strange and bright white lights. They all
appear to be egg-shaped objects." "Lynch Mountain has a
government complex located on the peak," he added, "Also, it is
a no-fly zone." Joseph Trainor says, "I have been told it was a
Department of Defense facility in the 1950s, that had 15 stories
underground." "You see white jeeps (Humvees) around the area all
the time." Appalachia is on Virginia Highways 88 and 73, about
25 miles south of Pikeville, Kentucky. Thanks to Christ Light
and UFO Roundup Vol. 6, # 1; January 4, 2001, Editor: Joseph
Trainor http://ufoinfo.com/roundup

KANSAS FLYING TRIANGLE OBJECT FLEW OVER MY CAR

PITTSBURGH -- On December 24, 2000, I was driving home a spotted
what I thought was a reflection in my mirror, but when I looked
back I thought it was headlights, but instead I saw a large
black, triangular shaped thing in the sky. It was flying just
above the power lines at 12:10 AM. It had two white lights (like
headlights) on the front of it and an orangeish-red blinking
light on each side. It started out on the left, then flew over
the top of my car. I honked my horn as it went over me and I
watched it fly away to the northwest. Thanks to Peter Davenport
Director NUFORC www.ufocenter.com

OREGON CONTINUES TO HAVE SIGHTINGS

HOOD RIVER -- James A. Gilliland writes, "Contact is happening
around the world, yet here it is fully documented with over four
hours of day and night footage with sound, not to mention over
700 witnesses and photographs taken by UFO investigators. So
where is the press, NASA and SETI? Every once in a while one
gets lucky like we did when ABC and Fox went national with the
sightings here at the Sanctuary. Seattle's "Evening Magazine"
show also covered the event, yet each time they had to put their
twist on the story like we are filming street lights or meteors.
This is ironic because there are no street lights anywhere near
the ranch and meteors do not hover, make right angle turns, turn
blue and purple even pink, become 5 times their normal size then
fly below the mountain and then turn up back into the sky. How
do you get 60 people at a time along with children to come on
record? Do you drag them over to a street light and say okay
this is a UFO. These are astrophysicists, air force design
engineers, pilots and people in the aeronautic industry who have
seen them. Thanks to James Gilliland (509) 395-2092
http://www.cazekiel.org

ARIZONA EGG SHAPE UFO ON CHRISTMAS EVE

LAKE HAVASU -- The witness reports there was an egg shape craft
300 feet above the ground at 12:10 AM Christmas Eve, December
24, 2000. The craft had two bright lights, one on top and one on
the bottom. There was a ring of lesser bright lights towards the
bottom 1/3 of the craft and hundreds of small lights evenly
spaced in rings or rows. I could see all the small lights
perfectly. The bottom light shined a bright beam of light down.
I first thought it was a rope, like it was tied down, but it was
the light. The color was the same as a house light bulb. "The
craft was not spinning, just floating and back forth slowly and
heading southwest." I got my Mom, as soon as we saw it, and went
over to a coworkers house. It climbed at a steady pace to 30,000
feet or more. It shot something out, like a small flare. By this
time it was only a little dot, but it was still the brightness
thing in the sky. It blinked a few times then flew away. I''m a
believer. Thanks to Peter Davenport Director NUFORC
www.ufocenter.com

CANADA UFO VIDEO TAPED OVER (US BORDER)

MANITOULIN ISLAND -- On January 1, 2001, around 5:00 PM my
girlfriend's father and I saw two UFO's over the island. They
appeared to be bright yellowish lights and they didn't move.
Each had its own shape. One was circular and the other was
shaped like a comet with two tails and a round head. The sky was
clear and the sun was setting. They looked like they were on the
edge of earth's atmosphere. I video taped about 45 seconds. My
friend and I kept an eye on the UFO's as we traveled west on the
island. And as we dipped into the valleys we lost sight of them.
We watched them for five more minutes before we lost track of
them. They appeared to change into a circle as we traveled west.
I have them on 8 MM video. I asked a local store owner about
UFO's there and he said, "He sees them all the time." Thanks to
Nathan Wright nwright1@uswest.net and Michel M. Deschamps
ufoman@ican.net

SCOTLAND TRIANGULAR CRAFT NEAR QUEEN'S RESIDENCE,

BALMORAL CASTLE -- A couple were seven miles from Balmoral
Castle the Queen's summer residence on December 27, 2000, when
they saw a triangular object in the sky. It was flying above the
hotel complex called the Craigendarroch, in Ballater at 7:15 PM.
The craft was grey and had three large blue lights at each
point, but not on the very tips. The lights were not flickering
or flashing and did not appear to emit any beams. There were
white/grey laser beams coming out from the top of the object
above the blue lights. The craft was hovering 200 yards above
the trees and was the size of a house. I could hear what seemed
to be muted rotor sound like a distant helicopter. Peter pulled
off road and got out of the car and saw it move slowly and 'just
disappear.' Other cars also stopped. The witness stated, "A van
with two police asked if we were OK." We asked the police if
they had seen that? The passenger replied after looking sideways
at the driver, 'Yes he did'. Several other police cars were also
present. The craft was either a secret military aircraft that
sounds a bit like a helicopter or it was a spacecraft. Thanks to
Peter Davenport Director NUFORC www.ufocenter.com

SWITZERLAND FLYING TRIANGLES

ZURICH - On December 11, 2000, the witness observed three
formations of UFOs. At 10:45 PM on a clear night with a moon he
saw two formations with 25 to 30 UFO's. The lights were quite
pale, twice the size of brightest star. The velocity seemed
quite slow like a flock of seagulls flying high. Both formations
had a shape of an elongated egg and irregular. The first
formation showed some goldish/yellow lights where doing a
snake-path-pattern. Three seconds later, the second group had
green, blue, and yellow or red lights. The third group had 5 or
6 red UFO's, three times the size of the first ones but looked
like just one craft. They where flying wildly around each other.
At arm's length, one of the red lights had the size of the
smallest fingernail. The left light was a yellow-white color
which, equaled the brilliance of an approaching aircraft
headlight but, slightly larger and less "amber" in color. The
light just to its right was of equal size and resembled a red
traffic light. He drove onto Maplewood Drive and stopped his
car, for a better look.

The witness says, "The craft was, now, almost overhead and it
seemed, unusually large, two or three fingers wide, at arm's
length." It's altitude was very low, if it were flying at an
airliner's altitude than, it would have been huge. Except for
the five lights, on its underside the craft was very dark and,
barely moving. There were three dim, non-blinking, rounded,
yellow-white lights, one at each corner. At the center of its
underside were two smaller, alternately pulsing lights, one red
with a smaller, white light, beside it. These alternately,
pulsing lights, created a confusing mix of red, pink and white
flashing light with a very faint, pinkish haze flickering
beneath it. But none of these lights were as large nor as
bright, as, those seen during the craft's approach. While
overhead, the object seemed to be barely moving, yet, rotating
slightly, to its right (about 20 degrees in 5 seconds). After
this turn, it then, began to move, noticeably forward picking up
speed. Only then, did I notice that this triangle was flying
backwards, with two corners towards its front and one towards
its rear. As it flew south, I saw three large, bright,
non-blinking, hazy, yellow-white lights, evenly spaced
(horizontally) in a row, across its rear side. This craft seemed
to be flying into a hazy, gray luminous fog as it departed. I've
never noticed large, bright, hazy, yellow-white lights, like
these, on any aircraft, at night. I didn't notice any sound. The
sighting's duration was about 75 seconds. Thanks to Peter
Davenport Director NUFORC www.ufocenter.com

CROP CIRCLE TRIANGLE AND REPEATING THREES

Herb O. Buckland writes, "I have noticed Variations of
Linear-Circular-Triangular "formulas" being used. Three main
tracks usually terminating in three distinct groupings.
Three-bundle wrappings of stalks (also 3 main bundles and 1
minor bundle in some instances). Three "Tools-of-Trade"
(sound-heat-wind) used by the "Circle Makers" are said to be
intelligent encoding. Three different lengths of lines in some
formations. Formations creating energies within the lay of a
Circle-Ring- (or) Path. Three distinct glyphs in some
formations. Triangulation of formations occur near Stonehenge.
When it was recognized that a Crop Circle formation resembled
the design of the third Charka, other Crop Circle formations
were looked at to see whether they too resembled other Charka
designs. Now take a look at some UFO/Alien phenomena with three
spacecraft shapes: Linear (cigar-shaped)- Circular (balloon,
hubcap, dish-shaped, etc.), and Triangular. seen. Three lights,
sometimes in a triangular configuration, have been seen on
spacecraft. Three landing gears have been seen often on three
spacecraft landing in one place. Three individual windows or
windows grouped in threes have been seen on spacecraft. There
are three basic types of aliens: Greys- Reptilian-Insect
(Praying Mantis).

Nordic type of aliens could be characterized as being related to
the third born group of hominids as well as the third racial
classification called Caucasian/Indo-European. Three basic alien
types are frequently shown with triangular-shaped heads. Alien
"Greys" are frequently characterized with A- B- C subtypes.
Triangular marks have been found on abductees along with 3 mm
disc is said to be deposited in an abductee's brain. Aliens are
said to have a third eye, a third ear, a third brain, and three
fingers. Abductions sometimes occur along a route numbered 3,
33, at "about" 3 o'clock with three aliens. Of course there are
other patterns. But with the "three" and "triangular" reference
occurring so often, it can't be a coincidence. In probing the
question of why three? Why a triangle? What does this have to do
with humans? Take a look at the following site:
http://www.geneticengineering.org/ideas/buckland.html Thanks to
Herb herbobuckland@hotmail.com.

ARE UFO's THE CLOUDS, ANGELS AND HEAVEN OF THE BIBLE?

Tony Garry writes, "In reference to clouds and UFOs, on
12-26-00, and "Merry Christmas and the Angels" on 1-2-01. Here's
some interesting info my wife brought to my attention in "The
Lost Books of the Bible". "The PROTEVANGELION" is a book
described as "An Historical Account of the Birth Of Christ, and
the Perpetual Virgin Mary, his Mother, by James the Lesser,
cousin and brother of the Lord Jesus, chief Apostle and first
Bishop of the Christians in Jerusalem."

   Chapter 13 begins, (Verses 1-2) "And leaving her and his sons
   in the cave, Joseph went forth to seek a Hebrew midwife in the
   village of Bethlehem. But as I was going (said Joseph) I
   looked up into the air, and I saw the clouds astonished, and
   the fowls of the air stopping in the midst of their flight."
   Then, in Chapter 14, (Verses 9-12) "And the midwife went along
   with him, and stood in the cave. Then a bright cloud
   overshadowed the cave, and the midwife said, This day my soul
   is magnified, for mine eyes have seen surprising things, and
   salvation is brought forth to Israel. But on a sudden the
   cloud became a great light in the cave, so that their eyes
   could not bear it. But the light gradually decreased, until
   the infant appeared, and sucked the breast of his mother
   Mary." Thanks to Tony Garry.

Dr. Virgilio Sanchez Ocejo says I read your about angels. Very
good. Everyone in the UFO community should read it. I believe
most sightings are angelic. I also believe that since 1/3 of the
angelic realm rebelled, it's quite possible 1/3 of UFO
sightings/encounters could also be from these fallen angels.
Satan has always counterfeited things of God. I believe it's
quite possible we are in the last days and Christ said there
would be signs in the heavens prior to His return. Thanks to
Steve Sitter@dcim.com )

NEW NASA MANNED SPACE EXPLORATION PLANS EXPECTED

Bill Rose writes that when President-elect George W. Bush takes
office, NASA will present him with a set of new proposals for
manned space exploration to follow completion of the ISS
(International Space Station). A manned Mars mission seems
increasingly unlikely as the technical challenges remain
daunting. A permanently manned Lunar outpost is the more obvious
"next big step in space," but the financial climate makes this
equally unlikely. NASA is expected to take a fairly conservative
line. Scientists at NASA have been quietly working on the
"Decadal Plan" to outline the assembly of two smaller manned
space stations at the gravitationally stable Earth-Moon and
Earth-Sun Lagrange points. New, larger optical and radio
telescopes will be operated at these locations and personnel
will be ferried to the outposts from the ISS in a newly designed
transfer vehicle. NASA is also expected to request the
development of landing vehicles that allow occasional manned
missions to the Moon's surface and nearby asteroids from the new
stations. NASA will come under pressure to make space more
accessible by reducing the cost of reaching Earth orbit. This
may come about if the Lockheed-Martin "Venture Star" space plane
proves successful. Thanks to Bill Rose Aviation writer &
associate editor of Strange Daze Magazine

STRANGE DEATH OF JAMES FORRESTAL AND MAJESTIC 12

Tim Cooper writes,."On July 26, 1947, Secretary of the Navy
James Forrestal learned from President Truman that his name had
been submitted to the Congress as the first Secretary of Defense
in the reconstituted War Department which came into being on
that same day when Truman signed into public law the National
Security Act of 1947 which also brought into being the new
military establishment under civilian control." As a duly
constituted civilian authority Forrestal was charged with
charting the nation's defenses and responsible for all
intelligence activities of the military and the newly formed
Central Intelligence Agency. Among other responsibilities,
Forrestal was appointed a senior member of the President's
reconstituted National Security Council. And, according to
unacknowledged documents which has surfaced from informed
sources over the last sixteen years was also a member of the
Majestic Twelve, a panel composed of high level members of the
government and the military establishment appointed and tasked
with the mission to thoroughly investigate, collect, and assess
the worrisome phenomenon of unidentified flying objects and the
question of extraterrestrial visitation and intent. Please see,
http://home.sprintmail.com/~rigoletto/reports/tim_forrestal.htm

CD OF FILER'S FILES for the last four years 1997 through 2000 is
available for $25.00. PHOTOGRAPH BOOKLET of some of the best UFO
photographs available and data on their propulsion systems by US
Navy Commander Graham Bethune. $10.00. Send check or money order
to G. Filer 222 Jackson Road, Medford, New Jersey 08055 Both for
$30.00.

NEW NASA SHUTTLE VIDEO OF UFOs IN SPACE Jeff Challender has
prepared a new tape of various UFOs that were caught on recent
Shuttle video footage. Jeff has over an hour long tape of UFOs
shot in space. Jeff spends hundreds of hours watching the
shuttle broadcasts from space and is now an expert. Using Jeff's
directions you will be able to learn the difference between
space junk, ice crystals and real UFOs. One segment has 24 UFOs
watching the shuttle from space. Send $25 to: Jeff Challender
2768 Mendel Way - Sacramento, California 95833-2011

BEFORE YOU BUY OR SELL A HOME SEE MY FREE REPORT All real estate
agents are not the same? Some real estate agents or sales
representatives are part timers and inexperienced. Others are
experts with an excellent experience and capabilities. When you
are selling or buying your home, you need to make sure you have
the best real estate agent working for you before you make any
important financial decisions on one your biggest investments!
To get a free copy of this report, just call (609) 654-0020 or
e-mail us at Majorstar@aol.com.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe to the MUFON JOURNAL that costs only $30 per
year by contacting MUFONHQ@Aol.com. Mention that I recommended
you for membership. Filer's Files is copyrighted 2000 by George
A. Filer, all rights reserved. Readers may post items from the
files on their Web Sites provided that they credit the
newsletter and its editor by name and list the date of issue
that the item appeared. Caution: Most of these are initial
reports and require further investigation. These reports and
comments are not necessarily the official MUFON viewpoint. Send
your letters to Majorstar@aol.com. Sending mail automatically
grants permission for us to publish and use your name. Please
state if you wish to keep your name, address, or story
confidential.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

                Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:37:14 +1100
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:11:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:09:40 -0800
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

 >>From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'
 >>Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:03:41 +1100

<snip>

Hi Serge and List,

I suggest that rather than base all your comments on the CNI/UFO
Folklore story go to the IUR article which has a full transcript
of my interview with Peter Khoury, plus the full initial test
results and our experimental test protocol. Serge, your
characteristisation of the story is a massive oversimplication
of a complex case, and you should base your comments on a fuller
grasp of the facts, rather than just a summary.

The testing did take into consideration the possibility of
contamination. There were elaborate steps to address this.
Read the IUR report. The DNA that came out was from the inside
of the hair, we can be certain of that. Extensive controls and
sample preparation protocols were undertaken to eliminate
contaminations.

Serge wrote:

<snip>

 >Hello Bill and List,

 >Went to the site and read the story. I'll try to precis it for
 >the ones who didn't:

Again as stated above go to the IUR article for the full detail.
The link was just a convenient summary. Hopefully in the not
too distant future I'll get a web site up which will provide a
direct link to all the detail of our original work and all the
new work. But the IUR article answers all of Serge's points in
my view.

 >In 1996, the witness reports his experience to Bill Chalker and
 >gives him the hair samples. DNA tests on the hairs show them to
 >be human but with distinct genetic sequences that would make
 >them a unique sample.

 >A few observations:

 >1. DNA collected must be free of any contamination: in this case,
 >the hairs were necessarily contaminated by the witness' penis.

Yes, it was. See the IUR report for details.

 >2. The witness 'saves' the hair in a plastic bag but does not go
 >to the doctor for an alien nipple - and oh! boy, some evidence! -
 >that prevents him from breathing normally?

Serge, this is just patronising. Just because he didn't behave
exactly the way you might have (?) you are casting doubts on the
credibility of his story. I suggest that you examine the full
story in IUR and see what you think.

 >3. Biting off a nipple is the same as chewing off chicken
 >cartilage and produces _no_ blood?

Exactly, and this is bizarre. Peter was puzzled by the lack of
reaction. If the "blonde" had been normal, this should have
produced a severe reaction. Peter is of course embarrassed about
a lot of this and it took him a long time to go public about
this. Even today it is difficult to tell this story.

 >4. This one is for adults only: true one can get long hair ends
 >caught under the foreskin, but two long hairs _twisted around_
 >the glans?

Of course it is strange. What I have done in this investigation
was to take a strange story and challenge it in as scientific
way as possible. If the DNA had turned out to be prosaic, it
would have been very embarrassing for Peter. It took real
courage for him to submit to the kind of investigation we have
put his story and his evidence through. Equally, I felt obliged
to report the facts as I got them, without censoring the data or
misrepresenting it. It is a complex case, and even stranger and
more complex in the second round of testing. Peter's story is
all conscious recollection. He has no recollection of how the
hairs got where they got, but of course, perhaps reasonably
links it with the "blonde" he encountered.

One could perhaps argue that the hairs were deliberately put
there, and maybe someone or somnething is saying, "What took us
so long to get to this point?" Maybe now because we have taken
this step and found these results we might be catching up to
someone, or equally its completely spurious. It sure doesn't
seem that way at the moment, but I'll be led by a full
appreciation of the facts, where ever they led. To date the
results are just getting stranger and more difficult to
reconcile to prosaic factors. If it turns out to have prosaic
answers fine, I'll report it as such, but it hasn't yet. Its
called research and following the trail.

Regards,

Bill Chalker









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

             Re: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation

From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:12:36 +1100
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:15:07 -0500
Subject: Re: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:51:21 EST
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation


 >>From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation
 >>Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:13:17 +1100
 ><BIG SNIP>

 >>The original DNA work was done on the shaft of the hair.
 >>Fascinating further anomalies were found in the root of the
 >>hair. Two types of DNA were found depending on where the
 >>mitochondrial DNA testing occurs, namely confirming the rare
 >>Chinese type DNA in the hair shaft and indicating a rare
 >>possible Basque/Gaelic type DNA in the root section.

 >> This was very puzzling and controversial

<snip>

 >Hi Bill,

 >I thought hair shafts are entirely protein and has no cells thus
 >has no DNA, hence DNA testing can only be done on the root or
 >bulb of the hair which has the growth cells.

 >Brad Sparks


Hi Brad & List,

There are cells in hair shafts and the FBI regularly do DNA
extractions from hair shafts (See M.R. Wilson et.al, of the FBI
Academy, Quantico, etc, in "Extraction, PCR Amplication and
Sequencing of Mitochondrial DNA from Human Hair Shafts", Volume
18, No.4 (1995), pgs 662-668. This paper was quoted as a
reference in the IUR paper and was utilised as a guide in the
development of the testing protocol. The abstract begins:

"Techniques have been developed for extracting, amplifying and
directly sequencing mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from human hair
shafts."

The FBI developed the technique to address the crime scene
problem of a mix of shed hair and hair shafts. It was not
always possible to have hair roots and bulbs etc.

This suited our protocol because we wanted to focus on the shaft
first, instead of risking the root initially. All the data in
the first IUR report focuses on the shaft work. I am preparing
the report on the root work, which, in the estimation of the
biochemists working with me, is pretty exciting. They have been
pushing me to do so, but there only so many hours in the day.
But its coming and I hope IUR will publish the report.

So in short, viable DNA can be extracted from hair shaft, but it
helps if the sample has not been degraded, and also if it is
fresh. Our sample of the shaft was taken near the root of the
hair sample, but with sufficient shaft and the root to permit
focused root work and replication of the shaft work, which has
now been done, along with the striking results specific to the
root. Fortunately for the study the hair sample was kept in a
plastic bag and in a filing cabinet. Extensive protocols were
undertaken to eliminate and address the possiblities of
contamination. All this is described in the IUR article.

Cell distribution in hair shafts is variable, but thats a fairly
complex and seperate topic.

Best regards,

Bill Chalker








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

              Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:09:38 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:19:45 -0500
Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - McCoy


 >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:29:02 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:15:50 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:02:43 +0100
 >>>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

<snip>

 >Hi Larry,

 >If I remember correctly - according to the book-the fetus was a
 >Star Child and it set off all the nuclear weapons stockpile on
 >Earth. I don't think there were never meant to be sequels.
 >Eating is self explanatory.


Yeah, I remember the same scenario form the Book, I saw 2001 in
a movie theater in Elgin, Oregon I missed the show in my home
town of La Grande, Oregon. I was a little lost too. Until I
read the book, which cleared things up a bit.

Oh, the screen at the Lenore theater had a little repair in the
middle of the screen, where one ol' Cowpoke, in an inebriated
state, decided to help out The "Duke" in I think, 'Rio Bravo'
or 'Eldorado' which ever one was last both being so simular and
it gave Hal's Eye a 3-D effect.

There was an added benefit to the Lenore, it was in the same
building as the City Hall and the Jail. Where the .45 slug went
through, as I recall a picture of the Mayor above the Police
Chief's desk. Occupied by the Chief himself. Aformentioned
Cowpoke spent the rest of Saturday night in jail, Sunday too.
There are obviously other ways of being interactive with the
Movies.

GT McCoy











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

                Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:34:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:27:43 +0000
Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'
 >Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:09:40 -0800

 >Went to the site and read the story. I'll try to precis it for
 >the ones who didn't:

 >In 1992, the witness wakes up, sees two naked women: one
 >Scandinavian blonde type, the other black haired Oriental type.
 >But some features in their faces (high cheeks, very large eyes)
 >give a definite [perceived] alien impression. The blonde grabs
 >the victim in the back of the head and forces his mouth to her
 >nipple, which he bites and swallows [sic!] - without a blink on
 >the part of the blonde. Then, blackout, awakening, and on to the
 >bathroom with a painful penis: under the foreskin he pull backs,
 >there are 2 blonde hairs wrapped tightly around. The witness
 >manages to remove the two hairs and puts them in a plastic bag.
 >Meanwhile, he's got this nipple caught in his throat that
 >bothers him for the next 3 days until it finally clears up.

WOW. Sounds plausible to me (assuming It is part of a Tarantino
Flick).

Okay, lets lay it out straight, no-one will accept laboratory
analyses performed by a non-third-party, non-biased lab. I work
in the field of Environmental Science, managing my own
consulting office, and even though I have worked on nearly 600
environmental assessments, I cannot do my own lab analyses. I
know how to operate most lab equipment, but as my clients are
people I know, I send samples of soil water and air to any one
of a dozen labs to stay clean. Often, when various Ministries
are involved in my projects, I must use labs that are Certified
under CCIL and other certification bodies. You show me a
certificate of approval for this lab's operation and I'd
consider them credible.

Here is an offer, if anyone desires lab analysis for of soils or
water, of if you need third party, non-biased DNA analysis the
results of which would be acceptable by anyone in the know, let
me know and I'll put you in touch with a Lab. I offer this
service for free.


Sean Liddle
KAPRA








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

                       Scientists Switch To Warp Drive

From: TimHaley <TimHaley@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 22:43:13 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:29:38 +0000
Subject: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive


Hello Errol, list:

A recent news article at The Guardian online discusses the
development of exotic new technology for space propulsion.

The idea of a 'warp' drive as presented on the Star Trek science
fiction series is apparently now being taken seriously by
mainstream scientists.

Quoting from the article:

"This extraordinary idea has been adopted by a growing group of
world-ranking physicists who believe that soon spaceships could
be designed to run on energy extracted from empty space -
enabling them to fly for centuries without fuel."

"It has also been revealed that the United States Air Force and
the US Navy have set up secret projects aimed at developing
'zero-point energy' engines, while the US space agency NASA has
launched its Breakthrough Propulsion Physics project to
investigate similar rocket devices."

"In addition, British Aerospace has confirmed it has launched a
research programme - codenamed Project Greenglow - to study 'the
possibility of the control of gravitational fields'."

"The basis for a zero-point engine rests on the recent startling
discovery that a vacuum, far from being a pocket of nothingness,
actually churns and seethes with unseen activity."

Additional details in the news article can be found at:

http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/spacedocumentary/story/0,2763,418977,00.html

Conference weblink

http://www.workshop.cwc.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

                       Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 22:49:58 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:34:30 +0000
Subject: Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List - Gates


 >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:07:16 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List

 >A *final* word on the new list, for those who may be interested.

Ah, I am crushed, this is the final word on on this List. I was
looking forward to endless postings about how wonderful the List
was, how wonderful it was to be on a list with all other fellow
skeptics, so when Sceptic A claims some UFO sightings was really
a hoax, all the other lap dogs will heap praise on sceptic A
about how original his/her explaination was, and how it took so
much brain power to think it up.


 >I'm pleased to announce that 'UFO Skeptics', which has attracted
 >[I'm sure for diverse reasons] 75 current subscribers and
 >rising, is now a public forum and postings can be viewed by
 >anyone with Internet access.

As I have observed earlier, there is really no need for anybody
to view the postings. All you have to understand is the sceptic
point of view which is something along the lines of 'Any alleged
UFO sightings is really witness misidentification, hoax, stars,
planets, light houses, seagulls or pelicans; further the
sceptics will argue, that anything a witness claims to have seen
is incorrect for many reasons.  You also need to understand the
viewpoint/mindset of "It can't be so therefor it isn't"

Once you understand the above, you don't have to read a single
post or pronouncement because you fully understand the skeptical
mind and you know where they are going to end up.

I suspect that we will hear in a week to 5 weeks about how the
list is up to 80, or 100, and how the cream of humanity has
subscribed to that list and so on.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

                        Request Regarding Dalnegorsk

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 21:03:02 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:39:50 +0000
Subject: Request Regarding Dalnegorsk


Hello.

This to the gentleman who asked me to send him a copy of the
Dalnegorsk article.

My computer broke down, and my scanner is junk: is it all right
if I send you the copy by snail mail?

Please indicate your address.


Thanks,

Paul Stonehill









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

                               Double Spirals

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 21:55:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:42:55 +0000
Subject: Double Spirals


Hello.

I have been researching the meaning of double spirals and
ancient astronaut hypothesis-ever since I read a fascinating
book published in the USSR; its author is Mr. Nikitin, a
scientist, and a writer. I wish the book would be translated and
available to others (its title is Kostri na beregah, 1984,
Moscow). I mention it briefly in The Soviet UFO Files.

Acnient Minoan coins carried depictions of the same double
spirals Mr. Nikitin observed in the Kola peninsula (the
"labyrinths").

In the USSR, it was Ivan Yefremov, a great writer and scientist,
who aroused interest of multitudes with his description of
Minoan Crete, and other ancient sites. His book Tais of Athens
also carried mention of ancient and lost scientific devices (in
Asia). I will talk more about him in the future.

Here is more about the double spirals:

Wilkins, Maurice Hugh Frederick , a British biophysicist and
Nobel laureate, contributed to the determination of the
structure of the nucleic acid known  as DNA. He studied the
structure of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) molecule by X-ray
diffraction techniques and discovered that the molecule appeared
to have a double spiral structure.

Now, look here (this is from Scotland, an ancient stone monument, from
about the same period I discussed in my small serialized
Russian-language book about ancient astronaut hypothesis; somewhere
around 3000 and 2500 bc):

http://www.kht.org.uk/kilmartin/sites/tempcirc-d.html

Okay?

Now, check this out:

Spatio-temporal Patterns in Liquid Crystals.

These beautiful pictures show cooperative phenomena exhibited by
a nonlinear system out of equilibrium. Because liquid crystals
"self-organize", they effectively solve many coupled, nonlinear
integro-differential equations faster than we can compute them.

This is from:

http://www.bell-labs.com/new/gallery/spiral.html

Finally, there is this scientist on note in Japan who authored:

Double Spiral Energy Surface in One-Dimensional Quantum
Mechanics of Generalized Pointlike Potentials; at this site:

http://www.mech.kochi-tech.ac.jp/cheon/publ.html

What are we dealing with? What is the meaning of the double
spirals in nature, history, biology, etc.?

Mr. Nikitin is a great Russian source. Also, an ancient
Ukrainian culture had similar motifs on its pottery. But what
about your opinion, List members? Has anyone tried to find the
meaning behind this phenomenon? What are those double spirals
that are discovered in ancient mounments, coins, and also
resemble modern arrays?


Paul Stonehill









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

                          Re: UFO Skeptics - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:13:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:45:49 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Velez


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 23:57:19 EST
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics -
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Easton
 >>Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:04:10 -0000

 >>The UFO Skeptics [UFOS] discussion list was set up with the
 >>intention of providing a forum which would bring together
 >>individuals and organisations who shared the same objective - a
 >>critical, scientific appraisal of purported 'UFO' related
 >>evidence.

 >As far as people can see the so called skeptics list
 >(should probably be debunk at all costs) will evolve into discussing
 >pelicans, light houses, venus, stars, and why all witnesses who
 >claim to see anything are mistaken, or have mis identified
 >some natural occuring something.

Hi Robert,

Pelicans of a feather will flock together. That's just a Law of
Nature. ;) It appears that "Lists" are springing up all over.
When somebody can't take the heat on one list, they just start
their own and stock it with people of a like mind. You know,
kinda like "a _cult_ of personality". <LOL>

Anybody in the 'guano' business will get rich following James'
new flock around!

Now I'm going to get the flock outta here. I don't want to
disturb these meat eating birds while they're feasting on
ufologist carcasses. They might notice how plump and juicy I
look in all my 'middle-age spread' splendor.

Regards,

John Velez
Eat Me ;)

******************************************************
           A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
            www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                   jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

             "No More French Participation in the UFO Coverup!"

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@bellatlantic.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:49:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:52:32 +0000
Subject: "No More French Participation in the UFO Coverup!"


Delivery of Petition: "No More French Participation in the UFO
Coverup!"


TO:  Ambassador of France to the United States
Washington, DC

FROM:  Larry W. Bryant
   3518 Martha Custis Drive
   Alexandria, VA  22302

DATE:  January 10, 2001


(1)  With their electronic signatures now entered upon subject
petition, citizens from all walks of life -- from homemakers and
students to frontline UFO researchers and professional
specialists -- are requesting that you take all appropriate
action toward fulfilling their plea as expressed in the text of
the petition.

(2)  Circulated during the period Sept. 12, 2000 -- Jan. 10,
2001, via the Internet website:

http://www.petitionpetition.com

the petition presented the following background information:

Here's the content of the letter to the French Embassy:

TO: Ambassador of France to the United States
ATTN: Director of Cultural Affairs
Embassy of France
4101 Reservoir Road, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007

FROM: Larry W. Bryant
3518 Martha Custis Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302

DATE: March 27, 2000


Recently, a blue-ribbon panel of former French defense officials
completed an in-depth study of the scientific, military, and
societal implications of UFO reality. Part of their report
expressed dismay over the U.S. government's attitude toward the
body of forensic/intelligence evidence concluding that some of
the reported UFO encounters may well have originated from outer
space.

Though certain U.S. officials tend to deny it, much of that
evidence appears in UFO-related records amassed by various U.S.
intelligence/law-enforcement agencies during the past 50-some
years -- records recently accessed via the U.S. Freedom of
Information Act. (For a rich sampling of those grudgingly
released records, please review the Internet website:

http://www.blackvault.com

Accordingly, UFO researchers worldwide have come to ask the
question: "What would the U.S. government know about UFOs if it
read its own documents?"

Assuming that the government of France has access to the same
sort of documentation as the United States' -- and knowing that
critical cases of UFO activity continue to occur within your
country -- I urge your government to undertake a bold, new step
toward ending the official news blackout on what the major world
governments know (and when they knew it) about UFO reality.

If, in the spirit of the French analysts cited above, your
country's political and military leaders can bring themselves to
part company with the "Naked Emperor" policies and practices so
staunchly adhered to by U.S. officials, then the free-flow of
vital UFO data can become the rule, rather than the exception,
in our mutually democratic processes. In spearheading this
paradigm shift toward total, immediate, and unequivocal
disclosure, your government not only will have earned a place in
world history but also will have helped restore citizens'
confidence in the globalized officialdom's response to the UFO
problem.

So that this pivotal public-interest opportunity not pass you
by, I ask that you please contact local UFO-research consultant
Stephen Bassett (http://www.paradigmclock.com), who stands ready
to brief your staff on any aspect of this proposal to have
France take the official lead in pursuing the unofficial French
initiative to its logical conclusion.

Mr. Bassett's telephone number in Bethesda, Md., is
301-564-1820.

Thank you for giving this matter your full attention and
coordination.


LARRY W. BRYANT
Director, Washington, D.C., Office
Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (http://www.caus.org)

(3)  And here's the text of the petition:

We, the undersigned citizens, knowing that the French government
can and should take the lead in ending the worldwide government
coverup of the UFO experience, do hereby petition the French
ambassador to the United States to respond favorably to the
request sent to him on March 27, 2000, in which his cooperation
is sought toward ending the coverup.

-- Whereas, the quasi-official 1999 "COMETA Report" on UFO
reality within France concluded that some of that nation's
reported UFO encounters may well have originated from outer
space;

-- Whereas, this conclusion would apply to similar cases
documented by other government agencies worldwide;

-- Whereas, the French government now has the right tools, the
right timing, and the right methodology to set the record
straight on the issue of alien-spacecraft visitation amidst
Earth civilization;

-- Whereas, the United Nations can provide France an appropriate
forum in which to formally declare an end to the French role in
the official UFO coverup; and

-- Whereas, that declaration would be an essential first step
toward total revelation of "the Ultimate Secret" --

We tender our signatures hereon in support of that sought-for
declaration.

(4)  The following commentary accompanied the posting of this
petition:

<No More! It's TIME has Come  (#2)
It's Time to get REAL and GET ON. Time for more than just
Information. It's Time for Open Interaction with our Neighbor's.
(posted by Steve on 11/17/2000)

<Embassy-contact Breakthrough  (#1)
Coincident with launching this petition, I visited the French
embassy's website:

http://www.info-france-usa.org/

to see what e-mail addresses might be available for contact.
Under the departmental heading SCIENCE, I found reference to
something called "Forum USA 2000," whose coordinator happens to
be the embassy's science-and-technology chief -- one Romain
Laveissiere; his e-mail address is: forumusa@amb-wash.fr

<Accordingly, I've sent him an e-mail message announcing the
launching of this petition, and asking him to attend to it. The
message also refers him to the related essay ("Viva Veracity!")
now posted on the website:

http://www.ufocity.com

(as the latest entry in my column "LWB Chronicles"). Now let's
see what happens on the official side of this dialogue. (posted
by Larry W. Bryant on 09/12/2000)>

(5)  On behalf of the petition's signatories, I ask that you
keep me regularly and fully informed as to your progress in
helping achieve the goal of this petition.  Please note that I
shortly will snail-mail to you a printout of this e-mail message
so that you may further process it among the multiple levels of
your organization.

(6)  Here is the list of signatories:

Full Name:
Dr. John Michael Nahay
City: Columbus
State/Province: NJ
Country: USA
Age: 36
Occupation:  Mathematician, Visiting Asst. Prof.

Full Name: Maria E. Morgan
City: Woodbridge
State/Province: VA
Country: USA
Age: 45
Occupation: Secretary

Full Name: Steve Ballard
City: Port St. Lucie
State/Province: Fla.
Country: U.S.A.

Full Name: Mike Chihill
City: greenville
State/Province: sc
Country: usa
Age: 28
Occupation: accounts receivable

Full Name: Paula Chihill
City: greenville
State/Province:sc
Country: usa
Age: 31
Occupation: homemaker

Full Name: Randy Kitchur
City: Winnipeg
State/Province: Manitoba
Country: Canada

Full Name: PAUL E. MATELIS
City: MIAMI BEACH
State/Province: FLORIDA
Country: USA
Age: 53
Occupation: ACOUNTANT

Full Name: Peter Robbins
City: New York City
State/Province: New York
Country: USA
Age: 54
Occupation: writer

Full Name: Alan L. Baughman
City: Evansville
State/Province: IN
Country: USA
Age: 40

Full Name: Stacy Demas
City: Glenview
State/Province: Illinois
Country: usa
Age: 70
Occupation: retired

Full Name: GRETCHEN CONDON
City: Hampton
State/Province: VA
Country: USA
Age:37
Occupation: Accounts-Payable Supervisor

Full Name: Susan Darroch
City: Ajax
State/Province: Ontario
Country: Canada

Full Name: Todd J. Lemire
City: Garden City
State/Province: Michigan
Country: USA
Age: 38
Occupation: Machinist

Full Name: Charles B. McMickle
City: Marietta
State/Province: GA
Country: USA
Age: 29
Occupation: Human

Full Name: JOHN C. ANDERSON
City: FRANCONIA
State/Province: VA 22310-2517
Country: USA
Age: 81
Occupation: RETIRED

Full Name: xavier giovannelli
City: san francisco
State/Province: california
Country: usa
Age: 69
Occupation: retired educator

Full Name: Benvegnen Herve
City: Petit-Lancy
State/Province: Geneva
Country: Switzerland
Age: 39

Full Name: Patricia Alfano
City: Lake Bluff
State/Province: IL
Country: USA
Occupation: Retired Teacher

Full Name: Chris Hewitt
City: Saint Louis
State/Province: MO
Country: USA
Age: 31
Occupation: Law Student

Full Name: Parent Brigitte
City: Steenvoorde
State/Province: Nord
Country: France
Age: 38
Occupation:
Biorad

Full Name: Parent Celine
City: Steenvoorde
State/Province: nord
Country: France
Age: 19
Occupation: Etudainte

Full Name:
Jean-Fran&#-25;ois PARENT
City: STEENVOORDE
State/Province: NORD
Country: FRANCE
Age: 39
Occupation: Conseil en entreprise

Full Name: jason andrew ingraham
City: phoenix
State/Province: arizona
Country: usa
Age: 31
Occupation: carpenter

Full Name: Jerry McKee
City: La Mesa
State/Province: CA
Country: USA
Age: 47
Occupation: Writer

Full Name: RICADAT Renaud
City: Paris
State/Province: 75013
Country: FRANCE
Age: 32
Occupation: Industrial Designer

Full Name: vanderlinden jacques
City: meise-BRUXELLES
State/Province: BRABANT
Country: BELGIUM
Age: 49
Occupation: EMPLOYE

Full Name: Mr. Joseph S. Haas, Jr.
City: P.O.Box 218 Ashland
State/Province: New Hampshire 03217
Country: United States of America
Age: 47
Occupation: JosephHaas53@hotmail.com

Full Name: James W. Deardorff
City: Corvallis
State/Province: Oregon
Country: U.S.A.
Occupation: Retired professor

Full Name: Peter A. Gersten
City: Sedona
State/Province: Arizona
Country: USA
Age: 58
Occupation: Attorney

Full Name: Joan Iuzzolino
City: Tucson
State/Province: Az.
Country: USA
Age: 52
Occupation: Nurse

Full Name: guillaume even
City: Corbeil
State/Province: Essonne
Country: France
Age: 29
Occupation: informaticien

Full Name: Kelly Freeman
City: Quincy
State/Province: Florida
Country: United States
Age: 47

Full Name: Gilbert Ray Soto
City: Springfield
State/Province: Oregon
Country: U.S.A.
Age: 54
Occupation: Chef

Full Name: James L. Arrigo
City: Moscow Mills
State/Province: Mo.
Country: USA
Age: 63
Occupation: CNC Mach.Tool Programer

Full Name: John Remoy
City: Pittsburg
State/Province: California
Country: USA

Full Name: Greg Nilsson
City: Riverview
State/Province: Fl
Country: U.S.A.
Age:46
Occupation: Mechanic

Full Name: Jean-Michel Mariojouls
City: Villemoisson sur Orge
State/Province: 91- Essonne
Country: France
Age: 40
Occupation: TV Producer

Full Name: Philippe Huleux
City: Brimeux
State/Province: Pas-de-Calais
Country: FRANCE
Age: 34
Occupation: Employe dans le secteur de l'impression


Full Name: CHALMANDRIER
City: La Chapelle de Guinchay
State/Province: 71570
Country: FRANCE
Age: 31
Occupation: Sales Manager

Full Name: Bruce Jessop
City: Luebeck
State/Province: Hansastadt Luebeck
Country: Germany
Age: 52
Occupation: Photographer

Full Name Ogden Mills
City: San Francisco
State/Province: California
Country: USA
Age: 65
Occupation: SF Port consultant email: zipzip@sirius.com

Full Name: Carl Adcock
City: Brooksville
State/Province: FL
Country: U.S.A.
Age: 56
Occupation: retired

Full Name: scott boyce
City: waukesha
State/Province: wi
Country: usa
Age: 38
Occupation: trading systems analyst

Full Name: Roy Robinson
City: Batavia
State/Province: Ohio
Country: USA
Age: 62
Occupation: retired

Full Name:  Philip Kent Harris
City: Redondo Beach
State/Province: California
Country: USA
Age: 49
Occupation: Hairsylist

Full Name: Clark G Adams
City: Port Arthur
State/Province: TX
Country: United States
Age: 58
Occupation:retired military


Full Name: RICHARD A. MISON
City: SAN DIEGO
State/Province: CA 92122
Country: USA
Age: 83
Occupation: RETIRED

Full Name: Christian Stenberg Hansen
City: Tooele
State/Province: Utah
Country: United States of America
Age: 36
Occupation: Software Engineer

Full Name: Kevin Wiatrowski
City: SLC
State/Province:
UT
Country: USA
Age: 23
Occupation: Software Engineer

Full Name: June R. Steiner
City: Los Gatos
State/Province: CA
Country: USA
Age: 67
Occupation: psychotherapist/mediator

Full Name: Bill Few 11
City: Columbia
State/Province: TN.
Country: USA
Age: 55
Occupation: Toplogical Psychotronist

Full Name: jodi wright Haun
City: Mt Juliet
State/Province: TN
Country: USA
Age: 45
Occupation: Executive Chef

Full Name: JoAnne D. Scarpellini
City: High Ridge
State/Province: MO
Country: USA
Age: 67
Occupation: Retired medical researcher

Full Name: Sal Amendola
City: Brooklyn
State/Province: New York
Country: U.S.A.
Age: 52
Occupation: Illustrator/writer/teacher

Full Name: Larry W. Bryant
City: Alexandria
State/Province: Virginia
Country: United States of America
Age: 62
Occupation: overtci@bellatlantic.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

              Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:26:33 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:56:13 +0000
Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Hatch


 >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:29:02 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:15:50 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:02:43 +0100
 >>>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>Hi Josh and all:

 >>The film certainly did not hand you the story line on a silver
 >>platter, it made you think a bit, and that's part of its charm.

 >>At the end of the edited for TV version I finally saw, there
 >>were scenes of an aging astronaut eating a meal in some vast
 >>empty room. No waiters, no explanation how he got there (
 >>presumably on/near Jupiter ) or who did the dishes etc. This
 >>version just left me scratching my head and went headlong into
 >>an even more nebulous image, that of some baby or fetus over the
 >>Earth.

 >>Sorry, I just don't get it, and I'll bet 75-cents that I'm not
 >>alone. Keay Davidson mentioned that final scene in his article.

 >>Question: Did Kubrick or Clarke ever go on record explaining
 >>those two scenes to anyone's satisfaction?

 >>If so, what exactly were the explanations? Earth being seeded by
 >>fetuses? Whuffo? To provide a future staff for that lonely
 >>restaurant up yonder?

 >Hi Larry,

 >If I remember correctly - according to the book-the fetus was a
 >Star Child and it set off all the nuclear weapons stockpile on
 >Earth. I don't think there were never meant to be sequels.
 >Eating is self explanatory.

 >Don Ledger

Hello Donald!

Awww, you cheated and read the book. I'm was talking about the
film alone, as a stand-alone presentation.

Its good to leave something to the imagination, but one must
give the viewer something to chew on as well. That was done
excellently in the interplay between the computer Hal, and the
astronauts.

This was decidedly _not_ done in the two scenes at the end I
mentioned. Perhaps its possible that the final scene was some
sort of mysterious cliff-hanger to get people talking about the
film, all to the benefit of the gate... not to mention any
possible sequel.

Maybe it was just two memorable scenes spliced together after
hacking 6 hours of film down to perhaps half of that.

As for the dining scene; the only self-explanatory things I saw
were that the food came on a plate, the plate sat on a table,
and the astronaut didn't stuff the grub in his ear. (My
personal opinion of course.)


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 10

                          Re: UFO Skeptics - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:20:32 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:59:09 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Rimmer


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 23:57:19 EST
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics -
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >As far as people can see the so called skeptics list
 >(should probably be debunk at all costs) will evolve into discussing
 >pelicans, light houses, venus, stars, and why all witnesses who
 >claim to see anything are mistaken, or have mis identified
 >some natural occuring something.

 >I always thought the current crop of debunkers have become
 >utterly meaningless and absurd while they operate under the
 >theory of "It can't be so therefor it isn't."

 >In essence, as Jim has outlined it, the skeptic list will be
 >somewhere where some fool can claim that UFO witness a saw a
 >seagull in flight, and all the lap dogs will instantly say "Oh,
 >that was a wonderful post, why hasn't anyone ever said that
 >before."

 >A person should also understand that if you ask a debunker "Are
 >you a debunker." He or she would likely say, "Absolutly not, why
 >I don't understand where you would get that idea from because
 >all I am is a skeptic."

 >The skeptics have lacked meaning and substance for years.

 >I am glad Jim is astonished having 60 subscribers. One would
 >guess that he will direct his posts to that list more then the
 >others.

 >Don't even have to subscribe. You just have to understand the
 >words Pelicans, Lighthouse, Venus, misidentification, hoax,
 >stars and you have understood the entire list and most of the
 >postings without reading one message.  :)


If this is the best the eager-believers and not-quite-ETHers can
do it's a pretty poor show. Robert Gates's view of "debunkers"
seems to be a reversal of his own attitudes to UFOs. For "it
can't be, therefore it isn't" substitute "I believe it,
therefore it is."

We seem to be approaching the position, if we accept the
arguments of some people on this List, that _any_ reported UFO
sighting has to be taken literally as an exact and accurate
account without qualification. No investigation or questioning
of the report is allowed, otherwide you become a wicked debunker
who is calling the poor innocent witness a liar. No suggestion
for an alternative explanation can be put forward without being
accused of mendacity or closed mindedness, and the existing
canon of UFO reports is a closed book which must never be re-
opened and re-investigated. To accept the arguments of people
like Gates, one must assume that no-one *ever* misidentifies
anything under any circumstances.

The fact that in his last paragraph Gates claims to understand
sceptical arguments without bothering to read them speaks
volumes.


John Rimmer

Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                  Advanced Propulsion Technologies Workshop

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:54:30 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:07:41 +0000
Subject: Advanced Propulsion Technologies Workshop


For the Scientists on the List

ADVANCED PROPULSION TECHNOLOGIES,
ENGLAND.advanced-propulsion-technologies@supanet.com
Tel:(44) 1273-705359

WORKSHOP :First International Field Propulsion Meeting,
University of Sussex, Brighton, England. January 20st-22nd 2001
(Held at Institute of Development Studies, Falmer Campus). This
WORKSHOP is supported by The British National Space Centre, &
The Society of British Aerospace  Companies.

The first International Workshop in Field Propulsion Physics &
technology.Attendance is encouraged by all scientists and
engineers working on electrogravitic & propellentless
technologies.

The WORKSHOP will run over three days. A Plenary session, &
focus-group sub-sessions and work-groups on specific themes,
will conclude with a report-back meeting on day three:

Workshop proceedings will be published online,by University of
Sussex & available on CD-ROM. Copyright 2000.

This WORKSHOP is being called as a European response to the
establishment of the NASA "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics"
workshops, but is open to International participants, on a
Global basis.

Following recent coverage in the Public and scientific media,
with regard to emerging experimental and engineering results in
the field of "Propellentless propulsion", and theoretical and
experimental work on the "Electrogravitics" hypothesis, it was
decided that a European focus for this area was needed, external
to NASA and the United States, and also International in
character.

This Workshop is therefor the first in a possible series,
located in England, and intended as the pre-cursor of an
International conference in Spring, 2002.

Participants are encouraged to submit papers about all aspects
and implicationsof the emergence of this propulsion technology.
Speculative, far-future & near future predictive material, as
well as theoretical physics & engineering papers,are welcome.

The objective of the Workshop is to establish potential themes,
paths, and experimental routes, as well as fostering
International collaboration and co-operation.

Individual researchers, as well as Institutions, are encouraged
to participate.

A SPECIAL MILLENIUM STATEMENT FOR 2001
FROM SIR ARTHUR C. CLARKE:

"Our current ventures beyond the atmosphere will one day look
like early19th Century attempts at ballooning. In fact, that is
a good analogy, because the rocket may play exactly the same
role in space exploration as the balloon did in the conquest of
the air. It is only a matter of time, -I trust not more than a
few decades, before We have safe and economical space propulsion
systems, depending on new principles of Physics that are now
being discussed by far-sighted engineers and scientists.....
When We know how to do it efficiently, the main expenses of
Space Travel will be catering, and in-flight movies."

DAY ONE:
20th January 2001.
PLENARY SESSION:
Morning: 10.am Commencement:
Opening Speeches :
1:Dr Anders Hansson [Secretary: Commission three, International
Academy of Astronautics.] Mission Statement... Plenary
discussions: Themed Subjects: Theme One: The need for
propellentless propulsion: Limits of existing technology versus
the demands of Space Exploration. Theme two: Propellentless
Propulsion-Theory: Field propulsion theory- the promise. Theme:
three: Propellentless Propulsion: Experiments: reported but
unconfirmed or unverified experimental results to date. Theme
four: Research in Progress: Present-day projects & experimental
work: Who is doing what, who is funding what. Theme five: Energy
for Propellentless Propulsion: Estimated Power requirements &
possible power sources. Theme six: Application to Deep Space
Missions: Missions previously impossible without this
technology, & missions enhanced by this technology. Theme seven:
Identification of Necessary Enabling Research Areas: Future
thrust for theory development, Experiments to be made &
corroborated, Technologies to be developed, & estimates
of timescales to realization, & budgetry requirements.

Theme Summations:
ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

1:As a result of this WORKSHOP is there sufficient credibility
now for field propulsion concepts for potential applicability to
Space Applications?

2:Are there therefore scientific & engineering justifications
for future projects?.

3:If theoretical and engineering credibility are established,
what are the criteria for the way forwards to possible
engineering & hardware projects?

There will be a one Hour Lunch Break, & two coffee breaks during
the day.

CONCLUSION AT 5.30PM.

There will be informal social activities for Delegates in the
Evening. A Bar will be available.

----------------------------------------------------------------

DAY TWO:
21st January 2001 9.00 AM START: PAPER PRESENTATIONS:
Provisional listings. Subject to amendements:
Morning Session: (Themes 1,2,3)

Dr Hal Puthoff. (Institute of Advanced studies Texas.)
"Engineering The Zero-point field & Polarizable Vacuum for
Interstellar Flight."

Alexandre Szames (French historian of Astronautics)
"Historical & Techno-cultural consequences of the Development of
Field Propulsion"

Dr Vesselin Petkov. (Concordia University Montreal: Canada.)

"Does contemporary Physics Provide An Experimentally Supported T
heoretical Basis For Controlling Inertia & Gravitation - The
Ultimate Goal of Advanced Propulsion?"
(Related paper at: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0012025 )

Stavros Dmitrou. (Associate Professor, TEI Athens.Dept. Of
Electronics Engineering.

Efforts in Developing Upwards & Directional Propellentless
Thrust. (Experimental Demonstration.)

Dr Alan Holt (NASA, United States.Dr Holt is attending in a
private capacity.) "Field-dependent Propulsion: Research &
Technology Challanges."


David Froning Jr. (Flight Unlimited, Flagstaff, Arizona,
U.S.A.) & R.L. Roach (Ramat Hasron, Israel.)

"Preliminary Simulations of Vehicle interactions with the
zero-point vacuum by fluid dynamics approximation "

Jerry E. Bayles: (U.S.A.) [by proxy]
"Quantum Vehicle Propulsion": (Speaker : R. Obousy)
(Related paper at: http://members.xoom.com/robousy/ftl )

Dr Illobrand Von Ludwiger (Formerly DASA Germany.)
"The Physics Of Burkard Heim & Applications To Space Propulsion"

Prof. Vigier: (University of Paris:6, Laboratory of Gravitation,
Relativity & Cosmology: France.)

"Power Units & Field Propulsion Engineering for Insterstellar
Flight..."

Ross Tessien: (President, Impulse Propulsion Systems U.S.A.)
"Mass to Space Conversion, The Error in E=MC^2."

Dr Claudio Maccone (Alenia S.A. Turin Italy.)
"Tensor Symbolic Manipulators For Investigations In Breakthrough
Propulsion Physics" Related Website:
http://www.ijvr.com/ipipress/maccone1.html#top/maccone1.html#top

http://www.ijvp.com/ipipress/maccone2.html#top/maccone2.html#top

Dr Jean-Pierre Petit ( France: Director CNRS & Laboratoire D'
Astrophysics Marseille )
"The Physics of Hyperspace Transfer: A propulsion Method."
Related Website: http://www.jp-petit.com

DAY THREE:
22nd January 2001 9.am: start
Morning Session: Focus & Workgroups: The seven themed
discussions; deliverables & reportables.

Special Address:
Prof. John Allen (Prof. Aerospace Science Cranfield & Kingstone
Universities.) Overview of the required Technologies and
Engineering required for Field Propulsion"

THERE WILL BE A FORMAL DINNER IN THE EVENING FOR DELEGATES:
(N.B. the cost is included in the delegate workshop fee. This
will commence at 7.30pm.)

BRITISH DELEGATES: (E.U.)
1:*Dr Ian King (Manchester University).
2:Mr James Batchelor.tbc.
3:Dr Peter Mercer. (Formerly Brighton University. Physicist.)tbc
4:Dr A. May. (British Goverment scientist.) tbc
5:*Mr. R.K. Obousy (British Goverment Scientist.)
6:Dr G.P. Owen (British Goverment Scientist.)tbc.
7:*Mr Robert Lamb. (British Goverment Scientist.)
8:*Mr Mike Geer.(BNSC head of technology)
9:*Professor John Allen. (Professor of Aerospace Sciences, Cranfield
& Kingston Universities, England.
10:Mr David Way.(Director, Aerospace & Defence Industries, DTI,
U.K. Goverment. .) tbc.
11:The British Air League. (Delegated Representative.) tba
12:Mr Richard Williams. (Surrey University & Surrey Satellite Systems
Company) tbc
13:*Ms. Caroline Thompson (Physicist, formerly Aberystwyth University)
14:Reserved Delegate.
15:Prof. Sir Harold Kroto. N.L. (Sussex University.)tbc.
16:*Dr Anders Hansson (Secretary I.A.A. .)
17:Mr Adrian Mears. (Farnborough, DERA.) tbc
18:Delegate. (DTI air/space.Policy.) tbc
19:Delegate Representative: S.B.A.C. t.b.a.
20:Delegate.History Dept. Sussex University. tba
21:Mr Richard Tremayne Smith. (BNSC Trans. systems).tbc
22:William Marshall (Physicist, Wadham College Oxford) tbc
23:Bruce Harvey: (Physicist Birmingham). tbc.
24:Reserved Delegate.
25:Reserved Delegate.
26:Delegate.T.B.A. (Sussex University Engineering Dept.)
27:Reserved Delegate.
28:Dr Sergei Sazhin. (Brighton University, Physicist.) tbc
29:Prof. Hinds. (Sussex University, physics.) tbc
30:*Mr Graham Ennis. (Advanced Propulsion Technologies.)
31:*Dr D. Lawrence. (Physicist. Brighton University.)
32:Mr Russel Anderson.tbc.
33:*Mr John Pasley. (Independent Researcher.)
34:Mr Peter Mobberly (Advanced Energy Technologies.)tbc
35:*Mr David Ashford. (Bristol Space Planes.)
36:*Mr Michael Stoakes ( artist)
37:*Ms. Michelle Barber (Videographer/artist).
38:*Mr Matthew Healy (Cranfield University)
39:*Mr Tony Cuthbert (Engineering Researcher).

----------------------------------------------------------------

MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES:
40:*Mr G. Bird. (York Technical Publishers.).
41:*Mr Chris Bullock. (Space correspondent Janes Defence Weekly.)
42:*Mr Ian Sample (New Scientist Magazine.)
43:Mr Jonothen Leake (Science Editor Sunday Times.)tbc
44:*Mr Malcom English (Editor, "Air International".)
45:*Mr Nick Cook (Aviation Editor Janes Defence Weekly.)
46:* Ms. G. Bruni (Specialist writer & broadcaster.)
47:*Dr Nigel Calder. (Science writer & broadcaster.)
48: *Mr Robin McKie (Science Editor The Observer.)
External (Foreign) Delegates:

----------------------------------------------------------------

RUSSIA & C.I.S. STATES.
1:Dr Alexandre Shpilman (Rep. Kazakstan.)tbc
2:Reserved Delegate: Russian Space Agency: tbc.
3:Dr Alex Frolov. (St Petersburg. Russia.) tbc.

----------------------------------------------------------------

REPUBLIC OF GREECE. (E.U.)
4:*Mr Dimitriou Stavros. (Greece.Asst. Prof. Athens. Tech. Inst.)
5:Reserved delegate. tba.

----------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
6:Dr Chang Diaz. (NASA & Stanford.United States) tbc
7:*Dr Alan Holt. (United States. NASA Marshall.in private capacity)
8:*Col. John H. Alexandre (United States. Bigelow Aerospace.)
9:*Mr Ross Tessien (United States.Impulse Propulsion Systems )
10:*Dr Hal Puthoff. (United States. physicist. Inst. Advanced Studies,
Texas.)
11:Dr Boyde Bushman (United States. Formerly Chief Scientist
Lockheed-Martin Fort Worth Texas USA.)tbc
12:Mr William S. Alek (United States.) INTALEK Inc. Highland, IN.)tbc.
13:*Mr David Froning (United States. Flight Unlimited.)
14:*David Rosignoli (United States. Engineer Satellite Power Systems
15:Mr Bryn Workman (United States. Unitel Corp.) tbc
16:Major Tim Lawrence (USAF & E.A.O.R.D. Europe.).tbc
17:Dr Larry Maurer (United States. Unitel Corp. )tbc
18:Mr Mike Miller. (united States. Unitel Corp.)tbc

----------------------------------------------------------------

REPUBLIC OF FRANCE.(E.U.)
19:*Dr Jean-Pierre Petit (Marseille, France: Directeur, CNRS, et
Laboratoire D' Astrophysics Marseille.)
20:*Alexandre Szame (Paris France. Historian of Astronautics.)
21:*Professor Vigier (France. University of Paris. Laboratory of
gravitation, Relativity, & Cosmology. )
22:*Mr Bernard Thouanel (France. V.S.D.)

REPUBLIC OF ITALY.(E.U.)
23:*Dr Claudio Maccone (Alenia S.A. Physicist.)
24:*Mr Nembo Baldrini ( Aerospace Engineer.)

FED. REPUBLIC OF GERMANY.
25*Dr Berkant Goeksel.(Germany. Rolls Royce. In private capacity.)
26*Mr Von Ludwiger. Dip-phys.M.S.(Germany, Formerly DASA.)

CANADA.
27:*Mr Andreas C. Tziolas (Canada. University of Regina.)
28: *Dr Vesselin Petkov. (Canada.Montreal. Un. Concordia.)

OTHER DELEGATES:
29:Reserved Delegate. Japan Space Agency.tbc.
30: Reserved Delegate: Peoples Republic of China.tbc.

WORKSHOP REGISTRATION:
  www.workshop.cwc.net

This Workshop is organized as a Public service for the
scientific community, on a non-profit basis. The support of our
Sponsors does not indicate approval of the opinions and
statements made at the workshop by participants.











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:19:13 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:24:34 +0000
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >From: Kelly <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:57:23 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down

 >>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:56:52 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>As this relates to UFO sightings, many people get miffed when
 >>their sightings are not accepted at face value; that they had
 >>seen ET craft. I know that I would be pretty agitated if I
 >>reported what I saw with my own eyes and no one believed me. On
 >>the other hand, I would appreciate a vigorous investigation that
 >>would, indeed, validate the implications of what I had seen.
 >>Unfortunately, too many witnesses are simply blown off and their
 >>unvalidated stories become part of a larger stew that does
 >>nothing but simmer on low heat. On top of that, we have WAY too
 >>many cooks in the UFO kitchen trying to stir the pot while
 >>adding their own secret ingredients.

Kelly replied:

 >What was interesting about my witnessing of the 'accident' was
 >that I did tell the police exactly what I saw - that is, I did
 >not see the person actually being hit by a car, or, say, having
 >a heart attack and falling down. I emphasized that to the
 >police, and indeed, I suggested to 'them' that perhaps a film
 >was being shot. They said they had checked that out but that no
 >permits had been granted. What neither the police nor I thought
 >of was that it was students without a permit. So, Roger, you are
 >right - you can witness something, give the correct facts, and
 >still not come up with the 'truth'. However, in this case the
 >'truth' was discovered serendipitedly!

 >When it comes to UFO, I tend to think most people are honest in
 >their accounts of what they witness. There is very little to
 >gain by coming forward except ridicule. However, as to *what*
 >they witnessed or experienced - the jury is still out on that
 >baby. As I have demonstrated, you can have have facts and
 >accurate observations and still come to the wrong conclusion.
 >Science is notorious for this.

Hi, Kelly!

I agree with most of what you are saying except about being
ridiculed. I read an article recently about the thousands and
thousands of applicants that wanted to participate in the
unfortunate abundance of "reality shows" like "Survivor" or
"Mole" or "Temptation Island", "Blind Date" and the like.
Personally, I can't think of anything more embarrassing than
being seen on national television enduring the humiliation that
these shows heap on the participants. On top of this, California
is chock full of ridiculous "fad" clinics and services that
offer everything from high colonics to puppy poop analysis.

The potential embarrassment from reporting a UFO sighting is
more of a myth, I feel, than a real issue. Maybe 40 years ago,
or so; but not in this permissive, "entertainment" based society
where almost anything goes.

While I feel that some people have, indeed, witnessed ET craft,
I think the majority that use embarrassment as an excuse for not
coming forward didn't see squat.


Take care,

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:29:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:26:16 +0000
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:04:45 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Now that we know there was no crash and the witnesses were
 >mistaken, where are the UFO analogies that were once in
 >abundance?

 >Just another case where witness testimony needs to be
 >validated.

I followed this story from the day it was first reported in the
NY Times. The witnesses weren't completely wrong. They did see a
plane, flying unexpectedly low. They thought they saw it crash.
Their determination convinced authorities that an investigation
might be necessary. Quickly it was discovered that a plane had
disappeared from radar. That intensified the investigation.

In the end, as we now know, there wasn't any crash, and the
witnesses were wrong in reporting that there was. But they were
right, despite initial skepticism, when they said they'd seen a
plane flying very low. The implication for ufology is very clear
-- when witnesses say they've seen something, they're not always
wrong. They might be wrong in some particulars, maybe even
important particulars, but in this case they were right about
the most basic fact, that there was a plane.

What would a precise UFO analogy be? It's hard to say, but if
witnesses said they saw a craft of unknown origin flying low
over the river, if we take the plane case seriously we ought to
believe them. They might add that the craft landed, or went
under water. That we might not believe, without solid evidence
-- but, again, if we take the plane case at face value, then
we'd have to believe that the witnesses might have really seen
this craft.

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                          Re: UFO Skeptics - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:40:12 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:28:51 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Ledger


 >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:52:34 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 23:57:19 EST
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Gates

 >>>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Easton
 >>>Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:04:10 -0000

 >Previously, Robert wrote:

 >>as far as people can see the so called skeptics list (should
 >>probably be debunk at all costs) will evolve into discussing
 >>pelicans, light houses, venus, stars, and why all witnesses who
 >>claim to see anything are mistaken, or have mis identified
 >>some natural occuring something.

 >>I always thought the current crop of debunkers have become
 >>utterly meaningless and absurd while they operate under the
 >>theory of "It can't be so therefor it isn't."

 >>In essence, as Jim has outlined it, the skeptic list will be
 >>somewhere where some fool can claim that UFO witness a saw a
 >>seagull in flight, and all the lap dogs will instantly say "Oh,
 >>that was a wonderful post, why hasn't anyone ever said that
 >>before."

 >>person should also understand that if you ask a debunker "Are
 >>you a debunker." He or she would likely say, "Absolutly not, why
 >>I don't understand where you would get that idea from because
 >>all I am is a skeptic."

 >>Don't even have to subscribe. You just have to understand the
 >>words Pelicans, Lighthouse, Venus, misidentification, hoax,
 >>stars and you have understood the entire list and most of the
 >>postings without reading one message.  :)

 >While I don't agree with Easton's views, I do feel that having a
 >List that casts a critical eye on UFO claims can be as much a
 >benefit as a List that seems to believe all UFO claims without
 >regard to common sense. While not everything seen in night sky
 >is an airplane, neither is it automatically an ET craft.

 >Mind you, I don't buy into Easton's Pelican theory in the
 >slightest and I have no desire to participate in his list.
 >However, I am once again amazed at your ability to read people's
 >minds and predict the future. You seem to know everything about
 >what will happen as it relates to the discussion of UFOs on this
 >list as well as others. Too bad your "gift" can't tell you beans
 >about the past. If so, then it would help clear up all the UFO
 >cases that are at the heart of all these discussions.


Hi Roger and Robert,

I have found that there is more than enough critical assessment
of varous UFO incidents by the researcher themselves. They are
certainly more critical of their own field than the so-called
skeptics are of theirs. Now we come to Easton's harbrained
theories which he proposes as the solutions to certain
sightings, proclaims them far and wide even when he has been
proven wrong and yet will not admit when he is wrong nor even
entertain debate. And when he does debate he buries the subject
in useless rhetoric while skirting the real questions
entirely-never actually giving an answer but wasting everyones
bandwidth. Now Easton has his own little world in which to live
with his loyal followers where he can be as wrong as he wants to
be without adverse debate.

Critical debate is healthy. There has been much of that on this
list-some almost to the point of liable but Easton has his
own-or perhaps someone else's agenda. He does not come from the
middle of the critical road, his field is debunkery for the sake
of debunkery. He is not interested in facts-they confuse and
weaken the structure of his arguments to the point where he
refuses to engage in further debate. He spouts just enough
nonesense to the largely uninitiated and an ignorant press to to
feed their need for answers to all things unanaswerable. The
lazy reporters pick up on it and run with it without adhering to
the one tenant the press is supposed to hold dear-checking your
source and getting the other side of the story. Easton relies on
that.

This piece is getting Eastonian in length though I hope not
pelicanistic.

My apologies.

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

              Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:01:17 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:31:50 +0000
Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Young


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now
 >Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:09:38 -0800

<snip>

 >Oh, the screen at the Lenore theater had a little repair in the
 >middle of the screen, where one ol' Cowpoke, in an inebriated
 >state, decided to help out The "Duke" in I think, 'Rio Bravo'
 >or 'Eldorado' which ever one was last both being so simular and
 >it gave Hal's Eye a 3-D effect.

 >There was an added benefit to the Lenore, it was in the same
 >building as the City Hall and the Jail. Where the .45 slug went
 >through, as I recall a picture of the Mayor above the Police
 >Chief's desk. Occupied by the Chief himself. Aformentioned
 >Cowpoke spent the rest of Saturday night in jail, Sunday too.
 >There are obviously other ways of being interactive with the
 >Movies.

Dear G.T., Don:

I know that we're getting off post here (as in leaving the
military reservation), but this reminds me of another
interactive moment in the movies that I witnessed.

Oh, I'd say this was back in '54 or '55, in a neighborhood
theater on Broad Street, in North Phila, when I was a kid. It
was Easter weekend and the special Saturday Holiday Matinee
offered each ticket holder a - my God, it shocks me now, but if
you can imagine it - a chocolate covered coconut easter egg.
Well, you can imagine the foolhardiness of it. In the dark
sometime during the show a horrible, very noticeable, and very
predictable black splotch appeared right in the middle of the
screen.

After a while the film stopped, lights up and the manager, a
distinguished white-heared gentleman, came out onto the stage
(yes, it was still a real stage then). Everybody was quiet and
he held up a $20 bill (a lot to us kids, then, movie tickets
were, I think, still 25 or 30 cents) as a reward and promised
that if he found out who did it, the police would be notified. A
nervous silence.

Well, then he left the stage, the lights went down, and
_all_hell_broke_loose_. I'll never forget it.


Clear skies, and hard candy,

Bob Young









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                Re: Worldwide UFO Disclosure Imminent? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:11:47 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:34:37 +0000
Subject: Re: Worldwide UFO Disclosure Imminent? - Hale


Terry Rhodes wrote:

 >From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
 >Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 04:10:25 EST
 >Subject: Re: Worldwide UFO Disclosure Imminent?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I got the CD shortly after you sent it. Not much to go on, I'm
 >waiting for Roy's investigation to conclude.

 >Tel


Hi,

Sorry I am slightly baffled by this answer, what exactly do you
mean by  " Not Much To Go On" ?

I understand the CD which has been sent to researchers contained
clear footage and dates, along with a READ ME file containing
Chris Martins personal contact details, have you made contact
with Chris, in respect of your investigations?

Is the opinion of Terry Rhodes the general consensus of those
other researchers who have asked for and received a copy of the
CD from Dave Bowden?

Also, I am carrying out my investigation into the 13TH June 99
film footage, which is also on the CD, and I have made great
progress and have also been able to send the AVI Capture to
people for viewing. Please state what you would need for you to
begin your research in to the Chris Martin film footage? What is
it you require to go on?

Regarding your professional research opinion, what is that you
feel is on the AVI captures, along with the TGA.file captures? I
would be highly interested in your conclusions?


Kind Regards,

Roy Hale


http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/UFOLinks.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                        Re: UFO Skeptics - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:18:40 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:36:37 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Salvaille


 >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:52:34 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com
 >>Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 23:57:19 EST
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Gates

 >>>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Easton
 >>>Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:04:10 -0000

<snip>

 >Previously, Robert wrote:

 >>as far as people can see the so called skeptics list (should
 >>probably be debunk at all costs) will evolve into discussing
 >>pelicans, light houses, venus, stars, and why all witnesses who
 >>claim to see anything are mistaken, or have mis identified
 >>some natural occuring something.

 >>I always thought the current crop of debunkers have become
 >>utterly meaningless and absurd while they operate under the
 >>theory of "It can't be so therefor it isn't."

<snip>

 >While I don't agree with Easton's views, I do feel that having a
 >List that casts a critical eye on UFO claims can be as much a
 >benefit as a List that seems to believe all UFO claims without
 >regard to common sense. While not everything seen in night sky
 >is an airplane, neither is it automatically an ET craft.

 >Mind you, I don't buy into Easton's Pelican theory in the
 >slightest and I have no desire to participate in his list.
 >However, I am once again amazed at your ability to read people's
 >minds and predict the future. You seem to know everything about
 >what will happen as it relates to the discussion of UFOs on this
 >list as well as others. Too bad your "gift" can't tell you beans
 >about the past. If so, then it would help clear up all the UFO
 >cases that are at the heart of all these discussions.

<snip>

Hello Roger, Robert and List,

We already have a List that casts a critical eye on UFO claims.

This one.

Thanks to EBK, it is open to all and displays the whole spectrum
of opinions that _seldom go unchallenged_.

Now, if somebody wants a List where he can go away with
poppycock claims such as skeptics are used to, fine. Be my
guest. I don't think this will drive anybody towards Debunkers
Anonymous.

As for Robert's mind reading, I rather see it as wits acquired
from experience. The skeptics own the crystal ball shop.

Regards,

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:23:25 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:02:55 +0000
Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps


 >From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'
 >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:37:14 +1100

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:09:40 -0800
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

 >>>From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'
 >>>Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:03:41 +1100

<snip>

 >I suggest that rather than base all your comments on the CNI/UFO
 >Folklore story go to the IUR article which has a full transcript
 >of my interview with Peter Khoury, plus the full initial test
 >results and our experimental test protocol. Serge, your
 >characteristisation of the story is a massive oversimplication
 >of a complex case, and you should base your comments on a fuller
 >grasp of the facts, rather than just a summary.

 >The testing did take into consideration the possibility of
 >contamination. There were elaborate steps to address this.
 >Read the IUR report. The DNA that came out was from the inside
 >of the hair, we can be certain of that. Extensive controls and
 >sample preparation protocols were undertaken to eliminate
 >contaminations.

<snip>

Hello Bill and List,

I don't want this to become a debate of any sort, but may I point
out that _you_ provided the link I followed to _your_ summary of
the case that I presume _you_ must have found more pertinent then
the original work for which _you_ gave _no_ link?

Am I entitled to questions about a story like this one? I did
not characterise the story. You made the comments.

Do you have a link to the full IUR article?


Regards,

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                    Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Petrakis

From: Perry Petrakis <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:40:21 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:11:00 +0000
Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Petrakis


Hi List members,

Unfortunately, or fortunately, I do not have time to argue with
great detail, the posts of Richard Nolane, Gildas Bourdais or
Franois Parmentier. In private, they probably are very nice
people but when it comes to UFO talk, they take up their armour
to declare some kind of battle they think may interest the whole
world. I'm not quite sure what the bickering between the
believers they say to be and the skeptic they say I am, does...

I must clarify however two or three points. My crime of lese
majeste seems to be that I have always kept a very skeptic
stance at Roswell. I do not believe, at this point, that there
is anyone who has produced any hard evidence of a crash or even
a coverup in that part of the world, put aside the Mogul one.
It's my opinion and I share it, as once said by a French
comedian.

Yes I am even skeptical that the many thousands of annual
sightings reported all over the world represent true
extraterrestrial objects. If that were the case, then we would
very probably have some harder evidence than mere witnesses and
sloppy photographs. After all, very often, when a plane crashes
somewhere, and that's a rare occurence, there is someone (if not
many) with a camcorder to record the accident.

Does that make me one of those horrible skeptics who must be
shot dead while walking their dog or whatever?

Let's say I've been investigating for the past 30 years, with a
totally open mind (at least at the beginning) contrarily to G.
Bourdais, R. Nolane or F. Parmentier who were totally unknown a
few years ago. They jumped on the Roswell Bandwagon just as did
so many people in the Eighties.

For the record, I still consider myself totally open to any type
of exotic argument given it is reasonably proven. I still
believe there are a few cases which involve truly inexplicable
phenomena, maybe of extraterrestrial origin. Nothing to do
however with the thousands promoted by the ufology industry.

SOS OVNI nor myself have a hidden agenda. We are not paid by
any government agency to debunk or disprove anything.

As for the COMETA, I will just say this: it might have been
written by high ranking past officials and it is countersigned
by some important people but it means nothing and only reflects
their personnal views which I do not share. It was written
within a non-profit organisation. It is a rehash of what was
said in 1995 under the auspices of this French Intelligence
Agency. Whoever wrote this at that time, got it countersigned by
the major military intelligence agency in France and published
by the Ministry of Defense. It therefore reflects their views.
Let's note that all these nice people seem to have been well
aware of the document but never whispered a word about it, maybe
to promote a committee much more close to their own views. Who
has a hidden agenda? My bet is that if COMETA had managed to
get their report published in an official context, it would have
been less tantalizing

Until so-called ufologists learn to abide by standards and
methods used everywhere else to gain knowledge, ufology will
stay the hell it's always been and the few really interesting
cases I mentionned above will never surface above the hype. But
I've no hope left for that, it's seems really too late.


Perry Petrakis

SOS OVNI
www.sosovni.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                Re: "No More French Participation in the UFO

From: Joe McGonagle <joe@mcgonaglenet.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: 11 Jan 2001 04:26:16 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:14:31 +0000
Subject: Re: "No More French Participation in the UFO


 >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:49:37 -0500
 >From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@bellatlantic.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: "No More French Participation in the UFO Coverup!"

 >Delivery of Petition: "No More French Participation in the UFO
 >Coverup!"


If this petition achieves anything, we had all better start to
learn French, as they have an extreme nationalist policy
regarding publishing material in "the mother tongue", even down
to insisting that a certain percentage of music broadcasts by
French radio stations must be in the French language! (Perhaps
it would be more productive trying to put pressure on
English-speaking countries?).


Good luck,

Joe









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

              Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:32:30 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:17:45 +0000
Subject: Re:  2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Ledger


 >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:26:33 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:29:02 +0000
 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:15:50 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

<snip

 >>If I remember correctly - according to the book-the fetus was a
 >>Star Child and it set off all the nuclear weapon stockpiles on
 >>Earth. I don't think there were ever meant to be sequels.
 >>Eating is self explanatory.
 >>>Don Ledger

 >Awww, you cheated and read the book. I'm was talking about the
 >film alone, as a stand-alone presentation.

 >Its good to leave something to the imagination, but one must
 >give the viewer something to chew on as well. That was done
 >excellently in the interplay between the computer Hal, and the
 >astronauts.

 >This was decidedly _not_ done in the two scenes at the end I
 >mentioned. Perhaps its possible that the final scene was some
 >sort of mysterious cliff-hanger to get people talking about the
 >film, all to the benefit of the gate... not to mention any
 >possible sequel.

 >Maybe it was just two memorable scenes spliced together after
 >hacking 6 hours of film down to perhaps half of that.

 >As for the dining scene; the only self-explanatory things I saw
 >were that the food came on a plate, the plate sat on a table,
 >and the astronaut didn't stuff the grub in his ear. (My
 >personal opinion of course.)


Hi Larry,

Yeah. But I can't remember whether I read the book and saw the
movie or the other way around. Forgot to mention that Dave
Bowmen is or turned into the Star Child. Had a big meal before
he went back and blew up his home planet, that's all. In the
movie you don't see this because some producer said, "Hey!
Better not kill everyone off in case we do a sequel. Which they
did.

Better to show a guy having a nice meal than blowing up a
planet. Besides he was probably hungry after that long movie.

Worked on me. Had to go for burgers later with the kids.

I wonder if that three hours you cut out of the movie Larry,
will end up in the re-release?


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                       Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List - Gates

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:38:55 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:19:27 +0000
Subject: Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List - Gates


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 22:49:58 EST
 >Subject: Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:07:16 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List

<snip>

 >As I have observed earlier, there is really no need for anybody
 >to view the postings.

Robert:

Certainly not. We don't want to take a chance of any cognitive
dissonance in the congregation, do we? Man, you sound terrified.


Clear skies,

Bob Young









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                          Re: UFO Skeptics - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:54:37 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:37:34 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Ledger


 >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:20:32 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics

<snip>

 >If this is the best the eager-believers and not-quite-ETHers can
 >do it's a pretty poor show. Robert Gates's view of "debunkers"
 >seems to be a reversal of his own attitudes to UFOs. For "it
 >can't be, therefore it isn't" substitute "I believe it,
 >therefore it is."

 >We seem to be approaching the position, if we accept the
 >arguments of some people on this List, that _any_ reported UFO
 >sighting has to be taken literally as an exact and accurate
 >account without qualification.

<snip>

John that's the same kind of nonesense we hear all the time from
the debunkers. You guys roll that out every time and you know
it's just crap. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've
been on this list for nearly four years now and if anything the
researchers on here are pretty much the opposite in that regard.
We don't don't buy into every report as if it's gospel but we
won't trash one just because some debunker spouts nonesense.

Sure there's a few that show up on here, all wide eyed and
breathless, with the latest off the wall sighting. But we suffer
them as we do the debunkers and we chide them as we do the
debunkers. The latter have to learn not to be so thin skinned.

Some of us are amused at what one would discuss on the debunk
list. The latest debunking methods perhaps.

The ten best ways to debunk.

Great debunkers I have known.

Will debunkers now make pilgrimages to Phil Klass's old office
desk? Will their emblem be a pelican arising from the ashes of
the latest UFO debunking?

You know, until Easton got involved in the Rendlesham Incident,
I'd pretty much given up on it. Now I'm not so sure. Easton's
been wrong before.

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                        Re: UFO Skeptics - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:13:39 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:39:07 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Salvaille


 >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:20:32 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com
 >>Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 23:57:19 EST
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics -
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >If this is the best the eager-believers and not-quite-ETHers can
 >do it's a pretty poor show. Robert Gates's view of "debunkers"
 >seems to be a reversal of his own attitudes to UFOs. For "it
 >can't be, therefore it isn't" substitute "I believe it,
 >therefore it is."

<snip>

Hello John, Robert and List,

Phew, finally, we all admit it: unilateral and unequivocal
attitude towards UFOs is unilaterally and unequivocally stupid.
I vote against blind believers and dumb ifologists.

Thanks John. You really knocked the nail on the head.

You are not doing justice to Robert, though. But this little
mistake I will attribute to a bad day did cast some light on
what stands between honest people and knowledge.


Regards,

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                        Re: UFO Skeptics - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:13:39 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:40:37 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Salvaille


 >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:20:32 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com
 >>Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 23:57:19 EST
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics -
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >If this is the best the eager-believers and not-quite-ETHers can
 >do it's a pretty poor show. Robert Gates's view of "debunkers"
 >seems to be a reversal of his own attitudes to UFOs. For "it
 >can't be, therefore it isn't" substitute "I believe it,
 >therefore it is."

<snip>

Hello John, Robert and List,

Phew, finally, we all admit it: unilateral and unequivocal
attitude towards UFOs is unilaterally and unequivocally stupid.
I vote against blind believers and dumb ifologists.

Thanks John. You really knocked the nail on the head.

You are not doing justice to Robert, though. But this little
mistake I will attribute to a bad day did cast some light on
what stands between honest people and knowledge.


Regards,

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                       Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:23:28 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:42:51 +0000
Subject: Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List - Evans


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 22:49:58 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List - Gates

 >>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:07:16 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: 'UFO Skeptics' List

Previously, Easton wrote:

 >>I'm pleased to announce that 'UFO Skeptics', which has attracted
 >>[I'm sure for diverse reasons] 75 current subscribers and
 >>rising, is now a public forum and postings can be viewed by
 >>anyone with Internet access.

Robert replied:

 >As I have observed earlier, there is really no need for anybody
 >to view the postings. All you have to understand is the sceptic
 >point of view which is something along the lines of 'Any alleged
 >UFO sightings is really witness misidentification, hoax, stars,
 >planets, light houses, seagulls or pelicans; further the
 >sceptics will argue, that anything a witness claims to have seen
 >is incorrect for many reasons.  You also need to understand the
 >viewpoint/mindset of "It can't be so therefor it isn't"

 >Once you understand the above, you don't have to read a single
 >post or pronouncement because you fully understand the skeptical
 >mind and you know where they are going to end up.

 >I suspect that we will hear in a week to 5 weeks about how the
 >list is up to 80, or 100, and how the cream of humanity has
 >subscribed to that list and so on.

Hello, Kreskin.... Uh, I mean Robert!

As I assume you won't be subscribing, then your words are as
prophetic as usual. ;)


Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                 Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:18:49 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:45:20 +0000
Subject: Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - Hatch


 >From: Tim Haley <TimHaley@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 22:43:13 EST
 >Subject: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hello Errol, list:

 >A recent news article at The Guardian online discusses the
 >development of exotic new technology for space propulsion.

 >The idea of a 'warp' drive as presented on the Star Trek science
 >fiction series is apparently now being taken seriously by
 >mainstream scientists.

 >Quoting from the article:

 >"This extraordinary idea has been adopted by a growing group of
 >world-ranking physicists who believe that soon spaceships could
 >be designed to run on energy extracted from empty space -
 >enabling them to fly for centuries without fuel."

 >"It has also been revealed that the United States Air Force and
 >the US Navy have set up secret projects aimed at developing
 >'zero-point energy' engines, while the US space agency NASA has
 >launched its Breakthrough Propulsion Physics project to
 >investigate similar rocket devices."

 >"In addition, British Aerospace has confirmed it has launched a
 >research programme - codenamed Project Greenglow - to study 'the
 >possibility of the control of gravitational fields'."

 >"The basis for a zero-point engine rests on the recent startling
 >discovery that a vacuum, far from being a pocket of nothingness,
 >actually churns and seethes with unseen activity."

 >Additional details in the news article can be found at:

 >http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/spacedocumentary/story/0,2763,418977,00.htm
l

 >Conference weblink

 >http://www.workshop.cwc.net


Hello Tim:

Ah yes, the "Casimir Effect" after the theories of Hendrik
Casimir who predicted that two parallel plates, perfectly
polished and held just atoms apart, would be pushed together due
to an imbalance of virtual photons of different wavelengths. VPs
would not pop into existence between the plates if their
wavelengths were too long, while those outside could. Thus the
imbalance and a tiny net force.

This force was compared to the weight of a barely visible spec
of dust. Two permanent magnets would pull together with many
many many times that force... and you cannot get continuous
energy from them either, just a one-time slap!

I was surprised to see the name Harold Puthoff in the article
you kindly linked above. I recall reading of his PSI experiments
at SRI International with Russell Targ, badly criticized by the
Great Randi. It seems that Uri Geller had taken them in with
stage trickery.

The name of Nobelist Harry Kroto (Univ. of Sussex?) lends more
weight to the enterprise. I think Kroto was one of the early
people suggesting a new form of carbon named after Buckminster
Fuller, a nearly spherical and hollow molecule in the geometric
form of a "Bucky Ball" as some call it.

Nevertheless, its interesting work, and I hope that something
comes of it. I don't see any solution to the energy crunch
coming out of this, not yet anyway.

I just hope I get this email off before the lights go out in
California!


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                          Re: UFO Skeptics - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 06:06:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:10:52 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Kaeser


 >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:20:32 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 23:57:19 EST
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics -
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>Don't even have to subscribe. You just have to understand the
 >>words Pelicans, Lighthouse, Venus, misidentification, hoax,
 >>stars and you have understood the entire list and most of the
 >>postings without reading one message. :)

<snip>

 >The fact that in his last paragraph Gates claims to understand
 >sceptical arguments without bothering to read them speaks
 >volumes.


John-

There are problems with extremists on both sides of this debate.

The "arguments" or "theories" referenced by Robert have been
fully discussed and there are many who don't accept them (in
every case where that theory has been suggested). To understand
that Venus has caused UFO reports is logical, but to suggest
that Venus is the cause of a sighting without first checking to
seen where it was in the sky at the time is not. While I was a
member of the UFO Research List, I have opted to not join the
new list that James has put together. I may be wrong, but the
apparent goal in this change to effect some sort of control over
the debate, or at least to direct it's thrust. James feels that
this is a "scientific" approach to the Ufology. Others disagree.

Don't get me wrong. I think the list is a fine idea, and I hope
they have fun and perhaps develop good theories and arguments to
put forth. But I think it will always come down to the anecdotal
component in this and the degree to which we accept it as fact.
Some find it easier than others to dismiss anecdotal statements
as inaccurate.

It will be interesting to see if this group reacts to Richard
Hall's new publication "UFO Evidence II", which is being
released this month by Scarecrow Press. As an update to the
historic 1964 NICAP publication I expect it will provide a great
number of references that could become the subject of a
"scientific" discussion. I would note that Scarecrow Press
primarily publishes library and reference material, and Hall's
book is nearly 800 pages in length.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                Re: "No More French Participation in the UFO

From: Sean and Karen <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:36:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:12:16 +0000
Subject: Re: "No More French Participation in the UFO


 >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:49:37 -0500
 >From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@bellatlantic.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: "No More French Participation in the UFO Coverup!"

 >Delivery of Petition: "No More French Participation in the UFO
 >Coverup!"

Call me a silly bugger, but Why France? Why not Canada? The
French Government is so grumpy given worldwide anger at their
Nuke testing that getting them to side with amyone EXCEPT the US
government is difficult at best.


Sean Liddle

KAPRA







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                          Secrecy News -- 01/11/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:14:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:14:13 +0000
Subject: Secrecy News -- 01/11/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
January 11, 2001

**      DOE INITIATES EMAIL MONITORING AT NUCLEAR LABS
**      CIA "AWARDS" PFIAB MEMBERS
**      REPORTS GALORE


DOE INITIATES EMAIL MONITORING AT NUCLEAR LABS

The Department of Energy announced this week that it will begin
monitoring email communications into and out of U.S. national
laboratories, including Los Alamos, Sandia, Livermore and
Pacific Northwest National Labs.

"The purpose of the pilot program is to test whether e-mail
monitoring is an effective device to address threats to DOE
assets by foreign governments, groups, or persons that attempt
to gather classified and other protected information through
e-mail communications with DOE and contractor personnel,"
according to a DOE Notice issued on January 8.

"Actual review of e-mail content by a CI [counterintelligence]
e-mail analyst will be permitted only where there is evidence of
possible CI concern," according to DOE.  However, any email
which is directed to, or originates from, a foreign source is
considered to be "of possible CI concern."

The new DOE Notice is posted here:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/01/doe010801.html


CIA "AWARDS" PFIAB MEMBERS

In an act that tends to compromise the already tenuous quality
of intelligence oversight, the Director of Central Intelligence
has presented awards to two members of the President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) -- which has oversight
responsibility over the intelligence community.

DCI George J. Tenet "presented the National Intelligence
Distinguished Service Medal--the highest award bestowed by the
U.S. Intelligence Community--to both Sen. Warren B. Rudman and
renowned physicist Sidney D. Drell in recognition of their
decades of distinguished service to the nation," according to a
CIA press release.

Rudman and Drell are indeed distinguished public servants.
Among the contributions not noted by DCI Tenet, Senator Rudman
has argued for annual disclosure of each year's total
intelligence budget and the next year's total budget request.
(In contrast, demented CIA officials claim that even 50 year old
budget totals could damage U.S. national security today.)  Dr.
Drell was among the earliest and most prominent figures in the
scientific community to repudiate the hyperbolic claims
concerning the consequences of Wen Ho Lee's actions in
downloading nuclear weapons secrets.

Neither Rudman nor Drell is likely to sell his soul for a measly
award.  And yet the bestowal -- and acceptance -- of such awards
is a transaction that often entails subtle coercive effects,
generating subconscious feelings of identification and
obligation towards the bestower.  It should not have happened as
long as either individual continues to serve in an oversight
capacity.

The new award, which signifies the intimate relationship between
the parties, means that it is more unlikely than ever that PFIAB
will fully meet its oversight responsibilities under Executive
Order 12863.

So, for example, one should not look to PFIAB to deal with CIA's
unconstitutional budget practices; with its routine violation of
the executive order on classification policy; or with its
violations of laws such as the Freedom of Information Act.  That
kind of oversight will have to come from somewhere else.

The CIA announcement of the award is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2001/01/cia-award-010901.html

The 1993 Executive Order 12863 defining PFIAB's responsibilities
is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12863.htm


REPORTS GALORE

A torrent of official reports on intelligence and national
security policy has come out this week.  More are on the way.
They include the following:

The January 9 Report of the Independent Commission on the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA):

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/nima/commission/toc.htm

The January 9 Report of the DoD Commission on the October 2000
attack on the U.S.S. Cole:

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/cole.html

A January 10 Defense Department report on proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction entitled:  "Proliferation: Threat
and Response - 2001" (this is a very large -- 5MB --PDF file):

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/prolif00.pdf


******************************
To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message:
        subscribe secrecy_news [your email address]

To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message:
        unsubscribe secrecy_news [your email address]

Secrecy News is archived at:
        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                 Re: Advanced Propulsion Workshop - Kelleher

From: Colm Kelleher <nids@anv.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:22:28 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:17:15 +0000
Subject: Re: Advanced Propulsion Workshop - Kelleher


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Advanced Propulsion Technologies Workshop
 >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:54:30 -0000

 >For the Scientists on the List

 >ADVANCED PROPULSION TECHNOLOGIES,
 >ENGLAND.advanced-propulsion-technologies@supanet.com
 >Tel:(44) 1273-705359

Ms. Bruni,

The preprint of Dr. Hal Puthoff's paper at this workshop is now
published on the NIDS web site at:

http://www.nidsci.org


Colm Kelleher

NIDS









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 2

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:33:32 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:25:29 +0000
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 2


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>

==========================

      UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 6, Number 2
January 11, 2001
Editor: Joseph Trainor

FAMILY ENCOUNTERS A UFO IN CENTRAL ARGENTINA

On Tuesday, January 2, 2001, at 3:30 a.m., Julio Salguero and
his family were driving home to Corralito (population 2,200),
small town south of Cordoba in central Argentina. They had spent
the New Year's holiday with relatives in Villa Maria and were
now on their way home.

Hoping to cut down the travel time, Salguero turned to getting
home and sleeping in their own beds.

With Salguero in the car were his wife, his 14-year-old
daughter, his 12-year-old son Julio Jr., his two younger
children, ages 2 and 1, and his 14-year-old niece.

Hoping to cut down on the travel time, Salguero left the highway
west of Villa Maria and took a little-used dirt road across the
pampas. An electric power line ran alongside this road.

"When he passed through Rio Tercero, he chose to traverse the 18
kilometers (11 miles) of land devastated by recent floods."

"At the time in question, some 5 kilometers (3 miles) from
Corralito, began the experience which he related on the radio
talk shows" the following day.

"'We were calmly driving along when suddenly my wife screamed,
'Be careful!' and we saw a light heading straight for us,'"
Salguero told the Argentinian newspaper La Voz del Interior. "'I
hit the brakes. What I could see was a round, very powerful
light, like a welding light, over a meter (4 feet) in diameter.
It seemed to be heading straight for the car, but it suddenly
stopped and backed off. It remained at the height of the power
cables (18 meters or 60 feet) that are now on the side of the
road, moving up and down,' he explained."

"Salguero stated that he had not planned to make all of this
public, but it became known when a friend from the FM radio
station El Sol in Tio Tercero, with whom he had discussed the
event."

"'The light lit up everything for a few minutes, without an
exaggeration, as if it were broad daylight, due to its
intensity. It also rose some 30 meter (100 feet) into the air
and suddenly vanished. Neither I nor my family can state which
way it went because we'd be lying. What we saw is that it
vanished suddenly, like a light being switched off,' he
declared, fully aware that his story may be less-than-believable
to some."

"'There is a boy named Alejandro Yori, who says he saw a
powerful light moving around the pampas all the way from
Corralito,' remarked Salguero," adding that his wife and
children would corroborate his story.

"Salguero owns a cable-TV system in Corralito and also does
electronics work. He is considered a credible individual by his
neighbors, and no one in the community believes that he or his
family would concoct such a story."

"After calculating that the episode lasted 'two to three
minutes,' Salguero said he kept his foot on the brake with the
(car's) engine running, and that he signalled with his
headlights 'out of despair and for lack of anything better to
do, since we were really scared. We couldn't sleep last night,'
he remarked."

At 3:30 a.m., while the Salgueros were having their UFO
encounter out on the pampas, there were simultaneous and
unexplained power failures in Corralito and in nearby Rio
Tercero. Both communities are located about 110 kilometers (66
miles) south of Cordoba and about 320 kilometers (200 miles)
west of Buenos Aires, the national capital.

"'As far as we know, no reason for the power outages has been
found,' he said."

"Salguero described himself as 'a believer in God' and remarked
that he neither reads nor is interested in UFO- related subjects
and that he would rather not have had the experience. "I don't
drink. Besides, there's not just my word, there's my wife and
children and niece.'"

"Twelve-year-old Julio Jr. told the newspaper, that he saw 'a
light hovering over the high voltage line on the roadside that
evening.' He added that 'it was white and didn't seem to be so
large, but it cast a lot of light. It then became larger and
changed colors , becoming more blue, sky blue, and then violet
until it disappeared all of a sudden.'"

"He added that he saw the light 30 meters (100 feet) from the
car. I was very scared,' he admitted."

"According to the Falda de Carmen (scientific) research station,
there was a similar incident in Corralito ten years ago," back
in 1990. (See the newspaper La Voz del Interior for January 5,
2001. (Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales, autor de los libros
Chupacabras and Other Mysteries y Forbidden Mexico, y tambien
Gloria Coluchi, para eso articulo de diario.)

HOVERING UFO SIGHTED IN NEW SOUTH WALES

On Monday, January 1, 2001, at 3:20 a.m., Kylle Petsky was
driving on the Pacific Highway north of Coffs Harbour, New South
Wales, Australia when he spotted an intense bright white light
on the west side of the highway.

"I was driving on the highway between Emerald Beach and Sandy
Beach when I saw a bright white light, round in shape, as large
as a car, hovering in the west, then moving to the east across
the highway," Kylle reported, "The UFO followed my car for ten
minutes.. It was a real bright white light but it was not
blinking. The light appeared suddenly, hovered, then moved to
the other (east) side of the highway, seemed to follow my car
for ten minutes, disappeared suddenly."

Coffs Harbour, N.S.W. is located about 329 kilometers (200
miles) north of Sydney. (Email Form Report)

TWO HOVERING UFOs CAUGHT ON VIDEOTAPE IN CANADA

On Monday, January 1, 2000, "sometime between 4:30 and 5:30
p.m.," Nathan Wright and a few companions were outdoors on
Manitoulin Island, a large island in northern Lake Huron, just
south of Canada's Ontario province.

Suddenly, Nathan spotted two curious lights in the southwestern
sky. "There were two lights and they hovered over the
southwestern part of the island," he reported, "One light had a
double tail and a very bright center. Yellowish, I would say. We
were looking toward the southwest part of the island. I
distinctly saw two objects-- one looked like a comet--but they
did not move."

Nathan immediately grabbed a videocamera and began shooting. "I
also caught them on videotape for about 30 to 60 seconds. They
were bright yellowish and there was no sound." (Email Form
Report)

(Editor's Note: Manitoulin Island is a sacred site in Midewiwin,
the traditional religion of the Anishinabe, an indigenous people
of the USA and Canada. They are also known as Chippewa or
Ojibwe.)

TRIANGULAR UFO SIGHTED IN SOUTH CENTRAL INDIANA

On Friday, January 5, 2001, eyewitness G.E.D. was driving east
on Indiana Highway 45 between Bloomington (population 65,000)
and New Unionville (population 2,000) when, he reported, "I saw
a very Unusual aircraft on my way home from work. I saw a bright
yellow light with a white light, maybe not as bright, hovering
in the sky. There were two red lights on top, none on the belly.
So I rounded a bend and I saw that the craft was about 50 feet
(15 meters) above treetop (level), crossing the road from right
(south) to left (north). directly overhead."

"I pulled off to watch and noticed that other vehicles behind me
had also done the same. There was no noise. I rolled down my
window to listen. Nothing. As the craft passed over my car, I
got a quick look at it against the night sky 'light pollution'
from Bloomington. It was triangle-shaped with a white light at
each of the three wing tips (corners) and appeared to be black
in color. A mile or so down the road, the snow looked (as if it
had been) blown across the road like drifting. The rest of the
road was clear. I thought 'copter' (helicopter) at first until I
saw the thing. Not like anything I had ever seen."

Bloomington is approximately 68 miles (111 kilometers) south of
Indianapolis. (Many thanks to Steve Wilson Sr. for this report.)

COUPLE SEES A UFO IN VENTURA, CALIFORNIA

On Saturday, January 6, 2001, at 9:15 p.m., Warren L. was
driving to dinner with his girlfriend when "my girlfriend
pointed at an odd 'aircraft' in the sky," he reported, "We
immediately got out of the car to get a better look. At once I
knew it was not an aircraft, as we known an aircraft to be."

"The object was a mix between rectangle, triangle and
parallelogram. That is, we could not definitely describe or
perceive its shape. It was dark-colored (like a USA military
Stealth bomber--W.L--a constant leading-edge light, a constant
trailing-edge light, and a repeatedly flashing middle light. All
lights were white."

Warren heard a strange "almost imperceptible" sound as the craft
passed overhead. "It sounded like an electrical drone or buzzing
completely different from that of a prop (propeller) plane. The
buzzing sound was not very loud--quite like a small private
aircraft at the same distance from us."

"The craft moved in a straight line at approximately 2,000 feet
(600 meters) at the speed of a blimp. The speed of the object
just does not make sense, because it was going too slow to stay
in the air based on current jet technology. (That is, not enough
speed to maintain lift for an aircraft of that size--J.T.) The
size of the object was the length of my index finger at arm's
length. My estimate is that the object was the length of two or
three Boeing 747 jetliners in a row. As it moved away into the
distance, the leading edge just disappeared. This leads me to
believe that the leading light was pointing away from us and
could no longer be seen from our position." (Email Form Report)

NASA: SPACECRAFT NEAR TO LAND ON EROS

"NASA scientists plan the first 'controlled descent' of a
spacecraft onto an asteroid's surface" in February 2001.

""The landing provides a dramatic finish for a year-long mission
to explore Eros, one of the rocky asteroids orbiting near our
planet."

"'It's a very risky landing,' says mission head Robert Farquhar
of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL)
in Laurel, Maryland, USA. 'But the mission is ending, so we
might as well try something spectacular.'"

The Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (BEAR) "spacecraft is running
out of fuel and has accomplished nearly all of its scientific
goals."

"'Basically, we're out of money, out of time and we'll be out of
fuel,' Farquhar says."

On February 12, "controllers plan to land the spacecraft in a
series of rocket firings to slow its descent. The spacecraft has
circled Eros since Valentine's Day last year (February 14, 2000)
capturing unparalleled looks at the surface of an asteroid. The
mission has revealed surprising complexity in the asteroid's
composition, Farquhar says. For instance, scientists learned
that geologic activity of some unknown form reshapes the
asteroid's surface."

"Eros, a potato-shaped rock about 21 miles (34 kilometers) long,
circles the sun on an eccentric path that takes it from within
12 million miles of Earth's orbit to a spot outside the orbit of
mars, where it is now, 150 million miles out from the sun," or
about 52 million miles from Earth.

"If the landing succeeds, the probe will return little
information aside from its position, perhaps serving as a beacon
for later explorers," sort of like a "space buoy."

""Images of the surface" of Eros "from an altitude of only 1,640
feet should result from the landing--allowing resolution of
features as small as 4 inches (10 centimeters) across." (See USA
Today for January 8, 2001, "NASA shoots for 'spectacular'
landing," page 1.)

MIRACULOUS FLOWERS SPROUT ON A GOLD STATUE IN SOUTH KOREA

"Flowers that bloom only once every 3,000 years are budding on
the head of a sacred Buddhist statue."

Buddhist priests in South Korea "say the legendary flowers
blossoming on the forehead of Kian Yin the Compassionate" only
appear "when the 'Sage King of the Future' (also known as
Maitreya, the future Buddha--J.T.) comes into the world," which
one Buddhist leader called, "a delight that gives joy beyond
description."

"The Miracle of the Flowers, as it's now being called, happened
in the Chonggyesa Temple," in a suburb of Seoul, the capital of
South Korea. "Tens of thousands of pilgrims are flocking to see
the white blossoms on the tip of the eyebrow of the shining,
gilded statue of Kuan Yin."

"'Kuan Yin is a gentle Buddhist deity who refused to enter
paradise (Nirvana--J.T.) because she heard the cries of
suffering humanity,' says religious expert Dr. Kenneth Ireland
(No relation to Kathy--J.T.) 'She is acknowledged to save the
soul of everyone on Earth, turning her back on none.'"

""'Many are now saying that the monastery of Chonggye-sa could
become the Buddhist Lourdes because many cures are being
performed there.'"

"According to the monks, 21 threadlike stems are growing from
the statue of Kuan Yin, each with a tiny white flower 'no bigger
than the tip of a ballpoint pen.'"

"This is the first time in the 1,000-year history of the
monastery that the flowers have blossomed."

"'Buddhists say sighting the flowers is like witnessing the
birth of Buddha,'" he added.

"Experts say it's unthinkable that the 500-year-old statue of
Kuan Yin, gilded every three years over the (original) woodwork,
could produce growing flowers without divine intervention."

"'Botanically, the flower is related to the ficus,' says
botanist William Grant, 'There is just no way it could take root
in the statue.'"

"Dr. Ireland says the flowers are regarded as divine in India,
Japan and China and are believed to bloom only when a momentous
event is about to happen."

"Buddhist monks are currently keeping a prayer vigil at the
statue, waiting for the event that will change mankind's future
forever." (See the tabloid newspaper Sun for January 9, 2001,
"Miracle of the Flowers," page 16.)

READER FEEDBACK:

UFOLOGIST DOUBTS TRUTH OF BAKERSFIELD UFO STORY

Larry Hatch writes, "You may want to touch up the geography in
one California case."

"There is no desert north of Bakersfield, CA, just farmland.
There is no 'Pine Mountain' in California, neither a town nor a
landmark" according to "the most recent U.S.G.S. (U.S. Geodetic
Survey) National Gazeteer of the USA."

(Editor's Comment: There is, however, a 'Pine Mountain' shown
north of Bakersfield in the 1997 Rand-McNally Road Atlas, page
12. Perhaps a California reader can explain this discrepancy.)

"There is only one Highway 97 i193California, CA S.R. 193, which
runs east and west of Auburn, CA. and the Sierra foothills east
of Sacramento. No desert here at all."

"The witness said he was seeing 'three lights flying in repeated
circles. They flew in formation for a while, then flew away.
(The witness was) North of Bakersfield between Highways 193 and
36." (See UFO Roundup, volume 5, number 52, "Californians report
two new UFO sightings," page 6.)

"There is only one Highway 36 in California, CA S.E. 36, which
runs between Fortuna and Eureka and Red Bluff, again way up in
northern California. CA 193 and 36 are at least 70 miles apart
(as the crow flies--L.H.) at their closest points."

"Both are hundreds of miles from Bakersfield and neither are
they anywhere near a desert, nor to one another."

"His daughter was a student in Santa Cruz,. He called her dorm
'on his cell phone' and she said she could see it from her dorm
window.'"

"Santa Cruz, CA is hundreds of miles northwest of Bakersfield on
the Pacific Coast, south of the San Francisco Bay area. Santa
Cruz is 15- to 250 miles southwest of CA 193 and 36 It is a bit
doubtful that the coed could see it from her dorm window."

"Maybe the correspondent is pulling your leg."

(Editor's Note: As of this writing, the source has not offered
any commentary on Larry Hatch's precise, point-by-point
refutation of those claims.)

ADELAIDE HILLS IS NOT IN THE A.C.T.

Concerning the Australian UFO report in UFO Roundup, volume 6,
number 1, Peter Johnson writes, "Since when has the A.C.T.
(Australian Capital Territory--J.T.) been anywhere near
Adelaide, S.A.?"

"Seems someone got their facts wrong?"

1985: REPTOID HALL

Concordia College is a quiet school located in rural Moorhead,
Minnesota, about 19 miles (16 kilometers) east of Fargo, North
Dakota. There's not much to distinguish Concordia from many
small schools in the USA's Upper Midwest. But there is one thing
that makes Concordia College unique.

Hoyum Hall, one of the girls' dorms at Concordia, appears to be
home to a colony of Reptoids.

Over the years, there have been a number of strange Reptoid
sightings at Hoyum.

In late January of 1986, freshman Amanda Flynn (all names have
been changed to protect the ladies' privacy--J.T.) was in the
bathroom, clad in her underwear, washing her hair in preparation
for a date that night.

Amanda was leaning over the sink, scrubbing her shampoo-lathered
hair with her fingers. Suddenly, she felt a thumb and forefinger
pinch the elastic waistband of her panties. The chilly fingers
pulled the waistband far back and let fly. Snap!

"Owww!" Looking at the mirror, Amanda saw "a hooded and caped
figure behind her, reflected in the mirror." The hood shadowed
much of his face, revealing a gaunt dark green reptilian chin
and thin, lipless mouth. The black cape hid much of his body,
showing only a glimpse of a scaly chest.

Amanda gasped out loud. Then she got angry, thinking it was
probably some fraternity brother from Fargo. Lifting her hand,
she spun around instantly. "You son of a--!"

Amanda's intended slap passed through empty air.

There was no one behind her.

In March of 1988, freshman Kathy Oberg returned to Hoyum from
her early morning jog and decided to take a shower. Soon she was
in an upstairs bathroom, soaking herself beneath the streaming
showerhead.

Suddenly, Kathy became aware of a shadow blocking the bathroom
lights. Turning around, she saw "the mysterious figure hovering
above the shower door." The sight of those scaly three-fingered
hands gripping the shiny aluminum door frame sent a burst of
panic through her. She let out a scream they could have heard in
Minneapolis.

In late February of 1989, sophomore Nancy Petersen had "attended
all her classes, endured a full hour of orchestra rehearsal, and
then worked in the cafeteria line to earn her board. She's
tired, but she has to study a good three-and-a-half hours in a
dorm full of girls before she can go to bed."

"Then, more than ready for sleep," Nancy "climbs up to her loft
and flops down. She reaches to pull up her blanket," but a
shadowy pair of hands moves the blanket toward her, covering her
to her shoulders.

Thinking it was her roommate, Nancy murmured, "Thanks, Margie."

But as her head nestled on the pillow, Nancy's eyes popped wide
open. Hold it! Since when does Margie have only three fingers!?
Nancy sat up instantly. "There, at the foot of the bed, on the
same ladder she just climbed up seconds ago, is the horrid
figure."

Nancy was "sure the door was locked when she came back from the
bathroom. Was there a ghost in the dorm?"

On a warm night in early May of 1993, freshman Angela Tarohachi
was awakened from a sound sleep by the sound of metallic
rattles. Blinking sleepily, she peered over the rim of her top
bunk and saw a shadowy female figure standing there. Oh, my God!
Angela thought, It's that ghost they told me about last
September!

While Angela watched. the lock tumblers rattled again, and the
latch moved as if by magic. The silent, motionless female figure
stood at least four feet away. She didn't touch the door at all.
The door swung silently open, and the female departed.

Deciding to wake her roommate, Jenny Lou Reilly, Angela
whispered, "Jenny! Jenny, wake up! I just saw the ghost!"

There was no answer. Angela peered toward the bottom bunk. It
was empty. Jenny Lou was gone.

The door, though, was still open. After climbing down the
ladder, Angela put on her bathrobe and rushed into the hallway.
There, at the window, stood her sophomore roommate. Jenny Lou's
auburn red hair was up in curlers. She was wearing long black
opera gloves, thigh-high fishnet stockings, black dress pumps, a
black choker--and nothing else.

"Jenny! What are you doing!?" Angela cried, rushing down the
hallway.

But then Angela got an even bigger surprise. Her red-haired
roommate was standing in front of the window, sound asleep.

"I waved my hand in front of her nose--nothing. Jen was really
out of it," Angela recalled, "I didn't know what to do. They say
you're not supposed to wake sleepwalkers, that they'll go back
to bed on their own. Well, I couldn't just leave her standing
there. If any boys had come by outside, they would have freaked
out. So I went back to our room for her terrycloth robe."

No sooner had Angela returned than her roommate began
sleepwalking again, wandering the corridors of Hoyum Hall, with
her freshman roommate tagging along behind.

"We must have wandered the building for at least a half an
hour," Angela recalled, "Occasionally, Jen would mutter
something unintelligible. Or she'd stop in the hallway, turn and
face the wall, and start pressing different points on it with
each hand. Or she'd just stand there, as if she was waiting for
an elevator or a door to open. It was plenty weird, believe me.
Finally, she went back to our room, sat down on her bed, slowly
took off her shoes and slid under the blankets. A minute later,
she was snoring."

The following morning, Angela questioned her roommate about the
episode, and "Jenny Lou looked at me as if I had three heads.
'So where did you get the opera gloves?' I asked her. When she
saw what she was wearing, Jenny Lou's face turned redder than a
tomato. Boy, she was just sooooo embarrassed."

Yet Jenny Lou Reilly had never had a sleepwalking episode
before--not even as a small child. She had no recollection of
the previous night's events. Nor could she explain how she had
come by her unusual attire.

In addition to the Reptoids, Hoyum Hall has been plagued by many
poltergeist manifestations.

"Sometimes students who are known for their neat rooms will find
them out of order, clothing and books and papers strewn all over
the floor. Locked doors open slowly in the early evening hours.
Or radios and TVs are blaring when their owners are sure they
turned them off when they left their rooms. Sometimes, even in
midwinter, when the heat is on in the rooms and halls, a cold
draft or a cold spot will be felt, always in the same part of
the same rooms. Some of the girls wake up to hear their names
being called out, but there's no one around and the hall is
perfectly quiet."

Such is life at Concordia College's "Reptoid Hall." (See the
book Ghostly Tales of Minnesota by Ruth D. Hein, Adventure
Publications, Cambridge, Minn., 1992, pages 63 to 65.)


We'll be back next week with more UFO and paranormal news from
around the planet Earth, brought to you by "the paper that goes
home--UFO Roundup." See you in seven days.

UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2--1 by Masinaigan Productions, all
rights reserved.  Readers may post items from UFO Roundup on
their websites or newsgroups provided that they credit the
newsletter and its editor by name and list the date of issue
in which the item first appeared.

E-Mail Reports to: Joseph Trainor <Masinaigan@aol.com>
or use the Sighting Report Form at:

http://ufoinfo.com/forms/form_sighting.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of the UK UFO Network Bulletin,
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences,
UFO + PSI Magazine also available, plus archives of
Filer's Files and Oz Files.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

              Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Murray

From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:12:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:27:39 +0000
Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Murray


 >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:29:02 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:15:50 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:02:43 +0100
 >>>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

Larry Hatch wrote:

 >>At the end of the edited for TV version I finally saw, there
 >>were scenes of an aging astronaut eating a meal in some vast
 >>empty room. No waiters, no explanation how he got there (
 >>presumably on/near Jupiter ) or who did the dishes etc. This
 >>version just left me scratching my head and went headlong into
 >>an even more nebulous image, that of some baby or fetus over the
 >>Earth.

 >>Sorry, I just don't get it, and I'll bet 75-cents that I'm not
 >>alone. Keay Davidson mentioned that final scene in his article.

 >>Question: Did Kubrick or Clarke ever go on record explaining
 >>those two scenes to anyone's satisfaction?

 >>If so, what exactly were the explanations? Earth being seeded by
 >>fetuses? Whuffo? To provide a future staff for that lonely
 >>restaurant up yonder?


 >If I remember correctly - according to the book-the fetus was a
 >Star Child and it set off all the nuclear weapons stockpile on
 >Earth. I don't think there were never meant to be sequels.
 >Eating is self explanatory.


Howdy Don and Larry!

Yes, Dave was returned to Earth as a starchild, but not sent to
destroy the world, sent back as a new leader and new messiah for
the human race.


Take care,

Marty










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:18:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:29:45 +0000
Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps  'Aliens'
 >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:23:25 -0800

 >>From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'
 >>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:37:14 +1100

 >>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca
 >>>Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:09:40 -0800
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

 >>>>From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com
 >>>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'
 >>>>Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:03:41 +1100

 ><snip>

 >>I suggest that rather than base all your comments on the CNI/UFO
 >>Folklore story go to the IUR article which has a full transcript
 >>of my interview with Peter Khoury, plus the full initial test
 >>results and our experimental test protocol. Serge, your
 >>characteristisation of the story is a massive oversimplication
 >>of a complex case, and you should base your comments on a fuller
 >>grasp of the facts, rather than just a summary.

 >>The testing did take into consideration the possibility of
 >>contamination. There were elaborate steps to address this.
 >>Read the IUR report. The DNA that came out was from the inside
 >>of the hair, we can be certain of that. Extensive controls and
 >>sample preparation protocols were undertaken to eliminate
 >>contaminations.

 ><snip>

 >I don't want this to become a debate of any sort, but may I point
 >out that _you_ provided the link I followed to _your_ summary of
 >the case that I presume _you_ must have found more pertinent then
 >the original work for which _you_ gave _no_ link?

 >Am I entitled to questions about a story like this one? I did
 >not characterise the story. You made the comments.

 >Do you have a link to the full IUR article?


Hiya Serge, Bill, All

I've been letting this one 'bake in the oven' until it rises a
little more before asking any questions. I do have 'one' that
I'd like to ask Bill now though. Besides the IUR article and the
website, do you plan to publish in any of the medical peer
review journals?

I'm not knocking IUR, just that something as potentially
important as anomalous DNA -should be- published in the peer
review journals and subsequently tested/checked/verified by
independent researchers and experts. There's something
'incestuous' about not taking such an important peice of
evidence 'outside' of the UFO community.

What are your plans for future (mainstream) publication and
independent confirmation of your findings Bill?

This 'hair issue' is critically important to a great many folks.
I hope it doesn't turn out to be some more, 'Hair of the dog!'
<LOL>

Regards,

John Velez, Interested abductee


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************








                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                     Re: Serious Flaws In Sirius Mystery

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:10:01 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:32:39 +0000
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws In Sirius Mystery


Greetings everyone.

Below is an e-mail from James Oberg which I think will be of
interest to many UFO UpDates readers since it sets the record
straight regarding the Dogons and the knowledge they allegedly
obtained through E.T.s from Sirius.

As for the numerous other alleged accounts of E.T. contact
recorded in our short human history (eg. the accounts of
Anunnaki who came from Heaven to Earth as documented in Zecharia
Sitchin's well researched books), these should not be considered
to be as similarly dubious as the Dogon tale, especially since
other skeptics such as the late astronomer Carl Sagan thought it
that is was quite probable that we would find evidence of direct
E.T. contact with us in our ancient documents.

Nick Balaskas

___________________________________

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:46:32 EST
From: JamesOberg@aol.com

The Sirius Lie
Extract of a Lecture for the Turn of the Millennium
by FILIP COPPINS

http://www.templarlodge.com/stargate.html

Scientists learn that the Dogon do not possess secret knowledge
about the star Sirius and its companions. What some consider to
be the best evidence for extraterrestrial beings coming from
Sirius is therefore dealt a devastating blow.

In 1976, two major books on extra-terrestrial visitation were
published: Zecharia Sitchin's The Twelfth Planet and Robert
Temple's The Sirius Mystery. Of the two, the latter became by
far more famous and even attained the status of a
semi-scientific work, as many were impressed with the
scientific-looking train of logic of the book. Temple stated
that the Dogon, a tribe in Africa, possessed extraordinary
knowledge on the star system Sirius, the brightest star in the
sky, the star which became the marker of an important ancient
Egyptian calendar, the star which according to some is at the
centre of beliefs held by the Freemasons, the star which
according to some is where the forefathers of the human race
might have come from.

Temple claimed that the Dogon possessed knowledge on Sirius B and
Sirius C, companion stars to Sirius that are, however, invisible
to the naked eye. How did the Dogon know about their existence?
Temple referred to legends of a mythical creature Oannes, who
might have been an extraterrestrial being descending on Earth
from the stars, to bring wisdom to our forefathers. In 1998,
Temple republished the book with the subtitle "new scientific
evidence of alien contact 5,000 years ago".

The book's glory came crashing down earlier this summer, when
Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince published The Stargate
Conspiracy. That book stated that Temple had been highly
influenced in his thinking by his mentor, Arthur M. Young. Young
was a fervent believer in "the Council of Nine", a group of
channelled entities that claim they are the nine creator gods of
ancient Egypt. "The Nine" are part of the UFO and New Age and
many claim to be in contact with them. "The Nine" also claim to
be extraterrestrial beings, from the star Sirius. In 1952, Young
was one of the nine people present during the "first contact"
with the Council, where contact was initiated by Andrija
Puharich, the man who brought the Israeli spoonbender and
presumed psychic Uri Geller to America. It was Young who gave
Temple in 1965 a French article on the secret star lore of the
Dogon, an article written by Griaule and Dieterlen. In 1966,
Temple, at the impressionable age of 21, became Secretary of of
Young's Foundation for the Study of Consciousness. In 1967,
Temple began work on what would eventually become The Sirius
Mystery. As Picknett and Prince have been able to show, Temple's
arguments are often based on erroneous readings of encyclopaedic
entries and misrepresentations of ancient Egyptian mythology.
They conclude that Temple very much wanted to please his mentor.
It is, however, a fact that the end result is indeed a book that
would have pleased Young and his beliefs in extraterrestrial
beings from Sirius very much, whether or not this was the
intention of Temple.

Though Temple's work is now therefore definitely challenged, the
core of the mystery remained intact. At the centre of this
enigma is the work of Marcel Griaule and Germaine Dieterlen, two
French anthropologists, who wrote down the secret knowledge on
"Sirius B" and "Sirius C" in their book The Pale Fox. But now,
in another recent publication, Ancient Mysteries, by Peter James
and Nick Thorpe, this "mystery" is also uncloaked, as a hoax or
a lie, perpetrated by Griaule.

To recapitulate, Griaule was initiated in the secret mysteries
of the male Dogon, who allegedly told him the secrets of Sirius'
invisible companions. Sirius (sigu tolo in their language) had
two star companions. This was revealed in an article that was
published by Griaule and Dieterlen in the French language in
1950.

In the 1930s, when their research occurred, Sirius B was known
to have existed, even though it was only photographed in 1970.
There was little if no possibility that the Dogon had learned
this knowledge from Westerners that had visited them prior to
Griaule and Dieterlen.

Griaule and Dieterlen published their findings on the Sirius
companions without any reference or comment on how
extra-ordinary the Dogon knowledge was. It would be others,
particularly Temple in the sixties and seventies, who would zoom
in on that aspect. To quote Ancient Mysteries: "While Temple,
following Griaule, assumes that to polo is the invisible star
Sirius B, the Dogon themselves, as reported by Griaule, say
something quite different." To quote the Dogon: "When Digitaria
(to polo) is close to Sirius, the latter becomes brighter; when
it is at its most distant from Sirius, Digitaria gives off a
twinkling effect, suggesting several stars to the observer."
James and Thorpe wonder (as anyone reading this should do)
whether to polo is therefore an ordinary star near Sirius, not
an invisible companion, as Griaule and Temple suggest.

The biggest challenge to Griaule, however, came from
anthropologist Walter Van Beek. He points out that Griaule and
Dieterlen stand alone in the world in their claims on the
secrets of the Dogon. No other anthropologist supports their
opinion's or claims.

In 1991, Van Beek led a team of anthropologists who declared
that they could find absolutely no trace of the detailed Sirius
lore reported by the French anthropologists. James and Thorpe
understate the problem when they say that "this is very
worrying".

Griaule had stated that about fifteen percent of the Dogon tribe
knew about this secret knowledge, but Van Beek could, in a
decade of research with the Dogon, find not a single trace of
this knowledge. Van Beek was initially keen to find evidence for
Griaule's claims, but had to admit that there may have been a
major problem with Griaule's claims.

Even more worrying is Griaule's background. Though an
anthropologist, Griaule was interested in astronomy, which he
had studied in Paris. As James and Thorpe point out, he took
star maps along with him on his field trips as a way of
prompting his informants to divulge their knowledge of the
stars. Griaule himself was aware of the discovery of Sirius B
and it is quite likely that he overinterpreted the Dogon
responses to his questions. In the 1920s, before Griaule went to
the Dogon, there were also unconfirmed sightings of Sirius C.
Was Griaule told by his informants what he wanted to believe? It
seems, alas, that the truth is even worse, at least for
Griaule's reputation.

Van Beek actually spoke to the original informants of Griaule,
who stated: "though they do speak about sigu tolo [interpreted
by Griaule as their name for Sirius], they disagree completely
with each other as to which star is meant; for some, it is an
invisible star that should rise to announce the sigu [festival],
for another it is Venus that through a different position
appears as sigu tolo. All agree, however, that they learned
about the star from Griaule."

So whatever knowledge they possessed, it was knowledge coming
from Griaule, not knowledge native to the Dogon tribe. Van Beek
also discovered that the Dogon are of course aware of the
brightest star in the sky, which they do not, however, call sigu
tolo, as Griaule claimed, but dana tolo. To quote James and
Thorpe: "As for Sirius B, only Griaule's informants had ever
heard of it."

With this, the Dogon mystery comes to a crashing halt. The
Sirius Mystery influenced more than twenty years of thinking
about our possible ancestry from "forefathers" who have come
from the stars. In 1996, Temple was quick to point out the new
speculation in scientific circles on the possible existence of
Sirius C, which made the claims by Griaule even more spectacular
and accurate. But Temple was apparently not aware of Van Beek's
recent research. With this new research of both Van Beek and the
authors of Ancient Mysteries, we uncover how Griaule himself was
responsible for the creation of a modern myth, which, in
retrospect, has created such an industry and almost religious
belief that the scope and intensity can hardly be fathomed.
Nigel Appleby, in his withdrawn publication Hall of the Gods,
which was, according to Appleby himself, tremendously influenced
by Temple's book, Appleby spoke about how Temple believed that
present-day authorities were apparently unwilling to set aside
the blinkers of orthodoxy or were unable to admit the validity
of anything that lies outside their field or offers a challenge
to its status quo. He further wondered whether there was also a
modern arrogance that could not countenance the possible
scientific superiority of earlier civilisations. It seems, alas,
that Griaule, a scientist, wanted to give earlier civilisations
more knowledge than they actually possessed. And various popular





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

              Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:38:54 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:34:35 +0000
Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now - Clark


 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:32:30 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:26:33 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:29:02 +0000
 >>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now

 >>>>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:15:50 -0800
 >>>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


Don and Larry,

 >>>>Subject: Re: '2001: A Space Odyssey', Then And Now
 >>>If I remember correctly - according to the book-the fetus was a
 >>>Star Child and it set off all the nuclear weapon stockpiles on
 >>>Earth. I don't think there were ever meant to be sequels.
 >>>Eating is self explanatory.
 >>>>Don Ledger

 >>Awww, you cheated and read the book. I'm was talking about the
 >>film alone, as a stand-alone presentation.

 >>It's good to leave something to the imagination, but one must
 >>give the viewer something to chew on as well. That was done
 >>excellently in the interplay between the computer Hal, and the
 >>astronauts.

I made a point of not reading Clarke's 2001-related novels,
which I was convinced could only be inferior to Kubrick's film.
 From what I read here, and from what my son Evan (who did read
the novels) related me last week when he was visiting, I am more
persuaded than ever that I made the right decision.

I've seen 2001 maybe 15 or 20 times and always manage to find
something new in it. The middle of the film, in my opinion, is
the weakest, relatively speaking, being pretty recognizable SF
and interesting mostly because of Kubrick's directing and
cinematic skills, less so for a rather standard and stale
(albeit entertaining) plot about a spaceship's computer gone
wacko.

The film's strength - by that I mean its claim to artistic
superiority - is in the last segment, which gets its enormous
intellectual and emotional power from its admirable refusal
(which no director could get by with today) to explain in
boringly prosaic terms what is going on. To the contrary,
nothing literal _is_ going on. What's happening is not meant to
be recounted in pure words; it is purely cinematic and symbolic,
representing a fable or parable about humanity's transformation
from earthbound species to citizenship - and radically expanded
consciousness - in the cosmos. Thus the Starbaby is not a
_literal_ fetus floating toward earth but a representation of a
new Homo sapiens about to be born.

Clarke's absurd literal-mindedness, if accurately described
here, strikes me as depressing and boring. Kubrick certainly
could not have made this classic film without Clarke, but it
seems just as clear that Clarke couldn't really tell the story
without Kubrick.

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

               Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:14:32 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:38:31 +0000
Subject: Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - Goldstein


 >From: Tim Haley <TimHaley@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 22:43:13 EST
 >Subject: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hello Errol, list:

 >A recent news article at The Guardian online discusses the
 >development of exotic new technology for space propulsion.

 >The idea of a 'warp' drive as presented on the Star Trek science
 >fiction series is apparently now being taken seriously by
 >mainstream scientists.

<snip>

 >Additional details in the news article can be found at:

 >http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/spacedocumentary/story/0,2763,418977,00.htm
l

 >Conference weblink

 >http://www.workshop.cwc.net


Hello Listerions,

I'd like to thank Tim Haley and Georgina Bruni for posting
information regarding the upcoming conference. As a layman space
enthusiast, I've been trying to follow the research in zero
point energy, electrogravitics, etc. If the US Navy and the US
Air Force have classified programs researching zero point
energy, I wonder if aspects of such projects filter into the
scientific community without high level security clearances. Can
some of these scientists be performing redundant research in
areas where there may already be unpublished advances?

Josh Goldstein










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - Murgia

From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:19:51 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:14:57 +0000
Subject: Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - Murgia


 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:18:49 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive

 >I was surprised to see the name Harold Puthoff in the article
 >you kindly linked above. I recall reading of his PSI experiments
 >at SRI International with Russell Targ, badly criticized by the
 >Great Randi. It seems that Uri Geller had taken them in with
 >stage trickery.

 From what I understand, Puthoff is well respected in the field
of theoretical physics.

Randi criticized a PSI experiment? Really? You don't say.
Please. Give me a break. Geller may not be perfect but he has
done many unexplainable things. The experiments he did with
Puhoff and Targ were written up in the Journal Nature I believe.
Some of Randi's criticisms were just so ridiculous. Randi will
NEVER accept any experiement as being proof of PSI. Ask Randi if
he thinks there is any evidence that physical UFOs exist. Guess
what he would say? The guy is a joke. He has done some good but
he will never admit that evidence does exist for the reality of
PSI. Never.

If you hear Randi tell his side of a story and then hear the
other side, chances are, both sides will be completely
different.

Read Jonathon Margolis' "Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic?"

Margolis, I believe, also has written for Time Magazine or
Newsweek - one of the two. He was a complete skeptic going in.
But he kept his mind open until he checked into it for himself.
Something most people don't do.

Here are what some other scientists have said about Geller. You
can read all of their comments at:

www.uri-geller.com

Click on "What scientists say about Uri Geller."

These are not offered as proof of Geller's abilities but to let
people know that if Geller has fooled all of these people, then
he must be given some type of medal or something. Some of the
experiments at SRI were done under scientific conditions. Some
were done just to see what would happen.

Here are just two of many comments from scientists
regarding Geller:

"Geller has bent my ring in the palm of my hand without ever
touching it. Personally, I have no scientific explanation for
the phenomena." - Dr. Wernher von Braun (NASA scientist & father
of the Rocket - U.S.A.)

----------------------------------------------------------------


--

"Geller altered the lattice structure of a metal alloy in a way
that cannot be duplicated. There is no present scientific
explanation as to how he did this." (This is the first research
related to parapsychology conducted at a US Government facility
to have been released for publication by the US Department of
Defence). - Eldon Byrd (US Naval Surface Weapons Centre,
Maryland - U.S.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

               Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:26:30 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:16:25 +0000
Subject: Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - Deardorff


 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:18:49 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive

 >Ah yes, the "Casimir Effect" after the theories of Hendrik
 >Casimir who predicted that two parallel plates, perfectly
 >polished and held just atoms apart, would be pushed together due
 >to an imbalance of virtual photons of different wavelengths. VPs
 >would not pop into existence between the plates if their
 >wavelengths were too long, while those outside could. Thus the
 >imbalance and a tiny net force.

 >This force was compared to the weight of a barely visible spec
 >of dust. Two permanent magnets would pull together with many
 >many many times that force... and you cannot get continuous
 >energy from them either, just a one-time slap!

 >I was surprised to see the name Harold Puthoff in the article
 >you kindly linked above. I recall reading of his PSI experiments
 >at SRI International with Russell Targ, badly criticized by the
 >Great Randi. It seems that Uri Geller had taken them in with
 >stage trickery.

Hi Larry,

I think you'd benefit by reading over some of Harold Putoff's
contributions to physics relating to the energy of the vacuum
and the Casimir effct. Though most of these below were written
for the physicist or scientist, they're written more clearly and
understandably than most such material. They are:

"Ground state of hydrogen as a zero-point fluctuation-determined
state," in _Phys. Rev. D_, 35 (15 May 1987), pp. 3266-3269

"Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force," in _Phys. Rev. A_,
39 (1 March 1989)m, pp. 2333-2342

"Sources of vacuum electromagnetic zero-point energy," in _Phys.
Rev. A_, 40 (1 November 1989), pp. 4857-4862

"Reply to comment on 'Source of vacuum electromagnetic
zero-point energy'," in _Phys. Rev. A_, 44 (1 September 1991),
pp. 3385-3386

"Inertia: Does empty space put up the resistance?" in _Science_
263 (4 February 1994), pp. 612-613 [article by science writer
about the findings of Puthoff et al.]

"Beyond E=mcc" by Haisch, Rueda & Puthoff, in _The Sciences_
(Nov.-Dec., 1994), pp. 26-31

"SETI, the velocity-of-light limitation, and the Alcubierre warp
drive: An intriguing overview," in _physics Essays_, 9, No. 1,
1996, pp. 156-158.


Jim








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                          Re: UFO Skeptics - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:37:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:21:08 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Velez


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics
 >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:18:40 -0800

 >>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:52:34 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 ><snip>

 >Hello Roger, Robert and List,

 >We already have a List that casts a critical eye on UFO claims.

 >This one.

 >Thanks to EBK, it is open to all and displays the whole spectrum
 >of opinions that _seldom go unchallenged_.

 >Now, if somebody wants a List where he can go away with
 >poppycock claims such as skeptics are used to, fine. Be my
 >guest. I don't think this will drive anybody towards Debunkers
 >Anonymous.

Hiya Serge,

In all fairness, I'd like to add that there are many 'believer'
lists with the same shortcomings. (>a List where he can get away
with poppycock claims such as skeptics are used to,)

Which is why I created AIC to begin with.

I've taken a ton of heat and criticism for adopting a "no BS
tolerated" policy on the AIC List. (Which is for experiencers
only.) Many come there expecting "support" for their "beliefs"
or to create a soapbox where they can expound their theories on
Life, Aliens, the Universe, and everything. When I boot someone
out of AIC I am 'booting' an abductee. Stuff like that will not
win me any popularity contests, but it will keep the List well
grounded and substantial. That's the opposite of creating a List
composed of many parrots that all know how to chirp the same
phrases.

People are people. Many are _needy._ Some, not realizing the
true nature of the -work- being done, are only interested in a
bit of ego gratification and creating a little 'Persona' for
themselves. For many folks it has nothing to do with the 'work'
of ufology. (The debating/checking out/ hashing out of stories
and individuals, facts, and fiction.) Or even trying to find
'truth.'

For many, e-mail Lists are for gratifying petty ego concerns and
_need_fulfillment.

"Helping" or "uniting" others is only the cover story.  ;) Some
are just isolated and otherwise lonely individuals in need of
the comfort and security/haven of the "Gang" mentality. They
'need' acceptance. They view Lists like UpDates as an oportunity
to 'socialize' not realizing that at the bottom of it all, the
business of ferreting through raw information for facts and/or
BS is the real 'work' that is taking place.

Stripping away BS and the BS'ers is a messy business at times.
What some consider "trashing" is really a just self-policing
mechanism at work. When everyone on a List is in complete
agreement about everything, there is no self policing. What some
consider the "trashing" of people on this list is nothing more
than somebody, "taking out the trash!"

Somebody mentioned to me the other day that some of the folks
who post here would wilt if they knew who some of the people are
that follow/read the postings here. They'd be _mbarrassed_ as
hell about some of the stuff they contribute to the List for
public consumption. Not having an interest in ufology other than
self promotion, how could they realize how utterly transparent
they look to the rest. Actually those are the ones I enjoy
drawing out. The more they talk, the more they reveal of
themselves. It's a fun and healthy avocation for me to indulge
in from time to time - as needed. Popping off the Popinjays
occasionally is good sport eh what! And it keeps the List
honest, on its toes, and tightly focused.

Let the Pelicans and the rest flock on their own little island.
At least that way the mess that their droppings create are
restricted to a small area. With the added bonus that we won't
have their guano sprayed all over us!  ;)

Here's to keeping it Real and doing the 'work'.


Regards,

John Velez
Zephod Beedlebrox


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                     Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Nolane

From: Richard Nolane <raynaud@total.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:52:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:31:23 +0000
Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Nolane


 >From: Perry Petrakis <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI
 >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:40:21 +0100

Dear List members,

 >Let's say I've been investigating for the past 30 years, with a
 >totally open mind (at least at the beginning) contrarily to G.
 >Bourdais, R. Nolane or F. Parmentier who were totally unknown a
 >few years ago. They jumped on the Roswell Bandwagon just as did
 >so many people in the Eighties.

Well, this is exactly the kind of "information" one can find in
"Phenomena"...

I have studied, privately, the UFO phenomenon since more than 25
years and I have published my first UFO book reviews in
non-ufological magazines in 1973. I published my first own UFO
book in 1993, which has nothing to do with Roswell but which was
about "ancient UFOs", one of my main interests in ufology. Four
other books have followed and the next one will be published
before summer.

We are waiting for the first book of our 30 years investigator
who seems to have so many things to tell about "true ufology".

 >As for the COMETA, I will just say this: it might have been
 >written by high ranking past officials and it is countersigned
 >by some important people but it means nothing and only reflects
 >their personnal views which I do not share. It was written
 >within a non-profit organisation. It is a rehash of what was
 >said in 1995 under the auspices of this French Intelligence
 >Agency. Whoever wrote this at that time, got it countersigned by
 >the major military intelligence agency in France and published
 >by the Ministry of Defense. It therefore reflects their views.
 >Let's note that all these nice people seem to have been well
 >aware of the document but never whispered a word about it, maybe
 >to promote a committee much more close to their own views. Who
 >has a hidden agenda? My bet is that if COMETA had managed to
 >get their report published in an official context, it would have
 >been less tantalizing

The problem with the short 1995 report is that there is almost
nothing interesting in it. It's only a brief history of
"official UFO research" in USA and France concluded by the idea
that military and intelligence agencies can use the UFO interest
of citizens to hide secret operations.

It was written by a young serviceman (I have his name) and was
never a secret document but just another report among tons of
other reports produced by the military. It reflects more the
views of the serviceman than anything else. A short extract was
used in the first Special UFO issue of VSD in 1998 and the
serviceman was very upset to have not been cited as the author !
Quite strange, isn't it for an "official and important" report ?

And if it was "countersigned" it's only because there is almost
nothing in it, just the kind of infos about UFOs that you can
find here and there in your favorite sunday newspaper or TV
guide before the launching of the new season of X Files.

The COMETA Report (even if not a perfect work) is really the big
thing, privately published or not.

RDN







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

                         Re: UFO Skeptics - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:08:14 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:36:10 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Roberts


Back In De Bunker Again

 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:54:37 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics

Don wrote:

 >Some of us are amused at what one would discuss on the debunk
 >list. The latest debunking methods perhaps.
 >The ten best ways to debunk.
 >Great debunkers I have known.
 >Will debunkers now make pilgrimages to Phil Klass's old office
 >desk? Will their emblem be a pelican arising from the ashes of
 >the latest UFO debunking?

I'd like to believe Don was exercising his wit. But having
repeatedly seen listers here confuse debunkers with sceptics,
I'm not so sure.

For a list so many people profess disinterest in it seems to
have sent a frisson of terror through UpDates! Smell the fear.


Happy Trails

Andy


[Sniff, sniff..... smells more like Watney's Keg! --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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 11

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:29:05 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:41:15 +0000
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:29:31 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

 >>Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:04:45 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>Now that we know there was no crash and the witnesses were
 >>mistaken, where are the UFO analogies that were once in
 >>abundance?

 >>Just another case where witness testimony needs to be
 >>validated.

Greg replied:

 >I followed this story from the day it was first reported in the
 >NY Times. The witnesses weren't completely wrong. They did see a
 >plane, flying unexpectedly low. They thought they saw it crash.

<snip>

 >In the end, as we now know, there wasn't any crash, and the
 >witnesses were wrong in reporting that there was. But they were
 >right, despite initial skepticism, when they said they'd seen a
 >plane flying very low. The implication for ufology is very clear
 >-- when witnesses say they've seen something, they're not always
 >wrong. They might be wrong in some particulars, maybe even
 >important particulars, but in this case they were right about
 >the most basic fact, that there was a plane.

Hi, Greg!

I agree that witnesses can be correct. However, the important
thing to consider is whether the implications of the witnesses'
claims are supported by the eventual facts of the claims. In the
NYC case, the point was not whether they saw a plane flying low
or not. I don't believe that the authorities would question if
people simply saw a low flying plane. But, the implication of
their collective claims was that the plane crashed. THAT is what
the authorities were really interested in; not the flying - the
crashing.

As this relates to UFO sightings, I don't think authorities will
generally question that people, even hundreds of people, see
unexplained lights in the sky. However, the implications of
these claims - that these lights are ET craft - have yet to be
proven or, to be fair, even adequately investigated. Therefore,
the UFO analogy doesn't really connect in the way (I assume)
that you imply; that witnesses should be believed until proven
otherwise.

Witnesses see a plane and assume a crash that hasn't been
proven. Witnesses see an unknown object and assume an ET craft
that hasn't been proven. Now, THAT's an analogy that rings true
to me.

As I said before, I feel that witness CAN be correct. However,
the only way to know is to validate the claims of the witnesses
rather than assume them to be true because that's what we want
to believe.

Take care,

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:56:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:48:37 +0000
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:29:05 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I agree that witnesses can be correct. However, the important
 >thing to consider is whether the implications of the witnesses'
 >claims are supported by the eventual facts of the claims. In the
 >NYC case, the point was not whether they saw a plane flying low
 >or not. I don't believe that the authorities would question if
 >people simply saw a low flying plane. But, the implication of
 >their collective claims was that the plane crashed. THAT is what
 >the authorities were really interested in; not the flying - the
 >crashing.

 >As this relates to UFO sightings, I don't think authorities will
 >generally question that people, even hundreds of people, see
 >unexplained lights in the sky. However, the implications of
 >these claims - that these lights are ET craft - have yet to be
 >proven or, to be fair, even adequately investigated. Therefore,
 >the UFO analogy doesn't really connect in the way (I assume)
 >that you imply; that witnesses should be believed until proven
 >otherwise.

Certainly I didn't mean to imply anything like that. Witnesses
who appear serious should be taken seriously - something like
that is more what I meant. But whether they actually saw what
they claim to have seen would be quite another story. That, in
every case, remains to be proved.

 >Witnesses see a plane and assume a crash that hasn't been
 >proven. Witnesses see an unknown object and assume an ET craft
 >that hasn't been proven. Now, THAT's an analogy that rings true
 >to me.

Not even that, I fear, is a precise analogy, because here you're
dealing with a speculation people make about what they see - a
speculation about its nature and origin. In the Hudson River
plane business, people simply thought they saw the plane crash.
That's a factual mistake, not an assumption about what kind of
plane it was, and why it was flying so low.

To me (trying to restate this to avoid ambiguity), what happened
was something like this. People said they'd seen something
extraordinary involving a plane. And indeed they had. In a
lifetime of living (mostly) in New York, I couldn't count the
number of times I've seen the three rivers that flow by
Manhattan. I've driven along them, walked down paths next to
them, looked at them from afar, you name it. I've never seen a
plane as low as this one evidently was. My guess is that the
mere sight of the plane that low was an extraordinary surprise.

Obviously people didn't see the plane crash, as they thought
they did. But they were right to believe they'd seen something
surprising. That's all I'm trying to say.

 >As I said before, I feel that witness CAN be correct. However,
 >the only way to know is to validate the claims of the witnesses
 >rather than assume them to be true because that's what we want
 >to believe.

Here I feel I'm being pulled toward one end of a polarity that
(or so I hope) doesn't apply to me. I know witnesses can be
wrong; I know they sometimes can be right; I don't assume, when
I hear any eyewitness account, that it's necessarily right or
wrong, simply because either side would support one of my
preconceived ideas. And I think it's a shame we've established
this polarity in ufology.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

               Re: Serious Flaws In Sirius Mystery - Cecchini

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:23:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:51:48 +0000
Subject: Re: Serious Flaws In Sirius Mystery - Cecchini


 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:10:01 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Serious Flaws In Sirius Mystery

 >As for the numerous other alleged accounts of E.T. contact
 >recorded in our short human history (eg. the accounts of
 >Anunnaki who came from Heaven to Earth as documented in
 >Zecharia Sitchin's well researched books), these should not
 >be considered to be as similarly dubious as the Dogon tale,
 >especially since other skeptics such as the late astronomer
 >Carl Sagan thought it that is was quite probable that we
 >would find evidence of direct E.T. contact with us in our
 >ancient documents.

I'd feel remiss if I didn't point out that I object to what the
above seems to imply, namely that Carl Sagan possibly harbored
some idea that Earth had been visited by "ancient astronauts" or
something.

Make no mistake about it, love him or hate him, agree or
disagree with him, but while the young Carl may have at time
speculated about such things, the man died without believing (at
least officially or publicly) or condoning such a notion.  He
definitely was not a supporter of the idea that ET was here or
had ever been here.












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:47:14 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:55:24 +0000
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:39:18 -0500
 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went >Down
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

<snip>

 >Her report was strikingly specific: a single-engine white plane
 >with high wings and blue stripes had glided onto the water with
 >its wheels extended.

Hello all,

Does the aircraft type in question have retractable gear? If so,
I can't imagine a pilot intentionally attempting a forced
landing on water with the gear extended, as it's usually a
ticket to upsidedownsville. I'm guessing that, being a "high
wing", it probably does not, though I know there are exceptions.


Greg St. Pierre







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                   Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - St. Pierre

From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:07:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:58:09 +0000
Subject: Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01 - St. Pierre


 >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:58:51 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01

<snip>


 >Have you ever searched the faces at a televised religious >revival?


Hi Larry,

Do you need a warrant to search faces?

I know the faces you are referring to. I've seen many of the
same faces at UFO conferences. Maybe Sagan was right after all.

Larry, exactly what DO you think will happen when you die? Fade
to black, i.e. nothingness? New plane of consciousness? Surely
you have lost loved ones as most of us have. Are you 100%
certain that you will never see them again? Personally, I'm not
interested in becoming inert matter. Not the good part of me,
anyhow.

Greg St. Pierre









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                          Re: UFO Skeptics - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:57:22 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:01:42 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics - Ledger


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics
 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:08:14 -0000

 >Back In De Bunker Again

 >>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:54:37 +0000
 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics

 >Don wrote:

 >>Some of us are amused at what one would discuss on the debunk
 >>list. The latest debunking methods perhaps.
 >>The ten best ways to debunk.
 >>Great debunkers I have known.
 >>Will debunkers now make pilgrimages to Phil Klass's old office
 >>desk? Will their emblem be a pelican arising from the ashes of
 >>the latest UFO debunking?

 >I'd like to believe Don was exercising his wit. But having
 >repeatedly seen listers here confuse debunkers with sceptics,
 >I'm not so sure.

Nope. I can understand the motives of a skeptic. A debunker is a
waste of time. It's an end in itself looking for no proof.

 >For a list so many people profess disinterest in it seems to
 >have sent a frisson of terror through UpDates! Smell the fear.

What fear? That's amusement your are smelling. Time to have your
pheromones tuned Andy.

 >[Sniff, sniff..... smells more like Watney's Keg! --ebk]

I can explain the Watney's Keg, Errol.


Don








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

              Re: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:17:24 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:04:55 +0000
Subject: Re: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down


 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:29:05 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:29:31 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

 >>>Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:04:45 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, I had written:

 >>>Now that we know there was no crash and the witnesses were
 >>>mistaken, where are the UFO analogies that were once in
 >>>abundance?

 >>>Just another case where witness testimony needs to be
 >>>validated.

 >Greg replied:

 >>I followed this story from the day it was first reported in the
 >>NY Times. The witnesses weren't completely wrong. They did see a
 >>plane, flying unexpectedly low. They thought they saw it crash.

 ><snip>

 >>In the end, as we now know, there wasn't any crash, and the
 >>witnesses were wrong in reporting that there was. But they were
 >>right, despite initial skepticism, when they said they'd seen a
 >>plane flying very low. The implication for ufology is very clear
 >>-- when witnesses say they've seen something, they're not always
 >>wrong. They might be wrong in some particulars, maybe even
 >>important particulars, but in this case they were right about
 >>the most basic fact, that there was a plane.

 >Hi, Greg!

 >I agree that witnesses can be correct. However, the important
 >thing to consider is whether the implications of the witnesses'
 >claims are supported by the eventual facts of the claims. In the
 >NYC case, the point was not whether they saw a plane flying low
 >or not. I don't believe that the authorities would question if
 >people simply saw a low flying plane. But, the implication of
 >their collective claims was that the plane crashed. THAT is what
 >the authorities were really interested in; not the flying - the
 >crashing.

 >As this relates to UFO sightings, I don't think authorities will
 >generally question that people, even hundreds of people, see
 >unexplained lights in the sky. However, the implications of
 >these claims - that these lights are ET craft - have yet to be
 >proven or, to be fair, even adequately investigated. Therefore,
 >the UFO analogy doesn't really connect in the way (I assume)
 >that you imply; that witnesses should be believed until proven
 >otherwise.

 >Witnesses see a plane and assume a crash that hasn't been
 >proven. Witnesses see an unknown object and assume an ET craft
 >that hasn't been proven. Now, THAT's an analogy that rings true
 >to me.

Hiya Roger,

May I correct that last paragraph? Thanks. Witnesses se a plane
and _see_ a crash that hasn't been proven. The main witnesses
claimed to have seen the plane crash. A mistake? Likely, what
with a good deal of _white_ in the water in the form of ice
flow. We saw the same thing in that state cruiser.

The whiteness of the water could have been mistaken for the
plane going in, making lots of foam, waves, whatever. I
certainly don't know. Presumably it was all a mistake.

But that's not the issue. Before it was determined that a plane
was doing some low flying, the police chief in Jersey assumed
that it was all a mistake. Based on what evidence? None
whatsoever except that there was as yet, no evidence of debris.
Fine. But a presumption notwithstanding, and before the facts
were in.

As for the UFO witness being believed - that is not the issue
either, not in my mind. The issue is that UFO witnesses are
_disbelieved_ before the evidence is in, and purely on the basis
of the phrase, UFO.

Does that make sense to you?

Jim











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                 Re: Ed Dames and Sean David Morton - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:50:57 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:09:09 +0000
Subject: Re: Ed Dames and Sean David Morton - Gates


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Ed Dames and Sean David Morton
 >Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:15:16 -0800

 >Hi there. I am currently conducting an in depth look into both
 >Ed Dames and Sean David Morton. I've probably already posted
 >this before, but would ask that anyone with any information on
 >either of these individuals to please contact me. Thanks!

Lets see how would this go :)

As I am remote viewing the targets called Dames and Morton, the
the first thing that comes to mind is a television set. Next we
see an old black and white program running. As the details get
clearer we see Larry, Moe and Curley. Yup, just saw Brown
too..... :)

Gee ain't remote viewing great.....


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                  New Scientist Newsletter 13 January 2001

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:55:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:13:42 +0000
Subject: New Scientist Newsletter 13 January 2001



 From the current New Scientist.

I thought some of you might find interesting the bit at the end
about "older", "highly advanced", "intelligent life".

_______________________________

NEW SCIENTIST WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
No 67, 13 January 2001

Out Of This World

When a star wobbles Geoffrey Marcy wants to be the first to know
about it. The professor of astronomy at the University of
California at Berkeley is a leading authority on planets outside
our Solar System and a fierce competitor in the race to find and
announce new worlds. Planet hunting is now an intensely
competitive business, a bit like Formula 1 racing. We talk to
the "Michael Schumacher" of extrasolar exploration, a passionate
astronomer who says that to discover how our Solar System fits
into the grand scheme of planetary systems would "bring tears"
to his eyes.

http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinion.jsp?id=ns227345


Terrestrial Tot

Marcy may be excited by the prospect of learning something about
our position in the Galaxy, but Charles Lineweaver has
information which indicates that the discovery could be somewhat
humbling. By cleverly combining a host of factors that determine
the formation and destruction of terrestrial planets, the
researcher at the University of New South Wales in Sydney
estimates that three-quarters of all Earth-like planets will be
on average about 1.8 billion years older than Earth. "This
analysis gives us an age distribution for life on such planets
and a rare clue about how we compare to other life which may
inhabit the Universe," says Lineweaver. In other words,
intelligent life on these "older" planets may be so highly
advanced that to them we seem little better than bacteria.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns227327








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:57:19 +1100
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:09:44 +0000
Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps


Hi Sean and the List

 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net
 >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:34:00 -0500
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

<snip>

 >Okay, lets lay it out straight, no-one will accept laboratory
 >analyses performed by a non-third-party, non-biased lab. I work
 >in the field of Environmental Science, managing my own
 >consulting office, and even though I have worked on nearly 600
 >environmental assessments, I cannot do my own lab analyses.

<snip>

 >You show me a certificate of approval for this lab's operation
 >and I'd consider them credible.

 >Here is an offer, if anyone desires lab analysis for of soils or
 >water, of if you need third party, non-biased DNA analysis the
 >results of which would be acceptable by anyone in the know, let
 >me know and I'll put you in touch with a Lab. I offer this
 >service for free.

 >Sean Liddle

 >KAPRA

I suspect these comments are coloured by the environment you are
working in. I ve have worked for 25 years in private industry as
a chemist and quality/laboratory manager, and all variations on
laboratory operations apply depending on what you are trying to
achieve. I suspect there would be a few scientific
establishments, pharmaceutical companies, research firms etc
that might be boggled by your assertion that no-one will accept
laboratory analyses performed by a non-third-party, non-biased
lab.

I agree with you that I'd love to have an open certified lab
working on this issue with the level of commitment, interest and
integrity that the team I have helping me.

If you know one let me know.

Likewise for your offer: I don't think there will be too many
doing this kind of specialised, focused archaeological /
forensic style methodology at a low cost. Sure straight
forensic or paternity style matches might come easy, but complex
issues like this would drag out such procedures, way beyond
their routine applications and probably beyond standard testing
charters.

But if you know of them let me know. I d love to talk with
them. Perhaps even get them to talk to Lloyd Pye re his Star
Child skull who has run the gauntlet. The kind of specialised,
focused protocols involved do not come easily.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:57:19 +1100
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:18:25 +0000
Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps


 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'
 >>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:23:25 -0800

Hi Serge, John and the List

 >>I don't want this to become a debate of any sort, but may I point
 >>out that _you_ provided the link I followed to _your_ summary of
 >>the case that I presume _you_ must have found more pertinent then
 >>the original work for which _you_ gave _no_ link?

 >>Am I entitled to questions about a story like this one? I did
 >>not characterise the story. You made the comments.

 >>Do you have a link to the full IUR article?

Serge,

Of course you are entitled to ask questions. The CNI/UFO
folklore link was a convenient link to a summary by way of
introduction. I had hoped that serious debate and discussion on
this would be anchored, beyond the electronic summary link, to
the detail present in my non-electronic links, particularly the
IUR report. The report is 16 pages long, with the details of
methodology & results taking up about 4 of those pages. The
transcript of my interview with Peter Khoury takes up about 4
pages. The summary hardly touches the surface.

At this stage there is not an on line version, but hopefully
that may be remedied in the future.

I would certainly recommend the hard copy versions referenced in:

Strange Evidence, International UFO Reporter (IUR), Spring,
1999 issue, Volume 24, No 1, pgs. cover, 3-16, 31.

UFO ABDUCTIONS & SCIENCE - A CASE STUDY OF STRANGE EVIDENCE,

Australasian Ufologist, Vol.3, No.3, 3rd, 1999, pgs. 43-56.

Both publications are worthy of your support. Not all UFO facts
can be drawn from the web.

There is still a place represented by intelligent magazines,
journals and books. While I like the electronic media I ll
always be a soft touch for the real McCoy in my hands and on my
shelves & desk.

-----

 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net
 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:18:58 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:29:45 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

 >Hiya Serge, Bill, All

 >I've been letting this one 'bake in the oven' until it rises a
 >little more before asking any questions. I do have 'one' that
 >I'd like to ask Bill now though. Besides the IUR article and the
 >website, do you plan to publish in any of the medical peer
 >review journals?

 >I'm not knocking IUR, just that something as potentially
 >important as anomalous DNA -should be- published in the peer
 >review journals and subsequently tested/checked/verified by
 >independent researchers and experts. There's something
 >'incestuous' about not taking such an important peice of
 >evidence 'outside' of the UFO community.

John.

This work has already received a great deal of peer review from
within and outside the UFO community .

There has been positive, negative and neutral commentary from a
wide range of people. I am grateful for all of it, as the
research can only progress through intelligent review, analysis
and debate.

There are people who read this list who can probably attest to
the difficulties of getting something worthwhile of a
controversial nature, that emanates from a fringe subject, into
a scientific or medical peer reviewed journal. Its almost
impossible. Fortunately there have been some very limited
successes.

Even if the work had emanated from the appropriate field itself,
the hurdles and politics make it extremely difficult.

The back door approach is being utilised slowly through the
growing circle of mainstream contacts.

A mainstream book may develop from this and the general issues
involved, if we feel it helps further the objectives of the
research.

 >What are your plans for future (mainstream) publication and
 >independent confirmation of your findings Bill?

My other message addresses the issue of confirmation, namely:

A Proven Focused DNA Technique For Assessing Claims Of Alien
Abduction at:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/jan/m09-015.shtml

This really falls back into the lap of abductees and
researchers. We have set up a limited facility, with limited
funding, which is prepared to do the hard slog of evaluating and
studying possible biological evidence that may be recovered. We
are using a protocol, that is closer to archeological style DNA
investigations than forensic studies, that has been developed,
used and tested by the APEG team, which includes high level,
DNA/PCR researchers who have published 50-100 papers in top
mainstream peer reviewed journals. They are supporting and doing
the work and are confident of the integrity and soundness of the
work done to date.

We can choose to continue to approach this in an ad hoc way, or
focus for the moment on the opportunities before us now. Our
team wants to progress this work. Confirmation of the results to
date require more samples and support from researchers and
abductees alike. If further samples fail to replicate what we
have seen to date, so be it. However I believe the methodology
is sound, irrespective of the results. We need to examine
abduction evidence more scientifically. The very limited and
controversial results to date on only one case require us to
examine many more cases, before we can approach certainty.

Maybe then, a critical mass can be achieved via the back door
approach, where a mainstream lab will wake up and join the
programme. Realistically, I doubt it. Independent confirmation
of this first case is limited by limitations in the sample. Some
of shaft still remains, plus some of the DNA extract from the
root, the latter sufficient for further very limited testing. We
have secured these samples pending the possibility of future
interesting and worthwhile testing possibilities, rather than
exhaust the original and possible introduce impurities through
random amplification of the remaining root DNA sample.

 >This 'hair issue' is critically important to a great many folks.

 >I hope it doesn't turn out to be some more, 'Hair of the dog!'

 ><LOL>


I agree it is potentially very important, and deserves the
support of abductees and researchers alike.

John, we can at least be certain that Peter Khoury s sample is
not hair of the dog (:-))

Regards,

Bill Chalker








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:24:24 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:27:13 +0000
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles
 >Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:07:52 -0000

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 18:26:39 EST
 >>Subject: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Sparks - Pt. 2
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

Hi Jenny,

Unless I missed something you seem to have completely ignored my
Part 1, and you cut out most of my discussion and analysis of
UFO sighting details. To remind readers, I pointed out that
James Easton has been misquoting Col Halt's 1997 MSN Salley Rayl
interview to suppress Halt's words explaining that when he saw
the lighthouse and the UFO at the same time he noticed that the
lighthouse light was _white_ but the UFO was _red_. He also
pointed out the lighthouse was 30-40 degrees to the right of the
UFO (the Shipwash Sunk Lightship lighthouse in this case).

If we are supposed to be discussing the merits of the UFO case
instead of personality issues then at least the issue of the
direction and color discrepancy should be dealt with. I don't
think that's unreasonable.

I pointed out last time that the Orfordness Lighthouse was dark
98% of the time, that it was a Strobing White Light on for 0.1
second and off for 4.9 seconds according to Trinity House,
whereas Halt observed a Steady Red Sun-Like UFO with a dark
blinking center and sporadic flashes. You said nothing in
response.

Interestingly, I think one reason we have no night-time photos
of the lighthouse is because none of the skeptics can easily
click the manual shutter on a camera fast enough to catch the
1/10 second lighthouse strobe. How on earth could such a
momentary flash be seen as a steady light coming closer and
maneuvering? How could an eye-like shape be seen that could
"wink" when it was just black 98% of the time and then suddenly
flashes? How could any shape be perceived at all from a point
source light flashing for only 1/10 second?

I listed the various aspects of the Halt team's UFO sighting
that contradict the Lighthouse Theory, but you've said nothing
in response to any of these points:

(a) Wrong Direction
(b) Wrong Location for Visibility
(c) Wrong Color
(d) Wrong Duty Cycle (Steady vs. Strobe)
(e) Wrong Dynamics (Moving vs. Stationary,
     "Dripping/Shooting/Exploding")
(f) Wrong Shape (oval with dark "pupil" center, instead of
     strobing point source)
(g) Wrong Angular Size (1/3 to 1/2 full moon vs. point source).

Or as Col Halt is quoted as saying on the Dec. 1994 "Strange But
True" television documentary on the case, "A lighthouse doesn't
move through the forest; the lighthouse doesn't go up and down,
it doesn't explode...."

The data for the first night's sighting by
Penniston-Cabansag-Burroughs is less specific but still covers
the same points (a) through (g).

Why don't we deal with these observational facts that refute the
Lighthouse Theory instead of continually saying the Lighthouse
Theory still might be true, or that it has gained strength,
etc.?

You omit the entire exchange in my Part 2 on your erroneous
notion that a UFO sighted by Halt was a relatively motionless
star-like light that disappeared after "hours" in the growing
light of "dawn."

Do you remember writing the following?:

 >What long term researcher out there would not argue that a star
 >like light that remains in the same general part of the sky for
 >hours and fades as the dawn sky lightens until it then
 >disappears is not very, very likely to be a stellar object?

 >All my years experience as a UFO investigator teach me that this
 >is almost certainly what is being described here because the
 >witness testimony fits that so well. If - for instance - the
 >object was some sort of craft - even a plane - then as the dawn
 >sky lightened it would have become MORE visible. That it was
 >swallowed up by the lightening of the sky indicates the near
 >certain conclusion that it was a star.

I pointed out the last sighting details were from Halt at 4:00
AM as his group headed back to parked vehicles and they never
pointed out any such UFO "fading" or being "swallowed up" by
dawn, and that dawn wasn't till hours later, after nautical
twilight at 6:38 AM according to the US Naval Observatory,
sunrise at 8:03 AM. I also pointed out that the Southern Light
first sighted by Halt at 3:15 AM had not remained motionless for
"hours" but had within 10 minutes performed radical high-speed
maneuvers coming overhead of Halt's group, shining down the
laser-like beam for several seconds just a few yards from Halt's
feet, receded into the sky then shot over to the opposite
direction, the North, over the Bentwaters base where it shined
the laser-like beam and apparently so alarmed Halt that he
radioed a report into his Command Post for relay to Eastern
Radar/RAF Watton, at 3:25 AM.

As for your notion of the UFO witnesses in the USAF going to
Congress to redress their abridged civil liberties I think that
preposterous notion was well answered by Robert Gates so I'll go
on to your next.

 >>And so why aren't you challenging the authenticity of Burroughs'
 >>Jan 1981 statement, Jenny, which claims he was fooled by the
 >>lighthouse for 2 miles through the forest and fields?

 >Oh dear - why are you simply attacking me without first doing
 >the courtesy of reading what I have said. I have refrained from
 >'building myself up' - as I know you and Georgina would have
 >instantly suggested me to be doing if I had pointed this out
 >earlier - but now you give me no choice.

The point was and is why you don't point out the questionable
authenticity of the Burroughs 1981 statement whenever James
Easton continually cites or quotes it as proof that Burroughs
was fooled by a lighthouse for 2 miles and makes the alleged
1981 statement his proof of the Lighthouse Theory? Easton has
said this innumerable times on this List and on his deactivated
UFO Research List yet you have never even _once_ pointed out to
him and List readers that you had information from Burroughs
that challenged the authenticity of his own alleged Jan 1981
signed statement.

In your 1997 book you quote Burroughs: "Burroughs (who had lived
locally for 18 months and was familiar with the woods) said he
saw the lighthouse as well as the UFO that night but never
mentioned it because it was, 'just sitting there as always'."

Yet Burroughs' alleged 1981 statement claims he followed the
lighthouse for 2 miles before he realized what it was. So why do
you never point out to Easton what Burroughs said to you? Did he
or did he not "mention" the lighthouse in Jan 1981? Did he or
did he not see and ignore the lighthouse while seeing the UFO
because he was well familiar with it from 18 months there as a
"local"? Why do you sometimes bring up "energy fields" and such
as your objections to the Lighthouse instead of Burroughs'
testimony to you?

 >I did say this - and long before you and Georgina!

 >Heres what I say in 'The UFOs that Never Were' - published a
 >year ago and written in l999. Pity you didn't read it before
 >listening to what Georgina keeps telling you that it says.

When you post exchanges with UFO _skeptics_ you leave most of
your pro-UFO statements in your books and articles for others to
fish out, withholding your own helpful knowledge of your own
work, so that you can emphasize anti-UFO positions with the
skeptics, and downplay pro-UFO points. Oh sure, you mention a
few pro-UFO _opinions_ here and there and some doubts about
explanation schemes here and there, but on specific false
_facts_ that skeptics keep raising you stay silent and let them
go on and on unopposed. That way you can just say it's all a
matter of opinion, rather than of truth or science. So when
Easton keeps bringing up Burroughs' alleged 1981 statement over
and over again you never tell him that from your interviews his
information flatly contradicts the 1981 document and calls it
into question.

 >(p. 193) ...'It is possible to estimate how long after 3 am
 >(from the initial call to CSC) it would have taken for these
 >events (in the statement - JR) to take place. Thirty to forty
 >minutes seem reasonable. If Buran's timing of the end of the
 >mission is accurate, there is little leeway for more than a few
 >minutes time lapse at most....

 >And (p.194) - further into the discussion on timing problems...

 >'Another factor needs to be borne in mind. These statements now
 >include a lengthy new part of the story during which the men
 >walked two miles out towards Orford Ness in pursuit of a glow in
 >the forest, eventually recognised it as the lighthouse beacon
 >and then returned. There is little prospect that this could all
 >have been concluded between approximately 3.10 and 3.54

The 3:54 AM time was when Lt Buran _ordered_ them to return, not
the time when they _completed_ the return. It took about
another 30-45 minutes for them to return to their parked
vehicle, at around 4:30 AM.

 >(the time the men were in the forest according to the l981
 >statements). A four mile trek (two in - two out - JR) through
 >this area in the dark would surely take an hour by itself...'

 >So - as you can see - not only did I notice and comment upon
 >this discrepancy long ago but it appears in a book co authored
 >by two of the hated skeptical 'enemies' of this list (Andy
 >Roberts and Dr David Clarke). The ones you like to paint as only
 >saying negative things and deliberately ignoring the awkward
 >matters.

This is a very weak point concerning an alleged discrepancy in a
detail of timing - and you were mistaken about it being a
discrepancy as I just point out (above) - yet you didn't say
that this questions the authenticity of the Jan 1981 statements.
You didn't say that this called into question the Lighthouse
Theory. Were the skeptics supposed to be mindreaders and
psychics?

 >Ironic - eh? Skeptics pointing out things that only believers
 >are able to notice and comment upon?

 >So please do check the facts in the available literature before
 >accusing me again of something that is patently untrue. And don't
 >- as elsewhere in your message - allege that I never point out
 >problems to skeptics. This is another load of eyewash.

The issue was _not_ in bringing up "problems to skeptics" in
general, but your total failure to bring up your interview with
Burroughs to Easton and point out that what Burroughs said
contradicts Easton's use of Burroughs 1981 statement as a
religious prooftext of the Lighthouse Theory, the centerpiece of
his ridicule campaign against the Rendlesham case. Instead you
would only bring up "energy fields" in the close encounter, and
sometimes you wouldn't even mention that.

The problem, Jenny, is you have let Easton and Ridpath go on and
on for years treating the Jan 1981 statements as if they were
completely legitimate and unquestionable evidence that makes
idiots out of these USAF security policemen. You _never_ blew
the whistle and said, "Wait guys! I interviewed Burroughs years
ago and if what he says was true about having lived there for 18
months and was well acquainted with the lighthouse and saw it at
the same time as the UFO then he could not have made the Jan
1981 statement about being fooled by the lighthouse over a
2-mile chase."

 >What I don't do is scream hysterically on this list about evil
 >debunkers out to destroy Uology.

How about refuting skeptic falsehoods with _facts_ instead of
screaming hysterical _opinions_? You make it out to be a choice
of either staying completely silent (as you've been doing on the
Burroughs statement) or "screaming hysterically." Instead of
leaving your pro-UFO points buried deep inside of your books and
articles, you could have objected to the fallacious skeptical
claims by saying in a factual manner something to the effect of:
"Wait guys! I interviewed Burroughs years ago and if what he
says was true about having lived there for 18 months and was
well acquainted with the lighthouse and saw it at the same time
as the UFO then he could not have made the Jan 1981 statement
about being fooled by the lighthouse over a straightline 2-mile
chase."

 >Instead I go out - study the case - and
 >write up what I find. I have done this again, and again, and
 >again over Rendlesham. And my work is filled with analysis -
 >some no doubt supportive of the skeptics and some challenging
 >to them. That will be easily apparent to anyone who has read it.

You leave the pro-UFO points buried in your books and articles
for others to fish out when you interact with _skeptics_ and by
leaving it all behind you can posture 90% anti-UFO and 10%
pro-UFO or some similar ratio (I am having to say this several
times in this posting and I bet you will find the weakest and
most vulnerable of my several statements and respond only to
that).

 >But don't presume that because I don't engage in phoney wars on
 >this list but prefer to dwell on the facts of a case and write
 >these up in books and articles that this means I am somehow not
 >doing the right thing.

I have listed 7 factual scientific issues (a) to (g) on this
case repeatedly and you don't even discuss let alone "dwell" on,
not a single one. Again, no one is asking you to engage in a
"phoney war," but to simply have pointed out: "Wait guys! I
interviewed Burroughs years ago and if what he says was true
about having lived there for 18 months and was well acquainted
with the lighthouse and saw it at the same time as the UFO then
he could not have made the Jan 1981 statement about being fooled
by the lighthouse over a straightline 2-mile chase."

Why can't you "dwell on the facts of the case" on this List? I
have asked you many times now to discuss the Directional Data
and Terrain Visibility but you obviously refuse to do so. I have
pointed out sighting details utterly disproving the Lighthouse
Theory in the following categories and you ignore it all, every
last point:

(a) Wrong Direction
(b) Wrong Location for Visibility
(c) Wrong Color
(d) Wrong Duty Cycle (Steady vs. Strobe)
(e) Wrong Dynamics (Moving vs. Stationary,
     "Dripping/Shooting/Exploding")
(f) Wrong Shape (oval with dark "pupil" center, instead of
     strobing point source)
(g) Wrong Angular Size (1/3 to 1/2 full moon vs. point source).


 >>The solution to your conundrum is rather obvious from the fact
 >>that the Jan 1981 statements claim the physically impossible
 >>2-mile chases of the lighthouse when the lighthouse couldn't be
 >>seen for 2 miles. Therefore, the statements about a 2-mile chase
 >>are fabrications, rendering the rest of the statements suspect
 >>but not necessarily useless or invalid for observational data so
 >>long as caution is used.

 >Well, no - more correctly - these statements are incompatible -
 >so something is amiss somewhere.

If someone denies making a written statement that claims they
had time-traveled or teleported somewhere we wouldn't have much
trouble agreeing with them that the statement is an obvious
fabrication. It was likewise a physical impossibility to see a
lighthouse that was behind an intervening ridge and thus
invisible for 1.9 miles of a purported 2-mile lighthouse chase
and was dark 98% of the time except for momentary strobes every
five seconds. So it's not just some minor mistake, something
merely "amiss," or some obscure "incompatibility."

 >But it isn't necessarily the two
 >(or four) mile chase (they claim they came back too ). This
 >could be a genuine story and the timings were wrong. So you
 >cannot automatically argue that its the two mile chase that must
 >be in error because you would prefer that to be the case. Only
 >that there is a glaring anomaly here that needs resolving.

The timing problem is your mistake not mine, the 3:54 AM _order_
to return was not the time of their _return_, a huge difference.
Do you think orders are carried out instantly?

I can and do automatically argue that the 2-mile chase was a
physical impossibility because the Orfordness Lighthouse was
_invisible_ for 1.9 miles of any eastward or east-southeastward
route from the landing site at Capel Green.

I can and do automatically argue that it was a physical
impossibility for Col Halt and his team to follow Orfordness
Lighthouse, which was at 95-99 degrees magnetic, and end up at a
destination (Burrow Hill) at about 120 degrees magnetic from
their starting point.

I can and do automatically argue that it was a physical
impossibility for the Penniston-Burroughs-Cabansag team to
"follow" the Orfordness Lighthouse that was in the _EAST_ while
they headed back to their vehicle on their return to the _WEST_.
Do you acknowledge the impossibility of East and West here?

Isn't it strange that after 20 years skeptics cannot present a
video of anyone following the lighthouse in the dark over a
2-mile trek? Despite television programs by BBC and CNN, no one
can show any such thing at _night_ simulating the alleged IFO
events of Dec 1980. Yet the lighthouse has been there every
night, unchanged for years (except for recent upgrades).
Something like 7,000+ nights of opportunity to prove it was
possible to be fooled by a lighthouse over 2 miles at night, or
to prove that it could at least be _seen_.

 >I am waiting to hear what John Burroughs says on this matter
 >before pre-judging. You maybe ought to do the same.

So now you're telling me don't pay attention to what you
published in books and articles "long ago." I thought you had
solid data from Burroughs years ago. Why didn't you tell Easton
this whenever he would bring up the Burroughs statement as proof
of a birdbrained military police chase of a lighthouse over a
2-mile straight line? Why didn't you tell Easton you're waiting
to hear from Burroughs so don't keep pre-judging the matter in
all his public announcements and bleatings?

 >>London Heathrow Airport Radar certainly couldn't and didn't
 >>track the Cosmos re-entry over mainland Europe. Might as well
 >>have tried to track Santa Claus and his reindeer.

 >The space junk burnt up over Eastern England - and pieces
 >reportedly fell into the sea off to the east of Rendlesham. So
 >clearly parts of this were at low height when crossing the south
 >east of England and it was perfectly possible that they were
 >tracked by radar. This info comes from astronomers BTW.

 >On what basis do you suggest otherwise?

Distance would have been too great, probably more than 100
miles, and the speed of the re-entering material too high.

 >>I thought the reports were that UFO's were tracked over the
 >>Bentwaters and Woodbridge bases, not over the Rendlesham forest.

 >Watton - allegedly - tracked the object heading south above East
 >Anglia and lost it off screen somewhere over the forest. But as
 >both these bases are surrounded by the forest its a moot point
 >anyway. And on a radar screen 50 miles north nobody could say
 >for sure exactly where the object 'went down' - only that it was
 >over the forest.

A military search radar even 50 miles away can pinpoint the
location of a target to within a mile.

<snip>

 >>Burroughs was a "local" for 18 months and was quite familiar
 >>with the lighthouse as you yourself admit Jenny. So why don't
 >>the "rational skeptics" admit that?

 >What do you mean - I admit - as if its something I am being
 >forced to concede? This is the sort of silly attitude that
 >doesn't help the debate because it uses words to plant false
 >images into peoples minds.

As I've pointed out again and again, you won't, don't, and have
never pointed out this admitted fact about Burroughs' knowledge
of the lighthouse to Easton when you respond to his posts
crowing about how Burroughs foolishly pursued the lighthouse
without realizing it for 2 miles. You don't point out that his
testimony to you challenges the validity of his 1981 statement
that Easton constantly misuses.

 >Far from 'admitting' it I brought this fact to light when
 >Burroughs first told it me and used it as a primary argument
 >AGAINST the lighthouse as long as 10 years ago. Hardly the way
 >you quite absurdly portray it here.

As I've pointed out again and again, you won't, don't, and have
never pointed out this admitted fact about Burroughs' knowledge
of the lighthouse to Easton when you respond to his posts
crowing about how Burroughs foolishly pursued the lighthouse
without realizing it for 2 miles. You don't point out that his
testimony to you challenges the validity of his 1981 statement
that Easton constantly misuses.

 >But what matters is not what Burroughs said, but what the facts
 >demonstrate. We don't know that he was familiar with both
 >lighthouses - given Halt's apparent initial confusion over which
 >was which inferring that this may be a matter of some doubt.

The issue is whether Burroughs really made the 1981 statement
indicating his stupid unfamiliarity with the lighthouse, when he
later claims he didn't and that he was familiar, and whether it
was a physical impossibility to have seen the lighthouse over 2
miles. If it was a physical impossibility then it stands to
reason a statement saying he chased it for 2 miles is a lie.

After I went through all the explanation proving that Easton
twisted and distorted and misquoted the Salley Rayl interview of
Halt in May 1997 to posture Halt as confusing the two
lighthouses when he didn't, you just come right back and
reassert Halt's purported "confusion" all over again as if I
hadn't said a word.

 >From the site in l983 - when I first learned the difference - I
 >would likely have assumed that Shipwash was THE lighthouse (if I
 >thought there was only one - and John Burroughs never told me he
 >was familiar with TWO lighthouses notice). This is because it
 >more resembled what I expected a lighthouse at night to look
 >like than the image of Orford Ness did from the site. So this is
 >far from a cut and dried answer . We cannot know that what JB
 >thought was Orford Ness wasn't actually Shipwash. And if it was
 >and he also saw Orford Ness what he thought that might be.

The issue is (a) whether Burroughs really made the 1981
statement indicating his stupid unfamiliarity with the
lighthouse - doesn't matter which one, only which one he
_thought_ was the one - when he later claims he didn't and that
he was familiar, and (b) whether it was a physical impossibility
to have seen the lighthouse over 2 miles. If it was a physical
impossibility then it stands to reason a statement saying he
chased it for 2 miles is a lie.

Burroughs and his colleagues could not follow the Shipwash
beacon for 2 miles without first bumping right into the town of
Boyton so we know that didn't happen. That leaves only the
Orfordness Lighthouse. And we're right back at the problem that
it was a physical impossibility to see the Orfordness Lighthouse
for 1.9 miles. And again if it was a physical impossibility then
it stands to reason a (Jan 1981) statement saying he chased it
for 2 miles is a lie.

 >Again I discuss all of these problems and debate such questions
 >at length in my discussions of the case that you might care to
 >read some time.

 >>>Unfortunately, this is a specious argument anyhow. It sounds
 >>>plausible but it attacks the wrong issue. Nobody in their right
 >>>mind suggests that the lighthouse was tracked by Watton radar or
 >>>was seen by some of the witnesses flying through the air. So
 >>>arguing as if they do is just plain silly.

 >>Col Halt felt it necessary to point out that lighthouses don't
 >>fly through the air, to counter absurd debunker arguments. He
 >>said "A lighthouse doesn't move through the forest; the
 >>lighthouse doesn't go up and down, it doesn't explode...." It's
 >>the skeptic arguments that are "just plain silly," Jenny.

 >Halt was clearly just being defensive and responding to the
 >simplified lighthouse theory preferred by the media. I doubt he
 >was at all aware of the carefully argued IFO theory which surely
 >has never suggested that lighthouses can fly.

 >Point out where any skeptics are saying that reports of objects
 >flying through the air are the lighthouse. I haven't seen any and
 >would of course reject them as ridiculous if I had.

 >This debate is NOT about the UFO being either a lighthouse or a
 >real UFO. Its about a case being solved or unsolved as a
 >collection of IFO stimuli of which the lighthouse is just one
 >possible component to explain part of what took place.

I addressed this issue last time when you claimed this "never"
has been a "straight fight between a lighthouse and a real UFO"
and I presented you quote after quote from Easton saying the
case had been entirely or essentially resolved by the Orfordness
Lighthouse.

Easton and Ridpath both claim that the Steady Red Sun-Like UFO
that Col Halt saw flying through the woods, changing its
direction by 30-40 degrees (an object "flying through the air"),
was in actuality the Orfordness Lighthouse. Do you deny this?

Both Easton and Ridpath quote Halt from the Rayl interview
talking about the 30-40-degree maneuvers and yet they say that
was the Orfordness Lighthouse. They are saying the object seen
flying through the air was the lighthouse but they refuse to put
the words together that way because it makes them look
ridiculous. They implicitly deny the 30-40-degree maneuvers even
though they keep quoting Halt reporting that because they
evidently don't want to deal with the issue in a straightforward
and upfront way.

They claim the Penniston-Cabansag-Burroughs close encounter UFO
that reportedly broke tree branches was the Orfordness
Lighthouse and they evade or deny the broken branches (I mention
the broken branches 15-20 feet up and reported by Halt on his
live tape because it indicates an object flying through the air,
whereas the landing marks do not). If that isn't what the
skeptics say the P-C-B close encounter object was - a lighthouse
- then what do they say that object was Jenny? Did that object
fly through the air?

 >>But the difference between you and Georgina, Jenny, is that you
 >>aren't pointing this out to the skeptics when they keep claiming
 >>that the Police confirmed their lighthouse theory.

 >With respect - don't talk such absolute rot if you haven't
 >bothered to read what I have said on this case before making
 >such wild claims.

I am referring to posts you have made in response to Easton
both on this List and on his now defunct UFORL where you say
nothing to counter skeptical theories such as this based on your
own investigations or information you're aware of.

 >The police records state what they state - and I quote exactly
 >what Dave King said in his interview in l994 (see 'UFO Crash
 >Landing) . The police apparently thought at the time that the
 >USAF were not seeing anything of significance that night and did
 >not even bother turning up on the third occasion they were
 >called out by the base - using another call as a reason never to
 >show up. And I also report that from the site all that Dave King
 >saw that night was the lighthouse.

 >These are the hard facts. What his opinion is or isn't - now -
 >about the sighting itself - or even as compared with what his
 >opinion was in l994 - when he was clearly skeptical - isn't
 >really the key point, surely. Since Dave King was never in a
 >position to know what was seen by the airmen because the
 >sighting was over when he got there.

 >But it is interesting that I don't see you anywhere reporting
 >(probably because you again have not read what I write on this
 >issue) that far from not doing what you demand that I should do
 >- I actually point out how none of the USAF people with King in
 >the forest on that first night were trying to suggest to him
 >that the lighthouse that they could now see WAS the UFO.

 >This - to me - is easily the most interesting thing about his
 >testimony.

 >Recall - of course - that an hour earlier this lighthouse is
 >argued by some to have triggered a major close encounter. So the
 >fact that King is saying that he could only now see the
 >lighthouse from the site (and so could the USAF personnel out
 >there with him) is a pro UFO statement since we have to ask what
 >was different about the lighthouse an hour earlier that
 >apparently wasn't causing any sort of confusion now.

As I say, you leave most - not all but most - of your pro-UFO
statements in your books and articles and put forward a mostly
anti-UFO posture in your postings exchanged with _skeptics_.
Only by this long and drawn-out exchange have you brought forth
this "pro UFO" evidence with me - but you're not doing this to
Easton or Ridpath or Brookesmith or Roberts.

 >Moreover, since the lighthouse as a potential IFO source at the
 >site was now being pointed out to the base personnel then this
 >has to mean that the possibility was recognised from the very
 >start and presumably eliminated by senior officers - in their
 >judgement - before pursuing the case further.

And I bet this conclusion of yours that senior officers had
considered and rejected the Lighthouse Theory from the very
beginning back in Dec 1980 has never once been cited to Easton
or Ridpath or Brookesmith in any public posting on this list or
any other. But I bet you can cite a bunch of postings talking
about "energy fields" and time distortion and such.

 >Now isn't it curious that I argue all of this quite plainly in my
 >writings on the case - but you conveniently don't seem to notice
 >or mention such things. All you - quite spuriously - allege is
 >that I am not doing what Georgina is doing by shouting at the
 >skeptics to argue over a less important aspect of Kings story!

You equate the pointing out of inconvenient facts to a skeptic
as "shouting" at them.

Plain talk with skeptics in your view must be keeping silent so
as to not upset their delicate fabricated house of cards.

 >What I am doing is what really all of you ought to be doing -
 >that is objectively analysing the evidence, looking at the pros
 >and the cons of each part and assessing the meaning of each
 >aspect of the testimony and the evidence. Something I have been
 >getting on with for many years whilst this list seems only to
 >enjoy having a scrap!

We can certainly agree on objective analysis of UFO evidence.
What we can't agree on is suppressing from exchanges with
_skeptics_ some 90% of one's pro-UFO facts on a given UFO case
in an Internet newsgroup or similar forum while presenting 100%
of one's anti-UFO facts or factoids.

 >I defy any of you to go away and read the four major things that
 >I have published on this case during the past three years -

 >viz:

 >(UFO Crash Landing? - l997 My IUR article on the witness
 >statements - l998 - The 60 page chapter in The UFOs that Never
 >Were - 1999 - and the current debate / article with Richard Hall
 >in the latest IUR)

 >And tell me from the sum total of all this material that I am
 >not open mindedly and objectively trying to work through the
 >details of this case.

 >And what am I getting for bothering to do this? Massive
 >messages attacking me left, right and centre - often making
 >utterly silly remarks that suggest I am not doing the very
 >things I already have done, often long ago, or misrepresenting
 >my position entirely - presumably because the people sending the
 >messages having read what I have said before composing their
 >text.

 >And then ask yourself (as I am!) why I have spent half of
 >Christmas responding to all of this when nobody else seems to be
 >bothering.

 >Because, frankly, I have reached the point where I don't think
 >this is getting us anywhere and I am weary of being used as a
 >scapegoat for your frustrations.

 >I will happily respond to questions from people who do bother to
 >read my work on this case first and want to quiz me over that -
 >but I don't see why I should reply to long eh-mails that assume
 >things that you could easily discover are nonsense by simply
 >bothering to acquaint yourself with what I have published on
 >this case.

 >Sorry - I have tried to be patient. And I would have thought I
 >have made more than obvious that I am not the nasty debunker
 >some of you seem to take delight in trying to allege.

Suppressing most of your pro-UFO facts from your postings with
_skeptics_ doesn't make you a "nasty debunker," just a
frustration in objectively analyzing the case.

 >But at least perhaps some of you will now read what I have
 >written and draw your own conclusions.

 >That's all I would reasonably ask.


 >Best wishes,

 >Jenny

And I would ask that the 7 points (a) through (g) against the
Lighthouse Theory be poured over with the same energy and
dedication that these postings have shown, instead of repeating
tired old speculations that the Lighthouse Theory is still
viable or even growing. That's all I would reasonably ask.

Regards,

Brad









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                   Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Parmantier

From: Franois Parmantier <parcol@club-internet.fr>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:10:27 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:30:37 +0000
Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Parmantier


 >From: Richard Nolane <raynaud@total.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI
 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:52:33 -0500

 >>From: Perry Petrakis <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI
 >>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:40:21 +0100

 >Dear List members,

 >>Let's say I've been investigating for the past 30 years, with a
 >>totally open mind (at least at the beginning) contrarily to G.
 >>Bourdais, R. Nolane or F. Parmentier who were totally unknown a
 >>few years ago. They jumped on the Roswell Bandwagon just as did
 >>so many people in the Eighties.

Do you mean that ufology should only belong to the oldest
researcher?! I'm sorry but this is not your private property and
a 30 years experience doesn't give you the right to criticise
abilities of other ufologists. Ufology is not an institution and
a ufologist should not have a bureaucratic mentality. This
intellectual attitude is typically french, based on a elitist
and ridiculous conception of knowledge. To cast doubts on
abilities instead of answer with facts is symptomatic.

 >Well, this is exactly the kind of "information" one can find in
 >"Phenomena"...

 >I have studied, privately, the UFO phenomenon since more than 25
 >years and I have published my first UFO book reviews in
 >non-ufological magazines in 1973. I published my first own UFO
 >book in 1993, which has nothing to do with Roswell but which was
 >about "ancient UFOs", one of my main interests in ufology. Four
 >other books have followed and the next one will be published
 >before summer.

 >We are waiting for the first book of our 30 years investigator
 >who seems to have so many things to tell about "true ufology".

Yes. We are all impatient to read this Bible. We can't stand
anylonger to remain in darkness and ignorance.

 >>As for the COMETA, I will just say this: it might have been
 >>written by high ranking past officials and it is countersigned
 >>by some important people but it means nothing and only reflects
 >>their personnal views which I do not share. It was written
 >>within a non-profit organisation. It is a rehash of what was
 >>said in 1995 under the auspices of this French Intelligence
 >>Agency. Whoever wrote this at that time, got it countersigned by
 >>the major military intelligence agency in France and published
 >>by the Ministry of Defense.

The question of what is quite official and what is not quite
official is somehow ridiculous. Abilities and knowledges are
more important than the matter of legitimacy or some sort of
"purity". The COMETA report has been written by high ranking
past officials and delivered to the President and Prime
Minister. This fact seems to make you mad but you can't deny it,
just insult its members (the "VSDque Committee" !).

It therefore reflects their views.

 >>Let's note that all these nice people seem to have been well
 >>aware of the document but never whispered a word about it, maybe
 >>to promote a committee much more close to their own views. Who
 >>has a hidden agenda? My bet is that if COMETA had managed to
 >>get their report published in an official context, it would have
 >>been less tantalizing

 >The problem with the short 1995 report is that there is almost
 >nothing interesting in it. It's only a brief history of
 >"official UFO research" in USA and France concluded by the idea
 >that military and intelligence agencies can use the UFO interest
 >of citizens to hide secret operations.

 >It was written by a young serviceman (I have his name) and was
 >never a secret document but just another report among tons of
 >other reports produced by the military. It reflects more the
 >views of the serviceman than anything else. A short extract was
 >used in the first Special UFO issue of VSD in 1998 and the
 >serviceman was very upset to have not been cited as the author !
 >Quite strange, isn't it for an "official and important" report ?

And as a member of a French List he took part in discussions
about the Cometa and DRM reports but never said that he is the
author which is not very fair.

Frnaois Parmantier











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:28:41 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:33:35 +0000
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:56:12 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down

 >>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:29:05 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>As this relates to UFO sightings, I don't think authorities will
 >>generally question that people, even hundreds of people, see
 >>unexplained lights in the sky. However, the implications of
 >>these claims - that these lights are ET craft - have yet to be
 >>proven or, to be fair, even adequately investigated. Therefore,
 >>the UFO analogy doesn't really connect in the way (I assume)
 >>that you imply; that witnesses should be believed until proven
 >>otherwise.

Greg replied:

 >Certainly I didn't mean to imply anything like that. Witnesses
 >who appear serious should be taken seriously - something like
 >that is more what I meant. But whether they actually saw what
 >they claim to have seen would be quite another story. That, in
 >every case, remains to be proved.

I agree. As I said before, I'd be pretty agitated if I saw
something with my own eyes and no one believed me. However, as
you pointed out, there is a difference between being taken
seriously and being believed without validation. Being taken
seriously should prompt an adequate investigation to validate
the witnesses' claims. Being unconditionally believed
circumvents the validation process and promotes unnecessary
confusion. Many times, on this very list, witness claims are
promoted as "fact" depending on a person's own personal bias.
Likewise, provable facts are quite often ignored due to that
very same bias.

Moving on, I had written:

 >>Witnesses see a plane and assume a crash that hasn't been
 >>proven. Witnesses see an unknown object and assume an ET craft
 >>that hasn't been proven. Now, THAT's an analogy that rings true
 >>to me.

Greg replied:

 >Not even that, I fear, is a precise analogy, because here you're
 >dealing with a speculation people make about what they see - a
 >speculation about its nature and origin. In the Hudson River
 >plane business, people simply thought they saw the plane crash.
 >That's a factual mistake, not an assumption about what kind of
 >plane it was, and why it was flying so low.

In the NYC plane case, I suppose if the witnesses weren't even
believed that they saw a plane in the first place, then they
would have a legitimate beef. Perhaps this is the case. From
what I've read so far, I really can't tell.

Regarding their perceived crash, though, one has to ask why the
witnesses would promote the idea of a crash when, to a person,
NONE of them saw a crash. Granted, they may have feared or
assumed a crash, but in the cold reality of hindsight, the fact
is that they knew they never saw a crash to begin with.
Certainly, I can not fault them for alerting the authorities to
the idea that a plane MIGHT have crashed. But the nature of the
claims would indicate a certainty that simply did not exist.

Continuing, Greg wrote:

 >Obviously people didn't see the plane crash, as they thought
 >they did. But they were right to believe they'd seen something
 >surprising. That's all I'm trying to say.

Yes, perhaps they were surprised to see a low flying plane. Now
that you've explained how unusual that is in NYC (not unusual
here in Houston) I could understand if that were the extent of
their claims. However, not to put too find a point on it, the
witnesses didn't just claim that they had seen something
surprising. They claimed they saw a plane crash when they, in
fact, they know they did not.

The difference is a matter of relativity versus fact. Seeing
"something surprising" is very relative. Perhaps there were
people in NYC that would not find a low flying plane very
surprising. Indeed, considering the number of people that
apparently ignored the event, that may very well be the case,
apathy not withstanding. ;)

On the other hand, seeing a "plane crash" is not a relative
event; it either happened or it did not. The fact is, it did not
despite the witnesses claims to the contrary. More to the point,
the witnesses' knew they did not see a crash. The crash was
assumed; not witnessed. None the less, the witnesses seemed to
be crying foul for not being believed about an event that they
knew they did not see. Were they sincere? Yes! Were they
correct? No. I think the analogy as it relates to UFOs is pretty
clear.

Regarding such, I wrote:

 >>As I said before, I feel that witness CAN be correct. However,
 >>the only way to know is to validate the claims of the witnesses
 >>rather than assume them to be true because that's what we want
 >>to believe.

Greg replied:

 >Here I feel I'm being pulled toward one end of a polarity that
 >(or so I hope) doesn't apply to me. I know witnesses can be
 >wrong; I know they sometimes can be right; I don't assume, when
 >I hear any eyewitness account, that it's necessarily right or
 >wrong, simply because either side would support one of my
 >preconceived ideas. And I think it's a shame we've established
 >this polarity in ufology.

Agreed.


Take care,

Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                    Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:14:11 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:41:58 +0000
Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI - Bourdais


 >From: Richard Nolane <raynaud@total.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI
 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:52:33 -0500

 >>From: Perry Petrakis <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: SOS OVNI & French DMI
 >>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:40:21 +0100

 >Dear List members,

 >>Let's say I've been investigating for the past 30 years, with a
 >>totally open mind (at least at the beginning) contrarily to G.
 >>Bourdais, R. Nolane or F. Parmentier who were totally unknown a
 >>few years ago. They jumped on the Roswell Bandwagon just as did
 >>so many people in the Eighties.

 >Well, this is exactly the kind of "information" one can find in
 >"Phenomena"...

 >I have studied, privately, the UFO phenomenon since more than 25
 >years and I have published my first UFO book reviews in
 >non-ufological magazines in 1973. I published my first own UFO
 >book in 1993, which has nothing to do with Roswell but which was
 >about "ancient UFOs", one of my main interests in ufology. Four
 >other books have followed and the next one will be published
 >before summer.

 >We are waiting for the first book of our 30 years investigator
 >who seems to have so many things to tell about "true ufology".

 >>As for the COMETA, I will just say this: it might have been
 >>written by high ranking past officials and it is countersigned
 >>by some important people but it means nothing and only reflects
 >>their personnal views which I do not share. It was written
 >>within a non-profit organisation. It is a rehash of what was
 >>said in 1995 under the auspices of this French Intelligence
 >>Agency. Whoever wrote this at that time, got it countersigned by
 >>the major military intelligence agency in France and published
 >>by the Ministry of Defense. It therefore reflects their views.
 >>Let's note that all these nice people seem to have been well
 >>aware of the document but never whispered a word about it, maybe
 >>to promote a committee much more close to their own views. Who
 >>has a hidden agenda? My bet is that if COMETA had managed to
 >>get their report published in an official context, it would have
 >>been less tantalizing

 >The problem with the short 1995 report is that there is almost
 >nothing interesting in it. It's only a brief history of
 >"official UFO research" in USA and France concluded by the idea
 >that military and intelligence agencies can use the UFO interest
 >of citizens to hide secret operations.

 >It was written by a young serviceman (I have his name) and was
 >never a secret document but just another report among tons of
 >other reports produced by the military. It reflects more the
 >views of the serviceman than anything else. A short extract was
 >used in the first Special UFO issue of VSD in 1998 and the
 >serviceman was very upset to have not been cited as the author !
 >Quite strange, isn't it for an "official and important" report ?

 >And if it was "countersigned" it's only because there is almost
 >nothing in it, just the kind of infos about UFOs that you can
 >find here and there in your favorite sunday newspaper or TV
 >guide before the launching of the new season of X Files.

 >The COMETA Report (even if not a perfect work) is really the big
 >thing, privately published or not.

Thank you for your answer to Petrakis, with which I fully agree.

May I add that I have written four books on UFOs, three
published (in 1994, 1995 and 1997) and the fourth one soon to
come. In addition to that, I was following the subject long
before I wrote the first one.

My second book, published in october 1995,
was on Roswell and it got some favorable reviews,
on them signed by... Petrakis! Here is his conclusion
(free translation from Phenomena, Nov.-Dec. 1995):

      "In short, a useful book which proposes a good synthesis of
      the debate on this case, and which will find its place in
      every respectable file on Roswell".

Now Petrakis says I am one of those who "jumped in the Roswell
bandwagon". Well, I was studying it long before the big
"scandal" of the autopsy footage.

BTW, I recall that Petrakis secured an exclusive interview of
Ray Santilli, published in his review, Phenomena, of May-June
1995, together with the first photographs of the film ever
published. That was fast!


Gildas Bourdais







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                         Where Can Evidence Be Sent?

From: Stefan Duncan <bward3@nc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:38:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:47:15 +0000
Subject: Where Can Evidence Be Sent?


I need a listing of several places a person can send off
collected DNA samples, other evidence to be examined, etc.
concerning alien abductions.


Thanks,

Stefan Duncan

AUFON LIVE click during broadcast time
http://www.live365.com/cgibin/directory.cgi?autostart=aufon
AUFON newswire/weekly newspaper UFO Hotline 910-425-6962
aufon-subscribe@egroups.com   http://www.aufon.com

American UFO News address
5396 S.Sumac Circle, Fayetteville, NC 28304

AUFON LIVE hosted by Stefan Duncan
9p.m.-11p.m. M-F  11p.m.-1a.m. SAT. (EST)
Just click on:
http://www.live365.com/cgibin/directory.cgi?autostart=aufon
or
AUFON LIVE on at website during broadcast time. No downloads.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:11:26 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:32:36 +0000
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:17:24 EST
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

  Hello Jim, all -

<snip>

 >But that's not the issue. Before it was determined that a plane
 >was doing some low flying, the police chief in Jersey assumed
 >that it was all a mistake. Based on what evidence? None
 >whatsoever except that there was as yet, no evidence of debris.
 >Fine. But a presumption notwithstanding, and before the facts
 >were in.

Might I suggest here that if a plane is reported to crash, there
are a number of things that are done without leaving the office.
Airports and the FAA are called to find out if there are any
air- craft missing or overdue. There is also an ELT (emergency
locator transmitter) in each aircraft that are supposed to
activate in the event of a crash. If there has been no such
signal, it reduces the possibility there has been a crash. Yes,
the beacons sometimes fail and there are a few aircraft that do
not have them.

My point is that it seems, from what I have read here, and I
have not read everything that appeared in the NY newspapers,
that everyone is right. A plane, as described, was seen near the
water. The police agencies seem to have reacted to the telephone
calls by beginning a search... which begins with telephone calls
to the various official agencies who are responsible for these
things. People went into the field to look.

It seems to me that everything proceeded as it should. The only
point of dispute is the interpretation of the perceptions by
some who believed the plane had gone into the water. The
mistake, given the situation, seems quite natural. But, without
some confirmation from these other sources, where you would
expect some kind of confirmation, the actions of the police seem
to be reasonable to me.

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                          Moon Hoax Spurs New Site

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:47:06 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:47:06 +0000
Subject: Moon Hoax Spurs New Site




From: UFO UpDates


Source: Rense.com

http://www.rense.com

Moon Hoax Spurs New Site

www.badastronomy.com

1-12-01



SAN DIEGO (Reuters) -- The myth about equinox eggs got him
started, misinformation about meteors bugged him, but when he
learned that some people think the Apollo Moon landings never
happened, Philip Plait knew the time had come for his crusade
against bad astronomy.

So what began as a frustrated astronomy graduate student's
online fuming has evolved into a newspaper column, a book
contract and a Web site that gets an average of 15,000 hits a
week: http:/www.badastronomy.com.

No one is spared on the site: Plait, who holds a doctorate in
astronomy from the University of Virginia and worked with the
Hubble Space Telescope, takes aim at movies, television, the
news media and the Internet when they trample on what he
considers to be the obvious truths about space science.

Take, for example, the notion that humans never walked on the
Moon, despite copious evidence to the contrary.

"People believe in the weirdest stuff, but they don't believe
the most flaming obvious thing that's right in front of their
face and I get e-mail about this," Plait said in an interview at
the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society in San
Diego.

He blames much of it on the movie "Capricorn One," a science
fiction offering in which a planned human mission to Mars is
faked.

"It's a good flick, but it legitimized a lot of these people who
claimed we never went to the Moon," Plait said. "There weren't
that many people, but with the Web, you can spread
disinformation instantly. People are just willing to grab onto
this stuff."

Where are the stars?

Tne common argument used by the anti-Apollo folks is that in
photographs of astronauts on the lunar surface, no stars can be
seen in the dark sky, therefore the pictures must have been
taken on Earth somewhere.

Plait literally gagged as he recounted this, and countered with
what to him was the obvious fact: there are no stars in the
pictures from the moon because the Moon itself is being blasted
with sunlight and is enormously bright, so bright that people on
Earth can sometimes read by the light of the full Moon.

"When they're taking a picture of this brightly lit astronaut on
a brightly lit landscape, it's just like taking a picture in
daytime here on the earth," he said. "No stars have a prayer of
getting through that."

Rather that debunking this idea on his Web site, Plait has a
section referring visitors to other sites of "debunkers" and
"conspiracy theories." But he plans a chapter in an upcoming
book to be called "Bad Astronomy" on this question.

There will also be a chapter on those who calculate the birth of
the universe using the Bible, estimating its age in the
thousands of years, instead of the billions of years that
astronomers have long maintained.

'The accessible science'

"Astronomy is one of the most accessible sciences," he said.
"Everybody wonders about it and it does tap into the fundamental
questions of humanity -- why are we here, what's our place in
the universe, does the universe have an end, how did it start --
these aren't little questions, whole religions,
trillion-dollar-a-year industries are based on these questions.

"But it means that there's an open door into people's heads. If
you can use that pathway to get to people, it's a good way to do
it, for ill or for good," Plait said.

Beginning in his student days in 1993 and 1994 with a personal
Web site as his platform, Plait expressed irritation at a
commonly held belief: that eggs can only be stood on end at the
exact moment of vernal equinox.

That, said Plait, is just plain nonsense. And he said so on his
site, eventually featuring a picture of a gaggle of eggs at
attention, taken on October 25 -- as he said, about as far from
the vernal equinox as possible.

He did not hit on the idea of creating a Web site about bad
astronomy until 1998, several months before a Leonid meteor
shower. It turned out to be good timing: there was plenty of
media grist for his mill in that event.

Plait has not quit his day job: he currently works in California
on public education programs for the Gamma Ray Large Area Space
Telescope. He also writes a column for the German newspaper,
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

Copyright 2001 Reuters. 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                          Secrecy News -- 01/12/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:37:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:49:43 +0000
Subject: Secrecy News -- 01/12/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
January 12, 2001

**RUMSFELD ON NUCLEAR TARGETING SECRECY
**DOE PUBLISHES LIST OF NUCLEAR SITES


RUMSFELD ON NUCLEAR TARGETING SECRECY

"I don't know whether we can reduce [the number of weapons in
the U.S. nuclear arsenal] or not," said Defense
Secretary-designate Donald Rumsfeld at his confirmation hearing
yesterday. "There is a minimum below which you cannot go and
maintain the kind of target list that rational people think is
appropriate."

But who are those rational people who determine the appropriate
target list for fighting a nuclear war?

They do not include even the most senior elected officials in
Congress, as Sen. Robert Kerrey noted recently. The nuclear
targeting list, known as the Single Integrated Operational Plan
(SIOP), is so highly classified that not even the chair and
ranking members of the Intelligence or Armed Services Committees
are permitted to review it.

Yet as Rumsfeld indicated, it is this list that determines the
size of the nuclear arsenal and much of the U.S. military force
structure. By withholding the information from Congress, the
Pentagon effectively blocks congressional participation in
defining the foundation of nuclear weapons policy.

Would Rumsfeld change this Pentagon practice of unaccountable
secrecy, Senator Mary Landrieu asked?

"Those are decisions that I think are the President's, and it's
not for me to opine as to what extent, if at all, the current
procedures ought to be changed," Mr. Rumsfeld responded.

"I do know that the U.S. [targeting] plans are reviewed,
admittedly, by a very small number of people in the executive
branch, the national command authorities. They are reviewed
regularly. They are changed as circumstances change in the
world. As you suggested, they are highly classified. And
that's about all I can say."

The exchange between Senator Landrieu and Mr. Rumsfeld is posted
here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/01/rumsfeld-siop.html


DOE PUBLISHES LIST OF NUCLEAR SITES

The Department of Energy has assembled an unprecedented list of
317 facilities that have been involved in U.S. nuclear weapons
production-related activities over the past sixty years.

The sites are spread over 37 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico and the Marshall Islands. They include facilities
directly involved in weapons production, as well as certain
other government facilities that utilized radioactive materials
and facilities that handled or processed beryllium for
government use.

The list was prepared in support of a Clinton Administration
program to provide compensation to individuals who developed
illnesses as a result of their employment in nuclear weapons
production. Previously, the government's unwillingness to
acknowledge the existence of nuclear weapons work at some
facilities has presented an obstacle to workers seeking
compensation for their injuries.

The site list is included in a Notice that was prepared for
publication in the Federal Register. The Notice is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/faclist.html

******************************

To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message:

subscribe secrecy_news [your email address]

To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message:

unsubscribe secrecy_news [your email address]

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email: saftergood@igc.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:15:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:09:43 +0000
Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps


 >From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'
 >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:57:19 +1100


 >>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'
 >>>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:23:25 -0800

 >Hi Serge, John and the List

 >>>I don't want this to become a debate of any sort, but may I point
 >>>out that _you_ provided the link I followed to _your_ summary of
 >>>the case that I presume _you_ must have found more pertinent then
 >>>the original work for which _you_ gave _no_ link?

 >>>Am I entitled to questions about a story like this one? I did
 >>>not characterise the story. You made the comments.

 >>>Do you have a link to the full IUR article?

 >Serge,

 >Of course you are entitled to ask questions.

<snip>

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net
 >>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:18:58 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:29:45 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

 >>Hiya Serge, Bill, All

 >>I've been letting this one 'bake in the oven' until it rises a
 >>little more before asking any questions. I do have 'one' that
 >>I'd like to ask Bill now though. Besides the IUR article and the
 >>website, do you plan to publish in any of the medical peer
 >>review journals?

<snip>

 >I agree it is potentially very important, and deserves the
 >support of abductees and researchers alike.

 >John, we can at least be certain that Peter Khoury s sample is
 >not hair of the dog (:-))


Hi Bill, Serge, All,

Bill, if there is _anything_ that I can do (as an abductee) to
help your research work please feel free to let me know. I am
willing to provide you with/(to ask my doctor to release to you)
any medical records or information on me. (Blood work, etc.) If
a hair sample from an abductee can be used as a control or
comparison sample, I have have a head, face, armpits, and crotch
just full of the stuff.  <LOL>

In all seriousness, if there is _any_way_ I can be of service, I
am at your disposal.

Regards, and best of luck in your work. It is _deeply_
appreciated.


John Velez
Abductee

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                       Re: Where Can Evidence Be Sent?

From: Sean and Karen <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:46:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:11:43 +0000
Subject: Re: Where Can Evidence Be Sent?


 >From: Stefan Duncan <bward3@nc.rr.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Where Can Evidence Be Sent?
 >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:38:20 -0500

 >I need a listing of several places a person can send off
 >collected DNA samples, other evidence to be examined, etc.
 >concerning alien abductions.


Call 1-613-389 6565, Millenium Biologix in Kingston, ON Canada.
But just a hint, like any samples you send to a lab, be
professional and do not say the words "alien abductions". In
fact, in my business, we often label samples with a code and
number system, because it is none of the lab's business where
the samples came from and also this assures the samples are
treated the same as any others they receive.

And you do know that this will cost you cashola you realize. Lab
analysis is not always cheap.


Sean Liddle
KAPRA






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                 Re: Where Can Evidence Be Sent? - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:57:23 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:15:18 +0000
Subject: Re: Where Can Evidence Be Sent? - Balaskas


 >From: Stefan Duncan <bward3@nc.rr.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Where Can Evidence Be Sent?
 >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:38:20 -0500

 >I need a listing of several places a person can send off
 >collected DNA samples, other evidence to be examined, etc.
 >concerning alien abductions.

Hi Stefan.

Most universities in Canada provide an assortment of analytical
services and they usually charge a small set fee for their
clients (often for free to someone they know or already employed
there, especially if the test(s) do not require much in terms of
time and resources).

If the specimen(s) turn out to be truly unusual and additional
or other specialized tests are warranted, often just out of
simple curiosity, the technician/scientist will do these extra
tests for free. I have found this to be the case with government
and many private labs too, especially if the person in charge of
the lab is approached first.

If the specimen is biological and DNA analysis needs to be done
in the Toronto area, I would take it to Dr. Wayne Murray, Maxxam
DNA laboratory manager and former head of the DNA Unit at the
Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto. Dr. Murray is no doubt
Canada's top forensic DNA expert and one can be confident that
his findings will stand up in any court of law.

Of course, unusual results in themselves are not proof that
something is out of this world. For that, a research scientist
such as Dr. Shelly Saunders and her colleagues (which includes
Dr. John Waye who is a close friend of Dr. Murray at Maxxam) at
McMaster University's Institute for the Study of Ancient and
Forensic DNA or Dr. Ron Pearlman and his DNA research team at
York University must do a through science study of the
specimen(s) with results publishable in a top scientific
journal. Unfortunately, this type of study which will rule out
all other Earthly causes for the unusual results obtained in the
specimen(s) costs thousands of dollars to do. It may be of
interest to those who are familiar with Lloyd Pye's "Starchild"
skull (a suspected alien/human hybrid) that Dr. Pearlman, who
does a lot of DNA work for scientists from the University of
Toronto, various hospitals and for the private sector too, was
prepared to do a three month long study here at York University
with one of his scientists dedicated to this project but the
money (only a few thousand dollars) was not there.

As for testing of non-biological specimens, universities and
government labs will do any appropriate test(s), often for free.
Stefan, if you wish, contact me directly for more specific
information on these numerous labs throughout Canada and
especially the Toronto area.


Nick 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:22:44 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:18:27 +0000
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:28:41 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:56:12 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down

 >>>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:29:05 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>>As this relates to UFO sightings, I don't think authorities will
 >>>generally question that people, even hundreds of people, see
 >>>unexplained lights in the sky. However, the implications of
 >>>these claims - that these lights are ET craft - have yet to be
 >>>proven or, to be fair, even adequately investigated. Therefore,
 >>>the UFO analogy doesn't really connect in the way (I assume)
 >>>that you imply; that witnesses should be believed until proven
 >>>otherwise.

 >Greg replied:

 >>Certainly I didn't mean to imply anything like that. Witnesses
 >>who appear serious should be taken seriously - something like
 >>that is more what I meant. But whether they actually saw what
 >>they claim to have seen would be quite another story. That, in
 >>every case, remains to be proved.

 >I agree. As I said before, I'd be pretty agitated if I saw
 >something with my own eyes and no one believed me. However, as
 >you pointed out, there is a difference between being taken
 >seriously and being believed without validation. Being taken
 >seriously should prompt an adequate investigation to validate
 >the witnesses' claims. Being unconditionally believed
 >circumvents the validation process and promotes unnecessary
 >confusion. Many times, on this very list, witness claims are
 >promoted as "fact" depending on a person's own personal bias.
 >Likewise, provable facts are quite often ignored due to that
 >very same bias.

<snip>

 >>>Witnesses see a plane and assume a crash that hasn't been
 >>>proven. Witnesses see an unknown object and assume an ET craft
 >>>that hasn't been proven. Now, THAT's an analogy that rings true
 >>>to me.

 >Greg replied:

 >>Not even that, I fear, is a precise analogy, because here you're
 >>dealing with a speculation people make about what they see - a
 >>speculation about its nature and origin. In the Hudson River
 >>plane business, people simply thought they saw the plane crash.
 >>That's a factual mistake, not an assumption about what kind of
 >>plane it was, and why it was flying so low.

 >In the NYC plane case, I suppose if the witnesses weren't even
 >believed that they saw a plane in the first place, then they
 >would have a legitimate beef. Perhaps this is the case. From
 >what I've read so far, I really can't tell.

 >Regarding their perceived crash, though, one has to ask why the
 >witnesses would promote the idea of a crash when, to a person,
 >NONE of them saw a crash. Granted, they may have feared or
 >assumed a crash, but in the cold reality of hindsight, the fact
 >is that they knew they never saw a crash to begin with.
 >Certainly, I can not fault them for alerting the authorities to
 >the idea that a plane MIGHT have crashed. But the nature of the
 >claims would indicate a certainty that simply did not exist.

 >Continuing, Greg wrote:

 >>Obviously people didn't see the plane crash, as they thought
 >>they did. But they were right to believe they'd seen something
 >>surprising. That's all I'm trying to say.

 >Yes, perhaps they were surprised to see a low flying plane. Now
 >that you've explained how unusual that is in NYC (not unusual
 >here in Houston) I could understand if that were the extent of
 >their claims. However, not to put too find a point on it, the
 >witnesses didn't just claim that they had seen something
 >surprising. They claimed they saw a plane crash when they, in
 >fact, they know they did not.

 >The difference is a matter of relativity versus fact. Seeing
 >"something surprising" is very relative. Perhaps there were
 >people in NYC that would not find a low flying plane very
 >surprising. Indeed, considering the number of people that
 >apparently ignored the event, that may very well be the case,
 >apathy not withstanding. ;)

 >On the other hand, seeing a "plane crash" is not a relative
 >event; it either happened or it did not. The fact is, it did not
 >despite the witnesses claims to the contrary. More to the point,
 >the witnesses' knew they did not see a crash. The crash was
 >assumed; not witnessed. None the less, the witnesses seemed to
 >be crying foul for not being believed about an event that they
 >knew they did not see. Were they sincere? Yes! Were they
 >correct? No. I think the analogy as it relates to UFOs is pretty
 >clear.

<snip>

 >>>As I said before, I feel that witness CAN be correct. However,
 >>>the only way to know is to validate the claims of the witnesses
 >>>rather than assume them to be true because that's what we want
 >>>to believe.

 >Greg replied:

 >>Here I feel I'm being pulled toward one end of a polarity that
 >>(or so I hope) doesn't apply to me. I know witnesses can be
 >>wrong; I know they sometimes can be right; I don't assume, when
 >>I hear any eyewitness account, that it's necessarily right or
 >>wrong, simply because either side would support one of my
 >>preconceived ideas. And I think it's a shame we've established
 >>this polarity in ufology.

 >Agreed.


Hi Greg & Roger,

There is a much simpler solution to this conundrum than what I
fear is getting dangerously close to simulating arguments about
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

As I understand it there was only one witness who claimed to
have actually seen the aircraft crashing into the water and she
said that aspect took about 2-3 seconds - given witness
tendencies to greatly overestimate time intervals in times of
surprise or stress it is quite likely the actual interval was
less than even a second.

Under Hynek's criteria this case would be rejected if it was a
UFO case because of there being only one witness to the
extraordinary event (the alleged crash, now reportedly never
occurred) and the extremely short duration. In my screening
criteria for visual-only UFO Best Evidence cases, the duration
must be at least 1 minute. This case would flunk instantly under
either criteria.

The UFO problem is not defined by poor single-witness
observations of brief duration like this. It is defined by best
evidence cases of astronomers (LaPaz 1947, Tombaugh),
physicists, aeronautical engineers (NACA Rogue River, Ore.,
1949, Paul Hill, Va., 1952, Kelly Johnson-Ben Rich 1953), air
traffic controllers, astronauts (Skylab-3 1973), cinetheodolite
film and triangulation (White Sands 1950), radar-visuals,
electronic intelligence radar-visuals (RB-47 1957), artillery
triangulation networks (Camp Hood, Tex., 1949), and so much more
that is so easily forgotten.


Brad Sparks








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

                The French 'Secret' Military Intelligence UFO

From: Richard Nolane <raynaud@total.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:09:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:22:23 +0000
Subject: The French 'Secret' Military Intelligence UFO


Dear list members,

I can send to everyone interested the 15 p. report on UFOs made
anonymously by a serviceman named Jean-Philippe Dain during his
military service for the french DRM. So there is no copyright on
it.

I shall omit the "Annexes" because they are, if possible, less
interesting (documents that everyone have seen one hundred
times). Please, note that the text is in French!

You will understand why no one in France has mentioned this
little thing before 'Phenomena' tried to present it as the
'Report Of The (last) Century'.

I think that the hidden agenda of Phenomena was, in this case,
only to try to find a cure for bad sales on newstands.


RDN






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 12

               Re: New Scientist Newsletter 13 January 2001 -

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:10:22 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:29:37 +0000
Subject: Re: New Scientist Newsletter 13 January 2001 -


 >From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:55:16 -0500
 >Subject: New Scientist Newsletter 13 January 2001
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

<snip>

 >NEW SCIENTIST WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
 >No 67, 13 January 2001

<snip>

 >Terrestrial Tot

 >Marcy may be excited by the prospect of learning something about
 >our position in the Galaxy, but Charles Lineweaver has
 >information which indicates that the discovery could be somewhat
 >humbling. By cleverly combining a host of factors that determine
 >the formation and destruction of terrestrial planets, the
 >researcher at the University of New South Wales in Sydney
 >estimates that three-quarters of all Earth-like planets will be
 >on average about 1.8 billion years older than Earth. "This
 >analysis gives us an age distribution for life on such planets
 >and a rare clue about how we compare to other life which may
 >inhabit the Universe," says Lineweaver. In other words,
 >intelligent life on these "older" planets may be so highly
 >advanced that to them we seem little better than bacteria.

 >http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns227327

Hi Ron and everyone.

How much older really is the typical E.T. civilization, which
originated on an Earth-like planet, than us? If they are a few
billions of years older than us, then explain to me why the
typical alien has such youthful unwrinkled skin?  ;o)

My estimate derived from proven reliable sources, not purely
scientific speculation, suggests that the difference in ages
would be closer to about 10,000 years, tops. Whose "scientific"
guess do you think is closer to the truth?

When you consider that not even a single extra solar Earth-like
planet has yet to be discovered, why would New Scientist bother
to publish such an article? If they are looking for scientific
filler material on the subject of UFOs and E.T. life to publish,
then I would suggest they check the UFO UpDates archives for
some important and truly informative stuff.


Nick 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 13

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:50:39 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:00:15 +0000
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:14:55 -0500
 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down

 >http://www.nypostonline.com/news/regionalnews/20719.htm

 >New York Post | 8 Jan. 2001

 >FOWL' PLAY MADE PAIR THINK PLANE WENT DOWN

 >By LARRY CELONA and WILLIAM NEUMAN

 >The search for a small plane that two New Jersey women thought
 >they saw crash into the Hudson River turned out yesterday to be
 >a wild-goose chase.

<snip>

 >At the same time, Leigh Russo, a human-resources executive from
 >Dumont, N.J., was driving across the bridge and used her cell
 >phone to call 911 - telling cops that she and a friend saw the
 >plane go into the water.

<snip>

Hi Kelly and everyone!

The article about reminded me of something similar that used to
occur here once every year.

Daphne Schiff, Professor of Natural Science at York University,
used to teach a course called "Science of Flight" during the
years I was a student at the same Toronto area university. In
the many years she taught this popular course, she would obtain
permission from the university to land her plane on its property
for the benefit of her students. I recall that every year police
would visit our campus to investigate reports by people driving
by the university that an aircraft had crashed. Yes, it did
disappear below the trees and building of the campus as it
decended from the sky and logical extrapolation suggested that
it crashed but Daphne never did crash a plane at York.

Daphne was recently working on an secret aircraft project of her
own - an ornithopter. Now if the police get any calls from
winesses that a woman with flapping wings was seen flying in the
sky over York University, then it probably would be Daphne or
more likely Patricia Bowman, the under 100 pound pilot Daphne
recruited to fly her secret ornithopter.

Nick 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 13

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 05:46:16 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:02:24 +0000
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Hale


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:24:24 EST
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles

Brad wrote:

 >When you post exchanges with UFO _skeptics_ you leave most of
 >your pro-UFO statements in your books and articles for others to
 >fish out, withholding your own helpful knowledge of your own
 >work, so that you can emphasize anti-UFO positions with the
 >skeptics, and downplay pro-UFO points. Oh sure, you mention a
 >few pro-UFO _opinions_ here and there and some doubts about
 >explanation schemes here and there, but on specific false
 >_facts_ that skeptics keep raising you stay silent and let them
 >go on and on unopposed. That way you can just say it's all a
 >matter of opinion, rather than of truth or science. So when
 >Easton keeps bringing up Burroughs' alleged 1981 statement over
 >and over again you never tell him that from your interviews his
 >information flatly contradicts the 1981 document and calls it
 >into question.



Hi Brad,

Perhaps James will be appearing in the UFOIN Rendlesham report?
You can't knock your sources to hard.

Regards,

Roy..








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 13

             Re: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 05:07:46 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:04:25 +0000
Subject: Re: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation


 >From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation
 >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:12:36 +1100


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:51:21 EST
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation


 >>>From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation
 >>>Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:13:17 +1100
 >><BIG SNIP>

 >>>The original DNA work was done on the shaft of the hair.
 >>>Fascinating further anomalies were found in the root of the
 >>>hair. Two types of DNA were found depending on where the
 >>>mitochondrial DNA testing occurs, namely confirming the rare
 >>>Chinese type DNA in the hair shaft and indicating a rare
 >>>possible Basque/Gaelic type DNA in the root section.

 >>>This was very puzzling and controversial

 ><snip>

 >>Hi Bill,

 >>I thought hair shafts are entirely protein and has [have] no cells thus
 >>has [have] no DNA, hence DNA testing can only be done on the root or
 >>bulb of the hair which has the growth cells.

 >>Brad Sparks


 >Hi Brad & List,

 >There are cells in hair shafts and the FBI regularly do DNA
 >extractions from hair shafts (See M.R. Wilson et.al, of the FBI
 >Academy, Quantico, etc, in "Extraction, PCR Amplication and
 >Sequencing of Mitochondrial DNA from Human Hair Shafts", Volume
 >18, No.4 (1995), pgs 662-668. This paper was quoted as a
 >reference in the IUR paper and was utilised as a guide in the
 >development of the testing protocol. The abstract begins:

 >"Techniques have been developed for extracting, amplifying and
 >directly sequencing mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from human hair
 >shafts."

 >The FBI developed the technique to address the crime scene
 >problem of a mix of shed hair and hair shafts. It was not
 >always possible to have hair roots and bulbs etc.

 >This suited our protocol because we wanted to focus on the shaft
 >first, instead of risking the root initially. All the data in
 >the first IUR report focuses on the shaft work. I am preparing
 >the report on the root work, which, in the estimation of the
 >biochemists working with me, is pretty exciting. They have been
 >pushing me to do so, but there only so many hours in the day.
 >But its coming and I hope IUR will publish the report.

 >So in short, viable DNA can be extracted from hair shaft, but it
 >helps if the sample has not been degraded, and also if it is
 >fresh. Our sample of the shaft was taken near the root of the
 >hair sample, but with sufficient shaft and the root to permit
 >focused root work and replication of the shaft work, which has
 >now been done, along with the striking results specific to the
 >root. Fortunately for the study the hair sample was kept in a
 >plastic bag and in a filing cabinet. Extensive protocols were
 >undertaken to eliminate and address the possiblities of
 >contamination. All this is described in the IUR article.

 >Cell distribution in hair shafts is variable, but thats a fairly
 >complex and seperate topic.

 >Best regards,

 >Bill Chalker


Hi Bill,

Thanks for the helpful info on your fascinating research.

Apparently there is "virtually no nuclear DNA" in hair shafts
and only small quantities of mitochondrial DNA, so testing must
be done on mtDNA in hair shafts and it's difficult.

See:

http://www.mitotyping.com/aboutmt.html


Best regards,

Brad









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 13

              Unresolved Question [Was: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01]

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:03:22 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:09:59 +0000
Subject: Unresolved Question [Was: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01]


 >From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01
 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:07:47 -0800

 >>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:58:51 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01

 ><snip>

 >>Have you ever searched the faces at a televised religious revival?

 >Do you need a warrant to search faces?

 >I know the faces you are referring to. I've seen many of the
 >same faces at UFO conferences. Maybe Sagan was right after all.

 >Larry, exactly what DO you think will happen when you die? Fade
 >to black, i.e. nothingness? New plane of consciousness? Surely
 >you have lost loved ones as most of us have. Are you 100%
 >certain that you will never see them again? Personally, I'm not
 >interested in becoming inert matter. Not the good part of me,
 >anyhow.


Hi Greg!

No warrants needed. Most people flip right past a televangelist
of course, but it might be instructive to watch at least one for
a while. If you can stomach the con-vangelist for a while, they
occasionally screw up and show the live audience, the "flock".

Study their faces. If you can read faces at all, you will catch
my drift. I need not elaborate except to say that they appear to
need someone else to make up their minds for them.

Life after death? Don't we all wish. The older I get the more I
want it myself. But! Wishing isn't getting, and that's my point.
I would love to think that my parents are together, consciously
together and happy.

Such deeply rooted wishes are the very foundations of religion.
Since nobody can prove or disprove such matters, it lies outside
the bounds of science and seemingly logic even.

I have one fictional character in an unwritten short story
saying something like:

"Hey! This is religion! It doesn't have to make any sense!"

What we want, and what is "true" are two different things.

I do have one unresolved question. How is it, that 'I', i.e. my
conscious mind or 'soul', the one composing these words,
happened to pop up in my particular body/life/time etc., as
opposed to somebody else's?

The same question applies to everyone else of course. That's a
tough one. Here's another tough one:

Lets say a big computer has a single, main, dedicated program,
and lots of data that make it unique. Call all this code and
data an "application" or Program with a capital P.

What happens to that Program when the computer finally craps out
for good?

It may be that the 'program' survives in a sense, as in some
sort of reincarnation. There's a big 'however' here!

Since _all_ human memory is stored in the brain, and the brain
rots to dust, there can be no memory of 'past lives'. I consider
that to be the veriest hooey... worse than snake oil. You can at
least oil your hinges with snake oil.

What do I actually think will happen after death? Frankly I'm
agnostic, leaning toward atheism. It may just be the big
merciful dark. You didn't mind all the millennia _before_ you
were born did you? I betcha you weren't even bored.

Some sort of reincarnation offers a faint ray of hope for
survival. I hope I don't come back as a sheep.

The status of the dead might well be forever hidden from the
living. One thing seems a sure bet to me: traditional religions
are way, way off the mark.


Best wishes:

- Larry Hatch







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 13

                      'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:17:23 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:17:23 +0000
Subject: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois




From: UFO UpDates - Toronto


Thanks to [Jeff] Rense.com

Source: WTVO TV News - Channel 17

http://www.wtvo.com/Global/story.asp?S=214866&nav=0ReP


WTVO Local News
Thursday Night, January 11th, 2001

Lights Over Rockford - See Pictures Within Story









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 13

                       Space Age Gear - 'Space Diving'

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:25:22 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:19:54 +0000
Subject: Space Age Gear - 'Space Diving'


Hello, all. I find this appropriately named 'Canadian Arrow'
after the first attempt at Aeronautical well, Greatness
(CF-105's Forever!)by Canada's great Aerospace industry.

I wish them Luck, I find the "Counterpressure suit" idea, well,
'interesting'.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_gear.html


GT McCoy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 13

                 Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - ebk

From: Peter B. Davenport <ufocntr@NWLINK.COM>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:34:10 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:42:29 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - ebk


 >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:08:31 -0500
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@FUSE.NET>
 >Subject: Streaking green object and rumbling noises w/object
 >To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

Kenny,

<snip>

Also, some kind of event occurred again over Rockford, IL, on
Thursday night at approximately 2100 hrs. (Central). People
reported witnessing anywhere from 3 to 23 lights in a variable
formation drift across that city for approximately 20-30
minutes. I do not know what they were, but they sound similar to
the lights that were seen there on several occasions last year,
beginning in February 2000. Details of those earlier sightings
are on our home page.


Peter

--
Peter B. Davenport, Director
National UFO Reporting Center
PO Box 45623
University Station
Seattle, WA 98145
director@ufocenter.com
http://www.UFOcenter.com
Hotline: 206-722-3000 (From 8AM to Midnight Pacific preferred)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 13

                  Re: Where Can Evidence Be Sent? - Liddle

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:02:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:57:10 +0000
Subject: Re: Where Can Evidence Be Sent? - Liddle


 >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:57:23 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Where Can Evidence Be Sent?

<snip>

 >If the specimen is biological and DNA analysis needs to be done
 >in the Toronto area, I would take it to Dr. Wayne Murray, Maxxam
 >DNA laboratory manager and former head of the DNA Unit at the
 >Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto. Dr. Murray is no doubt
 >Canada's top forensic DNA expert and one can be confident that
 >his findings will stand up in any court of law.

<snip>

I concur, Maxxam is a good lab. I use them for stack testing and
have always found them to be professional and have a good QAQC
program.


Sean

KAPRA








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 13

             Re: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation

From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:48:42 +1100
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:00:53 +0000
Subject: Re: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 05:07:46 EST
 >Subject: Re: First DNA PCR Abduction Evidence Investigation
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca>

Hi Brad,

 >Thanks for the helpful info on your fascinating research.

 >Apparently there is "virtually no nuclear DNA" in hair shafts
 >and only small quantities of mitochondrial DNA, so testing must
 >be done on mtDNA in hair shafts and it's difficult.

 >See:

 >http://www.mitotyping.com/aboutmt.html


Thanks for the interesting link. I had not seen that one.

We did manage to get some nuclear DNA results from the root, but
the quality was marginal, but the results were suggesting and
perhaps a little provocative. While not absolutely cleaar cut,
this result is very intriguing, particularly when the total
context and the other results are fully considered:

      "Perhaps even more controversial is that we have findings
      suggestive of nuclear DNA indicating possible viral
      resistance. The hair sample seems to show it contains 2
      deleted genes for CCR5 protein and no intact gene for
      normal undeleted CCR5 - this CCR5 deletion factor has been
      implicated in aids resistance. To keep a very complex story
      somewhat uncomplicated, what seems to be suggested by the
      range of findings is possible evidence for advanced DNA
      techniques and DNA anomalies & findings, for which we are
      only now discovering or starting to make sense of in
      mainstream biotechnology."

We have certainly come up with some interesting anomalies. Time
will tell if they legitimate ones. I'm just going were the
available evidence leads. So far, its extraordinarily
fascinating.

Best regards,

Bill









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 13

                 The Alien Question: An Expanded Perspective

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 12:21:07 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 12:21:07 +0000
Subject: The Alien Question: An Expanded Perspective




From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

Source: Neil Freer

http://www.neilfreer.com/


The Alien Question: An Expanded Perspective

http://www.neilfreer.com/index10.htm

A White Paper

Addressed to:

The Arlington Institute
The British UFO Research Association
The Brookings Institution
The Center For The Study Of Extraterrestrial Intelligence
Extraterrestrial Phenomena Political Action Committee
The Fund For UFO Research
J. Allen Hynek Center For UFO Studies
The Human Potential Foundation
Institut des Hautes Etudes de Defense Nationale
The International Association For New Science
The McClendon Study Group
The Mutual UFO Network
The National Institute For Discovery Science
The National UFO Reporting Center
Operation Right To Know
Paradigm Research
Program for Extraordinary Experience Research
  Stargate International
  Skywatch International
  By Neil Freer Author: Breaking the Godspell God Games: What Do
You Do Forever?


For the most part, UFO researchers try to deal with the micro,
they are event oriented. That is important, but someone also
needs to be looking broadly, excluding nothing.

             C.B. Scott Jones, Ph.D Human Potential Foundation


The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to
assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of
other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that
other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an
outside.

                  Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind


Synopsis: The current context within which The Alien Presence
Paradigm is viewed and dealt with is too narrow and limited.
The Alien Presence Paradigm should be seen as having two parts,
separate but related:

1. the recognition of the presence of an alien culture or
cultures from outside our solar system, and the ramifications of
that presence and contact. In this paper this part of the
paradigm will be called the UFO/Alien phase.

2. the recognition and restoration of our true history as a
genetically engineered species, half alien Annunaki, half
indigenous Homo Erectus, according to the thesis paradigm of the
Sumerian scholar, Zecharia Sitchin, and its ramifications for
our future. In this paper this part of the paradigm is called
the Human History phase.

These are two artificial problems because the overwhelming
evidence for both is patent but the obstruction of both by
vested interests prevents closure. The same type, sometimes
identical, patronizing vested interests and authorities obstruct
the processes of revelation of the alien presence as obstruct
the restoration or our half-alien history for similar and
identical reasons. The resolution of the latter 'problem' will
relieve the political pressures on the obstructing authorities
and facilitate the revelation of the former 'problem'.

Only by regaining our true species identity and a generic
definition of human nature will we attain the global unity and
unassailable integrity that will allow us to interact with an
alien culture no matter how strange. Without prejudicial
religious or cultural filters, we will be able to know what is
good or bad for us and able to understand what is good or bad
for the alien species. We may not be accepted into stellar
society until we reach that level of species maturity.

The two parts of the paradigm are defined, developed, their
ramifications examined, and their interrelationships explicated.
Practical measures for expediting and accelerating both
processes are outlined and suggested, and species beneficial
goals, in keeping with the fullness of human dignity and
freedom, are defined in an evolutionary progressive context.

The intention of the author in this paper is not to instruct but
to suggest. The following is based on fifty years of interest,
research, intense study, involvement, and reflection on the
human condition as a generic human and professional philosopher.
It is respectfully submitted for consideration as a means of
facilitating a breakthrough to resolution of these matters which
are now effectively and detrimentally at a standstill.


The Status Quo Of The UFO/Alien Phenomenon

A preliminary caveat: it is fully recognized that some of the
sighted UFO's, reported abductions, encountered 'aliens' may be
not alien but human action, technology and human events. This
paper focuses only on the actual alien presence, technology and
interactions.

The position of the author regarding the UFOA presence paradigm
agrees with that held by the majority of the organizations
addressed herein: alien civilization(s) from outside of our
solar system have been visiting the Earth for an indeterminate
time, the current one in focus being the grey type(s). The
author has been intensely interested in the phenomenon since
1947 when, at the age of 17, he read the first report issued
from Roswell, AZ of a saucer being captured after crashing. Some
50 years of research and study of the subject leaves no doubt in
the mind of this author that contact by probably multiple alien
races with humans has been made (the military first because of
the danger of aggressive response). Information and technology
has been exchanged, the population of the world gradually
acclimated to the alien presence by both the aliens and the
human command structure given charge of the matter.

The entire UFOA subject has been covered up and disavowed, at
first because of fear of the unknown and possible anarchy and
chaos on the part of the population, subsequently because of the
difficulty of revelation and taking of blame for cover-up. The
alien bodies that have been examined, autopsied and the live
aliens interacted with have demonstrated that some are humanoid
at least in appearance if not in physiology and some are
actually androids. The 'problem' is artificial in that it is
only a problem because of the obstructive denial by the
government. The evidence for the alien presence has developed to
such a robust degree and the data is so vast that the
government's final acknowledgement is hardly needed.

Even though we have the testimony of Maj. Donald E. Keyhoe,
Capt. Jesse Marcel, Maurice Chatelain, Command Sgt. Major Robert
Dean, Col. Phillip J. Corso, Admiral James Woolsey, Astronaut
Gordon Cooper, to name only a tiny government, military and NASA
handful, the supreme irony of this situation is that we continue
to look to the very government which has been covering up the
phenomenon for validation, verification and authentication. The
reason why we have done so is due, to a great degree, to the
conditioning, over thousands of years, to submit to authority
stemming from the peculiar nature of our origins in subservience
as brilliantly elucidated by the thesis of the Sumerian scholar,
Zecharia Sitchin. The perpetuation of this subservience in the
form of a sublimated 'fear of God' through the religious
institutions founded on it has shaped our world so profoundly
that we fear to even reconsider it. We therefore rely on
authority when we should not and we tend to look to anyone
showing up here from off planet as masters or saviors.

A fundamental question, seldom considered due to our
conditioning to look to the three classic criteria bases,
theology, philosophy and science which are themselves brought
into question by it: Is it possible to arrive at a new world
view which corrects, completes and subsumes all our previous
worldviews? Explains all our previous explanations? The answer
is, unequivocally, Yes. But Kuhn, who examined the nature of
scientific revolutions is painfully correct. We almost have to
wait for the older generation to die off rather than see an
orderly and rational transltion to a new paradigm. Those with
vested, academic teaching or scientific reputations or
religious, political or economic interests are not going to
acquiesce easily or at all. We operate far behind the
evolutionary leading edge in this regard because of this
inertia.



The Status Quo Of The HH (Human History) Sitchin Paradigm Of
Our Own Half-Alien Species History

The Sumerian scholar, Zecharia Sitchin, published his first work
in 1976. From his knowledge of Sumerian, the Semitic and other
ancient languages and his research and study of the
archaeological and Biblical data acquired over the last one
hundred and fifty years he put forth his thesis that the
transcultural gods known to all the ancient cultures were not
mythological but real flesh and blood humanoid aliens, very much
like humans, who had come here from the tenth planet in our
solar system, Planet X in the popular press, called Nibiru by
the Sumerians. They subsequently genetically engineered our
species, originally as slave animals to work in their gold
mines, by crossing their genes with those of Homo Erectus.


The Historical Background Necessary For An Understanding of
Sitchin's Thesis

An introductory note: Consider a typical reaction to this
analysis: what is said here by this author has been presented as
carefully and reasonably as possible. However, by the very fact
of it being an analysis of our history and, almost incidentally,
religion, it will often first be perceived as the breaking of a
taboo, perhaps a suspect attack, perhaps atheistic, or somehow
less than 'American' in its spirit, perhaps even 'against God'
-- even though the evidence brought is no different in kind than
that brought against the UFOA conspiracy and, perhaps, is even
more robust. The godspell is the deepest dye in the fabric of
our culture.

There was literally no such thing as the discipline known as
Archaeology in Western culture until the 1800's. The Roman
Church controlled and determined the view of the past. Bishop
Usher's view, that the entire planet and life on it as described
in Genesis came into existence through the auspices of a cosmic
creator in 4004 B.C., was doctrine and one could be branded a
heretic for disavowing it. Not until paleontological findings
forced that view to be reevaluated and Schliemann, a wealthy
German merchant, refusing to admit that the ancient cities and
peoples were legend, dug up Troy, was a window into the past
opened and the mythic view questioned. Scientific Archaeology as
we know it came into existence only when academics reluctantly
had to acknowledge the past being dug up and collected by
amateurs in the Middle East. Archaeologists came to be
mistrusted and hated by the religious institutions who feared
revelations that would contradict their teachings and the
history of the Old Testament.


The Demise Of The Mythological Explanation Of The Gods

(It is trivial that quaint local myths concerning many subjects
exist all over the world among both more and less primitive
peoples. We consider here only the latter day interpretation of
the transcultural 'gods' involved in human history as mythic,
unreal. We note also that the ancient civilizations did not call
the Anunnaki 'god' . They referred to them as masters, lords, in
the sense of rulers.)

Those still holding the mythological interpretation are in an
unenviable position. They find themselves having to hold that
the same citizens of the first civilizations who, they claim,
invented -- or hallucinated -- the gods through their primitive
imaginings and naive proto-scientific projections of personality
on the great forces of nature were the same primitives who
somehow could build the stupendous Giza pyramid; somehow quarry,
cut and move into place the one thousand ton stones of the
Baalbek 'temple' (rocket platform) which even our modern
technology cannot begin to lift; somehow know the great
precessional cycle of the heavens, the existence of all ten of
the planets of our solar system and how our solar system was
formed (Enuma Elish document).

To escape this awkward dilemma, some fall back on the
explanation that there 'must' have been an even earlier
civilization, lost now in the mists of time, the identity of
which we cannot know which 'must' have been destroyed or
declined --- but which somehow left just enough technology and
knowledge laying around to jump start the early civilizations we
know. But they must hold this interpretation against the clear
declaration of the Sumerian and all other ancient peoples that
the gods were real flesh and blood, present to them, who gave
them civilization.

The physical locations of the ancient legends as mythic has been
gradually disproven beginning with the work of Schliemann (a
German merchant who refused to believe that if the legendary
ancient cities were mythic and risked his money to go to the
middle east with ancient maps and dug up, Troy thereby breaking
open the seal of myth) and completed with the re-discovery of
all the ancient cities and centers on all continents.

The events involving the 'gods' of ancient times and the
technology attributed to them, considered as myth and naive
legend, has been gradually disproven, beginning with the
discovery of documents from the most ancient cities and
reinforced with the discovery of the great library of
Ashurbanipal at Nineveh and the gradual accumulation of some two
million pieces of artifact and document confirming those events
in great detail. The discovery of ooparts, high tech tools,
toys, artifacts, and technology along with documentation of
advanced scientific knowledge ostensibly out of place in time
along with astronomical knowledge of the entire solar system
beyond our current level has reinforced the negation of the
mythic interpretation.

The interpretation of the 'gods', the Anunnaki themselves, as
mythic, unreal beings (academic mythologists) and Jungian
archetypes (Joseph Campbell) and the relegation of them to
schizophrenic hallucination ( Julian Jaynes ) has been gradually
disproven beginning with the acknowledgment of the reality of
the events attributed to them; the discounting of the arguments
for their unreality due to the seeming fantastic deeds
attributed to them by the development of our technology
(rockets, lasers, radio communication, genetic engineering,
atomic and particle beam weapons) that duplicate those feats.
This interpretation has been implemented further by the
pioneering exploration and questions posed by von Daniken and
then completed by the comprehensive and brilliant demonstrations
of Sitchin and Sir Laurence Gardner, the English historian and
genealogist. The mythic interpretation has been supported by
religions because to recognize the Anunnaki as real would be to
open the door to a radical reinterpretation of the entire
phenomenon of religion and put into question the real identity
of the very deity at center of their belief system. Gardner has
brought to light, however, the fact that there exists a robust,
highly documented history carrying all the way back to the
Anunnaki, possessed by the heterodox tradition of Christianity.
This tradition is the one branded heretical and murderously
persecuted by the Roman Church before and during the
Inquisition. There was no Dark Ages for this tradition, only for
those whom the Church wanted to keep in the dark about the real
nature of human history.

Now that we have begun by walking on the moon and exploring the
solar system and have probes going starward, the possibility of
an alien civilization coming here is taken for granted and one
coming here from inside our solar system trivial, rather than
unreal myth. 'Mythinformation', after two hundred years of
failure, although still hiding behind tenure in the university,
is a dead issue.


The Essence Of The Sitchin Paradigm

Working from the same archaeological discoveries, artifacts, and
recovered records as archaeologists and linguists have for two
hundred years, Sitchin propounds - proves, in the opinion of
this author --that the Anunnaki (Sumerian: 'those who came down
from the heavens'), an advanced civilization from the tenth
planet in our solar system, splashed down in the Persian gulf
area around 432,000 years ago, colonized the planet, with the
purpose of obtaining large quantities of gold. Some 250,000
years ago the recovered documents tell us their lower echelon
miners rebelled against the conditions in the mines and the
Annunaki directorate decided to create a creature to take their
place. Enki, their chief scientist and Ninhursag their chief
medical officer, after getting no satisfactory results splicing
animal and homo-erectus genes, merged their Anunnaki genes with
that of Homo-Erectus and produced us, homo sapiens, a
genetically bicameral species, for their purposes as slaves.
Because we were a hybrid we could not procreate. The demand for
us as workers became greater and we were genetically manipulated
to reproduce.

Eventually, we became so numerous that some of us were expelled
from the Anunnaki city centers, gradually spreading over the
planet. Having become a stable genetic stock and developing more
precociously than, perhaps, the Anunnaki had anticipated, the
Anunnaki began to be attracted to humans as sexual partners and
children were born of these unions. This was unacceptable to the
majority of the Anunnaki high council and it was decided to wipe
out the human population through a flood that was predictable
when Nibiru, the tenth in our solar system and the Anunnaki home
planet, came through the inner solar system again (around 12,500
years ago) on one of its periodic 3600 year returns. Some
humans were saved by the action of the Anunnaki, Enki, who was
sympathetic to the humans he had originally genetically created.
For thousands of years we were their slaves, their workers,
their servants, their soldiers in their political battles among
themselves. The Anunnaki used us in the construction of their
palaces (we retroproject the religious notion of temple on these
now), their cities, their mining and refining complexes and
their astronomical installations on all the continents. They
expanded from Mesopotamia to Egypt to India to South and Central
America and the stamp of their presence can be found in the
farthest reaches of the planet.

Around 6000 years ago they, probably realizing that they were
going to phase off the planet, began to gradually bring humans
to independence. Sumer, a human civilization, amazing in its
'sudden' and mature and highly advanced character was set up
under their tutelage in Mesopotamia, human kings were
inaugurated as go-betweens, foremen of the human populations
answering to the Annunaki. Some humans were taught technology,
mathematics, astronomy, advanced crafts and the ways of
civilized society. The high civilizations of Egypt and Central
America arose.

The Anunnaki became somewhat more remote from humans. By around
1250 B.C. they had gone into their final phase-out mode. The
human population and the foremen kings, now left on their own,
began to fend for themselves. For some three thousand years,
subsequently, we humans have been going through a traumatic
transition to independence. Proprietary claims made by various
groups of humans as to who knew what we should be doing to get
the Anunnaki to return or when they returned, perpetuated the
palace and social rituals learned under the Anunnaki and
sometimes disagreement and strife broke out between them.
Religion, as we know it, took form, focused on the 'god' or
'gods', clearly and unambiguously known to the humans who were
in contact with them as imperfect, flesh and blood humanoids,
now absent. It was only much later that the Anunnaki were
eventually sublimated into cosmic character and status and,
later on, mythologized due to remoteness in time.


What Evidence Supports The Sitchin Thesis?

The Astronomical Evidence

A key underpinning of the Sitchin paradigm is the existence, now
or in the past, of the tenth planet in our solar system, the
home planet of the Anunnaki with the size, orbit,
characteristics described, as Sitchin has demonstrated, in the
Enuma Elish and corroborated by Harrington.

Tombaugh discovered Pluto in 1930. Christie, of the U.S. Naval
Observatory, discovered Charon, Pluto's moon, in 1978. The
characteristics of Pluto derivable from the nature of Charon
demonstrated that there must still be a large planet
undiscovered because Pluto could not be the cause of the
residuals, the 'wobbles' in the orbital paths of Uranus and
Neptune clearly identifiable. The IRAS (Infrared Astronomical
Satellite), during '83 -'84, produced observations of a tenth
planet so robust that one of the astronomers on the project said
that 'all that remains is to name it' -- from which point the
information has become curiously guarded. In 1992 Harrington and
Van Flandern of the Naval Observatory, working with all the
information they had at hand, published their findings and
opinion that there is, indeed, a tenth planet, even calling it
an 'intruder' planet. Andersen of JPL later publicly expressed
his belief that it could possibly be verified any time. The
search was narrowed to the southern skies, below the ecliptic.
Harrington invited Sitchin, having read his book and
translations of the Enuma Elish, to a meeting at his office and
they correlated the current findings with the ancient records
and Harrington acknowledged the detail of the ancient records
while indicating where the tenth planet may now be in the solar
system.


The Technological Evidence

Ooparts is the term used to describe the purportedly out of
place in time artifacts, toys, tools, technical devices,
depictions and documents which have come to light through
archaeological excavation or discovery. Almost everyone is
familiar, through published works or documentaries, with the
clay pot batteries still containing the electrodes from the
Iraqi desert dated at 2500 B.C., the flyable model airplane from
a pyramid tomb, the sophisticated machining of stone requiring
the most advanced techniques we know today, the 1000 ton
precision cut blocks of stone in a temple foundation that we
could not even handle, an ancient relief frieze from an Abydos
temple depicting rockets, airplanes and even a helicopter, etc.
The most recent and quite amazing oopart is the rediscovery of
monoatomic gold by David Hudson (Monoatomic are superconductors
at room temperature, have anti-gravitic properties and are only
now being investigated by the advanced physics community)
Hudson's discovery, correlated with the bringing to light, by
Gardner, of the suppressed discovery of the Anunnaki gold
processing plant on Mt. Horeb by Sir Flinders Petrie in 1889
demonstrates that the monoatomics were already known at least
3000 years ago.

There are also ooparts that date, apparently, to millions of
years ago that require serious evaluation and interpretation.
Relative to the purpose of this paper, however, consideration is
focused on that constellation of ooparts dating from no more
than 450,000 years ago, the approximate time of the first
Anunnaki arrival on Earth, and primarily on those from the time
of the first 'sudden' civilizations, 6000 years ago. We have
accumulated almost an encyclopedia of such ooparts

These ooparts, coupled with evidence from many disciplines and
the historical records indicate that an advanced civilization
existed in those times possessing a high technology and that
that civilization was indeed the Anunnaki. Sitchin has no doubt
that, all the evidence and the testimony of the early humans
themselves, indicate that that civilization was, indeed, the
Anunnaki.


The Documentary Evidence

The documentary evidence, i.e. the historical documentation for
the existence and deeds of the Anunnaki, has been available to
us since the early 1800's. The excavation of the ancients sites
of Mesopotamia brought to light the amazingly advanced
civilization of Sumer and, with it, thousands of clay tablets
containing not only mundane records of commerce, marriages,
military actions and astronomical calculation systems but of
the history of the Anunnaki themselves. It is clear from these
records that the Sumerians knew these aliens to be real flesh
and blood. The library of the ruler, Ashurbanipal, at Nineveh
was discovered to have burnt down and the clay tablets held
there were fired, preserving them for our reading. Even to this
day, more and more records are discovered. One of the most
impressive finds, in very recent time, has been a sealed, nine
foot by 6 foot room in Sippar holding, neatly arranged on
shelves, a set of some 400 elaborate clay tablets containing an
unbroken record of the history of those ancient times, a sort
of time capsule. Again, the evidence is so overwhelming and
robust that , if it weren't for those with power enough to
suppress, it would have been accepted and our world view
changed a century ago or perhaps sooner.


The Genetic Evidence

The recovered records place the location of the Anunnaki
laboratory where the first humans were literally produced in
east central Africa just above their gold mines. This falls
precisely on the map where the mitochondrial DNA 'search for
Eve' places the first woman homo-sapiens sapiens and in the
same time frame. The evidence of advanced genetic engineering
is all there in the ancient documents.. Our rapid progress from
inception to going to Mars soon, after only 250,000 years, does
not correspond to the million year periodicities of slow
evolutionary development of other species such as homo erectus
before us. The HH paradigm shows that the Creationists were
only half wrong and the Evolutionists only half right: there
was a creation event but it was a genetic engineering process;
there is an evolutionary process but it was interrupted in our
regard by the Anunnaki for their own practical purposes. We
shall be forced to introduce an additional category: a
synthesized species.

Two Definitive Protocols for Proving or Disproving the Sitchin
Paradigm

A straightforward approach to prove or disprove the Sitchin
paradigm is available from astronomy. A thorough, professional
search of our solar system should be able with current
technology to determine the existence or non-existence of a
tenth planet with the characteristics of size, orbit, orbital
periodicity, declination from the ecliptic, as Sitchin has
determined from the translations of the ancient records and
particularly the Enuma Elish document. If that planet is not in
our solar system or no evidence can be found for an ejection or
cataclysmic destructive event then the Sitchin paradigm falls.
This search should be undertaken with highest priority. The
matter is sufficiently important to clearing up our historical
situation that the academic world should be involved as well as
the scientific community. It is the opinion of this author
that, in light of the evidence already obtained through the use
of the Pioneer 10 and 11 and two Voyager space craft, the
Infrared Imaging Satellite (IRAS, �83-84) and the data
available to Harrington when consulting with Sitchin that the
search has already been accomplished, in fact that the planet
has already been found. It is interesting that Harrington
dispatched an appropriate telescope to Black Birch, New Zealand
to get a visual confirmation, based on the data leading to the
expectation that it would be below the ecliptic in the southern
skies at this point in its orbit. On Harrington's early death
the scope was immediately called back --- as one observer
noted, 'almost before he was cold'. To acknowledge a tenth
planet is to open up the possibility of the Anunnaki's
existence.The reason for the downplaying of the data, the
difficulty of obtaining it , the performance of the scientists
publicly speaking about it, all have the same flavor as the Air
Force's handling of the Roswell matter.

Obviously, even before any official confirmation of the
existence of Nibiru/Planet X in our system and certainly
afterward, a focused scan in its direction by a modified SETI
type search that used all appropriate parts of the energy
spectrum including our own radio and TV common frequencies
would be productive in determining the existence of intelligent
life continuing to exist thereon. To anticipate a possible
mystery: even if the planet it confirmed, it is possible that
no intelligent signals may be received. This is a conjecture,
only, on the part of the author but, in light of the kind of
summary withdrawal and lack of subsequent contact by the
Anunnaki, it is not inconceivable that any artificial signal
output has been masked. This hypothesis is based on a
conclusion that one of the major reasons for their phasing off
this planet was not just because they needed a ballistic rocket
launch window to reach their planet when it came through the
inner solar system last time but because they had come to
realize that we needed to be left on our own to find our own
species identity. A scan of this type should be undertaken
immediately. It should be assumed that our signals have been
monitored since their phase-off.

A second mode of proof or disproof is available through
genetics. We will shortly have the entire human genome read
out. That process and the information available as a result
should afford us the opportunity to examine the entire genome
for the evidence of the merging of the two species gene codes,
Homo Erectus and Anunnaki. A protocol for such a novel
determination would have to be developed. A potential problem
may lie in the fact that the melding took place some 250,000
-200,000 years ago. A practical spin-off of the effort may be
not only the identification of the two codes or, at least, the
indication of the basic merging, but evidence for why we have
some four thousand cataloged genetic diseases and other species
on this planet hardly any at all. It is at least a reasonable
speculation that imperfections due to the complexity of the
major merging of the two genomes is the cause of those defects
in the first place. We recommend that this investigation be
implemented again with highest priority for the sake of proving
or disproving the Sitchin paradigm.


The Negative Factors Still Operant In Human Cultures Springing
 From Our History As A Genetically Engineered, Subservient Race

The First Factor: Background Of Conditioning to Subservience

The overwhelming evidence from the Sitchin paradigm
demonstrates conclusively that we were genetically engineered
by the Anunnaki and treated as slaves and then limited partners
but always as subservient to them. The major ramification (Neil
Freer: Breaking the Godspell) of the Sitchin explication is
that 'religion', as we have known it, is the transmutation, the
transmutation of the Anunnaki-human relationship of
master-subject servitude, of slavery and then limited,
subservient partnership. The Anunnaki phased off this planet at
the latest around 1250 B.C.

Since then, we have been going through phases of a traumatic
transition to species maturity and independence. The major
characteristic of this process has been the transmutation in
all cultures of them, in particular Enlil/Jehovah in Western
culture, into a cosmic deity, commonly called 'God' in the
Judaeo-Christian tradition. (Is this atheism? No, not as such.
It simply is a long overdue correction of some local,
intra-solar system politics, relatively rather pedestrian in
cosmic perspective. Garden variety atheism can now be
understood as an early sign of precocious species adolescent
rebellion and questioning of the authority of the obviously all
too humanoid characteristics of the particular local Nefilim
"god" of the Hebrew tribe and Christianity, Yahweh/Jehovah. The
new paradigm, once the ancient, subservient godspell is
dispelled, simply frees us to go one on one with the universe
and to seek directly whatever unthinkable or thinkable ultimate
principle is behind it.) In a later phase we have mythologized
them into unreal beings and then, more 'sophisticatedly' into
psychological archetypes. Only with cumulative evidence and
restored history through modern scholarship have we now been
enabled to grasp the true nature of our genetic creation, our
traumatic transition, and the opportunity to emerge from
species adolescence and amnesia into species maturity.


The Second Factor: The Babel Factor, The Splintering Of The
Human Race Into Hostile Religions

And then they phased off the colony planet. Pretty much just
left without closing the laboratory door, apparently beginning
around 1250 B.C.. The foreman-kings are suddenly depicted in
the stone carvings standing where they used to stand when
listening to instructions from the master pointing to the
master's now empty chair in utter dismay. The laments are still
engraved in the clay tablets "What do I do when my master is no
longer here to instruct me...what shall I tell the people." We
went into grief, despair, denial. We blamed ourselves and
looked to the sky for their return. The good kings did their
best, the leaders sometimes were told to go up the mountain to
get some instructions long distance from space or make a wooden
box lined with metal just so to act as a receiver. "Now hear
this". Finally we were alone and in confusion, beginning to
fight over who still knew what the master really said, really
meant, what we really should be doing if he did show up.
Service at their table transmuted into ritual sacrifice of
food, attendance at their baths turned into bathing and
clothing of surrogate statues of them and gradually the routine
services turned into cargo-cult rituals and their palaces
became empty temples. And the less than good kings began to
take advantage, began to swagger. Sometimes they got away with
it on their own. Sometimes the people, in desperation, raised
their king to a symbolic god. And the god-king and the seed of
the notion of the divine right of kings became. And the chief
servants went along with it because it was to their advantage
to become known as priests or to preserve their jobs and
status. And those who had been taught, seeing that the advanced
knowledge of technologies and science and the arts, learned as
part of their function, of writing, mathematics, astronomy,
science, metallurgy, and the fine crafts in general was being
lost set an agenda to preserve it. In the face of
misunderstanding and threat they disguised it, withdrew it, hid
it. And the "occult" became.

Eventually, the situation evolved to a very macabre stage. In
an effort to demonstrate our subservience and zeal to make
things right if they would just come back we kept the rules, we
maintained the routines of service but , after a long time of
disappointment, we reached a point of abject, abysmal
desperation where we would do anything to get them to come back
-- and we did. Remembering the Nefilim males' attraction to our
young women, we began to cut their hearts out on top of the
empty pyramidal palaces in a collective craven pleading shriek
to the heavens from whence they had come and gone. But that
unspeakable and unappreciated horror could not last: we began
to doubt, to entertain frightening cynicism, secret thoughts of
independence and why bother.

Slowly a classic dissociative process developed due to
separation in time and we began to sublimate the flesh and
blood Nefilim into cosmic absolutes and their personalities
into mythic archetypes. Looking back over the history of our
species the traumatic transition we have gone through might
well be characterized as the creation of the concept of a
cosmic God by us, through a series of psychological mutational
phases. Eventually, we simply began to forget.

The transition from species amnesia to species maturity has
been a very traumatic passage. Breaking the godspell has seen
us go through the stages of abandonment to dissociation, to
transmutation to religion to rebellion and now to recovery. It
is analogous to the dysfunctional family syndrome on a
planetary scale.

So, down to our day, incredibly, we have remained still
Babel-factored for good crowd control, broken into tribes each
proprietarily telling the other that ours is the only accurate
tradition of what some particular 'god' intended, what rules to
follow, what we should be doing to demonstrate we are still
loyal and docile servants. Sometimes we just kill each other
over it. And persecutions, Crusades, Jihads, Inquisitions, evil
empires, the saved and the damned, the martyr, the infidel, the
saint, the protestant, the fundamentalist, the atheist, became
-- and remain.

The Third Factor: A Tradition Of Absolutism, Suppression and
Repression

It is the nature of the historical events by which
Yahweh/Jehovah became the monotheistic (single, supreme-- and
alien) 'god' of the Hebrews which furnishes the third key to
how the UFO/Alien and the Sitchin Human History Paradigm are
interrelated.

Modern scholarship, working on the foundations laid as far back
as the German school, has reassessed the Old Testament. When
the Mesopotamian records began to be unearthed in the 1800's,
it was realized that the history revealed from 4000 B.C.
forward, was the source of the history of the Old Testament.
The Jews, allowed to be confined to captivity by the
Babylonians by their 'god' Jehovah, had drawn on that history
and committed forgery (Sitchin) by rewriting it to their need
to establish Enlil/Jehovah as their supreme ruler. That history
shows clearly that two Anunnaki brothers, Enlil and Enki had
always been at odds with each other personally and politically.
Enki was the Anunnaki scientist who, together with his
half-sister scientist sister, Ninhursag, had created humans and
had always been favorable to them. Enlil had always had
reservations about humans and dominated them with severity.

Gardner has made the case (Bloodline Of The Holy Grail, Genesis
Of the Grail Kings) that when the Old Testament referred to The
Lord (Adonai, Enki) it was when good things were being done to
or for the Hebrews. When terrible things were being done or
allowed to happen to them, the reference was always to
Jehovah/Yahweh, Enlil) and it was to Enlil's dominance that
they finally capitulated and worshipped in fear. Enki (The
Lord, Adonai) initiated a bloodline of human leaders, further
enhanced with Anunnaki genes and taught the advanced scientific
knowledge they possessed (Gardner). This royal bloodline,
coming down through David and the anointed messiehs (anointed
ones) was recognized but treated ambiguously by the large
faction of the Hebrews who paid allegiance to Enlil. The Old
Testament, a collection of books from which some considered
unacceptable were excluded because they would contradict the
forgeries necessary to establish Enlil as supreme, promulgates
a religious attitude based in subservience and 'fear of God'.
It is this attitude, an extension of the ancient master-slave
relationship which is at root of Western culture and the
pervasive looking to the holders of power and dominance as
ultimate and often absolute authority.

The scenario replayed itself when the strain of Judaism that
eventually became known as Christian allied itself with Rome
and became the Roman Church. It perpetuated the Enlil type fear
of God tradition and, in its turn, suppressed, persecuted and
brutalized the human-centered strain of Christianity springing
from the tradition fostered by Enki.

It was this powerful religion of the Bishops and the
Inquisition which could torture, main and kill to dominate and
control that also controlled and dictated to the early
Universities. Our schools of higher 'learning' still parade the
trappings of the Medieval university on ceremonial occasions
and, unfortunately, all too often still in their limitation of
discussion to approved subjects.

This policy and position of dominant absolute authority on the
part of the Roman Church extended itself gradually in the
modality of the Roman political and military way and controlled
and formed governments and government policies through kings
and queens whose crowns were bestowed by the Church. Its
policies unchanged, the Inquisition exists under the title of
the Sacred Congregation. The latter day solution to the
religious mayhem, always just under the surface, developed in
the U. S. Constitution, still saw it necessary to give
deference to the fearful God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition,
Yahweh/Jehovah -- Enlil the Anunnaki, alien 'god'.


Strong Similarities And Critical Interrelationships Between the
UFOA and Sitchin HH Paradigm

The focus of the control and suppression of information turns
out to be identical: the existence and presence, action and
interaction of an alien, intra-solar system civilization in the
past and possibly contemporaneously (HH); the existence and
presence, action and interaction of an alien, extra-solar
system civilization in the past and contemporaneously (UFOA).

The type of authority and their agenda in enacting the control
and suppression are similar: the dominant power players in the
Judaeo and Christian contexts working to patronizingly
consolidate a proprietary religio-political regime in
self-interest and corrupted from the original ideal; the
dominant power players in our society working, probably
sincerely at first but, subsequently, patronizingly, to
consolidate a political regime in self-interest and corrupted
from the Democratic ideal.

The methodology of the use of suppression of information,
manipulation of the pertinent history, deception, the use of
threat , intimidation, and force is similar and sometimes
identical: the billy-club slapped across the palm to emphasize
the threat of death to a witness' daughter at Roswell echoes
the Inquisitional threats and execution of 'heretics'; the
Project Blue Book agenda mirrors the Egyptian Exploration
Fund's suppression and expunging of Petrie's publication of his
find of the Annunaki gold processing plant at Mt. Horeb
(Gardner: Genesis Of the Grail Kings)

It is not surprising, therefore, in light of our half-alien but
subservient slave background, that we have tolerated the
patronizing forgeries and abuses of authority that have been
exercised by those who have controlled the UFO/Alien situation
since at least the �40's.

It is not surprising that so many react, almost reflexively, to
the possibility of another race coming here from the stars or a
tenth planet in our own solar system by immediately assuming
their superiority and benevolence or power to control. If we
have been looking to the sky for some three thousand years for
Daddy to return from where the Anunnaki went when phasing off
the planet, waiting for their return to make everything right
and tell us what to do, we put ourselves in the dangerous and
highly vulnerable position of being taken over by anything that
happens to show up here --- even if they are androids. We must
break this godspell to become fully effective and independent.

It is not surprising that even those who recognize the reality
of the alien presence now and the half-alien nature of our own
genetic background can still be taken in by demands for
subservience. Some new age lecturers would lead people up the
mountain where they expect the space ship to land and the
rescued to be incorporated into some alien sub-culture. Some
would claim that we should allow ourselves to become GI-Joes in
some alien conflict between purported light and dark forces so
that we can be rewarded by the victorious light leader and
given advanced technology at the victory picnic.

Consider even the U.S. Constitution in the godspell
perspective: it was constructed to create a society where a
religiously pluralistic population could coexist with the
minimum of inter-denominational mayhem. A result of this
enforced acceptance of Babel-factored plurality has been an
uncomfortable protocol of avoidance of discussion and an
attitude that any criticism is automatically partisan
prejudice. This makes extremely difficult any impartial
reexamination and evaluation of the history of the race because
it is, in effect, inescapably, some denomination's 'religious'
history.

The religious background and belief systems of UFO
investigators, politicians, scientists cause internal conflicts
that often enervate their efforts . The degree of evolvement of
the consciousness of the scientist, the scholar, the
politician, the philosopher, the UFO investigator determines
the level of effectiveness of their actions. The most expert of
UFO investigators who is still looking for some superior being
to show up to help us out , "save" us, instruct us, is looking
through an outmoded and restrictive, even submissive filter.
The scientist who ignores or denies the evidence for the alien
presence, present and past, due to peer, grant, government or
religious pressures is just as limited. The denial or ignoring
of the evidence of alien presence, present and past and
directly connected with our own origins by SETI is analogous to
the denial or ignoring of the archaeological evidence for the
presence and role of the Anunnaki in our past by the sciences
and religions of the world.

The attitudes we have exhibited, the ways in which we have
acted and the way in which we have let ourselves be manipulated
by the controlling powers with regard to UFO/Alien presence and
our own species history and the postures we continue to exhibit
clearly are the direct offshoot of our ancient subservient
godspell background and history.


Integration Of The Two Parts Of The Alien Paradigm Can Move Us
To A New Plateau Of Species Existence

It is the conviction of this author that, unless and until we
restore our true history, attain a generic, consensual
definition and understanding of what a human being is and step
out of species adolescence thereby, we shall not resolve the
current UFO/alien questions fully because we will not have the
species maturity and planetary unity to be able to interact
gracefully with a strange species, knowing easily what is
acceptable and unacceptable for both of us. This is simply
another facet of the reasoning by those who felt desperately
compelled, militarily and diplomatically, to deal with the
incoming alien greys elected to keep the matter as secret as
possible

Restoration of our true half-alien history, however, will free
us to attain the unassailable species integrity to enable us to
demand and present credentials, determine intent, agenda, and
negotiate confidently so that we are accepted into stellar
society with full dignity. It will enable us to have the
individual and species self-confidence and perspective that
will prevent us from being manipulated, intimidated or
conquered by whomever is here or shows up here in the future.
Only this kind of integration will allow us to gain
explanations and understanding of many details of both the HH
and UFOA scenarios.


Practical Advantages Derived From the Integration of the UFOA
and HH Paradigms

The elucidation of the Anunnaki alien presence in the past
explains the presence of ooparts, the puzzles concerning
'sudden' civilizations, our non-standard evolutionary progress
and our unique gene code, and resolves the
Creationist-Evolutionary conflict. The understanding of our
bicameral racial heritages, homo-erectus and Anunnaki and our
genetic creation for pragmatic Anunnaki purposes may explain
why we have four thousand plus genetic diseases due to
imperfections in the genetic synthesis while other species on
this planet have few or none.

A more precise and complete overview of our past enables us to
differentiate between myth, mythic beings and aliens of
whatever type have manifest or come here in the past and
present and will aid us in differentiating and dealing with
aliens in the future. That we are literally half-alien
genetically throws the entire question of the alien reality
into a far different perspective.


Some Possible Scenarios Opened Up By The Recognition Of The
Annunaki

There are several possible reasonable scenarios presented by
the expansion of the alien paradigm. They are simply listed
here, without weighted evaluation, for the consideration of the
reader.

A preliminary note: Not long ago, one could be in very serious
trouble with religious authorities by expressing belief that
there could be other races from other places -- much less other
dimensions (Giordano Bruno, a monk who claimed that was burnt
at the stake by the Church only a few years before the founding
of Harvard University). The notion of dimensions beyond our
comfortable three is relatively novel and still partially
speculative; physicists still holding for various actual
counts. It is understandable, therefore, that a sort of aura of
mystery and awe, sometimes almost transcendentally religious,
is projected on 'dimensionality'. The added precision of
differentiation afforded by this expansion of perspective
removes the mystical halo from the concept of
'interdimensional' applied to some aliens. It may well be true,
quite probably is true, that some aliens and their technologies
and, therefore, their relative consciousness, involve
modalities which use or operate in dimensions other than the
three which we are accustomed to perceive. Physics, human or
alien, however, is still physics - whether of this sub-universe
or another. It will be easier to deal with whatever physics
manifests or is discovered as the subliminal mystical elements
are dismissed from out thinking and the knee-jerk - or,
perhaps, knee-bending - subservient godspell reflex is
eliminated.

If Nibiru, the Anunnaki home planet and tenth in our solar
system still exists in orbit in our solar system (not having
been involved in some destructive catastrophic or ejection
event) there is reasonable expectation that the Anunnaki still
exist. The evidence gathered by the investigation using the
IRAS in 83-'84 for that planet still existing in our solar
system was enough to convince Harrington of the Naval
Observatory. The ' Nordic' alien type correspond in physical
appearance most closely to the Annunaki. It is easily
conceivable that they could, at this stage of their
technological development, come here, either as monitors or
even as tourists any time they wished (although, in earlier
times, apparently possessing only ballistic, rocket technology
they were limited to certain orbital constraints.)

Some greys and other types may be found to be robots and
androids of the Annunaki, used as remote probes or perhaps
routine monitoring of this planet, as cautiously used envoys,
perhaps sacrificed in crashes as a safe, sterile and
non-threatening introductory manifestation (Roswell). The
correlation with the recorded prophecies in the Mayan Codex of
the appearance of many videotaped UFO's over Mexico at the time
of the 1991 eclipse of the sun and subsequently, because of the
association of the Anunnaki with the Central American early
civilizations, may point to these saucers being Anunnaki.

Some greys and other types may be from extrastellar societies
and fully humanoid or android and to be differentiated from
Anunnaki associated androids. Some extra-solar system types may
be known to, unknown to, friendly with, antagonistic to, have
an active relationship with the Anunnaki.

It may be that there is. as has been alleged or claimed by
some, direct cooperation/collusion with an alien species on the
part of some humans of socio-economic international influence,
for the purpose of controlling the population and, perhaps,
even the planet. In the cases where those aliens turn out to be
Annunaki, the two parts of the paradigm will merge completely.

Representations of some creatures in the Annunaki time period
in the Middle East bear striking resemblance to the
descriptions and depictions of the grey type aliens known in
modern times. Sitchin's interpretations of some of these images
and detailed descriptions are that they were robots and
androids developed and used by the Annunaki.

It is this author's opinion that the alien presence matter is
simply old and, at the present stage of our collective
understanding and reaction to it, becoming rather boring. The
progress we are making with these artificial problems is far
behind the leading edge of our evolution and we suffer from the
artificial retardation

It is evident that those who found themselves with the
responsibility for handling the UFOA phenomenon from at least
the time of Roswell conspired to conceal it for the general
purpose of learning the technology for weapons and defense but
equally because of the concern that the general population
would be devastatingly disrupted. Restoring our true half-alien
history will remove the naive, parochial and religious
handicaps and afford a species maturity, cosmic perspective and
independence that may reassure those charged with dealing with
the UFOA matter that the disruptions and chaos in the general
public anticipated on revelation will definitely not take
place. That they have been acting in a patronizing way toward
the citizens of this country is, in a real sense, a reflection
of their own limitations, a product of their military type
approach which, as Corso said, challenged on a simple 'friend
or foe' basis. They need an opportunity to inform the public
that will save enough face for them and this could be the item
that affords it. They will advance the argument that the public
had and has no concept of the dangers and threats from the
aliens, no concept of the strangeness of their science and
their society and their intentions and the degree of
advancement of their evolution over ours. This level of species
consciousness and independence disengages the individual from
subservience to and reliance on this kind of patronizing
authority and they will no longer be even needed. We will see
the inevitable struggle to preserve their power on the part of
the least evolved of them, a graceful recognition of the
requisite species maturation and resultant resignation of that
power on the part of the more evolved of them.

It is not as if they have possessed exclusive knowledge of the
situation all along. The UFOA phenomenon has always manifest an
element of direct contact with the general public through
physical manifestations of craft, abduction, direct
communication of information, quite clearly on a gradual,
planned and orchestrated basis at least on the part of some
species. Perhaps if those who control realize that we will
simply go on without them they will understand that it is no
longer either necessary to patronize the general public or
'protect' that classic fiction the 'ordinary person'.


The Next Step

The evaluations of the information contained herein and
decisions whether to consider and incorporate it into the
agendas of the various organizations addressed, ironically and
paradoxically, will be influenced by the same factors
elucidated herein as counterproductive and suppressive.

Some will look to academia or establishment science as a
criterion and reject it for fear of loosing contact with those
worlds that survive on government grants.

Some will deem it too difficult because the UFOA matter is
already so controversial that to incorporate it will, in their
minds, complexify the situation to the point of being unwieldy
-- or too politically incorrect.

Some will reject it simply because they feel it will offend
religious groups and alienate those who might otherwise give
support or at least be open to influence. It is a thing of
great mystification and awe to witness a champion of the UFOA
cause who is ready to take on any governmental authority cower
before 'religious' institutional authority.

Some in the UFOA community will reject it, most ironically,
because it contradicts their personal religious or metaphysical
or philosophical or new age belief system without a serious
consideration of the facts.

There are, however, a growing number of those who have freed
themselves from the imprints and conditioning of their cultures
and their religions sufficiently to be able to integrate both
halves of the alien paradigm into their thinking and worldview.
They have reached the genetic enlightenment afforded by the
restoration of our true history and it has enabled them to
expand to integrate the UFOA phase. This expansion has
empowered them to think and decide for themselves concerning
the overwhelming mass of evidence for both the UFOA presence
and the HH Sitchin worldview, and to move beyond both
governmental and religious obfuscation and obstructions. For
them, the Paradigm Clock has struck twelve long ago and they
are about the business of becoming their own evolutionary
artists and preparing to meet the aliens and prepared to
restore relations with the Anunnaki. They have already
experienced and passed beyond the profound paradigm shift
anticipated and predicted by so many. In a real sense they are
the paradigm shift: they are finished with this phase of
investigation, speculation, the forcing of revelation. The
current UFOA situation is like an old �40's movie: the
resistance to the HH Sitchin phase like an academic soap opera
in the faculty room. They are free to answer the question 'What
does it all mean?' with 'Whatever we wish to make it' because
they are free to experience the universe as a plenum of radical
freedom in which interaction with other species is only another
significant activity.

If the aliens choose those with whom they will make first
overt, public contact it will most likely be from this group.
They are their own persons with an unassailable integrity and
self-knowledge and confidence and sensitivity that will allow
them to interact easily and intelligently without fear,
subservience or cramping preconceptions.

It is from within this group that the clarity of vision for the
next phase will come, is already manifesting: the simple,
logical, gathering and implementation of contact ready teams.
They know who they are and they easily recognize their kind.
They know that they must be beyond the archaic divisions of
parochial, national, political, and social turf borders. They
know they cannot be without a common human history, cannot be
at odds with each other in their basic conception of what a
human being is, cannot be separated on the basis of religious
belief. They know they cannot wait for the masses of the bell
curve because they are the vanguard and they know their genetic
evolutionary role well.

It is this expanded, radically free, self-confident and fully
independent consciousness that is the key to the next step:
direct, overt, contact and communication and species
interchange with whomever chooses to initiate it first in that
mode. It may be a species from outside our solar system, it may
be a species from inside our solar system and, therefore, most
probably in that case, the Anunnaki. It will make little
difference to these futant humans because they will have the
information and perspective to comprehend and evaluate and
interact.

The first project of these new humans will be the development
of a universal translator modality based on the principle of
self-reference. The general principles and practical
application have already been established. The author intends
this to be the subject of a second paper.


Selected Reading

Freer, Neil, Breaking the Godspell (New Falcon Publications,
'87, �90', '93) God Games: What Do You Do Forever? (The Book
Tree, '98)

Gardner, Sir Laurence, Bloodline of the Holy Grail (Element
Books, '96) Genesis of the Grail Kings (Bantam Press, '99)

Sitchin, Zecharia, The Twelfth Planet The Stairway To Heaven
The Wars Of Gods and Men The Lost Realms When Time Began
Genesis Revisited (all Bear & Co. or Avon Paperback, �76- ) The
Author


NEIL FREER is a researcher, writer, lecturer, philosopher and
poet living in Santa Fe, NM. Neil and his wife, Ursula, have
lived in the Eldorado area since 1994. Neil holds a BA in
English and did his graduate work in Philosophy and Psychology
at the New School for Social Research. He has taught college
courses in Philosophy and History of Religion, gives private
and public seminars and lectures and has done over one hundred
forty radio and TV interviews. Neil is the author of Breaking
the Godspell, a book which explores the ramifications of the
archaeological, astronomical and genetic proof for our being a
genetically engineered species and presents the ramifications
of this new paradigm of human nature that resolves the
Creationist-Evolutionary conflict.

In his second book, God-Games: What Do You Do Forever? he
explores the ways in which we will live when, individually and
collectively, we attain the unassailable integrity afforded by
the restoration of our true genetic history. He outlines the
species maturity of the new planetary civilization and
describes the 'god games' of immortality, four dimensional
consciousness, life after the Law Of Everything, alien contact,
that the new human will play.

Neil's work appears as part of the symposium, Of Heaven and
Earth (Book Tree, 1996) which includes the paper he presented
as invited guest speaker at the Zecharia Sitchin Day special
event at the International Association For New Science
conference in 1996. An essay 'In The Middle of Whose Ship Are
You Standing?' is included in David Pursglove's Zen And The Art
Of Close Encounters. Neil's most recent public presentation was
at the Sedona Millennium Conference. A one hour interview with
Jeffery Mishlove on Thinking Allowed was aired nationwide on
PBS TV September 13th, 1999.

Neil Freer
28 Avenida Las Nubes
Santa Fe, NM 87505-2116
505-466-1819
email: freer1@concentric.net
website:  http://www.concentric.net/~freer1


This paper is copyrighted by Neil Freer, but it may be freely
downloaded, by the author's permission granted here, translated,
printed, copied, quoted, distributed in any appropriate media
providing only that it not be altered in any way in text or
intent and the author is properly credited.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 13

                                UFO NEWSWIRE

From: Stefan Duncan <bward3@nc.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:28:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:42:12 +0000
Subject: UFO NEWSWIRE


Everyday I read where someone asks if anyone has heard of an UFO
sighting the night before. We have to wait for UFO Roundup,
Filer's Files, or the monthly NUFORC to post  every two weeks or
month. I believe we should all work together and ask that if
anyone does have a sighing to please post it on the AUFON
newswire. The idea is to get the UFO sightings to the public as
quickly as possible. The longer it is before we can respond to a
sighting, the harder it is to gain evidence.

I was an Associated Press Reporter. I checked the newswire for
breaking news eEveryday. We need one for UFOs. I hope you'll
support this idea and help fulfill the NEWSWIRE's role.

If you receive news of a sighting, please post it on the AUFON
newswire.


Thanks.

Stefan Duncan

AUFON LIVE  click during broadcast time
http://www.live365.com/cgibin/directory.cgi?autostart=aufon   AUFON
newswire/weekly newspaper UFO Hotline 910-425-6962
aufon-subscribe@egroups.com   http://www.aufon.com
American UFO News address
5396 S.Sumac Circle, Fayetteville, NC 28304
AUFON LIVE hosted by Stefan Duncan
9p.m.-11p.m. M-F  11p.m.-1a.m. SAT. (EST)
Just click on http://www.live365.com/cgibin/directory.cgi?autostart=aufon
   or  AUFON LIVE on at website
  during broadcast time.  No downloads.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 13

                Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:32:42 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:47:05 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Hatch


 >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:34:10 -0800
 >From: Peter B. Davenport <ufocntr@NWLINK.COM>
 >Subject: Re: Streaking Green Object And Rumbling Noises W/Object
 >To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

 >>Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:08:31 -0500
 >>From: Kenny Young <ufo@FUSE.NET>
 >>Subject: Streaking green object and rumbling noises w/object
 >>To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

 >Kenny,

 ><snip>

 >Also, some kind of event occurred again over Rockford, IL, on
 >Thursday night at approximately 2100 hrs. (Central). People
 >reported witnessing anywhere from 3 to 23 lights in a variable
 >formation drift across that city for approximately 20-30
 >minutes. I do not know what they were, but they sound similar to
 >the lights that were seen there on several occasions last year,
 >beginning in February 2000. Details of those earlier sightings

Hello Peter!

Good to hear from you.

Now, this is a rhetorical question of course, no response
required! Nevertheless:

If you had a fleet of UFOs, would you turn on the running lites
and drift over Rockford, IL like a bunch of balloons?

I can think of much better plans than that.


Very best wishes

- Larry Hatch







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 13

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Josh Goldstein  <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:29:40 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:50:58 +0000
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:22:44 EST
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:28:41 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:56:12 -0500
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down

 >>>>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:29:05 -0600
 >>>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>>>As this relates to UFO sightings, I don't think authorities will
 >>>>generally question that people, even hundreds of people, see
 >>>>unexplained lights in the sky. However, the implications of
 >>>>these claims - that these lights are ET craft - have yet to be
 >>>>proven or, to be fair, even adequately investigated. Therefore,
 >>>>the UFO analogy doesn't really connect in the way (I assume)
 >>>>that you imply; that witnesses should be believed until proven
 >>>>otherwise.

<snip>

 >Hi Greg & Roger,

 >There is a much simpler solution to this conundrum than what I
 >fear is getting dangerously close to simulating arguments about
 >how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 >As I understand it there was only one witness who claimed to
 >have actually seen the aircraft crashing into the water and she
 >said that aspect took about 2-3 seconds - given witness
 >tendencies to greatly overestimate time intervals in times of
 >surprise or stress it is quite likely the actual interval was
 >less than even a second.

 >Under Hynek's criteria this case would be rejected if it was a
 >UFO case because of there being only one witness to the
 >extraordinary event (the alleged crash, now reportedly never
 >occurred) and the extremely short duration. In my screening
 >criteria for visual-only UFO Best Evidence cases, the duration
 >must be at least 1 minute. This case would flunk instantly under
 >either criteria.

 >The UFO problem is not defined by poor single-witness
 >observations of brief duration like this. It is defined by best
 >evidence cases of astronomers (LaPaz 1947, Tombaugh),
 >physicists, aeronautical engineers (NACA Rogue River, Ore.,
 >1949, Paul Hill, Va., 1952, Kelly Johnson-Ben Rich 1953), air
 >traffic controllers, astronauts (Skylab-3 1973), cinetheodolite
 >film and triangulation (White Sands 1950), radar-visuals,
 >electronic intelligence radar-visuals (RB-47 1957), artillery
 >triangulation networks (Camp Hood, Tex., 1949), and so much more
 >that is so easily forgotten.


Hello Brad,

I fully agree with you that we have taken that aircraft incident
as far as we can go. I am not surprised that the witness who had
the misperception of the plane crahing into the water still
believes her mistake after hearing the facts to contradict it.
After all, the village idiot has just been elected president by
unthinking people.

I know, I am a partisan and I could have chosen a better
example, but I am still pissed off at the content of Bob Park's
post on Donald Rumsfeld, one of the few statements of Park that
I agree with.

Brad, I also agree with you regarding the UFO cases you sighted.
I can't recall what the incident with Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich
was in 1953. Of course my aviation side is thanful for what they
created in that field. Like many people, I also have long
wondered what secrets they went to their graves with.


Take care,

Josh Goldstein









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 13

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 23:53:42 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:55:25 +0000
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:50:39 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down - Balaskas

 >>Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:14:55 -0500
 >>From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down

 >>http://www.nypostonline.com/news/regionalnews/20719.htm

 >>New York Post | 8 Jan. 2001

 >>FOWL' PLAY MADE PAIR THINK PLANE WENT DOWN

 >>By LARRY CELONA and WILLIAM NEUMAN

 >>The search for a small plane that two New Jersey women thought
 >>they saw crash into the Hudson River turned out yesterday to be
 >>a wild-goose chase.

 ><snip>

 >>At the same time, Leigh Russo, a human-resources executive from
 >>Dumont, N.J., was driving across the bridge and used her cell
 >>phone to call 911 - telling cops that she and a friend saw the
 >>plane go into the water.

 ><snip>

 >Hi Kelly and everyone!

 >The article about reminded me of something similar that used to
 >occur here once every year.

 >Daphne Schiff, Professor of Natural Science at York University,
 >used to teach a course called "Science of Flight" during the
 >years I was a student at the same Toronto area university. In
 >the many years she taught this popular course, she would obtain
 >permission from the university to land her plane on its property
 >for the benefit of her students. I recall that every year police
 >would visit our campus to investigate reports by people driving
 >by the university that an aircraft had crashed. Yes, it did
 >disappear below the trees and building of the campus as it
 >decended from the sky and logical extrapolation suggested that
 >it crashed but Daphne never did crash a plane at York.

 >Daphne was recently working on an secret aircraft project of her
 >own - an ornithopter. Now if the police get any calls from
 >winesses that a woman with flapping wings was seen flying in the
 >sky over York University, then it probably would be Daphne or
 >more likely Patricia Bowman, the under 100 pound pilot Daphne
 >recruited to fly her secret ornithopter.


Hello Nick,

Many years ago I was in the Civil Air Patrol. The police would
tell us people sometimes called in reports like the above where
they were mistaken in their aircraft observations. A stupid
teenage prank I played several decades ago when I first received
my private pilot's license was the one time I decided to keep
circling at an altitude just above shotgun range from all the
duck blinds along the San Francisco Bay because I didn't like
the idea of them shooting unarmed ducks. I got my payback a few
years later when I ended up flying helicopters in Vietnam and
getting constantly shot at.

Daphne Schiff should keep her ornithopter at altitude over
hunting areas. They may mistake her as a future giant duck
dinner. I wonder how many UFO calls the police would get from
misperceptions. Her ornithopter reminds me of those early flying
experiments where someone would design an ornithopter and it
would quickly break itself apart without gaining any altitude. I
am sure Daphne won't have such problems in today's world. A
flying ornithopter would be quite an accomplishment. It is hard
for me to imagine how she would master some of the inherent
difficulties. Please remember to inform me when she is ready to
reveal her secrets from her "Area 51". If this invention
succeeds she may have a future job at the Skunk Works.


Keep 'em flying,

Josh Goldstein










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 14

              Re: The Alien Question: An Expanded Perspective -

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:06:10 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:30:45 +0000
Subject: Re: The Alien Question: An Expanded Perspective -


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

 >Source: Neil Freer

 >http://www.neilfreer.com/

 >The Alien Question: An Expanded Perspective

 >http://www.neilfreer.com/index10.htm

 >A White Paper

<snip>

 >By Neil Freer Author: Breaking the Godspell God Games: What Do
 >You Do Forever?

<snip>

 >Synopsis: The current context within which The Alien Presence
 >Paradigm is viewed and dealt with is too narrow and limited.
 >The Alien Presence Paradigm should be seen as having two parts,

<snip>


Hello Neil,

I respect your passions and your beliefs as you have expressed
in your white paper but beyond your theories and assumptions I
do not see the evidence that has convinced you, the building
blocks of your paper's two main pillars.

In my opinion there may be strong suggestions of an alien
presence on Earth but there is yet to be found true evidence.
Evidentiary procedures are quite specific. May I remind you that
the people at NIDS are legitimate scientists and follow proper
protocols. Have you inquired with respected Mesopotamian
professors whether they agree with Sitchin's positions? I
suggest that you try to contact some yourself, you may be
surprised. Ten or so years ago I consulted several and they felt
that Sitchin was giving the tablets his own interpretations and
reaching his own conclusions. They did not think Sitchin's work
was scholarship.

Neil, I don't want to seem too hard but I think you have taken a
giant leap from your theories to your conclusions.

Hasta luego,

Josh Goldstein











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 14

              Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 21:26:21 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:38:58 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Deschamps


 >Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:32:42 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois

 >>Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:34:10 -0800
 >>From: Peter B. Davenport <ufocntr@NWLINK.COM>
 >>Subject: Re: Streaking Green Object And Rumbling Noises W/Object
 >>To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

 >>>Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:08:31 -0500
 >>>From: Kenny Young <ufo@FUSE.NET>
 >>>Subject: Streaking green object and rumbling noises w/object
 >>>To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

 >Hello Peter!

 >Good to hear from you.

 >Now, this is a rhetorical question of course, no response
 >required! Nevertheless:

 >If you had a fleet of UFOs, would you turn on the running lites
 >and drift over Rockford, IL like a bunch of balloons?

 >I can think of much better plans than that.

Being an eyewitness to UFOs myself, I respond by saying:

Who ever said they were "running lights"? In most cases, whatever it is
that makes these objects extremely bright is possibly due to their
propulsion system, or a by-product of that system. In any case, they may
not have any choice at all about having their lights on. The body of some
of these craft actually glows...very brightly, at times putting out light
that is brighter than daylight!

cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 14

              Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - St. Pierre

From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 23:13:21 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:41:56 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - St. Pierre


 >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:34:10 -0800
 >From: Peter B. Davenport <ufocntr@NWLINK.COM>
 >Subject: Re: Streaking Green Object And Rumbling >Noises W/Object
 >To: CURRENT->ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

<snip>

 >People reported witnessing anywhere from 3 to 23 lights in a
 >variable formation drift across that city for approximately
 >20-30 minutes.

Hey Peter, List,

This reminds me of a little experiment I tried a few years back
in New Hampshire. It was merely for my own edification, and not
intended as a hoax.

I took a trip to the local party store and purchased an
assortment of helium balloons. A jaunt to Wallmart netted me
some glowsticks (the "crack and glow" type). Back at the
homestead, I got busy figuring out the logistics of weight to
lift ratios for the sticks. I didn't want something that would
rise too fast (too many balloons), or not fast enough(too few).

When I found a suitable rate of climb, I ended up with four
balloon/stick combos to work with. I then linked all four with
sewing thread, placing each about ten feet away from the other.

Come nightfall, I and a few hardy participants and spectators
walked down to the lake to try our luck at creating UFOs.

Standing equally spaced on the shore, we counted down (just for
effect, I guess...none of the balloons could leave without the
others anyway), activated the glowsticks, and released the
balloons.

As the balloons drifted across the lake, they became invisible
almost at once. Their cargo was another matter.

The eerie green lights danced around each other in the gently
swirling air currents. From a distance, it was impossible to see
that they were connected. The the random motion was captivating,
in the way a campfire draws one's gaze. They would develop
strange orbits around each other, while changing relative
distance. Pretty cool.

By the time they were a mile away, they were about five hundred
feet up, and still plenty visible. I would like to have seen
them from underneath at that altitude, but I still got my
money's worth out of the deal.

Second to the experience was the reaction of my friends and
family. While assembling the project, I was the recipient of all
sorts of of strange looks and snickers. After all, here was a
grown man sitting on the floor crosslegged playing with balloons
and glowsticks, and apparently having a grand time of it. I was!
Look, some people are easily amused, OK? Just give me the above
mentioned items when they put me away, I'll be fine.

Notice, however, that every one of them followed me down to the
lake to watch, some even toting binoculars. They were all
talking excitedly on the way down, and seemed to be having a
good time. Each stayed until the lights were out of sight. The
idea was silly, but I think enthusiasm is contagious. Either
that, or they all wanted to see two hour's work and 30 bucks go
in the drink.


Greg St. Pierre









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:04:34 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:14:56 +0000
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:29:40 +0100
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down

<snip>


 >Hello Brad,

 >I fully agree with you that we have taken that aircraft incident
 >as far as we can go. I am not surprised that the witness who had
 >the misperception of the plane crahing into the water still
 >believes her mistake after hearing the facts to contradict it.
 >After all, the village idiot has just been elected president by
 >unthinking people.

 >I know, I am a partisan and I could have chosen a better
 >example, but I am still pissed off at the content of Bob Park's
 >post on Donald Rumsfeld, one of the few statements of Park that
 >I agree with.

 >Brad, I also agree with you regarding the UFO cases you sighted.
 >I can't recall what the incident with Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich
 >was in 1953. Of course my aviation side is thanful for what they
 >created in that field. Like many people, I also have long
 >wondered what secrets they went to their graves with.


Hi Josh,

Thanks for your message. I don't know about a statement by Bob
Park but I think that's getting off-topic anyway. As for the
Kelly Johnson sighting it's being looked into by the researcher
who uncovered it and hopefully we'll know more soon.


Regards,

Brad










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                             Could This Be True?

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:00:43 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:25:02 +0000
Subject: Could This Be True?


About 1966 or so, a NASA team doing work for the Apollo moon
mission took the astronauts near Tuba City where the terrain of
the Navajo Reservation looks very much like the Lunar surface.
Along with all the trucks and large vehicles, there were two
large figures dressed in full Lunar space suits.

Nearby a Navajo sheep herder and his son were watching the
strange creatures walk about, occasionally being tended by
personnel. The two Navajo people were noticed and approached by
the NASA personnel. Since the man did not know English, his son
asked for him what the strange creatures were and the NASA
people told them that they are just men that are getting ready
to go to the moon. The man became very excited and asked if he
could send a message to the moon with the astronauts.

The NASA personnel thought this was a great idea so they rustled
up a tape recorder. After the man gave them his message, they
asked his son to translate. His son would not.

Later, they tried a few more people on the reservation to
translate and every person they asked would chuckle and then
refuse to translate. Finally, with cash in hand, someone
translated the message,

"Watch out for these guys, they come to take your land."

--

   In an infinite universe, infinitely anything is possible.
             Sean Jones
        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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                           I Can See For Miles...

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:08:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:27:43 +0000
Subject: I Can See For Miles...


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Electric Warrior : Front Page January 14, 2001
http://www.electricwarrior.com/

------------------------------------------------------------
I CAN SEE FOR MILES
(KKSamurai's Face at Meridiani Revisited)

------------------------------------------------------------
BACKLASH

In a June 1985 article for Parade magazine Carl Sagan explained
why people see faces in eggplants, tortillas, in the Moon and
the planets: "The pattern-recognition machinery in our brains is
so efficient in extracting a face from a clutter of other
details that we sometimes see faces where there are none."

Sagan, the world's best known and best loved scientist, was
tackling the Face on Mars, in a forum that gave him the widest
possible print-media distribution -- the Sunday paper.

"For a complex terrain sculpted by unfamiliar processes,
amateurs examining photographs at the very limit of resolution
may be in trouble. Their hopes and fears, the excitement of
possible discoveries of great import, may overwhelm the usual
skeptical and cautious approach of science."

The definitive book about the sphinx-like monument on Mars was
two years away from publication, and the Martian enigma's
digital imaging specialist had only just acquired computer tapes
for analysis. Sagan's uncompromising stance would cast a long
shadow over any subsequent research.

At the turn of the century, when another face on Mars turned up
in the same Viking image database, it bore the brunt of every
criticism ever leveled at the Face at Cydonia, like some cosmic
whipping boy.

Born into controversy, unsubstantiated, the new face was ignored
by independent Mars researchers. On a mission to map the surface
of Mars, new images turned out by the Mars Orbital Camera
revealed a complicated pattern of geological features.

The Electric Warrior revisits a remarkably humanoid face so
alien it seems to defy anything but Sagan's most prosaic
explanation.

------------------------------------------------------------
THRUST AND PARRY

By the time the Internet-based alternative news community had
heard about the 'New Face on Mars' in May of 1999, Terry James
(KKSamurai) was already embroiled in a heated, multi-threaded
email argument with Robert A. M. Stevens (RAMS), moderated by
Mitch Battros on the Earth Changes TV Breaking News board.

KKSamurai, the self-styled Ruthless Anomaly Hunter, found the
face wedged in a crater -- hosted for curious eyes to see by
NASA's online PDS image archive -- and contacted Battros about
his discovery.

RAMS, the self-proclaimed bane of the UFO community, who
justified his crude and shameless attacks by saying that any
interest in paranormal phenomenon was a perverse societal
illness, had been contacted about the new face and was only too
happy to respond.

"Someone first went in to the 30,000 photos and then from there
cut and pasted the MJB Coffee man-in-the-moon graphic. You can
see the cut and paste clearly." said Stevens, alleging the image
was a hoax.

"Via Unix this is fairly easy to do. After you blow it up, you
can see the cut and paste. And before anyone out there goes
bugshit over this, this has occurred hundreds of times in
hacking a site, dropping in the photo, and evaccing from the
place with a window washer to hide your DNS and IP tracks."

Stevens' rambling high-tech paramilitary diatribe described how
the NASA Website had been hacked.

"Frankly, I was the first one to spot this image and if he
thinks that I hacked into NASA to create this face image he's
crazy!" protested KKSamurai, on his own board, A Red Planet
Roundtable Discussion. "There are hundreds of people out there
with this image on CD. It's been around for years and no one has
noticed it until I found it!"

Technology was on KKSamurai's side: To pull off the unlikely
hoax, the image would have to be reverse engineered into every
Mars Explorer CD-ROM distributed by NASA.

Robert Shepherd, a frequent correspondent on KK's discussion
board, had searched through online archives of Viking orbiter
data, and come forward with an equivalent image.

"That caused a bit of a stir when I posted it on Terry's BBS!
This new raw image, with more detail than the one Terry had
worked with originally, shows a remarkably clear likeness to a
human face. It seemed to confirm that Terry might really be on
to something."

Meanwhile, with the USGS stating it would be almost impossible
to hack into the NASA Website, Stevens changed his story for
Earth Changes TV, saying "Somebody may have hacked the NASA site
some time ago."

Battros wrote Patty Garcia of the USGS, asking whether the photo
was authentic. Garcia replied, "I have looked at the original
Viking images in this area and they look essentially the same,
so I do not believe that the imagery you are looking at has been
tampered with in any way."

Battros said Stevens had lied, and KKSamurai won his war of
words with Ufology's slash-and-burn nemesis.

------------------------------------------------------------
THE WAR OF THE FACES

Now vindicated against charges he'd hoaxed the image, KKSamurai
had difficulty convincing well known Mars Cydonia researchers
that his face was anything but a mirage.

"I received an e-mail from Carlotto yesterday in which he stated
that my new face on Mars is interesting but he would be more
interested if there were other anomalies around it," wrote
James.

Mark Carlotto had done extensive image analysis on the Face at
Cydonia, and by this time was coping with new images from the
Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) that had killed public interest in
the Martian enigmas.

The Face on Mars' chief exponent, Richard Hoagland, declined To
comment, but Kynthia, an artist who had fashioned a clay model
of the Cydonia landform, wrote an analysis for her Planetary
Mysteries Website. Kynthia's work had appeared in Hoagland's
book: 'The Monuments of Mars'.

"Yes, I see the appearance of a face, however I am not
convinced. I have spent the last 15 years looking at Cydonia and
studying it. That it resembles a face is not enough, other
elements are required to substantiate the new face claim."

KKSamurai, still smarting from remarks about his discovery, took
Kynthia's post as the unofficial word from Hoagland, and
responded antagonistically on The Enterprise Mission message
board.

"Cydonia may well be the most significant find ever on Mars, but
because of the unfair press, the public has pooh-poohed it.
Meridiani is also a very important find, and its existence lends
even further credibility to the existence of Cydonia on Mars!
[Hoagland] has had more than enough time to review all of the
data I've provided and take a more personal position. But he
hasn't!"

So it was that by the end of the month KKSamurai dropped his
warrior's self defense stance and declared war. Since Cydonia
heavyweights had already weighed-in, it might have been an
ideological war to which nobody came.

But the new face on Mars, many times larger than the Cydonia
face, was big, too big to ignore. Even as the burgeoning global
communications network began a relentless grab for namespace
recognition, so also the growing populist community inspired by
the face would acquire its own Internet domain.

------------------------------------------------------------
NO RELIEF

A new breed of Anomaly Hunter was now gathering to either
contemplate or harangue the next big thing...something,
anything, that might prove to be as spectacular as KK's Face at
Meridiani.

Terry James's Website sponsored a variety of message boards,
based on a popular online application that provided a Web-based
open forum. In the midst of these discussions, Robert Shepherd,
always the empiricist, proved to be the perfect sparring
partner.

Shepherd remained skeptical that the new face bore any geologic
resemblance to the face at Cydonia. On his own Website he
presented both high and low resolution images of a similar
region in an adjacent crater.

Viking images of Shepherd's crater showed the same dark and
light patterns, at the same indistinct resolution as the now
famous crater with the Face at Meridiani. But MGS images
revealed these patterns with stunning clarity: dunes of
blackened material, swirled together in intricate shapes, that
seemed to be formed by winds on the Martian plane.

Shepherd concluded that James' face must also be formed by the
same kind of small, dark dunes: "The New Face has no relief. It
is not a monument in the sense of Earth's Sphinx or the Face at
Cydonia."

KKSamurai now defended the face against the man who had
corroborated the authenticity of his image's data source: "Some
would think he's just shown them a close-up of the surface of
the face at Meridiani. He's not even in the same crater!"

Following the maxim that extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence, Shepherd challenged James to make his
case. But behind the ensuing gladiatorial combat was an abiding
mutual respect.

"I wouldn't want you to get the idea that Terry and I are
enemies. Quite the opposite, we've become friends as much as is
possible via cyberspace," Shepard recently told the Electric
Warrior. "Eventually we ran out of steam without changing each
other's position one little bit."

Amazingly, Shepherd helped launch kksamurai.com by hosting it on
his own network server.

When The Electric Warrior interviewed Terry James in October,
his new domain was thriving. He commented about the cool
response from major advocates of the Face at Cydonia. "The Face
at Meridiani looks more like a face than anything I've seen yet.
And frankly, people can see it!"

As Cydonia research languished from lack new data, the MGS
spacecraft meticulously mapped the surface of Mars. The
revelation of new Cydonia images in the Spring of 2000 raised
the question of whether the Face at Meridiani had also been
re-imaged. It had.

------------------------------------------------------------
THE FACE AT MERIDIANI REVISITED

A high-tech glitch resulted in a Y2K MGS data set that included
a failed attempt to image the Face at Cydonia. The same data
source provided a spectacular wide-angle view of the crater at
Meridiani, plus two high resolution images of an anomaly that
few were interested in looking at.

In October of last year, KKSamurai announced to his BBS that the
new face was still there. Allowing for light coming from a
different direction, both Viking and MGS missions captured a
remarkably similar image, with two decades between them.

And, there was more. The same complex pattern of blackened dunes
that were revealed by 1998 MGS images of the adjacent crater,
were also seen in two separate image swaths that cut right
across the face.

"These MOC images are at such a high resolution and so very
close to the face that it's difficult to read the data on its
own," Terry James told The Electric Warrior.

"If you were to cut a narrow swath across the Face at Cydonia,
or even across a piece of famous artwork, it would be about as
useful. Let's face it, you can't see your face in a mirror when
your nose is pushed up against the glass."

Based on his study of the new images, James believes the anomaly
is static, not shaped by wind. Regardless of how the face or the
small dark dunes that adorn it were formed, it has no earthly
comparison.

"The Face at Meridiani remains anomalous," says KKSamurai.

------------------------------------------------------------
LIKE SOME MONSTROUS MARTIAN VAN GOGH

The prospect of a gigantic face rendered onto the surface of
Mars in an artistic impasto style has no convincing explanation,
and Sagan's admonitions don't leave us much room to squirm.

The world's wonder tales, mythologies, and religions are filled
with phenomenon as unlikely and enigmatic as a face on Mars,
but none of them claim photographic evidence, and all are better
loved for it.

The idea of microbial life somewhere in the universe is a
conservative leap, and modern cosmologies such as panspermia
are based upon it. The idea of intelligent life out there is
supported by the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI).

Depending on who's statistic you quote, 50% or more of the
American public believe in the possibility of UFO's or ET. By
the time you get to intelligent life on Mars, the next planet
over, you're so far outside the scientific mainstream that one
of these open-minded thinkers acknowledged it by playfully
coining the term 'cydonut'.

More than any anomaly encountered thus far, KKSamurai's
monstrous Face at Meridiani asks any electric warrior what
they're really willing to believe.

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
January 14, 2001
Silicon Valley, CA

------------------------------------------------------------
[Editor's Note: Readers should view the Web-based article
for images and hypertext links to related content.]

------------------------------------------------------------
Permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this article
or any portion thereof, provided The Electric Warrior is cited
as the source.

Images are created exclusively for the Electric Warrior Website.
They can be downloaded and cached for individual use, but may
not be reproduced or used in any other context without
permission.

Web developers, the permanent URL address for this content is:
http://www.electricwarrior.com/cydonut/SeeForMiles.htm

eWarrior@electricwarrior.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                 Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:46:55 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:29:11 +0000
Subject: Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive - Bruni


 >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:14:32 +0100
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Scientists Switch To Warp Drive

 >I'd like to thank Tim Haley and Georgina Bruni for posting
 >information regarding the upcoming conference. As a layman space
 >enthusiast, I've been trying to follow the research in zero
 >point energy, electrogravitics, etc. If the US Navy and the US
 >Air Force have classified programs researching zero point
 >energy, I wonder if aspects of such projects filter into the
 >scientific community without high level security clearances. Can
 >some of these scientists be performing redundant research in
 >areas where there may already be unpublished advances?

Josh

It is just a theory of mine but maybe there are black projects
going on within _certain_ military and government sponsored
companies involving research on zero point energy. This would
account for why scientists trying to get some attention with
their work are having little feedback - because it has already
been achieved - or is close to...

I know that Britain was working on electrogravitics in 1956 (see
my book "You Can't Tell The People") and that this research was
being carried out for Wright Aeronautical Labs, Wright Patterson
Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio.Practically all the big US
private companies were also involved. So what happened?

Let's hope this workshop http://www.workshop.cwc.netbrings
brings new dimensions to this work: with so many of the world's
best science minds hopefully attending, if they can work
together it can only be of advantage to the world. Of course
there will always be a certain category of scientists who claim
these new theories can't be achieved and, it takes a real
pioneer to push through and get past the negative bunch. But
hasn't this always been the case - hasn't history proved that
our most brilliant scientists have always had a bad deal?


Georgina Bruni

"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the
Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni. Published by
Sidgwick & Jackson Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk
Countries outside UK: www.netstoreusa.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                  Hot Gossip - The Real X Files - Jan 2001

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:25:28 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:32:00 +0000
Subject: Hot Gossip - The Real X Files - Jan 2001


The Real X-Files
by Georgina Bruni
www.hotgossip.co.uk

Did Mad Cow Disease Come From Space?

In early December scientists were claiming that mad cow disease
might have been caused by space dust. The opinion is that
particles from passing comets bring micro-bacteria which falls
to the ground, where it is consumed by cows.

Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of astronomy at the
University of Wales, was the first to offer this theory which
was backed by Cambridge University professor Sir Fred Hoyle.

But one has to ask that if that was the case what about other
animals and why has this disease not affected cattle in other
parts of the world? Another theory that has yet to be presented
� but probably never will � is cattle abductions! We know that
cattle are being cut open with precision cuts and organs are
being removed. The question is, is this happening in Europe
where Mad Cow disease is very prominent and if so, what happens
to these dead animals? Are the dead carcases fed to humans? Just
a thought!

Will The Real Saddam Stand Up Please!

Several years ago I was told by somebody who ought to know, that
Saddam Hussein used a double to stand in for him when he thought
there was a threat to his life. Watching TV news the other day I
was convinced that the man who was supposed to be the Iraqi
leader, was really a fake. Then when I read the Sunday Telegraph
I realised I was not the only one to have this thought.

It was reported that Hussein had suffered a stroke on New Years
Eve but on Saturday 6 January he did his third TV performance
(in three days) when he addressed the nation looking as fit as a
fiddle � as they say. According to the Telegraph, military
experts in Baghdad confirmed that Hussein was taken ill during a
New Years Eve parade and is recovering in a bunker. So who was
the man on TV? Some say it could have been old film footage
because the leader looked much younger � but the paper also
confirms that Hussein frequently used doubles � men who had
undergone cosmetic surgery to make it difficult to distinguish
who the real Hussein is.

It rather reminds me of a film I saw recently, where a stand-in
replaced the President of the United States who was vegetating
on a life support machine. Who knows, maybe Hussein has already
passed on and his team don�t want to pass on the power. Stranger
things have happened��


URANIUM USED IN TESTS ON BRITISH SOIL
  � FINGER POINTS TO USAF

Thousands of depleted uranium shells were fired on British soil
� the type linked to illnesses suffered by military personnel
serving in the Gulf War and Balkans. According to the latest
reports these were used in tests and training. Now the MOD are
being asked to investigate because it has been suggested that
civilians living in towns and villages close to these test
sites, could be under risk.

Although the MOD insist they carry out regular tests for
radioactivity and, that there is �no significant health risk�,
the National Gulf War Veteran�s Association disagree, pointing
out that the testing of depleted uranium weapons in Britain is a
serious health risk, not just to servicemen but to civilians

During the Cold War the USAF were said to have deployed the A10
�Tankbuster� aircraft to drop more than 100 30mm shells and,
this is the centre of the argument that is causing alarm.
However, according to a report in The Sunday Telegraph (7
January 2001) the USAF deny carrying out these tests over the
British mainland.

Interestingly, two of the bases involved in this issue are the
former RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge installations, both
leased to the USAFE until 1993. These bases were both involved
in a major UFO incident during 1980. This new information
concerning possible depleted uranium testing at these locations
adds to yet another reason why there is still so much secrecy
surrounding the NATO bases.

Full column available at www.hotgossip.co.uk Georgina Bruni

"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the
Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni. Published
by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk
Countries outside UK: www.netstoreusa.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                                     Re:

From: Georgina Bruni" <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:25:32 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:34:37 +0000
Subject: Re:


NICK POPE�S WEIRD WORLD

Happy New Year, and welcome to the usual round-up of news and
views from ufology, the paranormal, space, defence and anything
else that�s caught my eye over the last month. A special hello
to various colleagues who I know take a very close interest in
this site. I�m flattered by the attention, and if you ever want
further details on any of the featured stories, my door�s always
open!

New Clue in Search for Life on Mars

NASA�s Mars Global Surveyor Probe has sent back new images which
offer the best evidence yet to support the idea that there was
once water on the surface of Mars. The pictures show what
appears to be sedimentary rock, suggesting that extensive lakes
and seas may once have covered the Martian surface. Many
exobiologists believe that water is the key to the evolution of
life, and although any water on Mars evaporated long ago, it may
be that life developed at some stage. Might fossils of primitive
micro-organisms be found on Mars, or could life have adapted to
the changing environment? Might there yet be life on Mars? These
are key questions for the next decade, as a range of missions
target the Red Planet.


Bentwaters Book Controversy

Issue 142 of Fortean Times is out, and featured a review of
Georgina Bruni�s book on the Bentwaters UFO mystery, You Can�t
Tell The People. Jenny Randles wrote the review, and I have to
say it was bizarre. Jenny didn�t mention any of the new
revelations in the book and offered no analysis or criticism of
any of the data. Instead, she stated her own views (she�s pretty
much on the fence) and complained that James Easton wasn�t
mentioned (Easton pushes the lighthouse theory, but Georgina
interviewed Ian Ridpath and Vince Thurkettle, who first came up
with this. Easton has also offered selective quotes from signed
witness statements, but Georgina produces the material in
entirety and interviewed those concerned). Given the numerous
�scoops� in the book, it seems strange that they didn�t elicit
some comment, either for or against. Jenny posted a more lengthy
article on the Fortean Times website (www.forteantimes.com) but
even this contained very little on the new data. A debate on all
this has been taking place on the UFO UpDates site, but as of
writing, sceptics have done little more than throw personal
insults at Georgina and me, and have yet to address any of the
issues. Interestingly, Issue 141 of Fortean Times contained a
one page review on UFOs and Abductions, a new book edited by
David Jacobs. Although Peter Brookesmith�s review was a little
pompous and self-indulgent, he did at least attempt to review
the data presented. Why on earth didn�t FT give Georgina�s book
the lead review, given that this is the most important and
controversial British UFO book of the year? And did FT really
edit Jenny�s long article into a tiny review without consulting
her on which bits they�d use? Or did she choose what went in the
magazine version, removing any mention of the new data? As for
the book itself, it�s early days, and many researchers are
probably still assessing the wealth of detail presented, but I
await with interest informed analysis and views from the
ufological Establishment.


A Shining Testament

Have you seen the International Space Station yet? No, I don�t
mean on television or in the papers; I mean with your own eyes,
in the night sky. It�s now one of the brightest objects that we
can see, and the newspapers have been full of features telling
people where and when to look out for it. If you haven�t seen it
yet, make sure you do. It�s a brilliant (literally) sign of
humanity�s ingenuity, and yet more proof that we�re taking the
first tentative steps that will one day see humankind reach the
stars.


UFO Magazine

The January/February edition of UFO Magazine was out on 21
December and should be in the shops now. It contains the usual
mix of fascinating articles and features from around the world,
together with photographs, reviews, letters and details of how
to get various UFO-related books, videos and documents.
Highlights this issue include details of a possible alien
implant case from Britain, and a report on incredible UFO
activity in Azerbaijan, as witnessed by scientists.

Check out www.ufomag.co.uk for further details.


Mad Cows From Outer Space

The idea that some diseases are carried to Earth on comets is
far from new. For many years now, Sir Fred Hoyle has been
championing the theory that life on Earth might be of
extraterrestrial origin. Now comes the idea that mad cow disease
might be a prime example of this phenomenon. It�s been suggested
that bacteria might have arrived from space and fallen to Earth,
attaching themselves to grass which is then eaten by cows.
Bizarre, but who�s to say it�s impossible?


Alien Abduction Books

Michelle LaVigne�s book The Alien Abduction Survival Guide has
now been updated, with new material including details of
relevant Internet sites. Check out www.sweetgrasspress.com for
details of this and other books of interest to abductees and
abduction researchers alike.


Telepathy Experiment Controversy

So did it work or didn�t it? Dr Richard Wiseman of the
University of Hertfordshire carried out an experiment designed
to see whether ESP could be validated under laboratory
conditions. In ten separate tests, groups of people tried to
psychically transmit images to people isolated from contact.
Eight out of ten people were not correct, but two got quite
close. Rob Irving (known to many ufologists for his involvement
with the crop circle phenomenon) came closest, and believed that
he received a telepathic image of blue water and red and white
stripes. The image was a yacht with a red and white sail.
Coincidence? Yes, concluded Wiseman. No, argue others. The
debate will continue.


Nick Pope�s four books, Open Skies, Closed Minds, The Uninvited,
Operation Thunder Child and Operation Lightning Strike are
available from all good bookshops and from the usual Internet
book sites. His British publishers are Simon & Schuster. In
America, his first two books are published in hardback by The
Overlook Press and in mass-market paperback by Dell Publishing.

Nick Pope
London January 2001









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                            'The Devil`s Grave'?

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:03:01 -0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:38:06 +0000
Subject: 'The Devil`s Grave'?


Hello Co-Listers,

I am looking for information about the Devil's Grave ('The
Russian Roswell'). This case occurred in the Isyk-Kul Lake in
1991 in Russia. I have already read about it at sightings.com

If you have more information to share with me, I would
appreciate it very much.


Thanks.


Thiago Luiz Ticchetti
Entidade Brasileira de Estudos Extraterrestres(Braslia/Brasil)
(EBE-ET VICE PRESIDENT)

www.ebe-et.com.br
ICQ 35119615










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                       Re: Unresolved Question - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:28:26 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:39:44 +0000
Subject: Re: Unresolved Question - Evans


 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:03:22 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Unresolved Question [Was: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01]

 >>From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: eXpose eXpo - 01-05-01
 >>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:07:47 -0800

Previously, Larry wrote:

 >What do I actually think will happen after death? Frankly I'm
 >agnostic, leaning toward atheism. It may just be the big
 >merciful dark. You didn't mind all the millennia _before_ you
 >were born did you? I betcha you weren't even bored.

 >Some sort of reincarnation offers a faint ray of hope for
 >survival. I hope I don't come back as a sheep.

 >The status of the dead might well be forever hidden from the
 >living. One thing seems a sure bet to me: traditional religions
 >are way, way off the mark.

Hi, Larry!

I agree. Of course, "traditional" religions is a very relative
term. As we all know in this country, Christianity (and
variations of such) is a very small minority in the world of
spiritual beliefs. Has any religion, traditional or otherwise,
gotten it right when it comes to the issue of life after death?
Who knows.

I once produced a four part documentary series called "Secrets
of the Millennium" (available at http://www.vcihomevideo.com/ )
and in it the topic of life after death was approached. My take
on it was much the same that others have asked: The brain
produces a measurable amount of energy during its thought
processes. Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed
(only converted), what happens to this energy when we die? I
don't pretend to have the answer. But it does occur to me that,
with so little of the brain actually used in a lifetime, that
perhaps there is a mechanism, undiscovered, that allows for a
continuation of this energy in other forms. As you have pointed
out, we may never really know. As with the topic of UFOs, there
may be an interwoven connection with religion that, one day, may
all make sense.

Live long and perspire,

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:33:57 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:41:37 +0000
Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps


 >From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'
 >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:57:19 +1100

 >>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'
 >>>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:23:25 -0800

<snip>

 >Of course you are entitled to ask questions. The CNI/UFO
 >folklore link was a convenient link to a summary by way of
 >introduction. I had hoped that serious debate and discussion on
 >this would be anchored, beyond the electronic summary link, to
 >the detail present in my non-electronic links, particularly the
 >IUR report. The report is 16 pages long, with the details of
 >methodology & results taking up about 4 of those pages. The
 >transcript of my interview with Peter Khoury takes up about 4
 >pages. The summary hardly touches the surface.

<snip>

Hello Bill,

What I don't get is the following: you hope for a serious debate
and discussion. I do also.

Yet, the basic docs necessary for the exchange are not readily
and widely available. I should try to put my hands on your
report, then read it and come back to you in, what, 3 weeks?
What will it be next? If someone else gets into the action, I'll
tell him to get the docs and come back in 3 weeks? Or will the
exchange occur solely between the proud owners of the docs and
leave the rest hanging in there?

Do you see the problem?

Would it be so difficult to scan the 16 pages, put them in gif
format and have them on a site somewhere?

Regards,

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

              Re: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Briggs

From: Mike Briggs <mbriggs@newpress.upress.ukans.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:50:40 +0000 (-0500,)
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:44:33 +0000
Subject: Re: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Briggs



 >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:34:10 -0800
 >From: Peter B. Davenport <ufocntr@NWLINK.COM>
 >Subject: Re: Streaking Green Object And Rumbling Noises W/Object
 >To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

 >>Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:08:31 -0500
 >>From: Kenny Young <ufo@FUSE.NET>
 >>Subject: Streaking green object and rumbling noises w/object
 >>To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

 >Kenny,

 ><snip>

 >Also, some kind of event occurred again over Rockford, IL, on
 >Thursday night at approximately 2100 hrs. (Central). People
 >reported witnessing anywhere from 3 to 23 lights in a variable
 >formation drift across that city for approximately 20-30
 >minutes. I do not know what they were, but they sound similar to
 >the lights that were seen there on several occasions last year,
 >beginning in February 2000. Details of those earlier sightings
 >are on our home page.


Hi, Errol et al:

WTVO in Rockford today reports on their website on their
interview with an astronomer from Chicago's Adler Planetarium
who claims the lights were caused by solar eruptions. Be
interesting to get some feedback from the List. (This story has
some special interest for me because I grew up in Rockford.)


Best wishes,

Michael Briggs









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Murgia

From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:07:07 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:46:42 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Murgia


 >Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:32:42 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois

 >Hello Peter!

 >Good to hear from you.

 >Now, this is a rhetorical question of course, no response
 >required! Nevertheless:

 >If you had a fleet of UFOs, would you turn on the running lites
 >and drift over Rockford, IL like a bunch of balloons?

 >I can think of much better plans than that.

I'll respond. Your question requires total speculation. Nobody
said the lights were ET. But, if they were of non-human origin,
then trying to figure out why they do what they do is a waste of
time. Unless there is some way of knowing how a non-human thinks
that I am not aware of.


Joe in Tampa








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                        Re: Double Spirals - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:40:21 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:48:12 +0000
Subject: Re: Double Spirals - Gehrman


 >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 21:55:47 -0800
 >From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Double Spirals


 >What are we dealing with? What is the meaning of the double
 >spirals in nature, history, biology, etc.?

 >Snip>

 >Also, an ancient
 >Ukrainian culture had similar motifs on its pottery. But what
 >about your opinion, List members? Has anyone tried to find the
 >meaning behind this phenomenon? What are those double spirals
 >that are discovered in ancient mounments, coins, and also
 >resemble modern arrays?

Paul,

I believe most double spirals (including mazes and swastikas)
are stylized spider webs. To ancient humans, the moon was a
spider.

"When a spider builds its web, it first sets up one or two
foundation lines of thread outlining the space it has chosen.
Then it sets up a number of straight radical lines of thread
connected to a center. This will be the center of the finished
web.Then from the center the spider begins to spin an anti clock
wise or left handed spiral. This thread is not sticky. When the
spider reaches the outer edge defined by it foundation lines, it
turns and begins to spin a clockwise, or right handed spiral
back towards the center.This is now the sticky thread. But as it
goes the spider gathers up and discards or sometimes eats the
original thread." From *Cities of Dreams* by Stan Gooch


Ed









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:51:41 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:49:50 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Evans


 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:32:42 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Hatch

 >>Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:34:10 -0800
 >>From: Peter B. Davenport <ufocntr@NWLINK.COM>
 >>Subject: Re: Streaking Green Object And Rumbling Noises W/Object
 >>To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

Previously, Peter wrote:

 >>Also, some kind of event occurred again over Rockford, IL, on
 >>Thursday night at approximately 2100 hrs. (Central). People
 >>reported witnessing anywhere from 3 to 23 lights in a variable
 >>formation drift across that city for approximately 20-30
 >>minutes. I do not know what they were, but they sound similar to
 >>the lights that were seen there on several occasions last year,
 >>beginning in February 2000. Details of those earlier sightings

Larry replied:

 >If you had a fleet of UFOs, would you turn on the running lites
 >and drift over Rockford, IL like a bunch of balloons?

 >I can think of much better plans than that.

Ola, Larry!

I guess it depends on what your purpose as an alien might be.
I've often thought that the best way for an ET craft to go
unnoticed is to make it look like a balloon or airplane, etc.
So, in answer to your question, yeah, camouflaged as a balloon
might just be the ticket!


Later,

Roger






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                       Ufology's 'Dirty Little Secret'

From: Marc Davenport <leahmarc@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:06:04 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:52:36 +0000
Subject: Ufology's 'Dirty Little Secret'


If you are at all interested in ETs (aliens, visitors, whatever
you call them) or in mind control, I urge you to read this
message. If you're not, please accept my sincere apologies and
reply at once with "remove" in the subject line because you are
on my list by mistake.

I know it is happening because it happened to me. It happened to
Jeanne Marie Robinson (author of ALIENATED: A QUEST TO
UNDERSTAND CONTACT), John Carpenter, Elton Turner (husband of
the late Dr. Karla Turner), Brian Crissey and Pam Meyer (of Wild
Flower Press) and many other notables in our field. It is
happening to many abductees (experienciers) who are too
embarassed or confused--or simply too overwhelmed--to tell
anyone about it. But more and more are telling their therapists,
and a clearer picture is beginning to emerge. If it hasn't
happened to you yet, you could be next. I highly recommend
arming yourself with knowledge beforehand.

I am referring to the subject of Eve Lorgen's new book, THE LOVE
BITE: ALIEN INTERFERENCE IN HUMAN LOVE RELATIONSHIPS.

Yes, I know it sounds crazy, tabloidish, like so much
sensationalist drivel. It's not, I assure you. I wrote about it
in CONTACT FORUM some years ago. As far as I know, my wife and I
were the first to publicly speak about it from a personal
perspective (at the International UFO Congress in Mesquite,
Nevada, a few years ago) and it was to be the subject of my next
book, which I tentatively titled ALIEN ENGINEERING OF HUMAN
SOCIETY. I wish I had managed to finish my book first, but that
will not happen for a long time, and anyway the important thing
is to get the information out there so you can use it. So I want
you know about Ms. Lorgen's book.

Someone--either real aliens or humans using very sophisticated
mind-control techniques and taking great pains to appear as
aliens--is busy creating overwhelmingly powerful compulsions in
experiencers' minds. The subjects subsequently become fixated
on--obsessed with--a partuicular person. Many of them are
married to other people, and fight valiently to deny and
overcome their feelings--as Leah and I did--but this is often
just about as futile as abductees' efforts to stop their
abductions often are. Of course if humans can be compelled to
fall in love with a targeted partner, they can be compelled to
do lots of other things--like vote a certain way, buy a certain
product, develop a certain disease, run for a particular
political office, perhaps even murder someone. Who knows?

If you are old enough to remember the old days of ufology, you
know that at first we could admit that "flying saucers" might be
from Mars or somewhere else, but we found it hard to believe
that they actually landed and little people emerged. Finally we
were forced to admit that that did actually happen, but we found
the idea of abductions very hard to swallow. Then we were forced
to admit that that, too had happened thousands of times. Then we
started hearing reports of human/alien sexual encounters. Crazy!
we thought. Nope, the evidence kept coming. Now this... Once
again we are faced with the hard task of summoning up the
courage to examine all the evidence with an open mind, rather
than scoffing at new revelations while luxuriating in our old,
comfortable, preconceived ideas.

We all need to find out what is happening here because it has
been going on right under our noses for a long time and it
affects all of us. If you are interested in aliens or mind
control, you need to read THE LOVE BITE to get a more complete
picture of just how bizarre and extensive the abduction
phenomenon really is. Ms. Lorgen, a biochemist with a Master's
degree in counseling psychology, uses clear, unembroidered
language to document several of her patients' personal accounts
of how their relationships were manipulated in this manner that
she refers to as a kind of "psychic rape." The book was desktop
published and has had very limited distribution, so you may have
a hard time finding it in your bookstores and libraries, but it
is available at:

http://www.greenleafpublications.com

Thanks for your attention.

--
Cordially,
Marc Davenport
marc@greenleafpublications.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

              Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Davenport

From: Peter B. Davenport <ufocntr@nwlink.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:58:56 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:55:43 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Davenport



UFO UpDates - Toronto wrote:

 > From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 > Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois
 > Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 23:13:21 -0800
 >
 > >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:34:10 -0800
 > >From: Peter B. Davenport <ufocntr@NWLINK.COM>
 > >Subject: Re: Streaking Green Object And Rumbling >Noises W/Object
 > >To: CURRENT->ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
 >
 > <snip>
 >
 > >People reported witnessing anywhere from 3 to 23 lights in a
 > >variable formation drift across that city for approximately
 > >20-30 minutes.
 >
 > Hey Peter, List,
 >
 > This reminds me of a little experiment I tried a few years back
 > in New Hampshire. It was merely for my own edification, and not
 > intended as a hoax.
 >
 > I took a trip to the local party store and purchased an
 > assortment of helium balloons. A jaunt to Wallmart netted me
 > some glowsticks (the "crack and glow" type). Back at the
 > homestead, I got busy figuring out the logistics of weight to
 > lift ratios for the sticks. I didn't want something that would
 > rise too fast (too many balloons), or not fast enough(too few).

<snip>


Thanks, Greg.

What was the precise date of the escapade, and exactly where did
you accomplish this feat, please? What town in New Hampshire,
and what lake, if you would, please. I am from New Hampshire.

Did the event make any newspaper, do you know?

You comment that when they were "about a mile away, and 500 feet
up..." How did you and your group measure that, please? Were you
triangulating, or is that a gross estimate.

Do you still have a receipt, or a cancelled check, or a credit
card entry for the purchase of supplies, by any chance? If so,
would you be willing to share copies?

I would like to document this event to the nth degree. It might
tell us something. Most of all, I would like to document that
four, or more, mylar helium balloons are not visible with good
binoculars, in particular when the light from glow sticks are
suspended below them, and therefore being illuminated by them.

The objects over Rockford, San Diego, Seattle, Tucson, Prescott
Valley, Bouse (AZ), and many other locations have not been glow
sticks.


Thank you.

Peter Davenport
--
Peter B. Davenport, Director
National UFO Reporting Center
PO Box 45623
University Station
Seattle, WA 98145
director@ufocenter.com
http://www.UFOcenter.com
Hotline: 206-722-3000 (From 8AM to Midnight Pacific preferred)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                   Dr. Robert Schoch & Voices of the Rocks

From: Diana Botsford <diana@destinationspace.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:27:46 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:05:17 +0000
Subject: Dr. Robert Schoch & Voices of the Rocks


D E S T I N A T I O N : S P A C E
http://www.destinationspace.net

Chat: Dr. Robert Schoch & Voices of the Rocks
Monday, January 15th @ 6pm, PT

Join Destination: Space and Dr. Robert Schoch on Monday, January
15th, at 6pm PT (9pm ET) to discuss his book "Voices of the
Rocks, A Scientist Looks at Catastrophes and Ancient
Civilizations."

Dr. Schoch's view of the Sphinx and its builders is strongly
connected to his belief that meteorites, comets and asteroids
have played a much greater role in the history of human
civilization than has been previously realized. Was the "fiery"
end to the Bronze Age a result of the Taurid Meteor Stream?
Schoch thinks it was. What is his evidence? And what other
civilizations have risen or fallen because of the fire from the
skies?

Join Destination: Space's Final Frontiers editor, Mars geologist
Jim Erjavec, for an unusual evening of science, theory and the
unusual when we talk with Dr. Shoch about the Voices of the
Rocks.


++++++++++++++++++++


We look forward to seeing you online.

Diana Botsford
Producer/Host
Destination: Space
http://www.destinationspace.net
- - - - - -
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought . . .
To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield."
Tennyson's Ulysses



************************
The Destination: Space newsletter is a free service.
To subscribe, visit our site at http://www.destinationspace.net



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
destinationspace-unsubscribe@egroups.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                     Hot Gossip - Weird World - Jan 2001

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:25:32 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:12:05 +0000
Subject: Hot Gossip - Weird World - Jan 2001


NICK POPE�S WEIRD WORLD

Happy New Year, and welcome to the usual round-up of news and
views from ufology, the paranormal, space, defence and anything
else that�s caught my eye over the last month. A special hello
to various colleagues who I know take a very close interest in
this site. I�m flattered by the attention, and if you ever want
further details on any of the featured stories, my door�s always
open!

New Clue in Search for Life on Mars

NASA�s Mars Global Surveyor Probe has sent back new images which
offer the best evidence yet to support the idea that there was
once water on the surface of Mars. The pictures show what
appears to be sedimentary rock, suggesting that extensive lakes
and seas may once have covered the Martian surface. Many
exobiologists believe that water is the key to the evolution of
life, and although any water on Mars evaporated long ago, it may
be that life developed at some stage. Might fossils of primitive
micro-organisms be found on Mars, or could life have adapted to
the changing environment? Might there yet be life on Mars? These
are key questions for the next decade, as a range of missions
target the Red Planet.


Bentwaters Book Controversy

Issue 142 of Fortean Times is out, and featured a review of
Georgina Bruni�s book on the Bentwaters UFO mystery, You Can�t
Tell The People. Jenny Randles wrote the review, and I have to
say it was bizarre. Jenny didn�t mention any of the new
revelations in the book and offered no analysis or criticism of
any of the data. Instead, she stated her own views (she�s pretty
much on the fence) and complained that James Easton wasn�t
mentioned (Easton pushes the lighthouse theory, but Georgina
interviewed Ian Ridpath and Vince Thurkettle, who first came up
with this. Easton has also offered selective quotes from signed
witness statements, but Georgina produces the material in
entirety and interviewed those concerned). Given the numerous
�scoops� in the book, it seems strange that they didn�t elicit
some comment, either for or against. Jenny posted a more lengthy
article on the Fortean Times website (www.forteantimes.com) but
even this contained very little on the new data. A debate on all
this has been taking place on the UFO UpDates site, but as of
writing, sceptics have done little more than throw personal
insults at Georgina and me, and have yet to address any of the
issues. Interestingly, Issue 141 of Fortean Times contained a
one page review on UFOs and Abductions, a new book edited by
David Jacobs. Although Peter Brookesmith�s review was a little
pompous and self-indulgent, he did at least attempt to review
the data presented. Why on earth didn�t FT give Georgina�s book
the lead review, given that this is the most important and
controversial British UFO book of the year? And did FT really
edit Jenny�s long article into a tiny review without consulting
her on which bits they�d use? Or did she choose what went in the
magazine version, removing any mention of the new data? As for
the book itself, it�s early days, and many researchers are
probably still assessing the wealth of detail presented, but I
await with interest informed analysis and views from the
ufological Establishment.


A Shining Testament

Have you seen the International Space Station yet? No, I don�t
mean on television or in the papers; I mean with your own eyes,
in the night sky. It�s now one of the brightest objects that we
can see, and the newspapers have been full of features telling
people where and when to look out for it. If you haven�t seen it
yet, make sure you do. It�s a brilliant (literally) sign of
humanity�s ingenuity, and yet more proof that we�re taking the
first tentative steps that will one day see humankind reach the
stars.


UFO Magazine

The January/February edition of UFO Magazine was out on 21
December and should be in the shops now. It contains the usual
mix of fascinating articles and features from around the world,
together with photographs, reviews, letters and details of how
to get various UFO-related books, videos and documents.
Highlights this issue include details of a possible alien
implant case from Britain, and a report on incredible UFO
activity in Azerbaijan, as witnessed by scientists.

Check out www.ufomag.co.uk for further details.


Mad Cows From Outer Space

The idea that some diseases are carried to Earth on comets is
far from new. For many years now, Sir Fred Hoyle has been
championing the theory that life on Earth might be of
extraterrestrial origin. Now comes the idea that mad cow disease
might be a prime example of this phenomenon. It�s been suggested
that bacteria might have arrived from space and fallen to Earth,
attaching themselves to grass which is then eaten by cows.
Bizarre, but who�s to say it�s impossible?


Alien Abduction Books

Michelle LaVigne�s book The Alien Abduction Survival Guide has
now been updated, with new material including details of
relevant Internet sites. Check out www.sweetgrasspress.com for
details of this and other books of interest to abductees and
abduction researchers alike.


Telepathy Experiment Controversy

So did it work or didn�t it? Dr Richard Wiseman of the
University of Hertfordshire carried out an experiment designed
to see whether ESP could be validated under laboratory
conditions. In ten separate tests, groups of people tried to
psychically transmit images to people isolated from contact.
Eight out of ten people were not correct, but two got quite
close. Rob Irving (known to many ufologists for his involvement
with the crop circle phenomenon) came closest, and believed that
he received a telepathic image of blue water and red and white
stripes. The image was a yacht with a red and white sail.
Coincidence? Yes, concluded Wiseman. No, argue others. The
debate will continue.


Nick Pope�s four books, Open Skies, Closed Minds, The Uninvited,
Operation Thunder Child and Operation Lightning Strike are
available from all good bookshops and from the usual Internet
book sites. His British publishers are Simon & Schuster. In
America, his first two books are published in hardback by The
Overlook Press and in mass-market paperback by Dell Publishing.

Nick Pope
London January 2001







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps

From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:52:32 +1100
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:57:46 +0000
Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:33:57 -0800
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:41:37 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'


 >>From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'
 >>Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:57:19 +1100

 >>Of course you are entitled to ask questions. The CNI/UFO
 >>folklore link was a convenient link to a summary by way of
 >>introduction. I had hoped that serious debate and discussion on
 >>this would be anchored, beyond the electronic summary link, to
 >>the detail present in my non-electronic links, particularly the
 >>IUR report. The report is 16 pages long, with the details of
 >>methodology & results taking up about 4 of those pages. The
 >>transcript of my interview with Peter Khoury takes up about 4
 >>pages. The summary hardly touches the surface.

<snip>

 >Hello Bill,

 >What I don't get is the following: you hope for a serious debate
 >and discussion. I do also.

 >Yet, the basic docs necessary for the exchange are not readily
 >and widely available. I should try to put my hands on your
 >report, then read it and come back to you in, what, 3 weeks?
 >What will it be next? If someone else gets into the action, I'll
 >tell him to get the docs and come back in 3 weeks? Or will the
 >exchange occur solely between the proud owners of the docs and
 >leave the rest hanging in there?

 >Do you see the problem?

 >Would it be so difficult to scan the 16 pages, put them in gif
 >format and have them on a site somewhere?

 >Regards,

 >Serge Salvaille

Hi Serge,

Yes, I see the problem. I've given people who might be
interested in a serious debate on this issue, the various
references & sources where one can find out detail. Some of that
it not available on the intertnet right now, but as I said
elsewhere, we are looking at that. Those seriously interested
should seek out the hard copy references I have given:

Strange Evidence, International UFO Reporter (IUR), Spring,

1999 issue, Volume 24, No 1, pgs. cover, 3-16, 31.

CUFOS, 2457 West Peterson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60659, USA
($25 + for year)

  UFO ABDUCTIONS & SCIENCE - A CASE STUDY OF STRANGE EVIDENCE,

Australasian Ufologist, Vol.3, No.3, 3rd, 1999, pgs. 43-56.

(Earthlink publishing, PO Box 805, Springwood Qld, 4127
Australia ($8.95 Australia for issue, $35 Australian for 4
issues by Sea mail)

Sure, 3 weeks seems like a long time. We have been researching
this DNA aspect for over 2 years now, plus the scientists
involved have spent over $10,000 on it, and we have spent a lot
more time, effort and money furthering this work. And we will
continue doing it.

I guess in that context, 3 weeks might seem to some to be an
awfully long time and a lot of bother. But hey, you might get
exposed to some serious, heavy duty research.

If it is too much to bother, don't worry about it. There are
plenty of other people willing to find out more about the
subject, than just what they might find on the internet. (:-))


Regards,

Bill Chalker









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

               Re: Hot Gossip - The Real X Files - Jan 2001 -

From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:48:34 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:59:24 +0000
Subject: Re: Hot Gossip - The Real X Files - Jan 2001 -


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Hot Gossip - The Real X Files - Jan 2001
 >Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:25:28 -0000

 >Did Mad Cow Disease Come From Space?

 >In early December scientists were claiming that mad cow disease
 >might have been caused by space dust. The opinion is that
 >particles from passing comets bring micro-bacteria which falls
 >to the ground, where it is consumed by cows.

 >Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of astronomy at the
 >University of Wales, was the first to offer this theory which
 >was backed by Cambridge University professor Sir Fred Hoyle.

 >But one has to ask that if that was the case what about other
 >animals and why has this disease not affected cattle in other
 >parts of the world? Another theory that has yet to be presented
 >� but probably never will � is cattle abductions!

Georgina,

That theory has been presented - kind of. I reported on it in a
recent issue of Open Mind News. As far as I know, Ted Oliphant
is the first one to talk about this theory. - Joe in Tampa

* * * * * * * * * *

So, are there any cases in the U.S.? And what would the
government do to combat them? I am including these links for
your reading pleasure. They deal with the theory that cattle
mutilations are being conducted by secret members of our
military. Why would they be examining cows? Ted Oliphant, the
writer, thinks they are looking for evidence of mad-cow disease
in the U.S. Its a very interesting theory and it makes sense. At
least to me it does.

Cattle mutilations are a fact. The question is, who or what is
responsible for them.

These are long articles and if you only have time for one, read
Part 1 and 2.

Part 1 and 2

http://www.sightings.com/ufo/madcowufo.htm


Part 3

http://www.sightings.com/ufo/deadcow3.htm

  Excerpts:

The incubation period for BSE and CJD can range from six months
to beyond 40 years. However, the incubation time can be very
much longer. That means that if you ingested contaminated meat
prior to becoming a vegetarian, you can still get sick many
years down the road.

Are devil worshippers performing surgery on your animals in time
for their monthly celebrations? Or are aliens visiting you for
snack food? Is this the work of coyotes? Or is it your tax
dollars are work? If it isn't the devil worshippers, and if it
isn't the aliens, and the coyotes have an alibi, what does that
leave us with? I'm a student of Arthur Conan Doyle, and his
alter-ego Sherlock Holmes. I must conclude, as they did, that
after you have ruled everything else out, what you are left with
MUST be the answer. My personal choice has to be  "Your tax
dollars at work."

While 90% of the farmers reported seeing helicopters before or
after their animals were found dead, no one saw them at the
critical time. This made me wonder, until I got a call from
local gun dealer and pilot, Clyde Barksdale. He told me that the
previous evening he arrived home and was walking around his
house when he looked up and saw a helicopter flying only two
hundred feet above him. He said it was almost silent. Clyde is
also a helicopter pilot, and he couldn't understand why it only
made a faint sound. "Whisssp whisssp, whisssp," he imitated the
chopper's sound. "I couldn't believe it," he explained. A silent
helicopter. A silent helicopter.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

So, who or what is responsible for mutilations of cattle over
over the U.S.? I have friends that immediately say "predators or
some satanic cult." Well, now there is one case that CANNOT be
explained by either. It doesn't explain who is responsible but
it does prove that whoever is responsible for this particular
mutilation had access to some sophisticated equipment.

This is a huge story and the media should be all over it. But as
we all know, that's not going to happen. There are some great
journalists out there but most of them are too afraid to tackle
controversial topics such as the cattle mutilations.


Part 1 - Hardened Bovine Hemoglobin Found on Mutilated Bull

http://www.earthfiles.com/earth183.htm


Part 2 - Hardened Bovine Hemoglobin Found on Mutilated Bull

http://www.earthfiles.com/earth184.htm


Part 3

http://www.earthfiles.com/earth185.htm


Excerpts:

"It's totally incomprehensible how the hemoglobin could be
removed in the middle of the night out in the middle of a
pasture and separated from all the other cellular components."
- W. C. Levengood, Biophysicist

It is unlikely that a procedure such as this would be done on
site (in the pasture field). It is unknown how or why this
occurred."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I will keep you updated if any new news occurs.

Bye for now,

Joe









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:20:21 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:56:55 +0000
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Jones


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:29:17 +0100

Hi Folks,

Sorry to dig this old chestnut up but I am working my way
through my 2001 (number of, not date) back log of posts, dating
back from 8/Oct/2000

Andy Roberts said:

 >All UFOs are IFOs in waiting.

Now at first this really annoyed me. But then as I followed the
rest of the post's to this thread it amused me.

It struck me as rather big headed of Andy to say this. I almost
heard echo's of boastfulness, something along the lines of "give
me just one chance and I can explain _every_ UFO sighting in the
world" being uttered from the person who claims to be a skeptic.

You state

 > All UFOs are IFOs in waiting.

If a UFO remains Unexplained after many years of investigation
by different people using many different investigation
techniques, how long would it have to remain unexplained before
you will accept that it is unexplained?

Or put another way.

How long does a UFO have to remain unexplained before you will
accept that it will not become an IFO?

We have on record several cases that are unexplained after a
full generation have passed. As you folklorist's know a
generation is considered to be fifty years, and we still have
sightings from 1947 unexplained. I'm sorry but the pelican
theory really does not hold water.

So tell me Andy, how old would a UFO tale have to be before you
considered it to be a _genuine_ UFO? BTW to help you out, I'll
already agree with you that not _all_ UFO's are from Zeta
Reticuli <g>.



    In an infinite universe, infinitely anything is possible.
                         Sean Jones
               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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                      Re: Could This Be True? - Haggard

From: Michael Haggard <mikeh@cybertrails.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:50:48 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:51:41 +0000
Subject: Re: Could This Be True? - Haggard


 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:00:43 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Could This Be True?

 >About 1966 or so, a NASA team doing work for the Apollo moon
 >mission took the astronauts near Tuba City where the terrain of
 >the Navajo Reservation looks very much like the Lunar surface.
 >Along with all the trucks and large vehicles, there were two
 >large figures dressed in full Lunar space suits.

 >Nearby a Navajo sheep herder and his son were watching the
 >strange creatures walk about, occasionally being tended by
 >personnel. The two Navajo people were noticed and approached by
 >the NASA personnel. Since the man did not know English, his son
 >asked for him what the strange creatures were and the NASA
 >people told them that they are just men that are getting ready
 >to go to the moon. The man became very excited and asked if he
 >could send a message to the moon with the astronauts.

 >The NASA personnel thought this was a great idea so they rustled
 >up a tape recorder. After the man gave them his message, they
 >asked his son to translate. His son would not.

 >Later, they tried a few more people on the reservation to
 >translate and every person they asked would chuckle and then
 >refuse to translate. Finally, with cash in hand, someone
 >translated the message,

 >"Watch out for these guys, they come to take your land."

I live and work on the Navajo Res... I have heard this one
before with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

However, the Hopi tell me that they believe that they used to
travel to the moon all the time. This would have been so long
ago no one can remember how this was done. They claim that they
_know_ the government is hiding the fact that turquoise
artifacts were brought back from the moon by the first Apollo
astronauts. One wonders where such stories come from.


The Haggard








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

              Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - St. Pierre

From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:44:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:35:04 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - St. Pierre


 >From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:07:07 EST
 >Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >Your question requires total speculation. Nobody
 >said the lights were ET. But, if they were of non-human
 >origin, then trying to figure out why they do what they do
 >is a waste of time. Unless there is some way of knowing
 >how a non-human thinks that I am not aware of.


 >Joe in Tampa

Hi Joe,

In my opinion, the point you've just made cannot be pounded home
enough. An ant may as well try to figure out why we carry
wallets or wear watches. He simply has no context to comprehend
the need.

I suppose that such sightings leave a sort of informational
vacuum in the minds of some. That's fine, but the problem comes
when people cannot admit to themselves that they do not and can
not know the answers, that there simply is not enough
information. I think it's an ego defense, in the same way as a
person who loses something would rather accuse others of
stealing it.

The alternative is simply unacceptable to them.

Greg in Palm Bay









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

                     Re: Could This Be True? - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:26:11 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:39:58 +0000
Subject: Re: Could This Be True? - Lehmberg


 >From: Michael Haggard <mikeh@cybertrails.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Could This Be True?
 >Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:50:48 -0800

<snip>

 >However, the Hopi tell me that they believe that they used to
 >travel to the moon all the time. This would have been so long
 >ago no one can remember how this was done. They claim that they
 >_know_ the government is hiding the fact that turquoise
 >artifacts were brought back from the moon by the first Apollo
 >astronauts. One wonders where such stories come from.


Hag-meister, and other honored List motes!

First and foremost it's being treated like a mushroom -- fed
manure and kept in the dark? A very close second is the general
inability to protect ourselves from the garden variety
sociopath. Cops, politicos, ministers (especially
televangelists), and captains of industry fill out this
category* and are only SUPPLEMENTED by gangbangers, serial
murderers, and pathological thieves. Breathing on number two is
the contrived la-la land we have invented for ourselves as the
comfortable reality we believe it to be, a land where the
Supreme Court's definition of pornography (material causing
sexual thoughts, and having no artistic value) is regularly
touted to sell everything from adult diapers to diet soda.....

In other words, the stories come from the shadows of the
contrived fog, are distorted and refracted by deft manipulations
produced by the wet dreams of detached behaviorists officiating
from corporate media conglomerates, and reflect the myth we're
trained to WANT to hear. Hope this helps. <g>.

Regarding the Hopi (a very impressive and spiritually grounded
people that we white-bread palefaces could learn _volumes_ from
if we could see past our unjustified sneers): I think it highly
likely that they traveled back and forth from the moon just as
they _say_ they did, or Zack Sitchin has only been beer-burping
a few bars from the "bull-frog on the bank."

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

*...and please don't remind me of the alleged vast majority of
*good* men and women that fill these positions; If they don't
stridently campaign to root the *minority* sociopath from their
ranks (and they don't) then they are as guilty as the
perpetrator we'd all decry.
--
~~~~
EXPLORE Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.
http://www.alienview.net
                  **Updated All the TIME**
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/witches/237/lehmberg.html

JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually.
He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put
one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention he
gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail. $350.00 pledged
-- $200.00 collected!

"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see
from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, burned at a
skepti-feebroid 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 15

              Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - St. Pierre

From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:55:08 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:49:11 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - St. Pierre


 >Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:58:56 -0800
 >From: Peter B. Davenport <ufocntr@nwlink.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois

<snip>

 >What was the precise date of the escapade, and exactly where
 >did you accomplish this feat, please? What town in New
 >Hampshire, and what lake, if you would, please. I am from New
 >Hampshire


Peter,

I do not know the precise date. This was something I did on a
whim, for no other reason than to see what it would look like.
Very early '90's is all I can tell you in that regard. As for
name and location, the "lake" is Big Island Pond, which is
shared by at least three towns: Hampstead, East Derry, and North
Salem. It's quite large, and I'm sure meets all the criteria for
being a lake, probably the third or fourth largest in N.H. I
think the name derives from a time before it was dammed. I was
standing about as north as one can get around the lake, in the
East Derry portion, in Colettes' Grove to be precise. The
balloons went roughly south, over the big island, and presumably
on to North Salem and/or Atkinson.

 >Did the event make any newspaper, do you know?

None that I am aware of.

 >You comment that when they were "about a mile away, and 500
 >feet up..." How did you and your group measure that, please?
Were you triangulating, or is that a gross estimate.

More like an educated guess. I have some experience in aviation.
I'm sure I wasn't too far off the mark.

 >Do you still have a receipt, or a cancelled check, or a
 >credit card entry for the purchase of supplies, by any
 >chance? If so, would you be willing to share copies?

Why would I keep that? As I said, I did it for my own
entertainment, and it was ten years ago. There's a hint of
disbelief in your line of questioning. It's undeserved, I assure
you.

 >I would like to document this event to the nth degree. It
 >might tell us something.

It might serve you better to try it yourself, Peter. That will
be of far greater value to you than my experience. You can even
keep all your receipts if you want to.

 >Most of all, I would like to document that four, or
 >more, mylar helium balloons are not visible with good
 >binoculars, in particular when the light from glow sticks
 >are suspended below them, and therefore being
 >illuminated by them.

What the heck are you saying? That Mylar ballons _are_ or
_are_not_ visible under the aforementioned conditions? Have you
tried? In any case, I didn't use Mylar balloons. I used dark
blue and black ones.

 >The objects over Rockford, San Diego, Seattle, Tucson,
 >Prescott Valley, Bouse (AZ), and many other locations
 >have not been glow sticks.

At ease, soldier! Ya know, some of you people are too tightly
wound for your own good. I didn't say they were glowsticks. As I
said to someone else here recently, you're preaching to the
choir. I know some sightings can't be explained away. I've seen
ufos myself, Peter, and they were no balloons.

Greg














   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 16

                Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:43:16 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:28:20 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Gates


 >Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:50:40 +0000 (-0500,)
 >From: Mike Briggs <mbriggs@newpress.upress.ukans.edu>
 >Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:34:10 -0800
 >>From: Peter B. Davenport <ufocntr@NWLINK.COM>
 >>Subject: Re: Streaking Green Object And Rumbling Noises W/Object
 >>To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

 >>>Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:08:31 -0500
 >>>From: Kenny Young <ufo@FUSE.NET>
 >>>Subject: Streaking green object and rumbling noises w/object
 >>>To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

 >>Also, some kind of event occurred again over Rockford, IL, on
 >>Thursday night at approximately 2100 hrs. (Central). People
 >>reported witnessing anywhere from 3 to 23 lights in a variable
 >>formation drift across that city for approximately 20-30
 >>minutes. I do not know what they were, but they sound similar to
 >>the lights that were seen there on several occasions last year,
 >>beginning in February 2000. Details of those earlier sightings
 >>are on our home page.

 >WTVO in Rockford today reports on their website on their
 >interview with an astronomer from Chicago's Adler Planetarium
 >who claims the lights were caused by solar eruptions. Be
 >interesting to get some feedback from the List. (This story has
 >some special interest for me because I grew up in Rockford.)


Solar Eruptions? From where? The Sun? Sounds like somebody is
really reaching for an explaination for this.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 16

                     Filer's Files #3 - 2001 - Truncated

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:31:46 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:34:06 +0000
Subject: Filer's Files #3 - 2001 - Truncated


Filer's Files #3 - 2001, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
January 16, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Majorstar@Aol.com. Webmaster
Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

UFOs are showing interest in China's space launch, in Maine,
Alabama, Indiana, Illinois, Nova Scotia, Canada, the
Netherlands, and Greece. We also discuss abductions.

CHINA'S SHENZOU-2 SPACESHIP BUZZED BY UFO

Jeff Challender writes, "On 9 January, 2001, China launched an
unmanned space ship the first of the New Millennium with a UFO
looking on. The Shenzou-2 is the name of this craft that flew
majestically into space. The instrument and descent modules are
based on the Russian Soyuz design. The descent module will be
returned to Earth after seven days. Shenzou-2 itself is the
orbital module, and is a fully equipped space lab of Chinese
design. This laboratory portion is expected to stay on orbit for
the next six months conducting 64 scientific experiments.
Fifteen of these are inside the descent module, and will come
down in China on or about 15 January. The rest are with the
orbiting lab, with twelve in the interior, and 37 mounted on the
spacecraft exterior. Payloads include micro-gravity experimental
devices such as a crystal growing device, life science
experiments covering 19 species of animals and plants, space ray
and particle detectors and other scientific equipment. As the
first space launch of the Millennium, Shenzhou 2 launch was
assigned the International Designator of 2001-001. The Chinese
call Shenzhou 2 "the first unmanned spaceship," as opposed to
Shenzhou-1's "experimental spaceship." Shenzhou 2 is fully
functional having life support systems operating as if there
were a live crew aboard. It is "basically identical to a manned
spacecraft," say the Chinese. It would appear that China is on
the verge of a successful manned space flight, possibly later
this year.

Jeff Challender writes, "While looking at the photos of the
Shenzou-2 launch, I noticed a bell or pyramid shaped object
flying next to the space launch during the flight to orbit. At
first I considered that it might be a piece of the launch shroud
which protects the space craft during ascent. That must be ruled
out since in the picture it can be seen that the escape tower
rockets have just been fired. These must be clear before the
shroud can be jettisoned. I also entertained the possibility a
part of one of the solid rocket boosters may account for the
anomaly. But they can be clearly seen to be still in use in the
photograph. Shedding any one, or any portion, of these before
the proper time would result in loss of control of the entire
rocket. So, we have some sort of oddity in the field of view.
Bell shaped objects such as this one have been seen during NASA
Shuttle flights. Such an object was seen twice during the flight
of STS-101 in May 2000." The official Chinese space agency
photograph can be seen at www.filersfiles.com. Thanks to Jeff
Challender who has numerous videos of UFOs in space.

US EARTHQUAKE THREAT INCREASES

Mitch Battros writes that Earthquakes abound along the West
Coast. What seemed to start with a 6.9 earthquake off the coast
of Alaska, may be connected to a chain of earthquakes. Most
notably is a 7.6 quake which hit Central and South America
January 14, 2001. Since then, at least two moderate quakes have
hit the California coast. Meanwhile the search goes on for El
Salvador quake victims after a mountain of dirt toppled on Las
Colinas on Saturday. Over 500 people are believed under the
rubble. Thanks to Mitch Battros earthchanges@earthlink.net
Editor's Notes: Sightings of UFOs are often reported near
natural disasters such as Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions

MAINE HUGE FLYING TRIANGLE SIGHTED AGAIN

SACO -- On December 29, 2000, I was driving into Saco at 10:10
PM when I noticed a very bright white light. The craft had seven
lights on its under side and a big one in the front. The witness
stated, "There was no tail on the triangle shaped craft!" He
drove east chasing the object and lost it in the trees, but
picked it up at Route 1 moving very very slow. He pulled into
the Shop N' Save parking lot and watched the craft move fly
over. He said, It was three times the size of any air craft I
had seen before and it had a huge white light in the front," one
large square in the bottom center, and three smaller squares on
each wing, with a red light on each wing tip. Have  been
witness to a top secret craft or a space ship? He said.

NORTH WHITEFIELD -- Another witness nearby writes, "My sightings
have been numerous the past six years but this is the first time
I have seen them early enough in the evening to get my husband
and my son to look also. Six years ago, I woke at 3:15 AM, and
looked east out the window and saw a twinkling star in the
distance but I noticed that it had colored lights and it was
moving incredibly fast. I thought I was seeing things. It went
zipping around the sky. A few months later, I was cleaning out a
mobile home that belonged to an elderly couple and found a VERY
CLEAR picture from 1967 of a "flying saucer" over our same
treetops. I showed it to my husband and said I had seen one in
the night some months ago. I live in Maine and about 30 miles
from Brunswick Navel Air Station so I've always hoped what I'm
seeing is just some kind of military secret. This past summer, I
saw a triangular craft with four very large "balls" of light on
it appear briefly just below a cloud and then disappear back
into it. I have seen the "craft" I saw tonight on many
occasions.

My most recent sighting was at 7:00 PM, on January 1, 2001. I
saw colored lights and asked my husband where his binoculars
were? He said, "Why do you want them?" I said, "I'm going to
look at a UFO that has been bugging me for years. I wish I had a
telescope because that thing sat there for 3 1/2 hours without
moving much. It moved three times when an airplane entered the
airway. Each time, the craft blinked red and green lights more
frequently like normal plane's lights when another airplane
would fly near. It would move horizontally and a bit vertically.
When the airplane passed, it stopped and remained stationery
until the next plane came along. About 75 minutes after I
spotted this first craft, a second one appeared from the north.
About that time, I told my husband there were two of them out
there now. He started to take me serious and went out with the
binoculars to look and agrees that he's never seen anything like
it. About an hour later, two more showed up. Thanks to Peter
Davenport, Director NUFORC, www.ufocenter.com

ALABAMA POLICEMAN SEES FLYING TRIANGLE

MUFON Headquarters reports that a witness who is a Police
Officer in Alabama writes, "I am a private pilot and I was an
air traffic controller with the FAA. A few months ago I was on
patrol at 02:30 AM and observed an object with three lights,
amber in color on the left side, middle and right side of the
vehicle. I went to my patrol car, drove to the middle of the
school parking lot and watched. The vehicle traveled to the
southeast and there was never was any sound. The three lights
stayed "pointed" in my direction. There were no anti-collision
lights on this vehicle, just the three amber colored lights. I
got a pair of 10x50 binoculars and could see the vehicle was a
dark color with squared "windows." My police radio never stopped
working nor did my patrol car shut off. At a point one to two
miles to my southeast the vehicle turned directly north without
making a slow banking turn. It turned from a heading of 120
degrees to a heading of 360 degrees in an instant! As I
continued to observe, I could make out that it was triangular in
shape and 300 foot in length, using the high school football
field as a size comparison. As the vehicle turned north the
three amber colored light turned again and faced me directly.
Since the moon was not out I was about to observe star
constellations and the North star. I reached into my patrol car
and got my maglite flashlight. I shined 30,000 candlepower at
the vehicle. Though this may have possibly been considered a
stupid thing to do, being a cop, I am very curious. Nothing
happened. The vehicle continued northbound and disappeared.  We
have Columbus Air Force Base and Meridian Naval Air Station near
us. When my Chief relieved me at 6:00 AM, I told him what I had
seen. He asked, "What time?" and when I told him he told me to
forget it! Thanks to mufonhq@aol.com and Alan

ALABAMA ALIEN CHOIR PHOTO

Marilyn Ruben writes that, "Alien Abduction Experience and
Research (AAER) has received an excellent photograph of six
glowing aliens standing on a garage roof at night that look like
a singing choir. This September 29, 2000, a photograph was taken
after the witness saw movement and heard a sound like "humming
electric lines." The photograph of the possible glowing aliens
was studied by biophysicist Dr. William C. Levengood of
Pinelandia Biophysics Laboratory, Grass Lake, Michigan. The
photograph shows a group of what appear to be glowing aliens
standing on a roof at night. Glowing aliens are not new to
abductees and experiencers who have reported seeing them. But
why would the aliens appear to be glowing? Is there a possible
physics explanation for this? According to biophysicist Dr.
Levengood, the appearance of glowing aliens may be attributed to
"a very significant Doppler shift in a highly active energy
form, which is beyond our ordinary methods of monitoring
electromagnetic energy. The final state from this Doppler shift
appears to be in the 'actinic region' of the spectrum where it
stimulates photo-luminescence in the green region of the visible
spectrum." Note to readers: "Actinic" means in the region of the
x-ray and ultraviolet light. The alien choir photo was studied
at length by various scientists with Ph.D's and MD's in the
field of physics, biophysics, biology, medical, zoology, etc.
This emphasis on scientific investigation is what makes AAER
different from other web sites. AAER is deeply entrenched in
field work and lab experiments involving Quantum Physics, and
Quantum Mechanics. The photograph and enhancements may be seen
at http://www.abduct.com/photos/pn007.htm . Thanks to Marilyn
Ruben

INDIANA FLYING TRIANGULAR UFO SIGHTED

BLOOMINGTON -- Joseph Trainor reports that on Friday, January 5,
2001, eyewitness G.E.D. was driving east on Indiana Highway 45
between New Unionville and Bloomington, he reported, "I saw a
very Unusual aircraft on my way home from work. I saw a bright
yellow light with a white light, maybe not as bright, hovering
in the sky. There were two red lights on top, none on the belly.
So I rounded a bend and I saw that the craft was about 50 feet
above treetop (level), crossing the road from right to left
(north). directly overhead." "I pulled off to watch and noticed
that other vehicles behind me had also done the same. There was
no noise. I rolled down my window to listen but there was no
sound. As the craft passed over my car, I got a quick look at it
against the night sky. It was triangle-shaped with a white light
at each of the three wing tips (corners) and appeared to be
black in color. A mile or so down the road, the snow looked (as
if it had been) blown across the road like drifting. The rest of
the road was clear. I thought it was a helicopter at first until
I saw the thing. It was not like anything I had ever seen."
Bloomington is approximately 68 miles south of Indianapolis.
Thanks to Steve Wilson Sr. and UFO Roundup Volume 6, #2 January
11, 2001 Editor: Joseph Trainor

ILLINOIS LIGHTS MOVE AND ARE SHOWN ON TV

CHICAGO -- New Year's Eve at 11:45 PM I was watching TV with my
wife and friends when our neighbor came over asking, "If I saw
the alien spacecraft?" I said no but went outside with our
friends. After about 20 minutes I saw two sets of lights going
in circles for about 30 seconds. Then one of the lights got
brighter and a ray of light flashed toward the ground. This was
about half a mile away, when I saw something go up the ray then
it disappeared. I called the cops and they told me that other
people had been filing a report saying they had seen aircraft in
the sky.

ROCKFORD -- Robert R. Clark It has been almost a year and the
flying sun colored objects have returned over Northern Illinois.
I didn't personally see them this time but all three affiliated
TV stations had videos of them that were broadcast. They had the
usual experts trying to explain them away. We all know that we
have been visited for many years by these friendly visitors. I
say that they are friendly because if they weren't they could
have did us in long before now. Their appearance was on January
11, 2001, about nine o'clock in the evening. They lingered
around for quite some time before they disappeared. Sincerely,
Author of "How The Heptans Colonized Earth"  WTVO television in
Rockford reports video of lights changing position in the sky
over the city. Here are pictures of the lights seen over
Rockford. The lights changed position. The station showed a
video on Thursday at 5, 6, and 10 PM. The Rockford Register Star
Newspaper also carried an article claiming that scores of people
saw the lights. The Rockford police received eight calls from
citizens regarding the moving lights. The video and photos
suggest that UFOs were operating over the area. Some suggested
the lights were caused by pranksters. Others claimed they moved
to fast in different directions to be lighted balloons are
similar pranks. Thanks to Todd Livengood and Joe Stefula. The
photos can be seen at
http://www.wtvo.com/Global/story.asp?S=214866&nav=0ReP .

MONTANA FLYING NEON LIGHT

HAVRE -- The witness states, "On December 28, 2000, my daughter
woke me up at 4:00 AM, and after I got her settled in to bed,
and saw a bright light high in the sky." It was not a star, as
it would get brighter, than lighter. I watched for maybe two
minutes, and it blinked out." There were no clouds, but it
seemed to have a haze around it. Then tonight, I was letting my
cat out at about 5:50 PM, and there was a very bright light in
the sky again. I grabbed my camera and took a picture, and
grabbed my binoculars. It looked like a sideways white neon
light, with a blue spike-like thing on top. Almost like a toy
top. It was positioned almost sideways. I am still shaking! I
have my parents video camera from filming Christmas stuff, and
as soon as I went in the bedroom to grab it, it was gone when I
came back. Dogs in the neighborhood were barking, but my own,
wasn't. Thanks to Peter Davenport, Director NUFORC,
www.ufocenter.com

CALIFORNIA RED DISC SHAPED OBJECT OVER LOS ANGELES

CARSON -- I was on my way to the store on December 29, 2000,
6:20 PM and had made a right hand turn onto 213th Street when I
noticed a bright red light, visible through the windshield of my
car. It appeared to be disc or perfectly round in shape and was
sharply defined. It caught my attention because it was not the
usual red color I have seen on aircraft. I live not far from the
sheriff station and helicopters are based there. The color
appeared as a bright crimson red but did not have a glow to it.
As I continued west I had to move up closer to the windshield
and peer up as the object seemed to be moving in an easterly
direction and when overhead it disappeared. It was like a
disappearing cone. Thanks to NUFORC, www.ufocenter.com

CANADA FLYING TRIANGLE OVER NOVA SCOTIA

NEW GLASGOW -- While driving to an outside festival, "River
front Days," in August 2000, around 10:00 PM, I watched as a
large, triangular shaped object floated at a steady slow speed
over my truck. My window was down as the night was muggy, but I
heard no sound from the object, which seemed to be flying rather
low, similar to the height used by small aircraft landing at the
near by airport. I was on one of the higher streets, driving
toward the river front. The black object blocked out the stars
as it passed, and see






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 16

                Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:07:03 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:18:12 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Hatch


 >From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois
 >Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:55:08 -0800

 >>Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:58:56 -0800
 >>From: Peter B. Davenport <ufocntr@nwlink.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois

 ><snip>

 >>What was the precise date of the escapade, and exactly where
 >>did you accomplish this feat, please? What town in New
 >>Hampshire, and what lake, if you would, please. I am from New
 >>Hampshire

 >Peter,

 >I do not know the precise date. This was something I did on a
 >whim, for no other reason than to see what it would look like.
 >Very early '90's is all I can tell you in that regard. As for
 >name and location, the "lake" is Big Island Pond, which is
 >shared by at least three towns: Hampstead, East Derry, and North
 >Salem. It's quite large, and I'm sure meets all the criteria for
 >being a lake, probably the third or fourth largest in N.H. I
 >think the name derives from a time before it was dammed. I was
 >standing about as north as one can get around the lake, in the
 >East Derry portion, in Colettes' Grove to be precise. The
 >balloons went roughly south, over the big island, and presumably
 >on to North Salem and/or Atkinson.

<snip>

 >>Most of all, I would like to document that four, or
 >>more, mylar helium balloons are not visible with good
 >>binoculars, in particular when the light from glow sticks
 >>are suspended below them, and therefore being
 >>illuminated by them.

 >What the heck are you saying? That Mylar ballons _are_ or
 >_are_not_ visible under the aforementioned conditions? Have you
 >tried? In any case, I didn't use Mylar balloons. I used dark
 >blue and black ones.

 >>The objects over Rockford, San Diego, Seattle, Tucson,
 >>Prescott Valley, Bouse (AZ), and many other locations
 >>have not been glow sticks.

 >At ease, soldier! Ya know, some of you people are too tightly
 >wound for your own good. I didn't say they were glowsticks. As I
 >said to someone else here recently, you're preaching to the
 >choir. I know some sightings can't be explained away. I've seen
 >ufos myself, Peter, and they were no balloons.


Hello Greg and Peter:

Looking thru the *U* Database, I find the following four
listings for the Londonderry, Derry, East Derry area of New
Hampshire, all within a few miles of one another:

#937: 1947/07/06 1900h 71:21:0W 42:51:0N 3333 NAM USA
NHM
LONDONDERRY,NH:H.HEALY:2 BIG FAST DISKS >>SW/2500'alt:
WHISTLING SOUND:NFD Ref# 187 BLOECHER,Ted:REPORT/UFO WAVE of
1947
Case No. 446

#6805: 1965/08/28 1840h 71:17:20W 42:54:0N 3333 NAM USA
NHM
E.DERRY,NH:3 SCOUTS:9 BLK ORBS PASS/GROUPS/3:BUZZING SOUND:
Last 3 trade lite beams: Rf 83
FOWLER,RAY:UFOS-INTERPLANETARY VISITORS
Pg. 68

#9245: 1971/10/03? xxxx hrs 71:19:40W 42:53:0N 3321 NAM
USA NHM
nr DERRY,NH:2 SCRS DESCEND ON RAINBOW LAKE:6 SEP.OBS had
OTHER
SIGHTINGS IN AREA: Ref# 53 HOLZER,Hans: THE UFO-NAUTS.
Pg. 168

#15645: 1992/05/19 15:0 71:21:40W 42:51:0N 3333 NAM
USA NHM
LONDONDERRY,NH:2 OBS:BALL/LITE ZIGZAGS >YARDS+TREES:
same/similar BACK 5 JUNE:40'BOX seen/04 JUNE
Ref# 160 MUFON UFO JOURNAL Issue #302 RESIDENT'L


Note that last listing on 19MAY92. This fits the time frame Greg
gave, but the description doesn't match very well.

Londonderry is perhaps 3 miles west, and 3 miles south ( lets
say five miles to the Southwest ) from East Derry per these
coordinates.

Greg: Given the area has had sightings before, so some people
might watch, is there any chance that the "ball of light" which
"zigzagged" thru the trees in peoples yards was one of your
errant devices?

If so, I should at least mark the case as a possible
misidentification.

I pulled a similar stunt in the 1950s as a pre-teen BTW! I
filled a plastic laundry bag with stove gas, and sent it aloft
with a nice oily rag for a burning wick. It made a nice
spectacle when it lit up for real, perhaps two minutes after
launch, at an altitude of perhaps 150 feet.

I did see people a block away, downwind to the southeast
pointing and gesturing at my little creation, but there was no
mention in the local papers.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 16

                Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:21:41 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:26:00 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Hatch


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:43:16 EST
 >Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:50:40 +0000 (-0500,)
 >>From: Mike Briggs <mbriggs@newpress.upress.ukans.edu>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:34:10 -0800
 >>>From: Peter B. Davenport <ufocntr@NWLINK.COM>
 >>>Subject: Re: Streaking Green Object And Rumbling Noises W/Object
 >>>To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

 >>>>Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:08:31 -0500
 >>>>From: Kenny Young <ufo@FUSE.NET>
 >>>>Subject: Streaking green object and rumbling noises w/object
 >>>>To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

 >>>Also, some kind of event occurred again over Rockford, IL, on
 >>>Thursday night at approximately 2100 hrs. (Central). People
 >>>reported witnessing anywhere from 3 to 23 lights in a variable
 >>>formation drift across that city for approximately 20-30
 >>>minutes. I do not know what they were, but they sound similar to
 >>>the lights that were seen there on several occasions last year,
 >>>beginning in February 2000. Details of those earlier sightings
 >>>are on our home page.

 >>WTVO in Rockford today reports on their website on their
 >>interview with an astronomer from Chicago's Adler Planetarium
 >>who claims the lights were caused by solar eruptions. Be
 >>interesting to get some feedback from the List. (This story has
 >>some special interest for me because I grew up in Rockford.)

 >Solar Eruptions? From where? The Sun? Sounds like somebody is
 >really reaching for an explaination for this.


Hello Robert:

You might be more familiar with the term "sunspots" as they are
more commonly called. That's what they were first called, since
that is all anyone could see.

It turns out they are eruptions of a magnitude that would make
Mt. St. Helens, Pinatubo, Krakatoa and Vesuvius shrink to
nothing by comparison.

A quick browse will give some idea of their size... big enough
to swallow large planets with room to spare, should they wander
that close to the Sun.

"Solar Eruption" is a much better name really. The question is
whether there is any relation so some night-lights passing over
Rockford, IL.

If not, there are plenty of other explanations, the vast
majority of them being mundane. This is why I don't list junk
reports of this sort.

My original post about ETs turning on their running lights was
tongue in cheek of course! It was my personal reaction after
seeing this reported as a "UFO" incident. Maybe its just me, but
I don't see anything extraordinary about it at all.

Sure, it could be flying saucers mimicking balloons with lights
on them or whatever. Barring further evidence of something truly
strange, I prefer the simpler explanations, as always subject to
change.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 16

               Re: Hot Gossip - The Real X Files - Jan 2001 -

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:15:23 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:28:58 +0000
Subject: Re: Hot Gossip - The Real X Files - Jan 2001 -


 >From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:48:34 EST
 >Subject: Re: Hot Gossip - The Real X Files - Jan 2001
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Re: Did Mad Cow Disease Come From Space?

 >Georgina,

 >That theory has been presented - kind of. I reported on it in a
 >recent issue of Open Mind News. As far as I know, Ted Oliphant
 >is the first one to talk about this theory.

Thanks for pointing that out Joe, it was just a theory of mine
and I admit I have not done any research on the subject. I'll
look up those links you posted. Thank you


Best wishes,

Georgina Bruni










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 16

                          EJUFOAS - Call For Papers

From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:42:16 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:39:51 +0000
Subject: EJUFOAS - Call For Papers


Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:20:20 +0000
From: European Journal of UFO and Abduction Studies <ejufoas@totton.ac.uk>

Call For Papers

The European Journal of UFO Abduction Studies (EJUFOAS) was
created in 1999 to serve as an academic publication that tackles
contemporary issues in European Ufology. We are constantly
looking for academic-style papers describing rigorous research
into all areas of ufology. EJUFOAS is published twicw per year,
in March and September. The following is a list of all papers
published in the three part-volumes thus far in circulation:

Project for a database of ball lightning observations in Italy
(Paolo Toselli & Renato Fedele, Italy).

Preliminary identifications of alien contact/abduction
experiences as hallucinatory states induced by prolonged
exposures to electromagnetic pollution in the environment
(Albert Budden, UK).

UFO declassification  the Spanish model (Vicente-Juan Ballester
Olmos, Spain).

Scum, sludge and residue  refining ufological information
(Albert Budden, UK).

Physics from UFO data (Massimo Teodorani, Italy).

UK UFO organisations: what do they have knowledge of and what do
they investigate (Craig Roberts, UK).

Unusual aerial phenomena tracked on radar in Romania (Ion
Lazeanu, Romania).

Evidence of covert human/military involvement in North American
alien abduction cases (a series of paper exchanges from Helmut
Lammer, Austria & Luis Gonzalez Manso, Spain).

Data analysis of anomalous luminous phenomena in Hessdalen
(Massimo Teodorani, Italy & Erling Strand, Norway).

The Manises File (Juan Antonio Fernandez Peris, Spain).

Hypnosis & UFOs: a bibliography (Edoardo Russo, Italy).

An educational programme for ufology in the UK: the development
of an advanced level qualification in ufology (Craig Roberts,
UK).

Analysis of submissions to the European Journal of UFO and
Abduction Studies: geographical spread, content, outcome and
review times (Craig Roberts, UK).

Alien abductions, sleep paralysis and the temporal lobe (Susan
Blackmore & Marcus Cox, UK).

You can find out more information by visiting
www.cisu.org/ejpres.htm to read the abstracts of the above and
to peruse the guidelines for submission and the structure of the
editorial board.

Please support this exciting publication venture as one of its
aims is for the academic community to take ufoogy more
seriously. Please consider submitting any work that you have on
the subject  the reviews for EJUFOAS we have had so far have
been outstanding. Soon it is envisaged that all good work
conducted in Europe on ufology will be published by EJUFOAS. It
will be the journal to have your work published in.

If you have any questions that you would like answering about
the EJUFOAS venture then please contact Craig Roberts, the
Editor-in-Chief in the following ways:

e-mail: ejufoas@totton.ac.uk
phone: +44 (0) 23 80874874
fax: +44 (0) 23 874879
letter: Department of Psychology, Totton College, Water Lane, Southampton, SO40
3ZX, England.

I hope you will become part of this publication.

Thank you,
Craig Roberts,
Editor-in-Chief of EJUFOAS.


--
Philip Mantle,
1 Woodhall Drive, Batley, West Yorkshire, England, WF17 7SW.
Tele: 01924 444049. E-mail: pmquest@dial.pipex.com
www.beyondroswell.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 16

                Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:09:07 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:48:19 +0000
Subject: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


I am planning a trip to Roswell, NM. I am hoping people on the
List could provide me with the latest information regarding the
location(s) of the alleged 1947 Roswell crash site(s)? I am
looking for precise driving and hiking directions.

To date, I have found this July 22, 1997 post to UFO UpDates from
Glenn Campbell:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/jul/m22-012.shtml

 >From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas)
 >Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 20:48:14 -0800
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 09:48:36 -0400
 >Subject: BLM Directions for Roswell Crash Sites

This post has excellent directions.

I have also found an article entitled "Now Where Was It Those
Aliens Crashed?" located at:

http://members.aol.com/wmpb/CrossRos/

However, this article is not that helpful because the locations
given are not precise, and there are no driving or hiking
directions.

Finally, Vol. 19, No. 4, of the UK UFO Magazine has an article
by Thomas J. Carey & Donald R. Schmitt entitled, "'They're Not
Green!' -- What Mack Brazel really found -- Part 2." On page 33,
the article refers to a site "located about 2.5 miles
east-southeast of the debris field and is known by researchers
today as the 'Dee Proctor Site'." Does anyone know anything
about this alleged site? Does anyone have any opinions on this
article?

__________

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."
David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, (1888) Oxford University
Press, Book II, Part III, pg. 415.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 16

                  Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:52:58 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:52:40 +0000
Subject: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?


I am planning a trip to I am planning a trip to Socorro, NM.
Could anyone on the List could provide me with information
regarding the location of the alleged 1964 Socorro landing site?
I am looking for precise driving and hiking directions.

To date, I have found the original police report here:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/7595/socorro.html

A map to the landing site can be found here:

http://www.isso.org/inbox/ubd/case/1964.htm

Unforunately, the streets are not labeled, there is no scale,
and mileage is not given.

__________

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."
David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, (1888) Oxford University
Press,  Book II, Part III,  pg. 415.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 16

             TCI: Additional Unusual Surface Features (Part One)

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:19:37 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:55:12 +0000
Subject: TCI: Additional Unusual Surface Features (Part One)


1-16-00

THE CYDONIAN IMPERATIVE

For Immediate Release

Please see full version at

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

Additional Unusual Surface Features (Part One)

by Mac Tonnies


I haven't added to The Cydonian Imperative in over a month, and
it hasn't been for a lack of subject material. The Martian
surface continues to yield bizarre formations that suggest
liquid water and perhaps even relatively simple life.

Diligent anomaly hunter Efrain Palermo has located additional
oddities that seem to bear out the hypothesis that Mars is host
to far more liquid water than allowed for in NASA's estimates.

[image]

In the above picture, a dark trail of material can be seen
"bleeding" out of an irregularly shaped mesa. What are we
looking at? Peculiar "stains" such as this invite speculation.
It's NASA's public position that flows such as this are composed
of dark dust, uprooted and scattered by wind.

[image]

Are the streaks visible in the image above composed of dust or
water? If they are simple landslides, their radial configuration
is decidedly strange. Perhaps it's more likely that the knobby
mesa is leaking subsurface water. If so, then the stains are
most likely recent, as they're still visible. New images by the
Mars Global Surveyor may help us determine if these are
transient features, as would be expected of flowing water, or
depositions of darker soil.

Additionally, Palermo has located a unique feature dubbed the
"monolith," an apparently cylindrical formation poking out of
the otherwise flat Martian desert. As shown below, the feature's
definition is a matter of some debate. It has been posited that
the solid-seeming "monolith" may be a Martian dust devil caught
in the act of forming (note the lack of trail that characterizes
these elusive phenomena).

[image]

The Martian "monolith" as discovered and enhanced by
Efrain Palermo.

[image]

The "monolith" stands in stark contrast to the surrounding
terrain.

It has also been suggested that the "monolith" is actually a
geyser (features which, surprisingly, aren't unknown on Mars).

Finally, some recent online discussion has centered around the
following formation, called the "ear" (for obvious reasons).

[image]

While this is almost certainly a natural formation, its
regularity and apparent isolation from similar features are
intriguing. My layman's interpretation is that it's an extinct
lake.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 16

                          Secrecy News -- 01/16/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:00:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:00:10 +0000
Subject: Secrecy News -- 01/16/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
January 16, 2001

**SAM COHEN'S SHAME
**RUMSFELD COMMISSION CALLS FOR ANTI-SATELLITE TESTS
**CIA OFFICIALS: "NOT INSANE"


SAM COHEN'S SHAME

"Are you in the mood for another nuclear security tale? Great!
This one has to do with one of the worst security violations
I've ever committed. It could have gotten me and some Air Force
officers in a real pickle...."

These lines could only have been written by someone who was in a
position to commit serious security violations but who also
recognizes that, outside of a certain core of genuinely
sensitive information, security policy is essentially a
bureaucratic game that cannot be taken very seriously.

In this case, the lines come from nuclear weaponeer Sam Cohen's
memoir "Shame: Confessions of the Father of the Neutron Bomb,"
published last year by the vanity press Xlibris.

Since this book seems to have gone completely unnoted,
unreviewed, and unread, Secrecy News will take a moment to call
attention to its peculiar merits.

"Shame" is not a good book in any conventional sense. It is
long, whiny, profane, and self-indulgent. It seems to have
escaped editing altogether. Part reminiscence, part crank
manifesto, it is a mess. But it is an honest and compelling mess
that students of nuclear history will not want to miss.

Some of its many noteworthy features include these:

**Cohen combines an anarchic late 20th century sensibility with
a first-person recollection of nuclear history dating back to
the earliest days of the atomic age. No one else would be likely
to tell you, for example, that Ted Hall (who was later
discovered to have been a Soviet spy during the Manhattan
Project) had terrible body odor. Cohen presents fresh,
irreverent anecdotes concerning Robert Oppenheimer, Herman Kahn,
John von Neumann, Bernhard Schriever, and various other cold war
luminaries.

**In a claim that even the most facile critics of nuclear
weapons would hesitate to make, he suggests that his own work on
nuclear weapons development can be traced back to the abuse he
suffered as a child due to his mother's bizarre views on health
and nutrition, including a tyrannical toilet training regime.

**He provides what most will consider a funhouse mirror version
of critical cold war events. The great H-bomb debate, as he
witnessed it, was "a farce." The mysterious 1979 flash that is
often attributed to a clandestine nuclear explosive test
conducted by Israel and South Africa was actually caused, he
conjectures, by a secret French nuclear test. China didn't steal
the secrets of the neutron bomb; the U.S. gave them away, he
suggests. And, he says, TWA 800 might have been destroyed by an
ultra low yield pure fusion weapon.

Cohen's most important extended theme, however, is the
corruption of U.S. nuclear weapons policy.

"The greater danger to security came not so much from those who
carelessly or even purposefully let out nuclear secrets, but
from those, in and out of the government, with full clearances,
who fabricated and distorted nuclear policy issues for political
or ideological reasons," he writes.

"It was this kind of nefarious and dangerous behavior by
politicians and ideologues, in not giving the American people an
honest account of our nuclear policies, that finally made me so
intolerant, rebellious and openly contemptuous of the U.S.
defense establishment that I was kicked out of it."

Cohen is an ultra-hawk when it comes to nuclear weapons. He
considers Edward Teller a softie for endorsing a non-nuclear
missile defense. Because of his extreme views, Cohen's book
helps to illuminate the boundaries of acceptable opinion
concerning nuclear weapons. His recurring clashes with Pentagon
bureaucrats suggest how the nuclear policy process functions to
moderate and exclude critical thought. (The barriers that render
nuclear weapons largely invulnerable to democratic control are
more systematically explored in Janne Nolan's 1989 book
Guardians of the Arsenal.)

"Shame" by Sam Cohen is not sold in stores. But it may be
purchased through the publisher here (use "book search"):

http://www.xlibris.com/html/bookstore.html


RUMSFELD COMMISSION CALLS FOR ANTI-SATELLITE TESTS

The report of a commission on military space policy that was
issued last week is substantively the slightest of the several
national security policy reports recently released. If not for
the commission's erstwhile chairman -- Defense
Secretary-designate Donald Rumsfeld -- it would probably merit
little attention.

The report is premised upon the supposed "virtual certainty" of
hostile action in space. In lieu of evidence, the authors state:
"We know from history that every medium -- air, land and sea --
has seen conflict. Reality indicates that space will be no
different." (p. 100)

Reality indicates that this is not a very persuasive argument.
But for Rumsfeld, et al, the paucity of evidence of a threat
only underscores the urgency of the matter. The United States
could be "vulnerable to surprises in space... due to the lack of
a validated, well-understood threat." (p. xiii)

The report's single most provocative policy recommendation is
for the renewal of destructive anti-satellite testing in space:

"The U.S. will require means of negating satellite threats....
The senior political and military leadership needs to test these
capabilities in exercises on a regular basis, both to keep the
armed forces proficient in their use and to bolster their
deterrent effect on potential adversaries. Besides
computer-based simulations and other wargaming techniques, these
exercises should include 'live fire events'." The commission
calls for establishment of testing ranges in space where these
"live fire" tests could be conducted (p. 29).

The Report of the Commission to Assess United States National
Security Space Management and Organization, released January 11,
is available here (in a very large and unwieldy PDF format):

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/commission/report.htm


CIA OFFICIALS: "NOT INSANE"

Several readers objected to Secrecy News' use of the word
"demented" to describe CIA officials who contend that
declassification of 50 year old intelligence budget data could
damage U.S. national security today. (SN, 1/11/01).

Most found the term intemperate and offensive. One reader argued
that far from being demented, the officials who employ CIA's
classification policies are eminently rational since these
policies serve the Agency's interest in evading accountability
and discouraging independent oversight.

Secrecy News is not acquainted with the CIA officials in
question and had no way of knowing whether they are mentally
impaired, whether they are willfully abusing their
classification authority, or whether there is some other
explanation at work. Consequently, we should not have used the
word "demented."

It was also inappropriate to refer to the National Intelligence
Distinguished Service Medal as "a measly award."

Secrecy News regrets this careless use of language.


******************************
To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to
<majordomo@fas.org>  with this command in the body of the
message:
subscribe secrecy_news [your email address]
To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with
this command in the body of the message:
unsubscribe secrecy_news [your email address]
Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email: saftergood@igc.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 16

                   Re: Filer's Files #3 - 2001 - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:31:56 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:01:56 +0000
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #3 - 2001 - Balaskas


 >From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:31:46 EST
 >Subject: Filer's Files #3 - 2001

<snip>

 >Jeff Challender writes, "While looking at the photos of the
 >Shenzou-2 launch, I noticed a bell or pyramid shaped object
 >flying next to the space launch during the flight to orbit. At

<snip>

 >of STS-101 in May 2000." The official Chinese space agency
 >photograph can be seen at www.filersfiles.com. Thanks to Jeff
 >Challender who has numerous videos of UFOs in space.

Hi George.

Shenzhou-2 was launched in the middle of the night, hours before
the Sun rose. The photo that Jeff refers to is not of the actual
launch of Shenzhou-2 but of an earlier test of the rocket
powered "escape tower" that is attached to the Shenzhou
spacecraft itself which is mounted on top of the tall Long March
rocket booster which sends it into space.

The photo of the escape tower test with the strange bell shaped
object was clearly taken during daylight hours when the Sun was
low in the sky (note that the lower bottom and one side of the
vapour trail is much brighter). Since there is also the obvious
absence of the thick vapour trail expected from the launch of a
Long March rocket booster, we must conclude there wasn't any
launch involved!

To me the photo simply shows a static test of only the escape
tower with a dummy spacecraft attached. As for what the bell
shaped object is, I do not know although it does remind me of a
small weather balloon which may have been released just before
the escape tower test. This bell shaped object is not likely to
be a film defect since it too seems to be illuminated by
sunlight coming from the same direction and is thus a real
object.

Jeff has done a great job in picking out unknown or unexplained
objects in space but this picture of a bell shaped object in the
atmosphere is certainly no evidence of a UFO monitoring the
launch of Shenzhou-2.

Nick 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 16

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:03:04 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:29:41 +0000
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:09:07 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

 >I am planning a trip to Roswell, NM. I am hoping people on the
 >List could provide me with the latest information regarding the
 >location(s) of the alleged 1947 Roswell crash site(s)? I am
 >looking for precise driving and hiking directions.

Hi, Charles!

You might try and contact Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com> about
both Socorro and Roswell. He supposedly talked to the
"cameraman" via Santilli on the phone about the sights. However,
as I recall, the cameraman's directions were a little squirrely.
In addition, it was Bob's opinion that certain landmarks have
since disappeared or never existed. I believe the best you will
do is either a site that is speculated to be ground zero or
possibly, at best, a general area. I am not sure that he, nor
anyone else, knows precisely the exact location(s).


Best of luck!

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 16

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:39:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:32:52 +0000
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:52:58 -0800
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:52:40 +0000
 >Subject: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

 >I am planning a trip to I am planning a trip to Socorro, NM.
 >Could anyone on the List could provide me with information
 >regarding the location of the alleged 1964 Socorro landing site?
 >I am looking for precise driving and hiking directions.

 >To date, I have found the original police report here:

 >http://www.geocities.com/Area51/7595/socorro.html

 >A map to the landing site can be found here:

 >http://www.isso.org/inbox/ubd/case/1964.htm

 >Unforunately, the streets are not labeled, there is no scale,
 >and mileage is not given.

Unfortunately, there is a development going up on the original
site.

Prof. Charles Moore took Wendy Connors, Tom Tulien and myself on
a terrian walk to this area. The area around there was in the
process of being regraded and filled.

You may still be able to go to the site and view the surrounding
terrian, but the character of the landing site is gone. So much
for Phil Klass' contention that the whole thing was to draw
tourists to Socorro. There are no markers or other signs to
indicate the area, private housing is going up in that area.


Jan Aldrich

Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
(860) 546-9135








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 16

              Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - St. Pierre

From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:04:09 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:33:07 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - St. Pierre


 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:07:03 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois

<snip>

 >Greg: Given the area has had sightings before, so some
 >people might watch, is there any chance that the "ball of
 >light" which "zigzagged" thru the trees in peoples yards
 >was one of your errant devices?

Hi Larry,

No, no chance. Better check those coordinates. Londonderry is
north and a little east of the towns I mentioned. The winds were
light and out of the north that night.

 >I pulled a similar stunt in the 1950s as a pre-teen BTW!
 >I filled a plastic laundry bag with stove gas, and sent it
 >aloft.

Geez Larry, you're lucky you didn't end up in the police station
that night. With my luck, I would have burned down an orphanage
or something.


Greg









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:59:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:23:58 +0000
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:03:04 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:09:07 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

 >>I am planning a trip to Roswell, NM. I am hoping people on the
 >>List could provide me with the latest information regarding the
 >>location(s) of the alleged 1947 Roswell crash site(s)? I am
 >>looking for precise driving and hiking directions.

 >Hi, Charles!

 >You might try and contact Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>about
 >both Socorro and Roswell. He supposedly talked to the
 >"cameraman" via Santilli on the phone about the sights. However,
 >as I recall, the cameraman's directions were a little squirrely.
 >In addition, it was Bob's opinion that certain landmarks have
 >since disappeared or never existed. I believe the best you will
 >do is either a site that is speculated to be ground zero or
 >possibly, at best, a general area. I am not sure that he, nor
 >anyone else, knows precisely the exact location(s).


Roger-

I don't think Bob Shell's investigations in the Socorro area had
anything to do with the Zamora sighting in the 1960's.  Let's
not allude to linkages that simply aren't there.

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:37:11 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:26:37 +0000
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >>From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:52:58 -0800
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:52:40 +0000
 >>Subject: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

 >>I am planning a trip to I am planning a trip to Socorro, NM.
 >>Could anyone on the List could provide me with information
 >>regarding the location of the alleged 1964 Socorro landing site?
 >>I am looking for precise driving and hiking directions.

 >>To date, I have found the original police report here:

 >>http://www.geocities.com/Area51/7595/socorro.html

 >>A map to the landing site can be found here:

 >>http://www.isso.org/inbox/ubd/case/1964.htm

 >>Unforunately, the streets are not labeled, there is no scale,
 >>and mileage is not given.

Dear Charles,

Why don't you try to get in touch to the people involved in any
way in such cases? What about Mr. Frank Kauffman? Or  well, also
can be Mr. Clifford Stone, both of them living in Roswell, NM?

In other hand, I remember a very detailed description of the
site done by "Jack Barnett", given to me by Michael Hesemann,
also on this List. As far as I remember, also Philip Mantle, Bob
Shell, Maurizio Baiata and other friends knew this account of
the cameraman. Could it be useful, isn't it?


Good luck, and even better trip to Socorro!

Daniel Muoz
from Mexico City







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

                   Re: Filer's Files #3 - 2001 - Truncated

From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:27:42 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:29:02 +0000
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #3 - 2001 - Truncated


 >From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:31:46 EST
 >Subject: Filer's Files #3 - 2001

 >ALABAMA ALIEN CHOIR PHOTO

 >Marilyn Ruben writes that, "Alien Abduction Experience and
 >Research (AAER) has received an excellent photograph of six
 >glowing aliens standing on a garage roof at night that look like
 >a singing choir.

 >This September 29, 2000, a photograph was taken
 >after the witness saw movement and heard a sound like "humming
 >electric lines."

After looking at the picture, I would suggest that it shows the
dimly lit porch. It is rather absurd to make the jump from "saw
movement" to claiming or even suggesting the lit areas are a
cluster of aliens.

The daytime picture was not taken at quite the same angle but if
it had been I'm sure the porch light position would be even more
obvious. The camera movement during the picture has blurred all
the bright lights the same so this has to be taken into account.

An "Alien Choir"? Pulleze.....


Gary Hart







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:05:56 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:31:21 +0000
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:39:51 -0500

 >>From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:52:58 -0800
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:52:40 +0000
 >>Subject: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

 >>I am planning a trip to I am planning a trip to Socorro, NM.
 >>Could anyone on the List could provide me with information
 >>regarding the location of the alleged 1964 Socorro landing site?
 >>I am looking for precise driving and hiking directions.

 >>To date, I have found the original police report here:

 >>http://www.geocities.com/Area51/7595/socorro.html

 >>A map to the landing site can be found here:

 >>http://www.isso.org/inbox/ubd/case/1964.htm

 >>Unforunately, the streets are not labeled, there is no scale,
 >>and mileage is not given.

 >Unfortunately, there is a development going up on the original
 >site.

 >Prof. Charles Moore took Wendy Connors, Tom Tulien and myself on
 >a terrian walk to this area. The area around there was in the
 >process of being regraded and filled.

 >You may still be able to go to the site and view the surrounding
 >terrian, but the character of the landing site is gone. So much
 >for Phil Klass' contention that the whole thing was to draw
 >tourists to Socorro. There are no markers or other signs to
 >indicate the area, private housing is going up in that area.

It is too bad about the development going up at the original
site. I may be foolish (probably am :), but if I was the
developer, I would seriously consider leaving a small plot
centered around the site in its original condition, and putting
up a marker of some sort. I think it _might_ be a selling point
-- a bit of local color, a bit of character, a point of
interest. Something to distinguish one's neighborhood from every
other non-descript faux-ranch development in the Southwest.

Then again, if I was the town of Socorro, I would have purchased
the land, made it into a small park, and put up a marker long
ago. Perhaps the town could induce the developer to do so. I
certainly wouldn't take the position that it definitely was ET
in origin. I would simply set forth the facts, say it _might_
have been ET in origin, and leave it at that. Something
tasteful. A mystery to be solved; a koan to be contemplated. :)

In any event, do you by any chance have directions to what is
left of the Socorro site? Thanks.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: John Tenney <jelt2000@email.msn.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:24:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:33:49 +0000
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:09:07 -0800

 >I am planning a trip to Roswell, NM. I am hoping people on the
 >List could provide me with the latest information regarding the
 >location(s) of the alleged 1947 Roswell crash site(s)? I am
 >looking for precise driving and hiking directions.

 >To date, I have found this July 22, 1997 post to UFO UpDates from
 >Glenn Campbell:

 >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/jul/m22-012.shtml

 >>From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas)
 >>Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 20:48:14 -0800
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 09:48:36 -0400
 >>Subject: BLM Directions for Roswell Crash Sites

 >This post has excellent directions.

 >I have also found an article entitled "Now Where Was It Those
 >Aliens Crashed?" located at:

 >http://members.aol.com/wmpb/CrossRos/

 >However, this article is not that helpful because the locations
 >given are not precise, and there are no driving or hiking
 >directions.

 >Finally, Vol. 19, No. 4, of the UK UFO Magazine has an article
 >by Thomas J. Carey & Donald R. Schmitt entitled, "'They're Not
 >Green!' -- What Mack Brazel really found -- Part 2." On page 33,
 >the article refers to a site "located about 2.5 miles
 >east-southeast of the debris field and is known by researchers
 >today as the 'Dee Proctor Site'." Does anyone know anything
 >about this alleged site? Does anyone have any opinions on this
 >article?


I recently returned from a driving trip to Tucson, Arizona from
my home state of Michigan and I stopped in both Soccoro and
Roswell.

I wanted to visit both sights as well and made the decision to
find them as I went. Needless to say no one that I talked to in
Soccoro knew what I was talking about although I did stop to see
the VLA, (Very Large Antenna Array which was used in the making
on the movie Contact).

Roswell is another case. If you stop by the Roswell UFO Museum
and Research Center located in Downtown Roswell anyone there
will be happy to help you find the "crash" site.

I personally thought it was more of an adventure driving through
White Sands Missile Base in the dead of night and getting pulled
over at a security check point.


Good Luck and Have Fun on your trip!

John E.L. Tenney
Michigan Anomalous Information Network
http://www.strangemichigan.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:57:15 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:40:32 +0000
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:09:07 -0800

 >I am planning a trip to Roswell, NM. I am hoping people on the
 >List could provide me with the latest information regarding the
 >location(s) of the alleged 1947 Roswell crash site(s)? I am
 >looking for precise driving and hiking directions.

 >To date, I have found this July 22, 1997 post to UFO UpDates from
 >Glenn Campbell:

 >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/jul/m22-012.shtml

 >>From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas)
 >>Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 20:48:14 -0800
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 09:48:36 -0400
 >>Subject: BLM Directions for Roswell Crash Sites

 >This post has excellent directions.

 >I have also found an article entitled "Now Where Was It Those
 >Aliens Crashed?" located at:

 >http://members.aol.com/wmpb/CrossRos/

 >However, this article is not that helpful because the locations
 >given are not precise, and there are no driving or hiking
 >directions.

 >Finally, Vol. 19, No. 4, of the UK UFO Magazine has an article
 >by Thomas J. Carey & Donald R. Schmitt entitled, "'They're Not
 >Green!' -- What Mack Brazel really found -- Part 2." On page 33,
 >the article refers to a site "located about 2.5 miles
 >east-southeast of the debris field and is known by researchers
 >today as the 'Dee Proctor Site'." Does anyone know anything
 >about this alleged site? Does anyone have any opinions on this
 >article?


Hello Charles:

You didn't say which site you prefer, but I presume its the Mac
Brazel site, the one where he and Jesse Marcel found all the
debris.

This is the quote from the first link you gave.

BRAZEL SITE: From Corona, go east on NM 247 and just past Mile
Marker 17, turn right at the Corona Compressor Station sign. The
site is about 16 miles southeast of the turnoff. It is on Bureau
of Land Management property, which is open to the public but
reaching the site requires passing through private ranch land,
which is fenced and gated. Please ask for permission before
entering and, if you enter, close all the gates behind you.

That sounds pretty good to me, but a county map would be well
worth the investment, plus extra gas, oil, water, food etc.

After reading back and forth between various descriptions of how
people got there, I arrived at a highly tentative guesstimate of
the coordinates for mapping purposes.

I put the spot at 105:18:20W - 33:56:40N for now. This would be
in NE quadrant of Lincoln County, NM South of present day (1990
map) State Route 247.

An earlier map (1966) shows the same road as SR 42 with less of
it paved as one proceeds East from Corona, NM toward the
junction with US 285 leading down to Roswell. This map shows a
little community or ranch called Faye close to the point in
question, at the junction of 3 dirt roads.

A still earlier map (1962) shows the same SR 42 designation, but
less detail... i.e. no Faye, and the dirt roads don't show.
Instead I find the dinky town of "Low", 32 rocky miles East of
Corona, and 17 miles west of US 285.

I drove within about 20 crow-miles of the Brazel site in 1964,
completely unaware of the so-called Roswell Incident.

It might be nice to bring along a GPS device. If anyone has
already done so, I would really like to get the exact
coordinates for the spot! Its not that I put much stock in the
Roswell Incident any more, I don't. I'm a stickler for dots on a
map regardless, and like to get them right.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:44:29 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:52:08 +0000
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:52:58 -0800

 >I am planning a trip to I am planning a trip to Socorro, NM.
 >Could anyone on the List could provide me with information
 >regarding the location of the alleged 1964 Socorro landing site?
 >I am looking for precise driving and hiking directions.

 >To date, I have found the original police report here:

 >http://www.geocities.com/Area51/7595/socorro.html

 >A map to the landing site can be found here:

 >http://www.isso.org/inbox/ubd/case/1964.htm

 >Unforunately, the streets are not labeled, there is no scale,
 >and mileage is not given.


Hello again Charles:

Socorro, NM is given as 106:53:27W - 34:03:30N by the USGS
online lookup. There are several listings, (county, old
courthouse etc.) but these coordinates agree very closely with
the high school and the local hospital, obviously close to the
center of this small town.

Socorro was on US 85, now I-25. In 1964, the Interstate had not
quite reached Socorro from the North, and there was only 2-lane
US 85 proceeding South.

According to Hynek (The UFO Experience, pg. 166 PB) Zamora was
South of town chasing a speeder, presumably also headed South. I
cannot guarantee this, but it makes sense for Zamora to chase a
speeder passing thru town. Zamora was South of Socorro when he
let the speeder escape because he saw potential trouble near a
dynamite shack or some such.

At the end of the sighting, the UFO went away "toward Six-Mile
Canyon". I was able to locate that also, at 106:59:33W -
34:00:38. This is the direction the UFO took, _not_where it
landed. In any case, we have a spot in the desert, perhaps 3 or
4 miles South of town, so street names and a city plan won't do
any good.

The "streets" shown in the link you gave above are probably
dirt/gravel roads leading out to some rockpile, sheds or
whatever. I have no maps with those details.

The present-day (1990) map shows I-25 bypassing Socorro
entirely, while old US 85 now leads right down the main drag,
rejoining I-25 a mile or two South of town. I would follow the
old route south from City Hall or whatever, and look for
dirt/gravel tracks leading off just before you are forced back
onto the Interstate.

Better yet, ask some locals about the sighting, how to get to
Six-mile-canyon and so forth. There used to be an old dynamite
shack very close to the actual spot in 1964. I would ask about
that also.

Odd as it may sound, I find the Zamora/Socorro incident
much more interesting than "not-in-Roswell".


Hope this helps,

Larry Hatch








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 05:03:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:54:56 +0000
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >From: John Tenney <jelt2000@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:24:44 -0500

<snip>

 >I recently returned from a driving trip to Tucson, Arizona from
 >my home state of Michigan and I stopped in both Soccoro and
 >Roswell.

 >I wanted to visit both sights as well and made the decision to
 >find them as I went. Needless to say no one that I talked to in
 >Soccoro knew what I was talking about although I did stop to see
 >the VLA, (Very Large Antenna Array which was used in the making
 >on the movie Contact).

My understanding is that the students at the School of Mining
and Technology still speak of the event, so it hasn't really
become lost to the current generation in Socorro. But Philip
Klass had proposed that the entire event was staged to create a
tourist attraction, and there has been no action on the part of
the community or individuals to pursue that goal. As you noted,
there is no Socorro UFO Museum with tours to the alleged landing
site..... <g>

I visited Socorro in 1996 and while visiting the excellent
mineral exhibit at the School spoke with a Professor who had
actually gone to the Zamora landing site (with local officials)
just a few hours after the event. He said that the smell of
burning Pinon Pine was still in the air, and while he didn't
associate this event with alien craft, he had no explanation for
what had been seen or what had happened. While there is no
evidence to support the claim (which was investigated thoroughly
by Project Blue Book) most locals apparently believe that it was
an experimental craft from a nearby military reservation that
had accidentally been seen by Zamora. Students at the School of
Mining and Technology, meanwhile, seem to believe that it was
probably caused by a student prank of some sort (which is
probably wishful thinking).

BTW, let's not forget that one of the Roswell "crash sites" is
identified as being in the Plains of San Augustin (sp?) and that
is where the VLA is located. However, I believe the alleged site
is further south in the Plains.


 >Roswell is another case. If you stop by the Roswell UFO Museum
 >and Research Center located in Downtown Roswell anyone there
 >will be happy to help you find the "crash" site.

 >I personally thought it was more of an adventure driving
through >White Sands Missile Base in the dead of night and
getting pulled >over at a security check point.

Now if you'd been wearing camouflage gear and face paint, it
would have gotten really exciting..... <g>


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 05:10:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:58:54 +0000
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:57:15 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >>From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:09:07 -0800

<snip>

 >You didn't say which site you prefer, but I presume its the Mac
 >Brazel site, the one where he and Jesse Marcel found all the
 >debris.

 >This is the quote from the first link you gave.

 >BRAZEL SITE: From Corona, go east on NM 247 and just past Mile
 >Marker 17, turn right at the Corona Compressor Station sign. The
 >site is about 16 miles southeast of the turnoff. It is on Bureau
 >of Land Management property, which is open to the public but
 >reaching the site requires passing through private ranch land,
 >which is fenced and gated. Please ask for permission before
 >entering and, if you enter, close all the gates behind you.

 >That sounds pretty good to me, but a county map would be well
 >worth the investment, plus extra gas, oil, water, food etc.

 >After reading back and forth between various descriptions of how
 >people got there, I arrived at a highly tentative guesstimate of
 >the coordinates for mapping purposes.

 >I put the spot at 105:18:20W - 33:56:40N for now. This would be
 >in NE quadrant of Lincoln County, NM South of present day (1990
 >map) State Route 247.

 >An earlier map (1966) shows the same road as SR 42 with less of
 >it paved as one proceeds East from Corona, NM toward the
 >junction with US 285 leading down to Roswell. This map shows a
 >little community or ranch called Faye close to the point in
 >question, at the junction of 3 dirt roads.

 >A still earlier map (1962) shows the same SR 42 designation, but
 >less detail... i.e. no Faye, and the dirt roads don't show.
 >Instead I find the dinky town of "Low", 32 rocky miles East of
 >Corona, and 17 miles west of US 285.

 >I drove within about 20 crow-miles of the Brazel site in 1964,
 >completely unaware of the so-called Roswell Incident.

 >It might be nice to bring along a GPS device. If anyone has
 >already done so, I would really like to get the exact
 >coordinates for the spot! Its not that I put much stock in the
 >Roswell Incident any more, I don't. I'm a stickler for dots on a
 >map regardless, and like to get them right.


Larry-

If you had the coordinates and used a GPS device, you could
probably identify the location of the Brazel site, but it
doesn't really stand out (as I understand it).

The current owner, or the person who oversees that ranch land,
is not partciularly interested in having tourists in the area
and has been known to give specicially wrong directions to
various groups that come by. This includes at least one film
crew that filmed their entire sequence in the wrong location,
which was later presented in their production as the crash site.

Unless one does a lot of homework and has local help when they
get there, these sites could be nearly impossible to identify.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

                Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:24:16 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:00:44 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois - Hatch


 >From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois
 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:04:09 -0800

 >>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:07:03 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Lights' Over Rockford, Illinois

 ><snip>

 >>Greg: Given the area has had sightings before, so some
 >>people might watch, is there any chance that the "ball of
 >>light" which "zigzagged" thru the trees in peoples yards
 >>was one of your errant devices?

 >No, no chance. Better check those coordinates. Londonderry is
 >north and a little east of the towns I mentioned. The winds were
 >light and out of the north that night.

 >>I pulled a similar stunt in the 1950s as a pre-teen BTW!
 >>I filled a plastic laundry bag with stove gas, and sent it
 >>aloft.

 >Geez Larry, you're lucky you didn't end up in the police station
 >that night. With my luck, I would have burned down an orphanage
 >or something.

 >Greg


Hello Greg:

1) You had mentioned East Derry,NH. This is (per the USGS) at
71:17:30W - 42:53:40N.

Londonderry,NH is at 71:22:28W - 42:51:54N, maybe 2 miles South
and around 4 miles West of East Derry. I have those coordinates
in my database, within 20 seconds long/lat. If either town
moved, please let me know.

I don't recall the names of the other towns you mentioned, maybe
they caused the confusion. All of these are tightly clustered in
a small area of a small map, that's why I asked.

2) You are right about my little stunt, I could have caused a
fire. Battery operated lights sound much more sensible!


Best

- Larry Hatch







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:35:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:09:34 +0000
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:05:56 -0800
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:31:21 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:39:51 -0500

 >>>From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:52:58 -0800
 >>>Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:52:40 +0000
 >>>Subject: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

 >>>I am planning a trip to I am planning a trip to Socorro, NM.
 >>>Could anyone on the List could provide me with information
 >>>regarding the location of the alleged 1964 Socorro landing site?
 >>>I am looking for precise driving and hiking directions.

<snip>

 >It is too bad about the development going up at the original
 >site. I may be foolish (probably am :), but if I was the
 >developer, I would seriously consider leaving a small plot
 >centered around the site in its original condition, and putting
 >up a marker of some sort. I think it _might_ be a selling point
 >-- a bit of local color, a bit of character, a point of
 >interest. Something to distinguish one's neighborhood from every
 >other non-descript faux-ranch development in the Southwest.

 >Then again, if I was the town of Socorro, I would have purchased
 >the land, made it into a small park, and put up a marker long
 >ago. Perhaps the town could induce the developer to do so. I
 >certainly wouldn't take the position that it definitely was ET
 >in origin. I would simply set forth the facts, say it _might_
 >have been ET in origin, and leave it at that. Something
 >tasteful. A mystery to be solved; a koan to be contemplated. :)

 >In any event, do you by any chance have directions to what is
 >left of the Socorro site? Thanks.

If you have a city map of Socorro, I can mark the spot. No I
don't know the street names off-hand. Access to the site by
Zamora's route still exists, it is a dirt road - or maybe more
accurately did exist when we visited the area. However you can
get to the site through the new development, also.

In the direction of the departure of Zarmora's UFO is
development that also did not exist then, a school with trees
planted on its campus. Looking it the direction of the UFO's
departure one can see that the balloon theory constructed by
super Chrirstian fundmentalist Larry Robinson is difficult to
contemplate. Of course, we had an expert balloonist with us who
didn't think much of this theory either.

As to why there are no markers or a park, no one in Socorro
particularly gives a damn about this case except possibly the
few directly involved. Every once in awhile the local newspapers
will do a story, but that is about it.

Prof. Moore took us by Barney Barnett's former abode which is
not to far from the landing site. There is no sign there either!


Jan Aldrich

Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
(860) 546-9135









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

             Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:53:14 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:13:38 +0000
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:05:56 -0800
 >UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?


When you arrive in Roswell, call Dennis Balthaser. Dennis and I
had an interview with the Bureau of Land Management and were
given detailed maps of the actual location. Dennis is an astute
Roswell incident researcher and can direct you to the direct
spot of the Corona crash site. If you twist his arm and offer
him a token of appreciation, he might even drive you to the
location and the other "alleged" locations, such as the Corn
Ranch site and the Ragsdale (in your dreams) site.

Dennis can be emailed at: truthskr@roswell.net

BTW, wear lots of sunscreen, a hat, boots and take plenty of
water when visiting New Mexico's outback. We have all kinds of
slithery things creeping around. <G> Might not be a bad idea to
take a snake hook along too.


Wendy Connors

Project SIGN Research Center






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:02:48 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:15:27 +0000
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:09:07 -0800

 >I am planning a trip to Roswell, NM. I am hoping people on the
 >List could provide me with the latest information regarding the
 >location(s) of the alleged 1947 Roswell crash site(s)? I am
 >looking for precise driving and hiking directions.


Charles,

You might want to check out Dennis Balthasar's site, and in
particular the following page dealing with the alleged crash
site in the Roswell area.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/2997/ricrash.html

He includes a map and photographs of the sites discussed.


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


*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

              Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:33:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:18:00 +0000
Subject: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?



I'd like to contribute part of an article regarding the previous discussion
about skeptics verses debunkers. It is a good review of the difference between
the two and a reminder that in the end, the extreme skeptics sound very much
like debunkers. -- K. Wilson

"'...aliens from outer space' may not be seen as the best interpretation of
UFO
abductions fifty years after the academic establishment has finally done
justice to this field. Maybe it will be 'aliens from inner space'... or
'demons
from Christian heaven or hell space.' Time will tell. It will not be
"delusions
from psychology space," however. The debunkers and extreme skeptics are dead
wrong on this."

-- Keith Rowell in his review of Abduction Enigma

"Are Some Skeptics Debunkers
in Sheep�s Clothing?"

By Keith Rowell (1995)

It is always good to start with definitions and a standard
dictionary helps us here.


Debunker: One who exposes or ridicules the fallacy or
fraudulence of.

Skeptic: One who instinctively consistently doubts, questions,
or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.


A debunker exposes or ridicules a false or mistaken belief.
Evidently, a debunker knows that "craft piloted by alien beings"
is a false belief.

But how do debunkers know this?

A rational debunker would ask, "What scientific or scholarly
knowledge do we have about these craft, or UFOs?"

It turns out that in the fifty-year history of UFOs there is
only one (American) scientific study. This was the Air Force
requested and funded Condon Study published in 1970.

However, contrary to Edward U. Condon�s highly misleading
summary of the scientists� findings, nearly one-third of the 106
UFO cases that were examined were determined to be
"unexplained." This, despite the fact that sufficient
information was present for most of the one-third.

A rational person would conclude from this that the jury is
still out. More scientific and scholarly investigation is in
order.

On the contrary, this has not been done in the thirty years
since the Condon Study.

Why?

Partly because Condon�s own Summary and Conclusions put the
kibosh on further academic study of UFOs, and the academic
establishment dutifully followed the recommendations of Condon
and the "rubber-stamped" approval of the National Academy of
Sciences.


The remainder of the article can be read at:

http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Part_I/keithskept.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

                        Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:29:06 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:27:22 +0000
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts


 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:20:21 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans

Sean, for some bizarre reason, resurrected the following post
from me:

 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Clark vs Evans
 >>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:29:17 +0100

and wrote:

 >Andy Roberts said:
 >All UFOs are IFOs in waiting.
 >
 >Now at first this really annoyed me.

Good.

 >But then as I followed the
 >rest of the post's to this thread it amused me.

Even better.
Two sensations for the price of one.
Normally I'd charge extra, but as I'm doing missionary
work among the hard of thinking..............

 >It struck me as rather big headed of Andy to say this. I almost
 >heard echo's of boastfulness, something along the lines of "give
 >me just one chance and I can explain _every_ UFO sighting in the
 >world" being uttered from the person who claims to be a skeptic.

I'm sure Jerry C would point out that the plural
of echo does not have a 's'.

 >You state All UFOs are IFOs in waiting. If a UFO remains
 >Unexplained after many years of investigation by different
 >people using many different investigation techniques, how long
 >would it have to remain unexplained before you will accept that
 >it is unexplained? Or put another way. How long does a UFO
 >have to remain unexplained before you will accept that it will
 >not become an IFO?

Sean, Sean, Sean. I've had a long day at the rock face of
homelessnes in Halifax, dealing with issues which actually
affect people in reality so you'll forgive me if I find it hard
to take your pedantry seriously. But just for you I'll explain
again.

It doesn't matter how long a case remained 'unidentified' (ie a
'UFO') it is _always_ an IFO in waiting. Simply because whatever
is seen _must_ be _something_. 'UFOs' are not seen - they are
just the name we give to something we cannot (yet) identify.
Have you been asleep for the past fifty years Sean or what? The
fact that we may not be able to resolve cases this week, last
week, or for six hundred years four months and three days
doesn't imply anything more or less exotic lies behind the
'UFO'. It just means it hasn't been identified yet.

 >We have on record several cases that are unexplained after a
 >full generation have passed. As you folklorist's know a
 >generation is considered to be fifty years, and we still have
 >sightings from 1947 unexplained. I'm sorry but the pelican
 >theory really does not hold water.

Yes?

&?

So?

By some form of strange printed thinking Sean you seem to be
saying that if something remains unexplained for a long time it
gets automatically elevated to exotic status. The length of time
something remains unexplained does not alter anything about the
real nature of the object/misperception/ whatever which is the
cause of the sighting. And that would apply whether the initial
stimulus was Zog from Zorg or the five-fifteen Pelican coming in
from the Cascades.

 >So tell me Andy, how old would a UFO tale have to be before you
 >considered it to be a _genuine_ UFO? BTW to help you out, I'll
 >already agree with you that not _all_ UFO's are from Zeta
 >Reticuli.

See above.

And how do you know anyway?

Happy Trails

Andy









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 17

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:56:00 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:28:46 +0000
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:03:04 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net
 >>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:09:07 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

 >>I am planning a trip to Roswell, NM. I am hoping people on the
 >>List could provide me with the latest information regarding the
 >>location(s) of the alleged 1947 Roswell crash site(s)? I am
 >>looking for precise driving and hiking directions.

 >Hi, Charles!

 >You might try and contact Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>about
 >both Socorro and Roswell. He supposedly talked to the
 >"cameraman" via Santilli on the phone about the sights. However,
 >as I recall, the cameraman's directions were a little squirrely.
 >In addition, it was Bob's opinion that certain landmarks have
 >since disappeared or never existed. I believe the best you will
 >do is either a site that is speculated to be ground zero or
 >possibly, at best, a general area. I am not sure that he, nor
 >anyone else, knows precisely the exact location(s).


Hello Roger,

You must be kidding. If I recall well, the "cameraman" never
existed. No one, not even Bob Shell, knows who the guy
is/was/ever existed.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:02:54 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:15:44 +0000
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:56:00 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

 >>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:03:04 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>You might try and contact Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>about
 >>both Socorro and Roswell. He supposedly talked to the
 >>"cameraman" via Santilli on the phone about the sights. However,
 >>as I recall, the cameraman's directions were a little squirrely.
 >>In addition, it was Bob's opinion that certain landmarks have
 >>since disappeared or never existed. I believe the best you will
 >>do is either a site that is speculated to be ground zero or
 >>possibly, at best, a general area. I am not sure that he, nor
 >>anyone else, knows precisely the exact location(s).

Serge replied:

 >You must be kidding. If I recall well, the "cameraman" never
 >existed. No one, not even Bob Shell, knows who the guy
 >is/was/ever existed.

Hi Serge!

I agree. Hence the sarcastic quotes around the "cameraman". ;)


Later,

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                 Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:45:55 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:18:43 +0000
Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's


 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:33:12 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?

Previously, Kathrina offered the following:

 >I'd like to contribute part of an article regarding the
 >previous discussion about skeptics verses debunkers. It is a
 >good review of the difference between the two and a reminder
 >that in the end, the extreme skeptics sound very much like
 >debunkers.

 >K. Wilson

<snip>

 >By Keith Rowell (1995)

 >It is always good to start with definitions and a standard
 >dictionary helps us here.

 >Debunker: One who exposes or ridicules the fallacy or
 >fraudulence of.

 >Skeptic: One who instinctively consistently doubts, questions,
 >or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.


Hi, Kathrina!

Webster notwithstanding, I think that a skeptic can be a
debunker but a debunker cannot be a skeptic. The difference, in
my opinion, is that a true skeptic feels compelled to
investigate and find the truth, regardless of where a line of
reasoning may lead (or how unpopular). On the other hand, a
debunker has already made up his or her mind and nothing will
change that negative view, evidence be damned.

Why the confusion between the two?

On the surface, both skeptic and debunker may ask some of the
same, unpopular questions that seem to threaten the more zealous
within the UFO community. The end result of a skeptic's journey
may, in fact, lead to the debunking of a popular myth. However,
it may also uncover a great deal of evidence in support of a
given case. At the least, a skeptic will generally shed light on
some unexplored aspect of a claim; not such a bad thing, when
you think about it.

But, in the end, the skeptic simply looks at things with a
critical eye while the debunker doesn't even bother to look, at
all. The sceptic starts with a question and looks for an answer.
The debunker starts with an answer and simply stops there.


Take care,

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                 Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:21:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:24:30 +0000
Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's


 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:33:12 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?


 >I'd like to contribute part of an article regarding the
 >previous discussion about skeptics verses debunkers. It is a
 >good review of the difference between the two and a reminder
 >that in the end, the extreme skeptics sound very much like
 >debunkers.

<snip>

 >"Are Some Skeptics Debunkers
 >in Sheep�s Clothing?"

 >By Keith Rowell (1995)

 >It is always good to start with definitions and a standard
 >dictionary helps us here.

 >Debunker: One who exposes or ridicules the fallacy or
 >fraudulence of.

 >Skeptic: One who instinctively consistently doubts, questions,
 >or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

 >A debunker exposes or ridicules a false or mistaken belief.
 >Evidently, a debunker knows that "craft piloted by alien beings"
 >is a false belief.

 >But how do debunkers know this?

 >A rational debunker would ask, "What scientific or scholarly
 >knowledge do we have about these craft, or UFOs?"

 >It turns out that in the fifty-year history of UFOs there is
 >only one (American) scientific study. This was the Air Force
 >requested and funded Condon Study published in 1970.


I must take very strenuous issue with this claim. Project Blue
Book Special Report Number 14 is over 250 pages long, has
categorizations, quality evaluations, statistical cross
comparisons and over 240 tables, charts, maps and graphs dealing
with 3201 sightings The work was done by the Battelle Memorial
Institute in Columbus, Ohio, under contract to the USAF. It is
conspicuous by its absence of mention in 13 anti-UFO books
(though all the authors were aware of it), and in the Condon
Report itself though covering more than 25 times as many cases
and I had made Condon aware of it... In summary, it was found
that 21% of the sightings couldn't be explained. These Unknowns
were completely separate from the 10% listed as Insufficient
Information. The better the quality of the sighting the more
likely to be an Unknown. Statistical cross comparisons between
the Unknowns and the Knowns show that the probability that the
Unknowns were just missed knowns was less than 1%.On average
Unknowns were observed for longer than Knowns.

The Condon Report had far more verbiage, but much less
science,.and covered less than 4% of the number of cases covered
by BBSR 14. Yes, Copies are available of the whole report with
all the tables from me for $25.00 including shipping, UFORI, POB
958, Houlton, ME 04730-0958 and of a smaller version from the
Fund for UFO Research which version has some excellent
commentary by Dr. Bruce Maccabee.

In addition, I consider the 246 page "Symposium on UFOs"
published by the House of Representatives, Committee on Science
and Astronautics, an excellent collection of papers by
scientists including Hynek, Sagan, Menzel, Harder, myself et al.
The best paper was Dr. Jim McDonald's outstanding 71 page effort
(in larger print than was used by the Committee). It presents
detailed information about 41 of the cases Jim investigated.
Only $10.00 form UFORI including S & H.

 >However, contrary to Edward U. Condon�s highly misleading
 >summary of the scientists� findings, nearly one-third of the 106
 >UFO cases that were examined were determined to be
 >"unexplained." This, despite the fact that sufficient
 >information was present for most of the one-third.

 >A rational person would conclude from this that the jury is
 >still out. More scientific and scholarly investigation is in
 >order.

 >On the contrary, this has not been done in the thirty years
 >since the Condon Study.

I would say there are numerous other scholarly and scientific
studies that have been published in places such as MUFON
Conference Proceedings, in such books as the recent "UFOs and
Abductions" published by the U. of Kansas in 2000,  in
proceedings of two conferences published by the AIAA, etc..

 >Why?

 >Partly because Condon�s own Summary and Conclusions put the
 >kibosh on further academic study of UFOs, and the academic
 >establishment dutifully followed the recommendations of Condon
 >and the "rubber-stamped" approval of the National Academy of
 >Sciences.

 >The remainder of the article can be read at:

 >http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Part_I/keithskept.htm

The special UFO subcommittee of the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics noted that 30% of the 117 cases
studied at the U. of Colorado could NOT be identified and that
one could come to the opposite conclusions from Dr. Condon based
on the data in the report.


Stan Friedman









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:31:32 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:27:39 +0000
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:29:06 -0000


 >>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >>Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:20:21 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans

<snip>

 >It doesn't matter how long a case remained 'unidentified' (ie a
 >'UFO') it is _always_ an IFO in waiting. Simply because whatever
 >is seen _must_ be _something_. 'UFOs' are not seen - they are
 >just the name we give to something we cannot (yet) identify.
 >Have you been asleep for the past fifty years Sean or what? The
 >fact that we may not be able to resolve cases this week, last
 >week, or for six hundred years four months and three days
 >doesn't imply anything more or less exotic lies behind the
 >'UFO'. It just means it hasn't been identified yet.

 >By some form of strange printed thinking Sean you seem to be
 >saying that if something remains unexplained for a long time it
 >gets automatically elevated to exotic status. The length of time
 >something remains unexplained does not alter anything about the
 >real nature of the object/misperception/ whatever which is the
 >cause of the sighting. And that would apply whether the initial
 >stimulus was Zog from Zorg or the five-fifteen Pelican coming in
 >from the Cascades.

So Andy this has been one long semantic game of yours? I think
most of us on the List thought you meant misperceptions - only by
"IFO" when you've strenuously argued that UFOs become IFOs and
don't remain unexplained. Now you're saying a UFO case could be
identified or explained away as an ET spaceship ("Zog from
Zorg") and it would then become an Identified Flying Object or
IFO.


Brad Sparks








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                 Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:43:04 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:32:53 +0000
Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's


 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:33:12 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >Subject: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?

 >I'd like to contribute part of an article regarding the previous
 >discussion about skeptics verses debunkers. It is a good review
 >of the difference between the two and a reminder that in the
 >end, the extreme skeptics sound very much like debunkers. -- K.
 >Wilson

 >"'...aliens from outer space' may not be seen as the best
 >interpretation of UFO abductions fifty years after the academic
 >establishment has finally done justice to this field. Maybe it
 >will be 'aliens from inner space'... or 'demons from Christian
 >heaven or hell space.' Time will tell. It will not be "delusions
 >from psychology space," however. The debunkers and extreme
 >skeptics are dead wrong on this."

<snip>


K. & List,

I visited Keith's site:

http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Part_I/keithskept.htm

and found it an excellent read.

The following book review was particularly fascinating:

http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Part_I/krapfrev.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

             Re: Filer's Files #3 - 2001 - Truncated - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:15:29 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:35:23 +0000
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #3 - 2001 - Truncated - Goldstein


 >From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
 >Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:27:42 -0600
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #3 - 2001 - Truncated

 >>From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:31:46 EST
 >>Subject: Filer's Files #3 - 2001

 >>ALABAMA ALIEN CHOIR PHOTO

 >>Marilyn Ruben writes that, "Alien Abduction Experience and
 >>Research (AAER) has received an excellent photograph of six
 >>glowing aliens standing on a garage roof at night that look like
 >>a singing choir.

 >>This September 29, 2000, a photograph was taken
 >>after the witness saw movement and heard a sound like "humming
 >>electric lines."

 >After looking at the picture, I would suggest that it shows the
 >dimly lit porch. It is rather absurd to make the jump from "saw
 >movement" to claiming or even suggesting the lit areas are a
 >cluster of aliens.

 >The daytime picture was not taken at quite the same angle but if
 >it had been I'm sure the porch light position would be even more
 >obvious. The camera movement during the picture has blurred all
 >the bright lights the same so this has to be taken into account.

 >An "Alien Choir"? Pulleze.....


Hello Listerions,

Now wait a minute please. No one has yet asked the most
important question regarding the alien choir. What on Earth did
they sound like? Then again maybe they had an unearthly sound.
Perhaps their minds are advanced enough in their evolution that
we can't even hear, let alone perceive their song. Then again,
maybe the choir was space gospel. Were they praying? That's akin
to asking why different flying triangles have different
lighting. We don't know their minds (if they even have minds)
and we don't know the mind of the photographer.

What is the song of the aliens? Who knows, maybe they came here
because they like some of our music, picked up as signals in
space. I have a friend in LA who does a Sunday night electronic
space music radio show titled Alien Air Music, 9pm on (if I
remember correctly) KLOS 88.9FM. He's been broadcasting it for
many years. Maybe the aliens _do_ like space music.

Laughing all the way to the bank until I saw my overdraft,

Josh Goldstein











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                 Re: Astronomers Close-In On Alien Signal -

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:18:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:43:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Astronomers Close-In On Alien Signal -


Source: BBC News Online

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1122000/1122413.stm


Wednesday, 17 January, 2001, 16:51 GMT
Astronomers close-in on alien signal

Is this a signal from aliens?

By BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse


A detailed look at the point in space from where an intelligent
signal might have come has revealed nothing unusual.

The observations, using the multiple radio dishes of the Very
Large Array (VLA) in New Mexico, add to the mystery of what has
been called the "Wow" event.

The Ohio "Big Ear"

In August 1977 radio astronomers in the United States detected
what could have been a signal from intelligent life in space.
But it happened only once.

Now, two astronomers, Robert Grey and Kevin Marvel, have used
the VLA to look at the spot with unprecedented sensitivity. They
saw nothing strange or anything that could explain the signal.

"Wow"

The "Wow" signal as it has become known is often described as
our best candidate for a signal from an alien intelligence in
space.

On 15 August 1977 a burst of radio waves was detected by the now
dismantled "Big Ear" radio telescope of Ohio State University.
The person who spotted it, astronomer Jerry Ehman, was so
surprised that he scribbled "Wow" on the print-out.

The VLA

The event had all the properties that astronomers expected in a
signal from an alien intelligence. It was confined to a narrow
band of frequencies and it was very close to the "hydrogen
line," a natural signpost in the spectrum.

Because the Ohio telescope cannot move it was only possible to
see the signal as it passed across the telescope's field of
view. From the way the signal was detected astronomers were
certain it was coming from a point on the sky.

It only lasted 72 seconds and although astronomers later looked
at that same patch of sky over a hundred times they saw nothing.
The signal, if it was a signal, was a one-off event.

Some researchers have said it was man-made interference but
others point to the signal's characteristics and say it
definitely came from the sky.

So no one knows if it was a natural radio burst or some kind of
signal.

Since 1977 other radio astronomers have looked at that spot on
the sky in the hope of a repeat performance but to no avail.

The latest series of observations, described in the current
issue of the Astrophysical Journal, are more than a hundred
times more sensitive than the original Ohio observations.

Grey and Marvel see two faint radio sources at the position that
"Wow" came from but both are nothing unusual.

So the mystery of the "Wow" signal remains.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:27:55 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:46:52 +0000
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 05:10:24 -0500

 >>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:57:15 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

 >>>From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >>>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:09:07 -0800

 ><snip>

 >>You didn't say which site you prefer, but I presume its the Mac
 >>Brazel site .. This is the quote from the first link you gave.

 >>BRAZEL SITE: From Corona, go east on NM 247 and just past Mile
 >>Marker 17, turn right at the Corona Compressor Station sign. The
 >>site is about 16 miles southeast of the turnoff.

<snip>

 >>I put the spot at 105:18:20W - 33:56:40N for now. This would be
 >>in NE quadrant of Lincoln County, NM South of present day (1990
 >>map) State Route 247. [ very tentative! -LH ]

<snip>

 >>It might be nice to bring along a GPS device. If anyone has
 >>already done so, I would really like to get the exact
 >>coordinates for the spot! Its not that I put much stock in the
 >>Roswell Incident any more, I don't. I'm a stickler for dots on a
 >>map regardless, and like to get them right.

 >If you had the coordinates and used a GPS device, you could
 >probably identify the location of the Brazel site, but it
 >doesn't really stand out (as I understand it).

 >The current owner, or the person who oversees that ranch land,
 >is not partciularly interested in having tourists in the area
 >and has been known to give specicially wrong directions to
 >various groups that come by. This includes at least one film
 >crew that filmed their entire sequence in the wrong location,
 >which was later presented in their production as the crash site.
 >
 >Unless one does a lot of homework and has local help when they
 >get there, these sites could be nearly impossible to identify.


Hi Steve:

A newbie might think that everybody knows the exact spot given
all the Roswell fuss over the years.

It looks like the exact opposite is true. I wonder now if even
the present owners/overseers know the precise location, or even
the general area within a quarter mile!

At one time the military must have known, but those facts are no
doubt long lost as well.

This points up one object lesson at least; the absolute need to
nail down precise locations for UFO events, no matter how they
are resolved or not. The same goes for time of day, which is
useless without the time zone and whether DST was in effect etc.
etc.

I'm still amazed how these "details" are glossed over sometimes.
Can anyone on this list state with some certainty that they have
found the right spot in Lincoln County, NM? If so, I would like
to enter the proper coordinates here; regardless of my personal
suspicions about the entire matter.

I cannot really blame the local folks for snickering.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                 Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:37:48 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:55:13 +0000
Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's


 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:33:12 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >Subject: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?


Hi Katharina,

 >It turns out that in the fifty-year history of UFOs there is
 >only one (American) scientific study. This was the Air Force
 >requested and funded Condon Study published in 1970.

It's worth mentioning an official letter from the Air Ministry,
addressed to Prime Minister Winston Churchill (August 1952) in
response to his request for information regarding flying
saucers, it states:

'The various reports about unidentified flying objects described
by the Press as "Flying Saucers", were the subject of a full
Intelligence study in 1951..'

So it appears that Britain also did a study

The letter mentions that the Americans also carried out a
similar investigation in 1948/9.


Best wishes

Georgina Bruni









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                             Japanese Researcher

From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:58:19 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:58:36 +0000
Subject: Japanese Researcher


Hi there,

I've just had an e-mail from a a researcher in Japan who will be
in London at the end of January. He would like to meet up with
researchers of UFOs and the paranormal while here. If you are
interested you can e-mail him at:

kikaku@mandarake.cp.jp


All the best,

Philip

--
Philip Mantle,
1 Woodhall Drive, Batley, West Yorkshire, England, WF17 7SW.
Tele: 01924 444049. E-mail: pmquest@dial.pipex.com
www.beyondroswell.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:57:22 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:06:32 +0000
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Evans


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:31:32 EST
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks

 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:29:06 -0000

Previously, Andy wrote:

 >>It doesn't matter how long a case remained 'unidentified' (ie a
 >>'UFO') it is _always_ an IFO in waiting. Simply because whatever
 >>is seen _must_ be _something_. 'UFOs' are not seen - they are
 >>just the name we give to something we cannot (yet) identify.
 >>Have you been asleep for the past fifty years Sean or what? The
 >>fact that we may not be able to resolve cases this week, last
 >>week, or for six hundred years four months and three days
 >>doesn't imply anything more or less exotic lies behind the
 >>'UFO'. It just means it hasn't been identified yet.

Brad replied:

 >So Andy this has been one long semantic game of yours? I think
 >most of us on the List thought you meant misperceptions - only by
 >"IFO" when you've strenuously argued that UFOs become IFOs and
 >don't remain unexplained. Now you're saying a UFO case could be
 >identified or explained away as an ET spaceship ("Zog from
 >Zorg") and it would then become an Identified Flying Object or
 >IFO.

Hi, Brad!

I don't really think there's a game of semantics going on. I
understood exactly what Andy meant at the time that he wrote it.
It is ridiculously simple. If, as a witness claims, what they
saw was an object (as opposed to an hallucination) then the
thing actually exists. If a thing exists, then it has the
POTENTIAL of being identified. How long it will take isn't the
point at hand. We may never, in our lifetime, identify such
objects any more than 8th century scientists could identify
germs or bacteria or would understand that the some points of
light in the night sky were planets as opposed to stars.

I agree that all UFOs are IFOs in waiting. The only thing that
would prevent such a thing is if the UFO never existed in the
first place.


Roger






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:52:32 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:07:59 +0000
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:35:17 -0500

 >Looking it the direction of the UFO's
 >departure one can see that the balloon theory constructed by
 >super Chrirstian fundmentalist Larry Robinson is difficult to
 >contemplate. Of course, we had an expert balloonist with us who
 >didn't think much of this theory either.

After reading Larry Robinson proposal in The Anomalist 9 article
about the Socorro case (and also in his web page) I would be
very interested if you elaborate (publicly or privately).


Yours,

Luis R. Gonzlez








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 3

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:49:39 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:21:56 +0000
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 3


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

       UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 6, Number 3
January 18, 2001
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/


GIANT GREEN FIREBALL LIGHTS UP WESTERN USA

On Thursday, January 11, 2001, at 9:53 p.m., a gigantic green
fireball lit up the night sky in the USA west of the Mississippi
River and was seen by hundreds of witnesses.

The glowing object first appeared in the eastern sky and was
reported by people in North Dakota and South Dakota.

According to Peter B. Davenport, director of the National UFO
Reporting Center in Seattle, the "giant green fireball was seen
from locations in Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico,
Arizona," plus North Dakota and South Dakota.

Various reports "were inconsistent" in agreement on the flight
path of the object, Davenport added, "And some credible reports
suggest that more than one object may have been seen."

Several witnesses in Boulder, and (elsewhere) in northern
Colorado, report that the apparent diameter of the fireball was
approximately equal to two diameters of the full moon."

"One witness in north central Kansas was looking almost due
west when he allegedly witnessed the fireball, (which was)
approximately equal in size to his thumb held at arm's length.
It descended almost vertically to the horizon."

"Other witnesses report the object reaching the horizon but no
one reported hearing a sonic boom."

Also, the same evening, residents of Rockford, Illinois
reported "witnessing three to 23 lights" over the city at about
9 p.m. "The lights moved in a variable formation and drifted
across the sky for approximately 20 to 30 minutes"

Rockford, Ill. was the site of a previous UFO overflight in
February of the year 2000. (Many thanks to Peter B. Davenport
for these reports.)

TRIANGULAR UFO SIGHTED IN SOUTHEASTERN OHIO

On Wednesday, January 10, 2001, at witness in Wilmington, Ohio
"reported that at around 3:-5 to 3:-7 a.m., a huge boom was
heard and 'felt'.' Nothing was seen but the witness heard
another distant boom, much the way thunder echoes."

On Thursday, January 11, 2001, at about 6:30 p.m., two adults
and a four-year-old child from Jefferson County, Ohio were
driving "north on (Ohio) Route 151 near Steubenville," when
they saw that "a bright light seemed to be moving back and forth
and looked like a triangle shape" as they drew closer.

"A flashing red light was said to be hovering over a tree and
vanished as they approached. Suddenly, a rumbling sound became
audible to the threesome." (Many thanks to Kenny Young of
Cincinnati UFO Research for these reports.)

SLOW-MOVING TRIANGULAR UFO SPOTTED IN KENTUCKY

On Saturday, January 6, 2001, at 10:30 p.m., Landy Tucker was
driving on Highway 101 in Clifyu, Kentucky when he saw "a UFO
that came from the northeast."

Tucker added, "I was traveling down Highway 101 in Clifty when
I noticed something in the sky. I pulled over to look at it. It
made no sound but I could feel some sort of vibration as it
passed over my head. I watched it for five minutes and then it
disappeared over the Kentucky hills."

"I don't know what it was, but I was the only person who saw it
that night. It was dark in color and V-shaped but made no sound.
It flew away to the west southwest."

Tucker estimated that the UFO was "12 feet high, 20 feet long,
5 feet wide at the front and 10 feet wide at the back." (Email
Form Report)

LYNCH MOUNTAIN - THE MYSTERY DEEPENS

During the month of December 2000, Lynch Mountain in eastern
Kentucky was the site of many strange reports.

Residents of nearby Appalachia, Virginia reported seeing "oval
luminous UFOs" hovering over the mountain, located on the
Kentucky/Virginia state line. Mysterious white vans were also
seen in Appalachia and in nearby Norton, Ca. and also south of
Pikeville, Kentucky, about 15 miles (25 kilometers) to the west.

According to local researcher Chris Light, the USA Department
of Defense built a facility there sometime in the 1950s.

Now Albert LaFrance, a historian specializing in underground
facilities and communications networks of the Cold War era, is
seeking more information about Lynch Mountain.

UFO Roundup has learned a bit more about the area. But the new
facts merely add to rather than clear up the mystery.

In 1917, the USA's federal government acquired 42,000 acres of
land in the Lynch Mountain area as a "strategic coal reserve,"
as part of the national defense effort in World War One. The
coal was mined by the United States Coal and Coke Company. and
the four mines in the area remained open for a couple of
decades. There was one serious coal miners' strike in Lynch,
Ky. in 1934.

UFO Roundup editor Joseph Trainor has turned up a few strange
Fortean ties to the Lynch Mountain area.

Just north of the mountain is Pound Gap, which was originally a
migration route for Virginia settlers coming into Kentucky.
Pound Gap was originally called "Sounding Gap" because of
strange booming noises heard by the first pioneers.

""At first called Sounding Gap because the rocky formation
seemed to give back a hollow sound, the name was corrupted to
Pound Gap."

Lynch Mountain was also a powwow site for the Ontouagannha and
Ani-Yupuya, indigenous peoples of the region (also known as
Shawnee and Cherokee Indians - J.T.)

The Ontouagannha war chief Benge (pronounced Ben-gay - J.T.) was
killed nearby in a battle with Kentucky and Virginia militia
back in 1794.

The area was also the site of a bizarre murder in 1935, when a
man named Maxwell was found dead of multiple stab wounds. The
murder was amazingly similar to those of Nicole Brown Simpson
and Ron Goldman in Los Angeles in June 1994. The victim's
daughter, Edith Maxwell, was tried for the crime. Her first
trial ended in a hung jury. But Edith Maxwell was convicted in
the second trial and sentenced to twenty years at the state
women's prison.

"Interestingly, there are two unusual feature names in the
area," Trainor added, "There is a Looney Creek leading up to the
mine. And a oddly-named Faith Hill. Perhaps some reader can
tell us where these names came from." (See Kentucky: A Guide to
the Bluegrass State, Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, N.Y.,
1939, pages 242, 243, 438 and 439. Also Virginia: A Guide to
the Old Dominion, Oxford University Press, New York, N.Y., 1940,
page 539.)

DARK DISC-SHAPED UFO SEEN IN SAGINAW, TEXAS

On Thursday, January 4, 2001, Doug McGinnis and a fellow worker
"stepped outside at about 5 p.m." at their workplace in Saginaw,
Texas, 14 miles (25 kilometers_ northwest of Fort Worth, "and
we were stating how the sky had been very clear over the last
few days when suddenly, we both noticed in the western sky a
round black object which seemed to be floating slowly. It was
about half the size of a thumbtack held out at arm's length. "

"It then started moving towards the northeast and seemed to
shine like a star or something reflecting light and seemed to
shrink in size at times. Then it would appear round and black
again. This continued for about four to five minutes and then it
was gone." (Many thanks to Living-Tracer Enterprises Report for
this item.)

TRIANGULAR UFO DOES A FAST FLYBY IN CALIFORNIA

On Sunday night, December 31, 2000, Allan Ferguson was outdoors
in his hometown of Capitol, California *population 17,000) when
he spotted a triangle-shaped UFO.

""I saw it approaching from the north," Allan reported, "It was
a flying V shape with lights on the edges. It was very high. It
seemed to be among the stars. The thing suddenly took off to
the south at lightning speed. The object was very high and
extremely fast." (Email Form Report)

LARGE LUMINOUS UFO TAPED IN TROUT LAKE, WASHINGTON

The Self-Mastery Earth Institute in Trout Lake, Washington
state opened its second year of UFO sightings with the taping of
a large object near Mount Adams.


The institute, also known as the Sanctuary, was the site of UFO
events throughout the year 2000. Over 700 sightings have been
reported at the ranch, located 49 miles (64 kilometers)
northeast of Portland, Oregon.

On Sunday, January 7, 2001, ranch owner James A. Gilliland "was
driving down Little Mountain Road, which is adjacent to the
Sanctuary," on the north side of the Columbia River, "when a
very large luminous object caught my eye on the face of Mount
Adams, which is approximately 13 miles (24 kilometers) away. It
was not yet dark and the object was so bright we could not miss
it."

"The only possibility might be a large Snow-Cat (a snowmobile
the size of a small bus - J.T.) with a bank of Halogen lights.
The light was far more brilliant than any (aircraft) landing
lights, yet we had to dismiss all possibilities. It was pulsing,
going on and off and moving from side to side. It also moved up
into the rocks, a large lava flow (on Mount Adams) that was not
covered by snow. These boulders are enormous, and there is about
eight feet (2.5 meters) of snow up there. The location is also
in the Wilderness Area where no motorized vehicles can go."

Halting the truck, Jim and his two companions got out to
further observe the UFO. Jim grabbed his camcorder and began
shooting footage. "I continued to film it, and all of a sudden,
it took off, and another brilliant light appeared directly above
that position. It looked equally the same only now it was rising
rapidly and moving towards the east."

Shortly afterward, "a small jet, most likely military, was
vectoring in on it. When the jet came close, it (the UFO) picked
up speed and vanished. This we caught on film. As I just
centered on the course of the UFO, it disappeared on the
mountain."

"Then the light appeared again overhead lit up brilliantly and
dimmed yet again. I caught the tail end of it on film. due to
the slow response of the camera. ."

Jim said that ABC and FOX affiliates had visited the ranch and
videotaped the phenomena. He added, "Seattle's Evening Magazine
also covered the event, yet each time they had to put their
twist on the story, like we were filming street lights or
meteors. There are no street lights anywhere near the ranch, and
'meteors' do not hover or make right-angle turns." (Many thanks
to James A. Gilliland for this report.)

HOVERING UFO SIGHTED IN SOLON, MAINE

On Wednesday, January 10, 2001, Andy Wendell reported, "At
approximately 10:50 p.m., my wife happened to look out the
window of our house, which faces the south-southeast, and
observed a bright shimmering object about 10 to 15 degrees above
the horizon. The object appeared stationary and at an
unestimable distance" away from their house in Solon, Maine.

"It resembled the brightest of stars that shimmer and shine
(red, blue, white - A.W.) yet the object at that height above the
horizon was absolutely too big to have been a star, and because
of the position and the shimmering, it was not Venus. We
observed the phenomenon for approximately four minutes, at which
point it disappeared, probably by having traveled away from
us."

Andy and his wife did observe the UFO with a pair of
binoculars. "It did not look like a plane, . My binoculars
showed only bright and flashing lights at this distance. No
definition and no movement until the lights disappeared." (Email
Form Report)

TRIO SIGHTS TRIANGULAR UFO IN SOUTHERN GERMANY

On Monday, January 1, 2001, at 12:25 a.m., Dr. Jann Arende, a
physician and amateur astronomer, his wife and his sister-in-law
were watching the New Year's celebration fireworks from a lofty
hillside in the suburbs west of Freiburg, a city in southern
Germany.

"The sky was almost clear and visibility quite good," Dr.
Arende reported, "When walking back down the hill at about 12:25
a.m., we suddenly noticed a flickering object approaching from
the east over the city of Freiburg. The object appeared somewhat
oval or triangular in shape. The color was yellow or orange,
with a glistening or flickering of the color across the object.
It then appeared as if the object were hovering up in the sky.
The size was about one-quarter of the full moon."

"The object moved slowly and stealthily towards us at an
approximate great height (altitude). It took one minute for the
object to reach a point directly above us. We heard no sounds
that we could attribute to the object. The color continued to
flow across the object. When the object had reached a point
roughly above us, it stopped moving and remained motionless at a
point close to the star Capella in (the constellation) Auriga."

"After about three to four minutes, it started to move again
but it moved in a different direction and went north. The
(departure) speed was similar to its speed during approach."

"When the object halted above us, we started running home to
get our binoculars. Viewing it as it went away, the object
seemed smaller in size and retained its flowing orange color.
We used 10 X 40 binoculars to observe the object.. The shape
appeared to be similar to a triangle with a convex rounded base.
At that point, the object disappeared behind a wall of clouds
moving in from the north."

""The observed event, however, was different from anything I
have ever seen," he added.

Freiburg is located 100 kilometers (60 miles) southwest of
Stuttgart. (Email Form Report)

PAPER SAYS "MYSTERIOUS AGENCY" IS MAKING PAYOFFS IN NORTHERN
CHILE

"Peasants affected by the animal deaths attributed to the
Chupacabras have been visited in past weeks by 'unidentified
agencies' willing to purchase their silence."

"The Chupacabras continue to cause unexplained phenomena and
'backlashes' among the populations of the various rural sections
of Calama," a city in northern Chile which has been host to many
UFO and Chupacabra sightings recently.

"One Internet website" in Chile "discovered the fact that 'a
mysterious agency' is offering money in exchange for silence."

"The source, who asked to remain anonymous, said several
strange noises have been heard on their rooftops during the
course of past evenings, , aside from the sense of fear
conveyed by these incidents."

"They revealed that the lack of street lights in certain areas
makes the situation all the more disturbing. Dogs whine when
they begin to hear footsteps on the roof, and a strong smell of
decay can be perceived throughout the entire day."

"The peasants noted that they have again started to lose
animalism but claim having received money to keep quiet,
especially about missing cattle, to avoid any public
disturbance."

"Furthermore, some of the affected farmers claim to have
received cash from 'unidentified agencies' willing to 'pay' them
a certain amount for such animals but in exchange for their
silence. Some are told that that it's a loan they can use to
acquire new cattle; and others are told that they can use it as
they please, provided they don't report these events." (See the
Chilean newspaper La Estrella de Calama for January 6, 2001,
"Agency offers money in exchange for silence on Chupacabras."
Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales, autor de los libros Chupacabras
and Other Mysteries y Forbidden Mexico, a tambien Gloria Coluchi
para eso articulo de diario.)

MYSTERIOUS ENGINE FAILURES DOWN TWO SMALL PLANES

In Massachusetts, "a man was hospitalized after his small plane
lost power, hit a power line and dove into the Taunton River,"
an estuary of Mount Hope Bay just east of Smoerset,Mass.

"Peter Baldwin, pilot of the four-seat plane, walked away from
the crash and was listed in good condition. His flight departed
from Newport, Rhode Island."

In Utah, "the bodies of nine people were recovered from the
Great Salt Lake in Utah hours after a twin-engine plane
apparently crashed in five feet of water. There were no
survivors."

"The group was returning from a skydiving trip from Mesquite,
Nevada. when the plane went down late Sunday," January 14,
2001., officials said. "Helicopters and boats were used to
recover the bodies." (See USA Today for January 15, 2001,
"Massachusetts," page 6A; and January 16, 2001, "Nine die when
plane crashes in


Well, that's it for this week. Join us next time for more UFO
and paranormal news from around the planet Earth, brought to you
by "the paper that goes home - UFO Roundup." See you then.

UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2001 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.


E-Mail Reports to: Joseph Trainor <Masinaigan@aol.com>
or use the Sighting Report Form at:

http://ufoinfo.com/forms/form_sighting.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of the UK UFO Network Bulletin,
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences,
UFO + PSI Magazine also available, plus archives of
Filer's Files and Oz Files.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                        Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:25:02 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:10:16 +0000
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Roberts


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:31:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Brad wrote:

 >So Andy this has been one long semantic game of yours?

Isn't life one long semantic game Brad? Remember what the
Tom-Tom Club said.

 >I think
 >most of us on the List thought you meant misperceptions - only by
 >"IFO" when you've strenuously argued that UFOs become IFOs and
 >don't remain unexplained. Now you're saying a UFO case could be
 >identified or explained away as an ET spaceship ("Zog from
 >Zorg") and it would then become an Identified Flying Object or
 >IFO.

Exactly my point.

Of course a UFO case/sighting could have an ET spaceship as its
root cause! I don't think you'll find any sceptics on this List
who disagree. You probably couldn't find many 'debunkers' who
disagree either.

But the facts show that this has never yet been the proven,
demon strable case and that all cases which have been resolved
have been resolved as relatively mundane, prosaic objects or
phenomena.

If you know of a case which is different Brad, please tell.
Please.


Seizure later

Andy









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                 Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:40:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:14:17 +0000
Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's

 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?
 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:21:49 -0400

 >>From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:33:12 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?

 >>I'd like to contribute part of an article regarding the
 >>previous discussion about skeptics verses debunkers. It is a
 >>good review of the difference between the two and a reminder
 >>that in the end, the extreme skeptics sound very much like
 >>debunkers.

 ><snip>

 >>"Are Some Skeptics Debunkers
 >>in Sheeps Clothing?"

 >>By Keith Rowell (1995)

 >>It is always good to start with definitions and a standard
 >>dictionary helps us here.

 >>Debunker: One who exposes or ridicules the fallacy or
 >>fraudulence of.

 >>Skeptic: One who instinctively consistently doubts, questions,
 >>or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

 >>A debunker exposes or ridicules a false or mistaken belief.
 >>Evidently, a debunker knows that "craft piloted by alien beings"
 >>is a false belief.

 >>But how do debunkers know this?

 >>A rational debunker would ask, "What scientific or scholarly
 >>knowledge do we have about these craft, or UFOs?"

 >>It turns out that in the fifty-year history of UFOs there is
 >>only one (American) scientific study. This was the Air Force
 >>requested and funded Condon Study published in 1970.

Hi Stan, Kat, All,

 >In addition, I consider the 246 page "Symposium on UFOs"
 >published by the House of Representatives, Committee on Science
 >and Astronautics, an excellent collection of papers by
 >scientists including Hynek, Sagan, Menzel, Harder, myself et al.
 >The best paper was Dr. Jim McDonald's outstanding 71 page effort
 >(in larger print than was used by the Committee). It presents
 >detailed information about 41 of the cases Jim investigated.
 >Only $10.00 form UFORI including S & H.

Stan, I may have missed a posting, but have you ever stated your
opinion/estimation of the recent Sturrock Panel report, or
COMETA? I have always valued your informed and thoughtful
opinions. I'm curious as to how _you_ rate these two reports in
terms of content and value. (**I know this is 'off topic' to the
discussion about the Condon report, but I have always wanted to
ask you about Sturrock and COMETA. Now is as good a time as any!
;)

If you have already commented on them in other postings, could
you please provide me with the 'subject header' they appeared
under so I can look em up over at the UpDates/ UFOMind archive.
;)

Best to you and the family.


Regards,

John Velez


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                          Secrecy News -- 01/18/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:59:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:17:07 +0000
Subject: Secrecy News -- 01/18/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
January 18, 2001

**      PHOTO-INTERPRETATION FOR THE MASSES
**      MISSILE DEFENSE FRAUD ALLEGATIONS AIRED
**      GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS IN TRANSITION
**      OPERATION DESERT STORM: TEN YEARS AFTER
**      ASSASSINATION POLITICS


PHOTO-INTERPRETATION FOR THE MASSES

Interested members of the public can now study the theory and
practice of photo-interpretation in a NASA Remote Sensing
Tutorial available online.

The richly illustrated book-length Tutorial explores the use of
satellite imagery (mainly from Landsat) for a variety of
scientific, environmental and other applications, and introduces
the reader to the techniques of photo-interpretation.

Study of this text may not qualify the reader as a professional
photo-interpreter, but it will familiarize him or her with the
questions that photo-interpreters ask, the analytical tools they
have at their disposal, and the kinds of information they can
provide.

Although the Tutorial does not specifically deal with
intelligence imagery, the rudiments of photo-interpretation
explored here are generally applicable to all forms of imagery
analysis.

One might add that the diffusion of this kind of specialized
knowledge into the public domain has the potential to alter the
public's relationship to official imagery collection and
analysis agencies, including traditionally secret agencies, in
interesting ways.  It helps to further erode the mystique
cultivated by intelligence officials, who formerly held a
monopoly on high-resolution satellite imagery.  More important,
it also helps to support an intelligence-related knowledge base
that is independent of the intelligence bureaucracy with its
anachronistic information control policies.

The Remote Sensing Tutorial was originally published by NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center in 1999 (with updates in 2000), and
was co-sponsored by the U.S. Air Force Academy.  The primary
author is Nicholas M. Short.  It is re-posted with permission
here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/index.html


MISSILE DEFENSE FRAUD ALLEGATIONS AIRED

Allegations that defense contractors TRW and Boeing defrauded
the government in their work on a national missile defense were
spelled out with new clarity in a complaint filed in federal
court on January 6 on behalf of whistleblower Dr. Nira Schwartz.

The complaint argues that "TRW and Boeing have made multiple
false claims to the Government regarding the efficacy of TRW's
discrimination technology," which is supposed to distinguish an
actual incoming warhead from a decoy.  "TRW and Boeing have also
engaged in a campaign to cover up the severe scientific and
technical flaws in the TRW technology.  The claims of TRW and
Boeing defy scientific principles and contradict extensive test
data TRW collected, but systematically failed to disclose to the
Government," according to Schwartz, a former TRW employee.  TRW
and Boeing deny the charges of fraud.

At a time when ideological momentum in favor of deployment of a
national missile defense threatens to overwhelm sober policy
analysis, the pending lawsuit may help to restore some
technological realism to the debate.

A response to the Schwartz complaint is pending.  Establishment
of procedures for handling classified information related to the
case will be one of the major near-term challenges to be
addressed, said David E. Adelman, an attorney with the Natural
Resources Defense Council, which is representing Dr. Schwartz
along with attorneys Guy T. Saperstein and David W. Affeld.

The text of the new complaint is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/news01/schwartz-010105.h
tm


GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS IN TRANSITION

The change in Presidential Administrations is likely to produce
increased instability in public access to official records, as
new agency heads introduce new, not necessarily improved access
policies.

Government web sites, especially in the outer reaches of the
Defense Department's dot-mil domain, are already notorious for
their transiency.  It is always a good idea to make a local copy
of any interesting document found on a government web site, for
tomorrow it may be gone.

There used to be some 200,000 pages of Defense Department
records on human subject research in the Human Radiation
Experiments online archive at Argonne National Lab:

http://hrex.dis.anl.gov

About a year ago, however, all of these pages were taken offline
at the Pentagon's request for "review."  In theory, they are to
be "restored as soon as possible."  But after a year, they have
not been.  Fortunately, more than 50% of the missing records
have been secured by a diligent researcher named Gregory Walker,
who runs the Trinity Atomic Web Site:

http://www.enviroweb.org/issues/nuketesting/

At a press conference on Tuesday, White House Chief of Staff
John Podesta was asked, "Can you tell me what's going to happen
to the president's personal papers and official communications?"
The short answer is, it all gets transferred to the National
Archives.  For the long answer, see:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/01/wh011601.html


OPERATION DESERT STORM: TEN YEARS AFTER

The National Security Archive has assembled an unusually
interesting collection of official documents, some highly
classified until recently, concerning the Gulf War.

"This briefing book primarily focuses on the intelligence, space
operations, and Scud-hunting aspects of the war.  It also
includes a report describing how Desert Storm affected China's
view of future warfare, a document that raises questions as to
what lessons other nations have drawn from U.S. military
engagements in the Middle East and the Balkans."

The new collection, introduced and edited by Jeffrey T.
Richelson, may be found here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB39/


ASSASSINATION POLITICS

In a new bill introduced in the House of Representatives on
January 3, Rep. Bob Barr proposed to eliminate the longstanding
official prohibition against assassination.

Executive Order 12333, issued by President Reagan and currently
in effect, dictates that "No person employed by or acting on
behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or
conspire to engage in, assassination."  This restates similar
prohibitions issued by the Ford and Carter Administrations.

According to Rep. Barr, however, "These Executive orders limit
the swift, sure, and precise action needed by the United States
to protect our national security."

Rep. Barr did not indicate exactly who he wants the Government
to assassinate.  His bill does say, encouragingly, that
assassination "is a remedy which should be used sparingly."

Moral considerations aside, the consensus of opinion among
mainstream politicians of both parties has always been that the
United States has more to lose than to gain by legitimizing
assassination.

The text of the new bill, dubbed "The Terrorist Elimination Act
of 2001," was posted by John Young on his outstanding site
cryptome.org here:

http://cryptome.org/hr19.txt


******************************
To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message: subscribe
secrecy_news [your email address]

To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message: unsubscribe secrecy_news
[your email address]

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html


___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                       Re: Clark vs Evans - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:52:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:20:13 +0000
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Salvaille


 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:57:22 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >Subject: Clark vs Evans
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com
 >>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:31:32 EST
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks

 >>>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:29:06 -0000

 >>So Andy this has been one long semantic game of yours? I think
 >>most of us on the List thought you meant misperceptions - only by
 >>"IFO" when you've strenuously argued that UFOs become IFOs and
 >>don't remain unexplained. Now you're saying a UFO case could be
 >>identified or explained away as an ET spaceship ("Zog from
 >>Zorg") and it would then become an Identified Flying Object or
 >>IFO.

 >Hi, Brad!

 >I don't really think there's a game of semantics going on. I
 >understood exactly what Andy meant at the time that he wrote it.
 >It is ridiculously simple. If, as a witness claims, what they
 >saw was an object (as opposed to an hallucination) then the
 >thing actually exists. If a thing exists, then it has the
 >POTENTIAL of being identified. How long it will take isn't the
 >point at hand. We may never, in our lifetime, identify such
 >objects any more than 8th century scientists could identify
 >germs or bacteria or would understand that the some points of
 >light in the night sky were planets as opposed to stars.

 >I agree that all UFOs are IFOs in waiting. The only thing that
 >would prevent such a thing is if the UFO never existed in the
 >first place.


Hello, Roger, Brad and Andy,

Since there is no game of semantics going on, skeptics and
debunkers now state that a UFO can turn out to be a BOUM:
Behold! Object Un-fabricated by Man. BTW, BOUM is necessarily
manufactured.

My take on this is the following:

1. This a signed statement by Andy, who can come up with a few
specific cases, Roger is a semantic genius and quite a few
people on this List have just turned skeptic-debunker. Brad, go
to the back of the class.

2. Or Andy admits the possibility of BOUM. _Unfortunately_,
there is no case, to his knowledge, that would fit the BOUM
definition. Roger still thinks he's a semantic genius but cannot
read between the lines. Brad, move to the head of the class.

3. Or Andy cannot even contemplate BOUM. No need to be a
semantic genius. Brad, stay where you are. As for you, Roger...


Regards,

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                    1700's Massachusets UFO Report Sought

From: Stefan Duncan <bward3@nc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:18:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:22:25 +0000
Subject: 1700's Massachusets UFO Report Sought


There was a sighting by Plymouth, Mass. in the late 1700's, does
anyone have that report?


AUFON LIVE  radionet hosted by Stefan Duncan
9p.m.-11p.m. M-F  11p.m.-1a.m. SAT. (EST)click at website or
http://www.live365.com/cgibin/directory.cgi?autostart=aufon  when
broadcasting. Call in's 910-425-6962 emails are read also.
GUEST INTERVIEWS:
  If you would like to be a guest on the show, email Duncan or call. We can
either do a live show or pretape the show.  Call or email with breaking news
and UFO sightings.
1. PC to PC. Use  any of the following Yahoo Messenger, netphone2, paltalk,
phonefree. I will call you and do a pretaped show.
2.  ON LIVE.  (This is a one man operation, financed by one person. I am
unable to pay for  long distance interviews 27 nights a month.) Guests who
wish to be on live are asked to call at 9:30 pm on the night of If you would
like to be a guest of the show refer to the aufon.com and click on AUFON
LIVE to read about interviews.
  AUFON newswire/weekly newspaper
aufon-subscribe@egroups.com   http://www.aufon.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                                Book Reviews

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:11:03 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:26:10 +0000
Subject: Book Reviews


UFO Magazine Jan/Feb 2001, page 76

Abductions and Aliens
The psychology behind Extraterrestrial Experience
Author Chris Rutkowski

Review by Nick Redfern


The sub-title of this book is "The psychology behind
Extraterrestrial Experience". Now I know for many people any
mention of the word "psychology" brings their hackles up and
creates images of someone trying to convince abductee's that
their experience are "all in the mind". Chris Rutkowski is no
debunker, however. Rather, he's simply someone who has addressed
the whole abduction controversy in-depth with a view to
determining the truth.

It should be stressed from the outset that whilst Rutkowski is
not an adherent of the idea that physical beings from elsewhere
are actively abducting human beings on a regular basis, he does
realise (and amply demonstrates) that something unusual is going
on. And that whatever the nature of that phenomenon, in many
cases it can have a devastating effect on both the mental and
physical well-being of those caught up in the controversy. For
that reason alone, the author argues with conviction that the
abduction mystery is one more than worthy of both consideration
and investigation. With sections and information on seldom
discussed abductions accounts, shamanic encounters, tales that
would fit more inline with the reports of incubi and succubi of
old, how to cope with the abduction experience and comments and
observations from leading players in this particularly emotive
aspect of the UFO mystery, Abductions and Aliens is a worthy
addition to the fold. Please don't dismiss this book because it
may not sit well with your beliefs - give it a try; if you're
open-minded and receptive to new ideas and theories, you won't
be disappointed.

----------

You Can't Tell the People
Author Georgina Bruni

Here  we go again; another book on the dreaded "R" case. Nah,
not Roswell but Rendlesham. With three books on the events of
December 1980 already written or co-written by Jenny Randles and
with Larry Warren and Peter Robbins massive book "Left at East
gate" out there too, you might be forgiven for thinking that
nothing more could be said about what has been described
(rightly or wrongly) as "Britain's Roswell".

To her credit, however, Georgina Bruni has, in her first book,
succeeded in bringing to the fore a wealth of astonishing new
material on this particularly puzzling affair. As with Tim
Good's "Unearthly Disclosure" I suspect that Georgina's book
will generate mountains of controversy - just check out some of
the entries on the Internet's "UFO Updates" to get an idea of
what I mean.

Taking its title from a comment on UFO's made to the author by
Margaret Thatcher, the former prime-minister, the 449 page book
is a cracking addition to the Rendlesham controversy. It
contains a wealth of interviews with now retired military
personnel implicated in the events (who in many cases have never
spoken publicly before and confirm the presence of apparently
intelligently controlled machines from, well where?), previously
unseen documentation, testimony from those wanting to put the
record straight and hitherto unknown UFO encounters and secret
government projects undertaken in the vicinity of Rendlesham
forest.

Plus, "You Can't Tell the People" contains enough material to
warrant a follow-up, with rumours of time travellers from the
future, classified weather experiments, secret files, shadowy
surveillance operations and a distinct feeling that, even now,
the controversy is far from over.

Those familiar with the case will be aware of the claims and
counter claims concerning what went on in the forest on those
fateful nights 20 years ago, who said what, who was there and
who wasn't, whether or not the witnesses were mistaken by a
lighthouse, anomalous radar reports, "little men" running around
the woods and what the British and American authorities know (or
don't know) about the matter. To my mind, many of those issues
(thanks to Georgina) have been largely resolved- but not all of
them. For example, Georgina appears to be somewhat critical of
Larry Warren's version of events - involving the sighting of
apparent alien creatures and some form of mind control
procedure. Fair enough, Georgina is speaking her mind and that's
good.

However, Larry's case is an incredibly complex one and knowing
the man personally, I feel that people should acquaint
themselves with his book - if they haven't done so already - to
get his view rather than solely focusing on what Georgina has to
say.

To me, Larry is still a major, credible player in Rendlesham and
the one area that I felt should have been explored more by
Georgina was the apparent link that Larry and Peter make in
their book between Larry's experiences and the activities of the
National Security Agency. This could in fact prove pivotal to
the whole thing.

Similarly, I felt that Georgina was a little too easy on Nick
Pope when it came to the issue of documentation held by the MoD
on the case- particularly concerning his comments on a certain
memo generated by one Squadron Leader Moreland. Check it out.
Overall, however, Georgina has done Ufology and herself proud
and has proved that whatever went on in Rendlesham Forest (alien
landing, military accident, secret experiment, time travelling
visitors from the future or something else entirely), this
incident is far from closed.

The only thing missing, however, was a reference s ection -
maybe that can be rectified for the paperback edition?


--

In an infinite universe, infinitely anything is possible.
                         Sean Jones
               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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:26:27 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:28:56 +0000
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks


 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:57:22 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Clark vs Evans
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:31:32 EST
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks

 >>>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:29:06 -0000

 >Previously, Andy wrote:

 >>>It doesn't matter how long a case remained 'unidentified' (ie a
 >>>'UFO') it is _always_ an IFO in waiting. Simply because whatever
 >>>is seen _must_ be _something_. 'UFOs' are not seen - they are
 >>>just the name we give to something we cannot (yet) identify.
 >>>Have you been asleep for the past fifty years Sean or what? The
 >>>fact that we may not be able to resolve cases this week, last
 >>>week, or for six hundred years four months and three days
 >>>doesn't imply anything more or less exotic lies behind the
 >>>'UFO'. It just means it hasn't been identified yet.

 >Brad replied:

 >>So Andy this has been one long semantic game of yours? I think
 >>most of us on the List thought you meant misperceptions - only by
 >>"IFO" when you've strenuously argued that UFOs become IFOs and
 >>don't remain unexplained. Now you're saying a UFO case could be
 >>identified or explained away as an ET spaceship ("Zog from
 >>Zorg") and it would then become an Identified Flying Object or
 >>IFO.

 >Hi, Brad!

 >I don't really think there's a game of semantics going on. I
 >understood exactly what Andy meant at the time that he wrote it.
 >It is ridiculously simple. If, as a witness claims, what they
 >saw was an object (as opposed to an hallucination) then the
 >thing actually exists. If a thing exists, then it has the
 >POTENTIAL of being identified. How long it will take isn't the
 >point at hand. We may never, in our lifetime, identify such
 >objects any more than 8th century scientists could identify
 >germs or bacteria or would understand that the some points of
 >light in the night sky were planets as opposed to stars.

 >I agree that all UFOs are IFOs in waiting. The only thing that
 >would prevent such a thing is if the UFO never existed in the
 >first place.

 >Roger

Hi Roger,

I have to disagree. The general understanding has always been
that IFO's mean misperceptions and hoaxes, _not_ simply any
"object" whatsoever that has been "identified" including an ET
alien spacecraft. This is grossly distorting the accepted
parameters of discourse. To deny this and retreat back to the
literal meanings of the terms "UFO" and "IFO" does a disservice
to intellectual integrity by denying the existence of accepted
connotations and meanings that inevitably get attached to terms
in wide use. If you do that then you'll also have to take the
word "Flying" literally and exclude "spacecraft" that do not
technically-speaking "fly" by use of aerodynamic lift. You'll
have to exclude balloons and astronomical bodies such as Venus
from the "IFO" category because they technically don't "fly"
either.

It has been well understood that Andy Roberts' meaning was that
all UFO's are misperceptions or hoaxes and that UFO cases
therefore eventually become "IFO's" in the sense of being
explained away as conventional phenomena. If you now insist that
"IFO" doesn't have the meaning of conventional phenomena and
_only_ conventional phenomena, then pray tell _what_ term and
abbreviation should now be used in its place? CP? For
Conventional Phenomena or Crack Pot?


Brad








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:49:14 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:35:33 +0000
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Jones


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:29:06 -0000

 >Sean, for some bizarre reason, resurrected the following post
 >from me:

Obviously byou did not notice my mention of catching up with my
back log of posts.

 >>Andy Roberts said:

 >>All UFOs are IFOs in waiting.

 >>Now at first this really annoyed me.

 >Good.

 >>But then as I followed the
 >>rest of the post's to this thread it amused me.

 >Even better.
 >Two sensations for the price of one.
 >Normally I'd charge extra, but as I'm doing missionary
 >work among the hard of thinking.....

Damn you are just so magnanimous.

 >>It struck me as rather big headed of Andy to say this. I almost
 >>heard echo's of boastfulness, something along the lines of "give
 >>me just one chance and I can explain _every_ UFO sighting in the
 >>world" being uttered from the person who claims to be a skeptic.

 >I'm sure Jerry C would point out that the plural
 >of echo does not have a 's'.

You are right, it should have been echoes. But you didn't deny
the accusation though, did you.

 >>You state All UFOs are IFOs in waiting. If a UFO remains
 >>Unexplained after many years of investigation by different
 >>people using many different investigation techniques, how long
 >>would it have to remain unexplained before you will accept that
 >>it is unexplained? Or put another way. How long does a UFO
 >>have to remain unexplained before you will accept that it will
 >>not become an IFO?

 >Sean, Sean, Sean. I've had a long day at the rock face of
 >homelessnes in Halifax, dealing with issues which actually
 >affect people in reality so you'll forgive me if I find it hard
 >to take your pedantry seriously. But just for you I'll explain
 >again.

By golly, you sound so hard done by, do you not think that we
southerners earn a hard crust either?

 >It doesn't matter how long a case remained 'unidentified' (ie a
 >'UFO') it is _always_ an IFO in waiting. Simply because whatever
 >is seen _must_ be _something_. 'UFOs' are not seen - they are
 >just the name we give to something we cannot (yet) identify.
 >Have you been asleep for the past fifty years Sean or what? The
 >fact that we may not be able to resolve cases this week, last
 >week, or for six hundred years four months and three days
 >doesn't imply anything more or less exotic lies behind the
 >'UFO'. It just means it hasn't been identified yet.

OK since you state, quite clearly in this passage that _all_
UFOs are IFOs in waiting and your reasoning behind it. Could you
accept that a _possible_ answer to the riddle of _some_ UFOs is
that they _might_ be an alien spacecraft?

 >>We have on record several cases that are unexplained after a
 >>full generation have passed. As you folklorist's know a
 >>generation is considered to be fifty years, and we still have
 >>sightings from 1947 unexplained. I'm sorry but the pelican
 >>theory really does not hold water.

 >Yes?

 >&?

 >So?

So my dear chap, I was adding emphasis on the duration of time
that some UFOs have remained UFOs.

 >By some form of strange printed thinking Sean you seem to be
 >saying that if something remains unexplained for a long time it
 >gets automatically elevated to exotic status. The length of time
 >something remains unexplained does not alter anything about the
 >real nature of the object/misperception/ whatever which is the
 >cause of the sighting. And that would apply whether the initial
 >stimulus was Zog from Zorg or the five-fifteen Pelican coming in
 >from the Cascades.

Not knowing Zog personally, or any pelicans, I would have to ask
how can you say that I have "some form of strange printed
thinking"? I mean what is "some form of strange printed
thinking"?

 >>So tell me Andy, how old would a UFO tale have to be before you
 >>considered it to be a _genuine_ UFO? BTW to help you out, I'll
 >>already agree with you that not _all_ UFO's are from Zeta
 >>Reticuli.

 >See above.

 >And how do you know anyway?

Andy, Andy, Andy, You poor, poor soul. I _know_ not all UFOs are
from Zeta Reticuli because I have done just a weeny bit of
research into UFOs - or did you miss my article in the UK's UFO
Magazine called "101 Possible Explanations for UFOs" a few
years back?

--

    In an infinite universe, infinitely anything is possible.
                         Sean Jones
               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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                 Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:47:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:38:50 +0000
Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?
 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:37:48 -0000

 >>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:33:12 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >>Subject: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?

 >Hi Katharina,

 >>It turns out that in the fifty-year history of UFOs there is
 >>only one (American) scientific study. This was the Air Force
 >>requested and funded Condon Study published in 1970.

 >It's worth mentioning an official letter from the Air Ministry,
 >addressed to Prime Minister Winston Churchill (August 1952) in
 >response to his request for information regarding flying
 >saucers, it states:

 >'The various reports about unidentified flying objects described
 >by the Press as "Flying Saucers", were the subject of a full
 >Intelligence study in 1951..'

 >So it appears that Britain also did a study

 >The letter mentions that the Americans also carried out a
 >similar investigation in 1948/9.

Dear Georgina :

Thank you for your email. I (and I'm sure Keith) was unaware of
this British study. I will let him know about it. (Perhaps we
should update the article.) Can you tell me when this letter was
made public?

Thank you,

Katharina Wilson

****************









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                 Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:57:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:51:59 +0000
Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's


 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:45:55 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:33:12 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?

<snip>

 >Webster notwithstanding, I think that a skeptic can be a
 >debunker but a debunker cannot be a skeptic. The difference, in
 >my opinion, is that a true skeptic feels compelled to
 >investigate and find the truth, regardless of where a line of
 >reasoning may lead (or how unpopular). On the other hand, a
 >debunker has already made up his or her mind and nothing will
 >change that negative view, evidence be damned.

 >Why the confusion between the two?

 >On the surface, both skeptic and debunker may ask some of the
 >same, unpopular questions that seem to threaten the more zealous
 >within the UFO community. The end result of a skeptic's journey
 >may, in fact, lead to the debunking of a popular myth. However,
 >it may also uncover a great deal of evidence in support of a
 >given case. At the least, a skeptic will generally shed light on
 >some unexplored aspect of a claim; not such a bad thing, when
 >you think about it.

 >But, in the end, the skeptic simply looks at things with a
 >critical eye while the debunker doesn't even bother to look, at
 >all. The sceptic starts with a question and looks for an answer.
 >The debunker starts with an answer and simply stops there.

Dear Roger:

Thank you for your email response to my posting. I understand and
appreciate your comments. I think I was thinking more about the extreme
skeptic that borders on being a debunker rather than the pure scientific
skeptic verses the pure debunker. Sometimes it is hard to tell where people
are coming from. I found your comments to be interesting and I think the
subject is an important one to discuss.

Thanks again.

Sincerely,

Katharina Wilson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:33:10 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:16:03 +0000
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:25:02 -0000

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:31:32 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Brad wrote:

 >>So Andy this has been one long semantic game of yours?

 >Isn't life one long semantic game Brad? Remember what the
 >Tom-Tom Club said.

 >>I think
 >>most of us on the List thought you meant misperceptions - only by
 >>"IFO" when you've strenuously argued that UFOs become IFOs and
 >>don't remain unexplained. Now you're saying a UFO case could be
 >>identified or explained away as an ET spaceship ("Zog from
 >>Zorg") and it would then become an Identified Flying Object or
 >>IFO.

 >Exactly my point.

 >Of course a UFO case/sighting could have an ET spaceship as its
 >root cause! I don't think you'll find any sceptics on this List
 >who disagree. You probably couldn't find many 'debunkers' who
 >disagree either.

 >But the facts show that this has never yet been the proven,
 >demon strable case and that all cases which have been resolved
 >have been resolved as relatively mundane, prosaic objects or
 >phenomena.

 >If you know of a case which is different Brad, please tell.
 >Please.


Hi Andy,

Only as you phrase it I would totally agree with you, that all
UFO cases that have been explained or "resolved" resolve into
conventional phenomena. The problem is in shifting the
definitions of accepted terms (see my response to Roger Evans).

I also agree that no UFO case has ever been proven to be an ET
spaceship or manifestation of an alien civilization. I also
reject the ETH as a result of that fact plus the additional
facts that all reasonable testable hypotheses of ETH _to date_
have failed to be supported. I am open to the possibility that
better formulations of ETH scenarios might be confirmed and I've
given some suggestions on how to improve the hypothesis-building
methodology, but so far I do not see any evidence to persuade me
otherwise. The reason is best summed up that it seems difficult
to believe that an alien civilization would travel across the
galaxy just to pull up plants in a French lady's garden and
scurry back aboard the ship (as was actually reported in 1954).
It is possible to devise scenarios to explain this but unless
they provide a powerful heuristic and many testable implications
it will run seriously afoul of William of Occam (Ockham).

However, there are unexplained UFO cases that cannot be resolved
into IFO's (or whatever your preferred designation for
conventional phenomena must be), but do indicate an unexplained
"natural" phenomenon and form patterns that do not match the
IFO's and have more than sufficient information available for a
conventional explanation if one was possible.


Regards,

Brad Sparks








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                      UFO vs IFO [was: Clark vs Evans]

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:40:15 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:21:06 +0000
Subject: UFO vs IFO [was: Clark vs Evans]


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:52:17 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Salvaille

 >>Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:57:22 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>Subject: Clark vs Evans
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I wrote:

 >>I don't really think there's a game of semantics going on. I
 >>understood exactly what Andy meant at the time that he wrote it.
 >>It is ridiculously simple. If, as a witness claims, what they
 >>saw was an object (as opposed to an hallucination) then the
 >>thing actually exists. If a thing exists, then it has the
 >>POTENTIAL of being identified. How long it will take isn't the
 >>point at hand. We may never, in our lifetime, identify such
 >>objects any more than 8th century scientists could identify
 >>germs or bacteria or would understand that the some points of
 >>light in the night sky were planets as opposed to stars.

Serge replied:

 >Since there is no game of semantics going on, skeptics and
 >debunkers now state that a UFO can turn out to be a BOUM:
 >Behold! Object Un-fabricated by Man. BTW, BOUM is necessarily
 >manufactured.

 >My take on this is the following:

 >1. This a signed statement by Andy, who can come up with a few
 >specific cases, Roger is a semantic genius and quite a few
 >people on this List have just turned skeptic-debunker. Brad, go
 >to the back of the class.

 >2. Or Andy admits the possibility of BOUM. _Unfortunately_,
 >there is no case, to his knowledge, that would fit the BOUM
 >definition. Roger still thinks he's a semantic genius but cannot
 >read between the lines. Brad, move to the head of the class.

 >3. Or Andy cannot even contemplate BOUM. No need to be a
 >semantic genius. Brad, stay where you are. As for you, Roger...

Hi, Serge!

I guess this is funny. I dunno. I do feel that all UFOs have the
potential of being identified since they are, in fact, tangible.
This is not to say that all Reports of UFOs will turn out to be
linked to an IFO. This is because some reports might be false or
optical illusions. But for all reports of real objects seen in
the air that are unidentified (hence the aforementioned term
"UFO") it is my belief that they have the potential to be
identified.

Attempts at humor aside, for some reason you're making this more
difficult than it has to be. Either you feel that a given UFO
will be forever unidentified or you don't. Which is it and why?
What precognition gives you the ability to say that something
will forever remain unidentified?


Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:28:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:25:08 +0000
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:52:32 +0100
 >UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:35:17 -0500

 >>Looking it the direction of the UFO's
 >>departure one can see that the balloon theory constructed by
 >>super Chrirstian fundmentalist Larry Robinson is difficult to
 >>contemplate. Of course, we had an expert balloonist with us who
 >>didn't think much of this theory either.

 >After reading Larry Robinson proposal in The Anomalist 9 article
 >about the Socorro case (and also in his web page) I would be
 >very interested if you elaborate (publicly or privately).

I haven't read the Anomalist article, but based on his original
website presentation and his E-mails to me, I ask:

Robinson proposal? And he bases this on what? An incomplete
account of the case. In my correspondence with Robinson he did
not have the full account and did not realize that Zamora had in
fact retrieved his glasses after he hid behind his police
vehicle.

Since Robinson suggests a balloon, what had he done to determine
wind speed and direction? Nothing he was too busy with other
things.

The basis of his theory was an unidentified magazine article. He
doesn't know what magazine or if it indeed was about the Zamora
case, but it supposedly solved the case. I don't pretend that
Barry Greenwood's article database is complete, but it is the
next best thing. See:

http://www.project1947.com/shg/

for Greenwood's ARTCAT. We have not been able to locate such and
article and requests to the PJ47 list and others have also drawn
a blank.

So we have a sighting of an unidentified magazine, which may if
memory serves correctly explained the Socorro cases. An UMA,
unidentified magazine article.

Now if you look in the direction of the UFO departure, you have
an unobstructed view for a long distance. We would have to have
a gale force wind to get the object out of the sight.

Further Robinson, apparently has not examined any other
investigations of this sighting. Prof. Moore did an
investigation for Dr. James McDonald who supplemented this work.
Prof. Moore when he interviewed Zamora found that the object at
first move slightly towards Zamora when it lifted off kicking up
sand and debris. Does this sound like a hot balloon?

As for Robinson view of Biblical view of UFOs see his website,
you may have missed it.


Jan Aldrich

Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
(860) 546-9135









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 18

                           Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans

From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:33:06 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:26:58 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:26:27 EST
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:28:56 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks

 >>Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:57:22 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Clark vs Evans
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>I don't really think there's a game of semantics going on. I
 >>understood exactly what Andy meant at the time that he wrote it.
 >>It is ridiculously simple. If, as a witness claims, what they
 >>saw was an object (as opposed to an hallucination) then the
 >>thing actually exists. If a thing exists, then it has the
 >>POTENTIAL of being identified. How long it will take isn't the
 >>point at hand. We may never, in our lifetime, identify such
 >>objects any more than 8th century scientists could identify
 >>germs or bacteria or would understand that the some points of
 >>light in the night sky were planets as opposed to stars.

 >>I agree that all UFOs are IFOs in waiting. The only thing that
 >>would prevent such a thing is if the UFO never existed in the
 >>first place.

Brad replied:

 >I have to disagree. The general understanding has always been
 >that IFO's mean misperceptions and hoaxes, _not_ simply any
 >"object" whatsoever that has been "identified" including an ET
 >alien spacecraft. This is grossly distorting the accepted
 >parameters of discourse. To deny this and retreat back to the
 >literal meanings of the terms "UFO" and "IFO" does a disservice
 >to intellectual integrity by denying the existence of accepted
 >connotations and meanings that inevitably get attached to terms
 >in wide use.

<snip>

 >It has been well understood that Andy Roberts' meaning was that
 >all UFO's are misperceptions or hoaxes and that UFO cases
 >therefore eventually become "IFO's" in the sense of being
 >explained away as conventional phenomena.

Hi, Brad!

Having gone back over his posts related to the topic of UFO vs
IFO, I feel that his statement is still correct. Regardless of
whether or not a UFO is identified as swamp gas or ET craft, the
UFO in question has the potential of being identified; thus, an
IFO.

As far as your assertion:

 >The general understanding has always been
 >that IFO's mean misperceptions and hoaxes, _not_ simply any
 >"object" whatsoever that has been "identified" including an ET
 >alien spacecraft.

Obviously, this is incorrect. To say that it has always been
interpreted in a way that supports your position has no basis in
fact that I know of. No polls have been taken and I don't share
that understanding, nor do any of the people that I communicate
with on a regular basis. In fact, compared to "UFO", I find very
few references to the term "IFO" on UpDates at all, except in
connection to this thread where a debate seemingly exists to
define that very term!. Therefore, I think your claim is
premature, at best. A "general understanding" may, indeed, exist
for those that take issue with Andy's posts; but to say that the
majority shares your definition is a bit presumptuous.

"IFO" means Identified Flying Object and nothing else is
implied, in my book. Likewise, "UFO" means Unidentified Flying
Object and nothing else should be inferred. To suggest, or
worse, to encourage otherwise only adds confusion to a debate
already fraught with misconceptions and differences in
viewpoints. For someone that writes some of the most technically
accurate and specific posts on this list, I am surprised that
you would take such a precariously awkward position.


Take care,

Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 19

                           Re: UFO vs IFO - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:24:40 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:09:30 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Sparks


 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:33:06 -0600
 >From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:26:27 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:28:56 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Sparks

 >>>Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:57:22 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Clark vs Evans
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, I had written:

 >>>I don't really think there's a game of semantics going on. I
 >>>understood exactly what Andy meant at the time that he wrote it.
 >>>It is ridiculously simple. If, as a witness claims, what they
 >>>saw was an object (as opposed to an hallucination) then the
 >>>thing actually exists. If a thing exists, then it has the
 >>>POTENTIAL of being identified. How long it will take isn't the
 >>>point at hand. We may never, in our lifetime, identify such
 >>>objects any more than 8th century scientists could identify
 >>>germs or bacteria or would understand that the some points of
 >>>light in the night sky were planets as opposed to stars.

 >>>I agree that all UFOs are IFOs in waiting. The only thing that
 >>>would prevent such a thing is if the UFO never existed in the
 >>>first place.

 >Brad replied:

 >>I have to disagree. The general understanding has always been
 >>that IFO's mean misperceptions and hoaxes, _not_ simply any
 >>"object" whatsoever that has been "identified" including an ET
 >>alien spacecraft. This is grossly distorting the accepted
 >>parameters of discourse. To deny this and retreat back to the
 >>literal meanings of the terms "UFO" and "IFO" does a disservice
 >>to intellectual integrity by denying the existence of accepted
 >>connotations and meanings that inevitably get attached to terms
 >>in wide use.

 ><snip>

 >>It has been well understood that Andy Roberts' meaning was that
 >>all UFO's are misperceptions or hoaxes and that UFO cases
 >>therefore eventually become "IFO's" in the sense of being
 >>explained away as conventional phenomena.

 >Hi, Brad!

 >Having gone back over his posts related to the topic of UFO vs
 >IFO, I feel that his statement is still correct. Regardless of
 >whether or not a UFO is identified as swamp gas or ET craft, the
 >UFO in question has the potential of being identified; thus, an
 >IFO.

 >As far as your assertion:

 >>The general understanding has always been
 >>that IFO's mean misperceptions and hoaxes, _not_ simply any
 >>"object" whatsoever that has been "identified" including an ET
 >>alien spacecraft.

 >Obviously, this is incorrect. To say that it has always been
 >interpreted in a way that supports your position has no basis in
 >fact that I know of. No polls have been taken and I don't share
 >that understanding, nor do any of the people that I communicate
 >with on a regular basis. In fact, compared to "UFO", I find very
 >few references to the term "IFO" on UpDates at all, except in
 >connection to this thread where a debate seemingly exists to
 >define that very term!. Therefore, I think your claim is
 >premature, at best. A "general understanding" may, indeed, exist
 >for those that take issue with Andy's posts; but to say that the
 >majority shares your definition is a bit presumptuous.

Hi Roger,

Terminology is hardly ever established by polling because of the
difficulty involved, but rather by the consensus of established
use.  My impression from UFO literature of the past few decades
is that "IFO" does _not_ include ET spacecraft, and that it
means misperceptions of conventional phenomena, hoaxes and
psychological aberrations (hallucinations).  If you want to
refashion the definition of IFO to include ET vehicles then it
only shifts the arena of argument to another realm where we
_are_ talking about the same things.

 >"IFO" means Identified Flying Object and nothing else is
 >implied, in my book. Likewise, "UFO" means Unidentified Flying
 >Object and nothing else should be inferred. To suggest, or
 >worse, to encourage otherwise only adds confusion to a debate
 >already fraught with misconceptions and differences in
 >viewpoints. For someone that writes some of the most technically
 >accurate and specific posts on this list, I am surprised that
 >you would take such a precariously awkward position.

 >Take care,

 >Roger

Thank you for your kind remarks but as for confusing the
definition of IFO you snipped off the part of my post about how
if we took your ultraliteral definition then we could not
include sightings of Venus or balloons or even most spacecraft
because they don't "fly," they don't use aerodynamic lift.

The more important issue to me at least was whether UFO's are
all conventional phenomena and therefore will resolve eventually
to explained cases.  If you don't want to use the term IFO for
this then please suggest another, such as "CP" as I suggested.

Regards,

Brad







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 19

                   Science Stops, Stores and Starts Light

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:18:26 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:11:57 +0000
Subject: Science Stops, Stores and Starts Light


------------------------------------------------------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Electric Warrior : News January 18, 2001
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0006.htm

------------------------------------------------------------

SCIENCE STOPS, STORES, AND STARTS LIGHT

You might think controlling the speed of light boarders on
sci-fi.

In a landmark scientific achievement harnessing nature's fastest
form of energy, researchers say they have stopped, stored, and
released light, as if it were an ordinary particle of matter.

The New York Times reported today that two independent teams of
New England physicists are ready to publish their findings. The
implications of this break-through science could turn
bleeding-edge theoretical computing into viable technology.

The speed of light is slowed down by ordinary transparent media,
like glass, water or crystal. This common effect explains the
bending of light called refraction, and the distribution of
light into colorful spectra.

Researchers have now been able to slow light to a complete stop,
by shining two different laser beams, with slightly different
frequencies, into a normally opaque gas.

As the two lasers pass through the vapor it is rendered
transparent, in a phenomenon called electromagnetically induced
transparency.

The fist beam leaves a quantum imprint in the media, and as a
second beam is turned down, the first slows to a halt. When the
second laser is turned back up, the first beam is released.

------------------------------------------------------------

THE SCIENCE OF LIGHT

Two years ago, Dr. Lene Vestergaard Hau of Harvard University
had managed to slow light to about 38 m.p.h. Her work described
the use of Bose-Einstein condensates, which are defined by rules
of quantum mechanics.

According to Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the more
accurately a particle's position is determined, the less
accurately its momentum can be known, and vice versa.

Dr. Hau chilled a Bose-Einstein condensate to nearly absolute
zero, a temperature at which atoms barely move. Since zero is a
precise measure of momentum, the position of the atoms are
uncertain, and they theoretically overlap or merge into a
superatom, with quantum mechanical wave properties.

The phenomenon was first predicted by the theoretical physicists
Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein. A gas of
superpositioned atoms allowed Hau and her associates to slow
light down.

A second team of physicists led by Dr. Ronald L. Walsworth and
Dr. Mikhail D. Lukin of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics first slowed, and then stopped light completely.

------------------------------------------------------------

QUANTUM COMPUTING

High tech analysts immediately speculated about practical
applications for quantum computing, a recent theoretical science
whose time may now have come.

Contemporary computing is based on binary logic gates -- the
famous ones-and-zeros inside silicon based microprocessors.
Futuristic quantum logic gates are much more versatile, and
promise a staggering leap in computational power.

It's the storage of light and quantum information, not simply
the stopping and starting of it, that have a bearing on another
important aspect of computing -- computer memory. Quantum memory
could make quantum computers a reality.

And, while the sheer processing power of quantum computers could
defeat today's best data encryption technologies, the
'uncertainty principal' means that quantum communications could
never be cracked or eavesdropped upon.

The prospect of secure high-speed quantum computing devices is
welcome news for I/O bound hurry-up-and-wait electric warriors,
who can never get enough privacy, bandwidth or processing power.

------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED STORIES

Scientists Bring Light to Full Stop, Hold It, Then Send It
on Its Way

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/18/science/18LIGH.html?pagewanted=all

Quantum Computing with Molecules

http://www.sciam.com/1998/0698issue/0698gershenfeld.html

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
January 18, 2001
Silicon Valley, CA

------------------------------------------------------------
Permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this article
or any portion thereof, provided The Electric Warrior is cited
as the source.

Images are created exclusively for the Electric Warrior Website.
They can be downloaded and cached for individual use, but may
not be reproduced or used in any other context without
permission.

Web developers, the URL address for this content is:

http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0006.htm

eWarrior@electricwarrior.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 19

                         Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:22:20 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:16:08 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille


 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:40:15 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >Subject: UFO vs IFO [was: Clark vs Evans]
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:52:17 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Salvaille

 >>>Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:57:22 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>>Subject: Clark vs Evans
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>Since there is no game of semantics going on, skeptics and
 >>debunkers now state that a UFO can turn out to be a BOUM:
 >>Behold! Object Un-fabricated by Man. BTW, BOUM is necessarily
 >>manufactured.

 >>My take on this is the following:

 >>1. This a signed statement by Andy, who can come up with a few
 >>specific cases, Roger is a semantic genius and quite a few
 >>people on this List have just turned skeptic-debunker. Brad, go
 >>to the back of the class.

 >>2. Or Andy admits the possibility of BOUM. _Unfortunately_,
 >>there is no case, to his knowledge, that would fit the BOUM
 >>definition. Roger still thinks he's a semantic genius but cannot
 >>read between the lines. Brad, move to the head of the class.

 >>3. Or Andy cannot even contemplate BOUM. No need to be a
 >>semantic genius. Brad, stay where you are. As for you, Roger...

 >Hi, Serge!

 >I guess this is funny. I dunno. I do feel that all UFOs have the
 >potential of being identified since they are, in fact, tangible.
 >This is not to say that all Reports of UFOs will turn out to be
 >linked to a IFO. This is because some reports might be false or
 >optical illusions. But for all reports of real objects seen in
 >the air that are unidentified (hence the aforementioned term
 >"UFO") it is my belief that they have the potential to be
 >identified.

 >Attempts at humor aside, for some reason you're making this more
 >difficult than it has to be. Either you feel that a given UFO
 >will be forever unidentified or you don't. Which is it and why?
 >What precognition gives you the ability to say that something
 >will forever remain unidentified?

<snip>

Hello Roger,

Look, this is all very simple. If you read your previous post
about what you thought Andy said and what Andy meant, read today:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/jan/m18-014.shtml

... You will note that my crystal ball hit #2 on the head:

 >>2. Or Andy admits the possibility of BOUM. _Unfortunately_,
 >>there is no case, to his knowledge, that would fit the BOUM
 >>definition.

E.g. Andy's open mind and good will is poppycock when it comes
to UFOs: his mind is already made up. Like all debunkers I
know, he suffers from acute selective Alzheimer's disease.
Although we are on the verge of preventing and curing
Alzheimer's disease (thank God), skeptics and debunkers will
necessarily reject the treatment. This should be funny, but it
is not. It's absurd.

If you think I am making this more difficult than it is, I think
the problem is on your side. You are missing the whole point: in
human language, there is the literal sense and the true meaning.
An example would be that you're full of it. Every human being
carries a definite quantity of feces in his intestinal tract...
So, you are literally full of it. But is this the meaning of the
expression?

We can all argue until we are blue in the face that a UFO
ultimately becomes a IFO, even if it turns out to be a
Manufactured Object Not Fabricated by Mankind. So, yeah, yeah,
all UFOs become IFOs.

But, in the end, this is all yak manure, as any scientific mind
knows that an IFO, _as freaking confirmed by common day usage_,
cannot be and will never be in the closed mind of a skeptic a
Manufactured Object Not Fabricated by Mankind. As such, if we
want to avoid confusion, we must condescend to the debunker and
recognize that a IFO effectively cannot be a Manufactured Object
Not Fabricated by Mankind. When it does, it's a UFO man!

Hence, many people on this List are entitled to say to Andy that
he is full of it when he says that all UFOs turn out to be IFOs.

Simple, eh?

Regards,

Serge









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 19

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:59:27 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:18:36 +0000
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:52:32 +0100
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:07:59 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:35:17 -0500

 >>Looking it the direction of the UFO's
 >>departure one can see that the balloon theory constructed by
 >>super Chrirstian fundmentalist Larry Robinson is difficult to
 >>contemplate. Of course, we had an expert balloonist with us who
 >>didn't think much of this theory either.

 >After reading Larry Robinson proposal in The Anomalist 9 article
 >about the Socorro case (and also in his web page) I would be
 >very interested if you elaborate (publicly or privately).

 >Yours,

 >Luis R. Gonzlez


The many, many things wrong with Robinson's hot air balloon
theory I detailed in two posts about a year and a half ago.

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/1999/aug/m21-007.shtml

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/1999/aug/m26-016.shtml

In the first post, I did some simple calculations about the
minimal size of a hot air balloon needed to be to lift a pair of
midgets off the ground. Even with extreme assumptions, the
smallest possible balloon would have been much too large to have
fit the car-size description of the craft described by Lonnie
Zemora.

The second post was a direct response to Larry Robinson in which
I pointed out even more absurdities and impossibilities of his
theories. Besides a hot air balloon being much too large, the
other arguments were basically this:

1. Zemora never described the gondola with crew suspended from
underneath of Robinson's "hot air balloon", even though Zemora
was very close to the object at takeoff and would have clearly
seen the crew so-suspended if they were there.

2. Robinson can't explain the deep landing marks found on the
hard ground. A hot air balloon would have been much too light to
have made these if the descent was controlled. If the balloon
came crashing down because the balloon was deflated, the crew
would hardly have dusted themselves off, reinflated the balloon
and taken off a few minutes to escape the rapidly approaching
Zemora.

3. Similarly, Robinson can't explain the burning of the brush on
the ground. He claimed the burner would have been turned
sideways to reinflate the balloon, but this still doesn't
explain the burning, nor can he explain how the balloon could be
reinflated in only a minute or two.

4. The winds, let us not forget the winds. The winds were
blowing briskly at the time. No hot-air balloonist in their
right mind would have been flying under such conditions, nor
would they have taken off again under such conditions after
having crash-landed (got to explain those landing marks!).
Furthermore, Zemora reported the object very rapidly disappeared
in the distance to the west, which means the "balloon" would
have had to be flying _against the wind_. To make matters even
worse, it would have taken hurricane force winds for the object
to disappear that quickly even if the winds were blowing in the
right direction. This means the "balloonists" would have been
utterly crazy to have taken off again. Also, very strangely,
despite the strong winds, the "balloon" showed no evidence of
having been dragged across the ground after landing.

Beginning to get the picture of what is wrong with Robinson's
balloon theory?

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 19

                           An FT Over Matlock, UK

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:41:56 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:34:52 +0000
Subject: An FT Over Matlock, UK


Source: The Matlock Mercury Online, Derbyshire - UK

http://195.172.106.83/news/story7.html

Friday
January 19

More UFOs seen in the Matlock skies

UFO spotters should start looking to the skies again following
one of the most spectacular sightings in the Dales yet.

During the autumn months, around 15 Mercury readers contacted us
after seeing coloured lights and flying saucers - one woman even
caught her close encounter on video.

Now the little green men are back! At 11.30pm on January 13,
69-year-old Anne Saunders of Matlock saw a spaceship hovering
over Crich.

She said: "I looked through the bedroom window and saw a massive
triangle in the sky.

"I thought, 'Good God'! I am a sceptic, or at least, I was - I
thought it was a reflection in my glasses!"

But it was no reflection. After further investigation,
mum-of-two Mrs Saunders said she couldn't believe her eyes.

The retired local government officer and her husband watched the
craft for three minutes.

The triangle was full of pulsating coloured lights with a dark
centre. It made no noise.

"Then the front end bit broke away," continued Mrs Saunders,"
and flew across the sky at tremendous speed towards the Masson
hillside.

"When it re-appeared, there was no uniformity. It was just a
random shape of pulsating lights, clustered together.

"I was absolutely gobsmacked. I was looking from one to the
other and thinking I must be dreaming.

"It was massive. This has certainly inspired me to be a
believer."

Mrs Saunders now goes to bed at night armed with binoculars and
a camera - just in case.

Have you seen anything strange in the skies over the Peaks or
Dales? If so, telephone news editor Andy Darlington on (01629)
582432.

by Andy Darlington
Published: 17.1.01 � Wilfred Edmunds Newspapers ltd






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 19

                 Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's

From: Greg St. Pierrre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:48:32 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:48:48 +0000
Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's


Hello Katharina and Listerines,

I posted the following links a couple years back, and I'd like
to post them again. I consider them to be two of the best
articles ever written about the skeptical and/or debunker
viewpoints.

Formulation and Predictions of the ETH

http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/discussion/Eth.htm


The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

http://www.evansville.net/~slk/trickery.htm

Enjoy,

Greg










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 19

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:18:13 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:51:24 +0000
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:56:00 -0800

 >>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:03:04 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net
 >>>Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:09:07 -0800
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

 >>>I am planning a trip to Roswell, NM. I am hoping people on the
 >>>List could provide me with the latest information regarding the
 >>>location(s) of the alleged 1947 Roswell crash site(s)? I am
 >>>looking for precise driving and hiking directions.

 >>Hi, Charles!

 >>You might try and contact Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>about
 >>both Socorro and Roswell. He supposedly talked to the
 >>"cameraman" via Santilli on the phone about the sights. However,
 >>as I recall, the cameraman's directions were a little squirrely.
 >>In addition, it was Bob's opinion that certain landmarks have
 >>since disappeared or never existed. I believe the best you will
 >>do is either a site that is speculated to be ground zero or
 >>possibly, at best, a general area. I am not sure that he, nor
 >>anyone else, knows precisely the exact location(s).

 >Hello Roger,

 >You must be kidding. If I recall well, the "cameraman" never
 >existed. No one, not even Bob Shell, knows who the guy
 >is/was/ever existed.


The AA film, (known in some circles as the Alien Fraudtopsy) is
an interesting piece of work. In this case all we have is the
so-called 'testimony of the camera' and not the testimony of the
photographer, nor can any photog be found, dead or alive.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 19

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:29:53 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:59:45 +0000
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Gates


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:25:02 -0000

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:31:32 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>So Andy this has been one long semantic game of yours?

 >Isn't life one long semantic game Brad? Remember what the
 >Tom-Tom Club said.

 >>I think
 >>most of us on the List thought you meant misperceptions - only by
 >>"IFO" when you've strenuously argued that UFOs become IFOs and
 >>don't remain unexplained. Now you're saying a UFO case could be
 >>identified or explained away as an ET spaceship ("Zog from
 >>Zorg") and it would then become an Identified Flying Object or
 >>IFO.

 >Exactly my point.

 >Of course a UFO case/sighting could have an ET spaceship as its
 >root cause! I don't think you'll find any sceptics on this List
 >who disagree. You probably couldn't find many 'debunkers' who
 >disagree either.

 >But the facts show that this has never yet been the proven,
 >demon strable case and that all cases which have been resolved
 >have been resolved as relatively mundane, prosaic objects or
 >phenomena.

 >If you know of a case which is different Brad, please tell.
 >Please.

I was under the impression that no matter what case was
presented, the skeptics/debunkers would instantly telling us
various tales and storys about venus, planets, lighthouses and
pelicans, or any other explaination, which no matter who thinly
stretched would fit the skeptic bill so to speak.

If the skeptics are unable to find anything, even if thinly
stretchec, they then seem to fall back on the idea of "Well, it
will be explained away someday....."

Somehow I suspect my impression is dead on accurate and no
matter how many storys are told and said by the skeptics, they
will still default to one of the above.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 20

                           Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:50:37 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:09:18 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:24:40 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Sparks

 >>Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:33:06 -0600
 >>From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>Having gone back over [Andy's] posts related to the topic of UFO vs
 >>IFO, I feel that his statement is still correct. Regardless of
 >>whether or not a UFO is identified as swamp gas or ET craft, the
 >>UFO in question has the potential of being identified; thus, an
 >>IFO.

 >>As far as your assertion:

 >>>The general understanding has always been
 >>>that IFO's mean misperceptions and hoaxes, _not_ simply any
 >>>"object" whatsoever that has been "identified" including an ET
 >>>alien spacecraft.

 >>Obviously, this is incorrect. To say that it has always been
 >>interpreted in a way that supports your position has no basis in
 >>fact that I know of. No polls have been taken and I don't share
 >>that understanding, nor do any of the people that I communicate
 >>with on a regular basis. In fact, compared to "UFO", I find very
 >>few references to the term "IFO" on UpDates at all, except in
 >>connection to this thread where a debate seemingly exists to
 >>define that very term!. Therefore, I think your claim is
 >>premature, at best. A "general understanding" may, indeed, exist
 >>for those that take issue with Andy's posts; but to say that the
 >>majority shares your definition is a bit presumptuous.

Brad replied:

 >Terminology is hardly ever established by polling because of the
 >difficulty involved, but rather by the consensus of established
 >use.  My impression from UFO literature of the past few decades
 >is that "IFO" does _not_ include ET spacecraft, and that it
 >means misperceptions of conventional phenomena, hoaxes and
 >psychological aberrations (hallucinations).  If you want to
 >refashion the definition of IFO to include ET vehicles then it
 >only shifts the arena of argument to another realm where we
 >_are_ talking about the same things.

Hi, Brad!

Well, on the one hand, you admit the usage has never been gauged
in any way, then use the notion that you've seen it printed in
the past as evidence of consensual usage. For every publication
out there that uses the term IFO to mean swamp gas (i.e. non-ET
in nature), I'm sure there is one that sticks to the strict
definition of the word. Again, without some polling to see A)
how many publications use each of the two meanings and B) how
many readers agree with the application of the term in question,
then we're right back where we started.

I have always used one definition, you use another. I guess
we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. However, I think
you'd have to agree that the definition you prefer is very vague
and, since I and others do not employ the meaning you do, then
there is no "general understanding" or we wouldn't be debating
it now!

Regarding such, I had written:

 >>"IFO" means Identified Flying Object and nothing else is
 >>implied, in my book. Likewise, "UFO" means Unidentified Flying
 >>Object and nothing else should be inferred. To suggest, or
 >>worse, to encourage otherwise only adds confusion to a debate
 >>already fraught with misconceptions and differences in
 >>viewpoints. For someone that writes some of the most technically
 >>accurate and specific posts on this list, I am surprised that
 >>you would take such a precariously awkward position.

Brad replied:

 >Thank you for your kind remarks but as for confusing the
 >definition of IFO you snipped off the part of my post about how
 >if we took your ultraliteral definition then we could not
 >include sightings of Venus or balloons or even most spacecraft
 >because they don't "fly," they don't use aerodynamic lift.

 >The more important issue to me at least was whether UFO's are
 >all conventional phenomena and therefore will resolve eventually
 >to explained cases.  If you don't want to use the term IFO for
 >this then please suggest another, such as "CP" as I suggested.

I understand what you are saying and you do make a good point.
However, by your own admission, you apply the term "UFO" to
potential ET craft that do not fly at all or to something that
may, in fact, not even be an object. In the end, it would seem,
the only real terms that can be applied with any degree of
accuracy are "Unidentified" and "Identified"; these are the
determining factors. Whether or not they are "Flying Objects" is
really a moot point since, in either definition of choice, the
term is likely to be inaccurate, as you pointed out.

As such, we return to where we started: All tangible things
unidentified have the potential of being identified. WHAT they
are ultimately identified as is a whole different issue. As I
explained in another post, I do not share Andy's belief that all
UFO's will eventually be explained away as conventional
phenomena. However, I do believe that anything tangible can be
identified as to its true nature.


Take care,

Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 20

                           Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:19:21 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:11:55 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:22:20 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille

 >>Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:40:15 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>Subject: UFO vs IFO [was: Clark vs Evans]
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>Attempts at humor aside, for some reason you're making this more
 >>difficult than it has to be. Either you feel that a given UFO
 >>will be forever unidentified or you don't. Which is it and why?
 >>What precognition gives you the ability to say that something
 >>will forever remain unidentified?

Serge replied:

 >Look, this is all very simple. If you read your previous post
 >about what you thought Andy said and what Andy meant, read today:

 >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/jan/m18-014.shtml


Hi, Serge!

I read the post and I still don't have a clue what your beef is.
On the one hand, you feel that Andy is a debunker because you
feel he refuses to believe in the possibility of ET craft. Then,
when he admits the possibility in his explanation, you aren't
satisfied and write:

 >Andy's open mind and good will is poppycock when it comes
 >to UFOs: his mind is already made up. Like all debunkers I
 >know, he suffers from acute selective Alzheimer's disease.

The way I read it, Andy admits the possibility of ET life, but
feels that the pattern of resolutions regarding UFO cases will,
unfortunately, proceed to a point where all will be explained by
conventional phenomena. I don't feel that they will. However, I
do so in the face of an obvious pattern that he has correctly
pointed out. In other word, I see the pattern, but don't believe
it will proceed to the conclusion he does. What's so hard to
understand about that?

Continuing, Serge wrote:

 >We can all argue until we are blue in the face that a UFO
 >ultimately becomes a IFO, even if it turns out to be a
 >Manufactured Object Not Fabricated by Mankind. So, yeah, yeah,
 >all UFOs become IFOs.

 >But, in the end, this is all yak manure, as any scientific mind
 >knows that an IFO, _as freaking confirmed by common day usage_,
 >cannot be and will never be in the closed mind of a skeptic a
 >Manufactured Object Not Fabricated by Mankind. As such, if we
 >want to avoid confusion, we must condescend to the debunker and
 >recognize that a IFO effectively cannot be a Manufactured Object
 >Not Fabricated by Mankind. When it does, it's a UFO man!

Serge, you amaze me. On the one hand, you clearly understand the
concept since you admit that all UFOs can become IFOs. On the
other hand, you stoop to the depths of confusion by promoting
the notion that an IFO can never be a "Manufactured Object Not
Fabricated by Mankind".

Tell me, does such a definition preclude Pelicans? I know of
none ever manufactured by mankind... ;)

Just kidding.

I understand what you are saying. I suggest you see my related
post to Andy.


Later,

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 20

                         Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:22:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:19:23 +0000
Subject: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham


To EBK and Listers:

THe reason for this post is to correct an error in the
discussion of the testimony by Col. Robert Willingham, USAF
Ret., regarding a crash near the Texas-Mexico Border of a flying
saucer.

Back on December 12, Nick Balaskas posted a message ssaying that
his Name Day was the 50th anniversary of an event that nearly
started WWIII. That day was Dec. 6, 1950. There ensued a
discussion of the of the Dec 6, 1950 supposed incident of a
TRUFO (True UFO; in this case an ET craft) crash south of the
Texas-Mexico Border. Brad Sparks responded to Balaskas with a
message that included the following:

(Dec. 12 message)

 >As for the alleged UFO crash, this is the fraudulent Lt Col
 >Willingham story that he later admitted he had fabricated from a
 >rumor he had heard as a boy. It was investigated by Todd Zechel
 >who made a leap in conclusion as great as Moore and Friedman did
 >on Roswell. Moore & Friedman jumped to the conclusion that the
 >Barney Barnett story from Western New Mexico was connected to
 >the Roswell Incident in Eastern New Mexico even though it had no
 >date or even a year. The bogus Barnett story gave them alien
 >bodies and an obvious crashed saucer; the Roswell case gave it
 >all a date. Later they admitted there was no basis for linking
 >these two stories (see MUFON proceedings 1982 and 1985), but by
 >then it was too late, the connection was etched in people's
 >minds.

 >Zechel likewise jumped to the conclusion that the undated story
 >he got from the Bowen family was connected to Willingham's even
 >though it too was undated. All Zechel knew was that Col John
 >Bowen served as provost marshal at Carswell AFB, Ft. Worth,
 >Tex., 1948-52. Willingham's story had air defense radars
 >purportedly tracking the UFO from Alaska to Washington to a
 >90-degree turn over Colorado then a crash in Mexico just over
 >the border from Texas (Willingham claimed he flew to the landing
 >site, it was cordoned off, etc.) -- only problem was that there
 >were no air defense radars in Colorado or Texas that could have
 >tracked any such maneuvers until about 1952 or later. But,
 >without a shred of evidene. Zechel connected it all to the FBI
 >document of Dec. 8, 1950, saying the AF had declared an
 >"Immediate High Alert" on reporting flying discs. That gave the
 >dateless floating stories a date.

Subsequently Brad wrote (in a, later, Dec 15 message):

( message):
 >Hi Larry, Bruce, Nick & List,

 >Bruce has posted a lot of the material I had been thinking of,
 >except that the Zechel data omits Zechel getting Willingham to
 >admit he had fabricated his whole story from a rumor he heard as
 >a boy involved in the Civil Air Patrol. Apparently the only
 >thing actually contained in the rumor was about a UFO crash in
 >Mexico, nothing about a radar tracking across the country, F-94,
 >etc. If I remember correctly Willingham heard this around 1953
 >and wasn't sure what date applied (of course the Scully hoax
 >stories circulated in early 1950 about a UFO crash in Mexico).
 >The full-blown made-up story conflicted with the actual
 >distribution of ADC radar station coverage -- I recall reading
 >in the declassified ADC History that the first radar station in
 >the interior of the country that was not on the nation's
 >perimeter was set up at Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, N.Mex.., in
 >1951, and more followed elsewhere. But there were apparently
 >none available to track the purported UFO's exploits after
 >alleged detection in Washington State (a perimeter region) in
 >1950.

 >The ADC History explained that because of severe budget
 >limitations it was thought best to have early warning of Soviet
 >bomber attack by complete coverage of the U.S. periphery so that
 >at least the fact of an attack would be known some hours in
 >advance even if the exact targets remained unknown. Thus, enemy
 >bombers could cross our borders and we would see that on radar
 >but afterward we would have no sure knowledge of where the
 >bombers went, making fighter interception extremely difficult.
 >The plan was to fill in the interior of the country with radar
 >stations capable of directing fighter interception to attacking
 >bombers, as and when funds became available, beginning with
 >highest priority strategic areas, and then supplement radar
 >observations with Ground Observer Corps visual sightings to fill
 >in what was essentially a nation full of gaps in air defense
 >radar coverage. The Korean War opened up the funds for a more
 >in-depth ADC radar coverage.

 >As Bruce noted, the DEW Line part of Willingham's story was
 >complete garbage and so is the Zechel story of purportedly
 >seeing a declassified Top Secret document in 1975 supposedly
 >confirming his reconstruction of Willingham's story complete
 >with a DEW line in Dec 1950 when it did not yet exist, wasn't
 >even on the drawing boards. I was in contact with Zechel from
 >1977 to the early 80's on his hundreds of hours of long-distance
 >calls, plus letters, document copies, and book manuscripts, and
 >he never once mentioned such a document even in his treatments
 >of the Willingham story.

 >The DEW Line wasn't even conceived of until 1952, and
 >construction did not begin until late 1954 after Eisenhower
 >signed the authorization bill on Feb. 15, 1954. The first
 >station became operational in 1955. However, this crashed-saucer
 >falsehood is now enshrined in that great pastiche of
 >demonstrable lies (due to sloppy historical research by the
 >hoaxer), the MJ-12 1st Annual Report which claims that on Dec.
 >6, 1950, the (nonexistent) DEW line in Greenland tracked a
 >breach in our defenses headed SW. This pack of lies goes on to
 >say that a recovery team was sent from Projects STORK and MOON
 >DUST -- projects that did not yet even exist in 1950 (STORK at
 >Battelle was initiated in 1951 and MOON DUST after the Sputnik
 >launch of 1957).

(Note: the above discussed event forms part of the paper
'Immediate Saucer Alert' published in the 1999 MUFON Symposium
Proceedings. The investigation of this event was spurred by the
discovery (over 20 years ago) of the Dec 8, 1950 FBI document
that reports an immediate high alert for all information abou
flying saucers. The testimony about an actual crashed disc came
from Robert Willingham, AF retired. Willigham first told this
story in the late 1970's. His affadavit is published in Kevin
Randle's book un UFO Crashes.)

As I said that the outset, the reason for this message is to
correct an error and to comment on the radar.

The error was made by Brad Sparks who claimed that Willingham
recanted his story. Sparks attributes the information about this
recantation to Todd Zechel. Zechel was the first person to
interview Willingham in depth and Zechel even arranged for
Willigham to be taken by a Japanese news crew to the supposed
location of the crash.

At the time of Sparks' statements above I said nothing, although
I was susprised and doubted that it was true that Willingham had
recanted. I was aware that he was interviewed in extent a year
ago by a Texas TV reporter. I have a copy of the interview and
there is certainly no recantation there.

The reason for this message at this time is that I have been in
communication with Todd Zechel who was Brad's source for the
information about Willingham. According to Zechel, Willingham
did NOT recant his story. However there was another man who DID,
one Ronald Brooks. Zechel thinks that Sparks, in recalling this
over many years, has confused Willingham with Brooks.

At any rate, as I pointed out above, Willingham's recent
testimony 'sticks by' his original story. You can read his
statement in Randle's 'A History Of UFO Crashes'
(Avon Books, NY, 1995).

............................

Regarding the radar aspect of Willingham's testimony, it is
clear that there was no "DEW Line" (Distant Early Warning) at
the time,. However, there were powerful radars that could have
detected an object in the vicinity of the supposed crash site
and north of that. In my 'Immediate Saucer Alert' paper I wrote:

    "There is a discrepancy in Willingham�s story which probably
    is a result of faulty memory. He said that the UFO was
    detected by "the radar control station on the DEW (Distant
    Early Warning) line (NORAD - North American Defense Command)"
    and that the DEW radar "kept following it and they claimed
    that it crashed somewhere off between Texas and the Mexico
    border." The DEW line was not established until late 1953 and
    it was located in Alaska and northern Canada, so it could not
    possibly have tracked an object over Texas. The closest Air
    Defense Command radar at the time was at Walker AFB at
    Roswell, NM. However, this was also too far away. On the
    other hand there were Air Force bases in Texas which probably
    had radar installations that could have tracked the object
    reported by Willingham. Dyess AFB at Abeline is more than 200
    miles from the Del Rio area of Texas. This is beyond the
    range of typical radar installations of the time (see
    discussion below) and so a radar at Dyess would not have been
    able to determine that an object went below the radar horizon
    or crashed at the distance of Del Rio. However, a radar
    installation at Kelly AFB, Brooks AFB or Randolph AFB, all
    near San Antonio, could have tracked an object to the
    vicinity of Del Rio without exceeding the range of the
    radar."

(Radar discussion referred to above)

    "By the beginning of WWII radar technology had developed to
    the point that aircraft detections at 150 miles were common.
    After the Japanese attack in December, 1941, the Army
    deployed, along the east and west coasts of the US, radar
    sets capable of detecting aircraft at 150 mile range at
    20,000 ft elevation. By the late 1940�s there were radar sets
    capable of a 200 mile range at 40,000 ft. A valuable
    reference in this regard is "Searching the Skies; The Legacy
    of the United States Cold war Defense Radar Program"
    published by the USAF Air Combat Command (David Winkler,
    June, 1997) which recounts the history of the early warning
    radar that was set up by the Air Defense Command."

The 'bottom line' is that Willingham could well have, correctly,
remembered that radar detected the object and at the same time
he may have incorrectly assumed that it was detected by the DEW
line radar that was well publicized in 1953. He was not, after
all, involved in the development of radar so would not be
expected to know how various radar setups were designated.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 20

                 Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:53:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:26:24 +0000
Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's


 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:40:27 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?
 >>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:21:49 -0400

 >>>From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:33:12 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?

 >>>I'd like to contribute part of an article regarding the
 >>>previous discussion about skeptics verses debunkers. It is a
 >>>good review of the difference between the two and a reminder
 >>>that in the end, the extreme skeptics sound very much like
 >>>debunkers.

 >><snip>

 >>>"Are Some Skeptics Debunkers
 >>>in Sheeps Clothing?"

 >>>By Keith Rowell (1995)

 >>>It is always good to start with definitions and a standard
 >>>dictionary helps us here.

 >>>Debunker: One who exposes or ridicules the fallacy or
 >>>fraudulence of.

 >>>Skeptic: One who instinctively consistently doubts, questions,
 >>>or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

 >>>A debunker exposes or ridicules a false or mistaken belief.
 >>>Evidently, a debunker knows that "craft piloted by alien beings"
 >>>is a false belief.

 >>>But how do debunkers know this?

 >>>A rational debunker would ask, "What scientific or scholarly
 >>>knowledge do we have about these craft, or UFOs?"

 >>>It turns out that in the fifty-year history of UFOs there is
 >>>only one (American) scientific study. This was the Air Force
 >>>requested and funded Condon Study published in 1970.


 >>In addition, I consider the 246 page "Symposium on UFOs"
 >>published by the House of Representatives, Committee on Science
 >>and Astronautics, an excellent collection of papers by
 >>scientists including Hynek, Sagan, Menzel, Harder, myself et al.
 >>The best paper was Dr. Jim McDonald's outstanding 71 page effort
 >>(in larger print than was used by the Committee). It presents
 >>detailed information about 41 of the cases Jim investigated.
 >>Only $10.00 form UFORI including S & H.

 >Stan, I may have missed a posting, but have you ever stated your
 >opinion/estimation of the recent Sturrock Panel report, or
 >COMETA? I have always valued your informed and thoughtful
 >opinions. I'm curious as to how _you_ rate these two reports in
 >terms of content and value. (**I know this is 'off topic' to the
 >discussion about the Condon report, but I have always wanted to
 >ask you about Sturrock and COMETA. Now is as good a time as any!


John:

I have touted the COMETA report and even took the trouble to make a few
copies for people who might comment to a reporter I hoped would do a story

Per a request from Jeff Rense, I then made some more and offered
the 90 page Translation (done for the FUFOR) for $10.00
including S and H from me at UFORI, POB 958, Houlton, ME
04730-0958.

Michel Algrin from COMETA hit the ceiling, called me a
counterfeiter and plagiarist and demanded I stop. He still
hasn't answered questions about when or if COMETA will ever
distribute the translation. Kind of absurd to talk about a
report and then not have it available despite the Boston Globe
article.

The report isn't perfect (i.e. no mention of my work on Roswell
or electromagnetic propulsion) but was done by high caliber
people who spent a great deal of time.

The Sturrock Report was, in contrast, done by taking a group of
very well educated people who knew nothing about UFOs, were
exposed to excellent researchers like Dick Haines and Bruce
Maccabee and asked for their opinion..... Very reminiscent of
the Robertson Panel. Nobody can get up to speed in a few days so
their opinions aren't really worth much even though there was
good publicity and their intentions were good.


Stan









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 20

                           The Klass Files On-Line

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:06:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:31:40 +0000
Subject: The Klass Files On-Line



FYI.

(I haven't checked it out yet, so I don't have anything to say.)

_________________________________________


From: Barry Karr [mailto:SkeptInq@aol.com]

Amherst, NY (January 19, 2001) -- Look out all ye Roswell
conspiracy theorists and forgers of presidents' signatures: the
Truth finally is "out there" -- right here at www.csicop.org,
that is.

CSICOP is pleased to announce the debut of "The Klass Files" at:

www.csicop.org/klassfiles

The Klass Files is CSICOP's online library of the full text of
back issues of SUN -- Philip J. Klass' famous Skeptics UFO
Newsletter.

Currently, issues #26 through #30 are available. Additional
issues will be added as fast as we get the text online: the goal
is to soon have a complete library of back issues from #1.

The Committee thanks Phil Klass for allowing them to republish
this classic of skeptical UFO research.











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 20

                        For Australian Skywatchers...

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:12:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:34:33 +0000
Subject: For Australian Skywatchers...


Source: Goddard News for January 19, 2001


Activity continues at the launch site in Alice Springs,
Australia for the launch of the Ultra-Long Duration Balloon.

A Mission Readiness Review was held today and the team is now
targeting launch for Sunday morning in Australia (late Saturday
afternoon EST).

The ULDB is carrying the NIGHTGLOW experiment from Goddard.

To view photo, go to:

http://pao.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/GNEWS/011901/011901.htm#ULBD









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 20

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:39:20 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:36:04 +0000
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Rimmer


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:29:53 EST
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I was under the impression that no matter what case was
 >presented, the skeptics/debunkers would instantly telling us
 >various tales and storys about venus, planets, lighthouses and
 >pelicans, or any other explaination, which no matter who thinly
 >stretched would fit the skeptic bill so to speak.

But this is surely exactly what the "bunkers" (I assume that's
the opposite of "debunker") do as well. A UFO has to be an
extraterrestrial spaceship, or at the very least an unsolvable
mystery. No matter what explanation is presented, the bunkers
instantly trash it - they don't have to examine it in any
detail, so long as they can find an easy soundbite to denounce
it, such as "flying lighthouse". The Rendlesham case is
remarkably complex, and it is clear that no-one will ever sort
out the minutae of what happened, but it is also clear that the
Orford lighthouse and the lightship were crucial factors. The
cause of serious ufology is not served by the bunkers trying to
dismiss them with silly remarks about "flying lighthouses".

 >If the skeptics are unable to find anything, even if thinly
 >stretchec, they then seem to fall back on the idea of "Well, it
 >will be explained away someday....."

But the bunkers are desperate to hold on to the mystery, no
matter how conclusive an explanation may be. Acknowledged hoaxes
are attributed to "government disinformation" and man-made crop
circles are re-mystified by claims that strange alien forces
made the culprits do it. And if all else fails, and the case is
totally explained, like the Sheffield so- called "crash", they
just resort to lies.

 >Somehow I suspect my impression is dead on accurate and no
 >matter how many storys are told and said by the skeptics, they
 >will still default to one of the above.

And no matter how many cases are explained to the satisfaction
of all reasonable people, the bunkers will default to their
position of irrational belief and denial.



John Rimmer

Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 20

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:37:44 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:37:31 +0000
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:18:13 EST
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


Morning Robert

<Snip>

 >The AA film, (known in some circles as the Alien Fraudtopsy) is
 >an interesting piece of work. In this case all we have is the
 >so-called 'testimony of the camera' and not the testimony of the
 >photographer, nor can any photog be found, dead or alive.

Excuse me for nosing in here. Has the AA film been conclusively
proven to be fake?

I'm sorry but I was still under the impression that the evidence
was still inconclusive.



--

    In an infinite universe, infinitely anything is possible.
                         Sean Jones
               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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 20

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:07:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:20:09 +0000
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:37:44 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:18:13 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Morning Robert

 ><snip>

 >>The AA film, (known in some circles as the Alien Fraudtopsy) is
 >>an interesting piece of work. In this case all we have is the
 >>so-called 'testimony of the camera' and not the testimony of the
 >>photographer, nor can any photog be found, dead or alive.

 >Excuse me for nosing in here. Has the AA film been conclusively
 >proven to be fake?

 >I'm sorry but I was still under the impression that the evidence
 >was still inconclusive.


Hello Sean:

I can only speak for myself of course.

Unless I am very mistaken, virtually any and every person in
ufology, those whose opinions I respect at least, consider the
AA (Santilli) film to be a complete and utter fake... as phony
as a three dollar bill.

Nobody will have absolute proof until Santilli and/or company
'fess up of course, but for the time being, I consider it to be
trashed beyond recognition.

 >     In an infinite universe, infinitely anything is possible.
 >                          Sean Jones
 >                http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/

The universe is not infinite.

Best wishes

- Larry Hatch.











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 20

                     Re: An FT Over Matlock, UK- Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:55:45 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:29:34 +0000
Subject: Re: An FT Over Matlock, UK- Ledger


 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:41:56 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: An FT Over Matlock, UK

 >Source: The Matlock Mercury Online, Derbyshire - UK

 >http://195.172.106.83/news/story7.html

 >Friday
 >January 19

 >More UFOs seen in the Matlock skies

 >UFO spotters should start looking to the skies again following
 >one of the most spectacular sightings in the Dales yet.

 >During the autumn months, around 15 Mercury readers contacted us
 >after seeing coloured lights and flying saucers - one woman even
 >caught her close encounter on video.

 >Now the little green men are back! At 11.30pm on January 13,
 >69-year-old Anne Saunders of Matlock saw a spaceship hovering
 >over Crich.

 >She said: "I looked through the bedroom window and saw a massive
 >triangle in the sky.

 >"I thought, 'Good God'! I am a sceptic, or at least, I was - I
 >thought it was a reflection in my glasses!"

 >But it was no reflection. After further investigation,
 >mum-of-two Mrs Saunders said she couldn't believe her eyes.

 >The retired local government officer and her husband watched the
 >craft for three minutes.

 >The triangle was full of pulsating coloured lights with a dark
 >centre. It made no noise.
 >
 >"Then the front end bit broke away," continued Mrs Saunders,"
 >and flew across the sky at tremendous speed towards the Masson
 >hillside.

 >"When it re-appeared, there was no uniformity. It was just a
 >random shape of pulsating lights, clustered together.

 >"I was absolutely gobsmacked. I was looking from one to the
 >other and thinking I must be dreaming.

 >"It was massive. This has certainly inspired me to be a
 >believer."

 >Mrs Saunders now goes to bed at night armed with binoculars and
 >a camera - just in case.

 >Have you seen anything strange in the skies over the Peaks or
 >Dales? If so, telephone news editor Andy Darlington on (01629)
 >582432.

 >by Andy Darlington
 >Published: 17.1.01 � Wilfred Edmunds Newspapers ltd


Hi Kelly

It's too bad that Darlington doesn't have his email address
attached to this piece. I would like to ask him why he
deliberately attempted to sabotage the story at the outset with
such an archaic term/phrase as "little green men". By using it
he managed to insult the witness while still getting a story and
maintaining an arms-length distance from the subject matter
himself. That is gutless.

Note though that he still wants more for his paper. In this way
he gets his readership up for two reasons. He gets those
interested in UFOs and those who have a superior attitude to
those flakes who see these things, purchasing his paper. The
cycle goes on.

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 20

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: James Bond Johnson <JBONJO@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:30:56 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:10:49 +0000
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:07:17 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

 >>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:37:44 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

<snip>

 >Unless I am very mistaken, virtually any and every person in
 >ufology, those whose opinions I respect at least, consider the
 >AA (Santilli) film to be a complete and utter fake... as phony
 >as a three dollar bill.

 >Nobody will have absolute proof until Santilli and/or company
 >'fess up of course, but for the time being, I consider it to be
 >trashed beyond recognition.

But how do you explain the multiple symbol matches by RPIT
Reinforced in the Ramey Photos and the AA film?

James Bond 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 20

                         Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:56:36 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:13:19 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille


 >Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:19:21 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:22:20 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille

 >>>Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:40:15 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>>Subject: UFO vs IFO [was: Clark vs Evans]
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>But, in the end, this is all yak manure, as any scientific mind
 >>knows that an IFO, _as freaking confirmed by common day usage_,
 >>cannot be and will never be in the closed mind of a skeptic a
 >>Manufactured Object Not Fabricated by Mankind. As such, if we
 >>want to avoid confusion, we must condescend to the debunker and
 >>recognize that a IFO effectively cannot be a Manufactured Object
 >>Not Fabricated by Mankind. When it does, it's a UFO man!

 >Serge, you amaze me. On the one hand, you clearly understand the
 >concept since you admit that all UFOs can become IFOs. On the
 >other hand, you stoop to the depths of confusion by promoting
 >the notion that an IFO can never be a "Manufactured Object Not
 >Fabricated by Mankind".

<snip>

Hello Roger and List,

Communication is in essence exchanging ideas. To do so, people
need a common language with common understanding of words.
Semantics encompasses the true meaning of human discourse.

I clearly understand the concept of IFO. I'm not stupid. On the
other hand, I clearly understand the Robertsian meaning of IFO.
I'm not stupid: Andy's use of the word IFO makes the word a
semantic trap.

Look, Roger, we're talking about Andy, who is a professed
skeptic and debunker. We both know that the words 'skeptic' and
'debunker' have a certain meaning in a dictionary but are used
in an entirely different context on this List.

We're talking about people who have succeeded in changing the
semantics of two words in the English language, stripping them
from any nobility whatsoever. Even worse: relishing the
underlying insult.

Quite an achievement don't you think?


Regards,

Serge







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 21

                 Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:25:05 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:45:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?
 >Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:53:51 -0400

 ><snip>

 >Per a request from Jeff Rense, I then made some more and offered
 >the 90 page Translation (done for the FUFOR) for $10.00
 >including S and H from me at UFORI, POB 958, Houlton, ME
 >04730-0958.

 >Michel Algrin from COMETA hit the ceiling, called me a
 >counterfeiter and plagiarist and demanded I stop. He still
 >hasn't answered questions about when or if COMETA will ever
 >distribute the translation. Kind of absurd to talk about a
 >report and then not have it available despite the Boston Globe
 >article.

 >The report isn't perfect (i.e. no mention of my work on Roswell
 >or electromagnetic propulsion) but was done by high caliber
 >people who spent a great deal of time.

 >The Sturrock Report was, in contrast, done by taking a group of
 >very well educated people who knew nothing about UFOs, were
 >exposed to excellent researchers like Dick Haines and Bruce
 >Maccabee and asked for their opinion..... Very reminiscent of
 >the Robertson Panel. Nobody can get up to speed in a few days so
 >their opinions aren't really worth much even though there was
 >good publicity and their intentions were good.

The French are of a peculiar mindset when it comes to protecting
their own. Even if it is a report. Especially if it is a report
of this magnitude... potentially. It's been my experience in
dealing with them, that unless you are one of their mindset,
hire an expert to do business with them.

Even something which should be in the public domain.

I remember the exchange you had with Algrin. It was unfortunate.
But as with similar events, Stan, it is sometimes difficult to
separate an egoist from his ego, eh? In any case, I am on your
side of it. You tried to do good.


Jim Mortellaro







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 21

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:53:28 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:48:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)


 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:37:44 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:18:13 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Robert wrote:

 >>The AA film, (known in some circles as the Alien Fraudtopsy) is
 >>an interesting piece of work. In this case all we have is the
 >>so-called 'testimony of the camera' and not the testimony of the
 >>photographer, nor can any photog be found, dead or alive.

Sean replied:

 >Excuse me for nosing in here. Has the AA film been conclusively
 >proven to be fake?

Hi, Sean!

Well, I have to agree with Robert on this. The AA film is pretty
much a bust as the alleged cameraman seems to be as elusive as
smoke.

Regarding your comment:

 >I'm sorry but I was still under the impression that the evidence
 >was still inconclusive.

I guess that depends on what you consider as "evidence". I see
nothing in the video that seems "real" to me based on my
experience in O.R. as a medical illustrator or based on my
experience as a cinematographer producing documentaries and the
like.

To the average person, the scene may look real; indeed, I
believe that is what the intended audience was expected to be.
However, the average person probably believes that a 357 Magnum
really sounds like Dirty Harry's 357 Magnum in the movies. They
have no idea that a REAL 357 magnum sounds like "bonk" when
recorded on tape. What is used in the movies is a recording of a
75mm cannon, played at double speed. Likewise, anyone that has
ever seen a real fist fight knows that a fist hitting a guy's
jaw sounds pretty unimpressive, as compared to the movies.
Additionally, so many fake documentaries have used the
"shaky-cam" approach that it has become ubiquitous within
programs trying to make it seem "real" when, in reality, most
documentaries have very carefully staged and smooth camera
moves.

In short, movies have become so pervasive in our lives that
people's expectations of a reality they've never experienced
have been skewed in favor of a higher fantasy element. Like the
"hyped" 357, fist fight or shaky-cam, AA plays up to the general
audience's EXPECTATIONS of what archival documentary footage
would look like as opposed to what REAL documentary footage
would look like.

Think of it like this: Let's say you stumbled, unexpectedly,
upon a flying saucer in the woods and, upon closer inspection,
you felt the skin and it turned out to be paper-mache. You could
either assume that A) the ETs in question have advanced
paper-mache interstellar craft building techniques or B) that
the craft is a fake, even though you have absolutely no
background as a designer of interstellar craft.

AA may "look" real to the average person, but the sloppiness of
the camera work, alone, is the "paper mache touch" that gives it
away as a fake, in my opinion.

Just ask yourself this question: Given that such an event would
have been the singular, most important discovery in the history
of the world, does it really make sense that the government
would have been so cheap and hurried in the execution of both
the autopsy or the documentation? If all U.S. documentary
footage up to that time shared the same characteristics as the
AA footage, then a point could be made in favor of authenticity.
Such is not the case. Likewise, if NASA was known to use
paper-mache in building rockets then, perhaps, the flying saucer
in the woods might stand up to such scrutiny. Such is not the
case.

Common sense says that rockets aren't made of paper mache when
metal is available and documentaries of aliens from outer space
aren't shot out of focus in low light on super grainy black and
white stock by clumsy cameramen when better resources are
obviously available to a government that has nothing but better
resources.

One last thing: For those that believe that the sloppy
appearance of AA was because there was a critical time element
involved; I say nonsense. It was a common practice then, and
today, to refrigerate bodies until adequate preparations were in
effect. Something as important as the alleged event that was the
catalyst for AA would have generated more serious and competent
handling of both the autopsy and the documentation.

Roger







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 21

                           Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:00:07 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:01:47 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:56:36 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille

 >>Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:19:21 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Serge wrote:

 >Communication is in essence exchanging ideas. To do so, people
 >need a common language with common understanding of words.
 >Semantics encompasses the true meaning of human discourse.

 >I clearly understand the concept of IFO. I'm not stupid. On the
 >other hand, I clearly understand the Robertsian meaning of IFO.
 >I'm not stupid: Andy's use of the word IFO makes the word a
 >semantic trap.

 >Look, Roger, we're talking about Andy, who is a professed
 >skeptic and debunker. We both know that the words 'skeptic' and
 >'debunker' have a certain meaning in a dictionary but are used
 >in an entirely different context on this List.

Hi Serge!

As I outlined in another post, a skeptic can be a debunker but a
debunker cannot be a skeptic. If you really feel that Andy is a
debunker at heart, then to label his as both is incorrect. I
only make a point of this because you've made accuracy of
communication the focus of this discussion. Since you listed him
as both, should I take that as a reflection of your ability to
communicate? Should I read something into your words that isn't
really there?

Regarding semantics, again there has been no survey taken that
says "IFO" means what only you claim. In fact, while I find
"UFO" in five different dictionaries, the term "IFO" doesn't
appear once. To claim that there is a consensual agreement on
the meaning of "IFO" is simply not true. However, I will make a
note of the meaning that you prefer, as unspecific and confusing
as it may be.

More to the point, Andy was asked what he meant and he gave a
very clear answer. The fact that you don't want to believe him
really doesn't change the meaning of the answer. In fact, it
would seem to me that your position has more to do with your
distaste for Andy than it does for clarifying the "IFO" issue.
I'm not sure that personality likes and dislikes is a good
barometer for validating information.

After all, you once wrote:

 >>I hope SETI keeps on being a flop.  Why?  Because any success
 >>would give the same SOBs more un-earned respectability and more
 >>un-earned credibility.  The people from SETI are, in my opinion,
 >>on the OTHER side of the fence: the side of mainstream science,
 >>which has deliberately and malevolently kept ufology in a
 >>ghetto.

and this charmer:

 >>I hope they choke.

Now, should I use semantics and interpret the above info however
I prefer? Do you really want contact with ET life to be a
failure? Do you really feel that SETI mothers are of
questionable heritage? And just how many Ufologists live in
public housing, by the way? Do "mainstream scientists" come
around every so often in white hoods and deliberately and
malevolently burn crosses to keep the Ufologists from getting
"uppity".

And finally, should I assume that you really want SETI
participants to die?

After all, I think there is a consensual understanding of what
the term "choke" means.

Think about this when questioning the meaning of what others
write.

Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 21

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:56:01 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:25:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >From: James Bond Johnson <JBONJO@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:30:56 EST
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:07:17 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

 >>>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:37:44 +0000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

 ><snip>

 >>Unless I am very mistaken, virtually any and every person in
 >>ufology, those whose opinions I respect at least, consider the
 >>AA (Santilli) film to be a complete and utter fake... as phony
 >>as a three dollar bill.

 >>Nobody will have absolute proof until Santilli and/or company
 >>'fess up of course, but for the time being, I consider it to be
 >>trashed beyond recognition.

 >But how do you explain the multiple symbol matches by RPIT
 >Reinforced in the Ramey Photos and the AA film?

 >James Bond Johnson

All,

Further to Bond's comment re the linkage found between his
photographs and the AA film "debris footage", I have placed a
couple of example images on the _new_ RPIT website showing just
what we mean.

I apologies to regular visitors to the _old_ Fort Worth Pics
site, but I had to close that server down at very short notice
shortly before the end of last December. It's contents are
currently being revised and moved to the new site which is still
in the middle of construction but will eventually be accessed
via the domain name:

www.rpit.org

This link is working now but only to the front pages of the site
which contain examples of _all_ the known images taken in Gen
Ramey's office on the 8th July 1947.


To return to the example AA link images, as there are no site
links to these image files currently, they are _only_ accessible
by using the following full URL's:

http://www.thefortworthphotographs.freeserve.co.uk/images/s2ancmpx.jpg

http://www.thefortworthphotographs.freeserve.co.uk/images/ml-m-sma.jpg

NB. Both these files are aprox 120-150k and 1500x1200 pixels, it
might be best to save them to disk and examine them later via a
graphics package should you download them.

These findings only currently relate to the "debris footage"
section of the AA film, just how widely this has been seen in
full in the US I am not sure, but from tapes of various US shows
that featured the AA film they don't seem to have aired anything
like the full 3 mins of this section.

Finding the curious "linkage" between the AA and the FW images
has prompted a further closer look at the Autopsy Footage on my
part, with some interesting developments which are still
ongoing, I hope to present these in the near future.


Best regards,

Neil








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 21

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:40:28 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:30:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


Regarding...

 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:52:32 +0100
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:07:59 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

Luis wrote:

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:35:17 -0500

 >>Looking it the direction of the UFO's departure one can see
 >>that the balloon theory constructed by super Chrirstian
 >>fundmentalist Larry Robinson is difficult to contemplate. Of
 >>course, we had an expert balloonist with us who didn't think
 >>much of this theory either.

 >After reading Larry Robinson proposal in The Anomalist 9 article
 >about the Socorro case (and also in his web page) I would be
 >very interested if you elaborate (publicly or privately).

Luis,

You might wish to consider another viewpoint.

I'm not sure why Larry Robinson deserves being called a 'super
Chrirstian [sic] fundmentalist [sic]'. Is this somehow related
to Larry's commendable efforts to solve a 'UFO' case rather than
perpetuate the supposed 'mystery'?

Whatever the reason, I presume it's not meant to be
complimentary! I'm sure Larry - a fully-paid-up skeptic - will
be more amused than horrified at being labelled thus.

Often, those who proclaim the apparent inability to positively
identify Zamora's object want to believe - and want you to
believe - it must surely have came from outer space. Obviously
if proven that it didn't, this would be devastating to their
coexistent claims that the supposed great flying
saucer/UFO/abductee cover up, etc. should be taken seriously.

It's no coincidence these are frequently the same people who
also can't figure out the simplicity of the flying saucer
mythology, even given fifty years of trying, and remain
perpetually 'frustrated' by their eternal failures. ;)


On November 3, 1949, 'Charlie Moore', better known to us now as
Professor Charles Moore, made the first flight using a plastic
[non gas-operated] balloon. He has a lifetime's experience in
the field of 'ballooning' and is certainly qualified to offer an
opinion on the Socorro evidence as he understands it.

However, the 'father' of hot-air ballooning is Don Piccard. As
one writer commented:

"Don Piccard's list of firsts is impressive - and almost
endless. Piccard made the first post-World War II free flight in
1947, with a captured Japanese Fu-Gos; a small, hydrogen-filled
paper balloon. In 1948, he organized the first balloon club in
the United States; the Balloon Club of America. In 1957 he flew
in the first plastic gas balloon, the Pleiades. The Pleiades,
his design (based on his father's idea), is also a first as it
consists of not one envelope, but a cluster of seven; just like
the famed Seven Sisters of Greek mythology.

What else? Piccard did some of the first work in using laminated
Mylar for superpressure balloon envelopes. In the 1960s, he was
instrumental in getting hot-air ballooning recognized as a
serious sport when he organized the first balloon races. And in
1963, along with Ed Yost, Don Piccard was the first to fly the
English Channel in a hot-air balloon. The first hot-air balloons
sold in Europe and South Africa were built by Piccard's company
and a Piccard-manufactured balloon, Red Dragon, was one of the
first three that launched hot-air ballooning as a sport in
England.

Taken as a whole, Don Piccard's accomplishments are awe-
inspiring".


During 1999, the Socorro case featured prominently in
discussions on the 'UFO Research List' [UFORL] and a vast amount
of significant material emerged. Don Piccard was familiar with
the Socorro 'UFO' story and assisted with my own research, as
did one of 'Raven Industries' contemporary [1960s] senior
executives, now since retired. He had actually investigated
Larry Robinson's assertions and was an immense help to myself,
clarifying major aspects relating to the entire perspective.

Central to this was the executive's following revelations -
which I haven't previously published, verbatim, publicly:

"I had heard the name Zamora before, but I never knew what
incident he was associated with, nor the details of his
sighting, such as where it happened. You have clarified that and
it allows me a new line of thought.

I have long been aware of some hot air balloon flights in New
Mexico in the early to mid-1960s for research purposes. These
have always been referred to as the [deleted - James]. But
Socorro is not all that far from [deleted - James] and there may
be a connection. I saw a film of those flights about 10 years
ago and at least some of them were with an all-white balloon,
having a platform for the crew.

At the time of that viewing, I made some notes that I still
have. The balloons of that description were built between Dec
1962 and Feb 1963. I was not able to pinpoint the flight dates,
but speculated then that they were probably late 1963 or into
1964. This is beginning to sound very significant.

[...]

[End]


Some of the extraordinary background to this story featured in
'Voyager' newsletter No. 7 - see:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/v07.txt


Incidentally, from my recollection of discussions on UFORL, it
was discovered, apparently for the first time, that the original
investigation of Zamora's sighting wasn't entirely competent -
the local airport had never been contacted to check if they knew
of any conceivably related flights that day.

One of the notable insights on UFORL was Larry Robinson's
exceptional knowledge about both the case and contemporary hot-
air balloon technology. He was able to factually explain why the
trace evidence was consistent with the type of platform and
burner then in use.


If the opinion of 'Professor Moore' is being thrown on the
table, then I'll see it and raise a 'Don Piccard'!

Ironic, that if we were discussing Roswell, the truly expert
opinions of Professor Moore on that topic would be castigated...


As my own case research, involving FOIA requests, is actually
still ongoing, there's nothing further I will add outwith this
commentary and pointless discussing ,until pending, focused,
enquiries are completed.

In the meantime, I would suggest it might be wise not to dismiss
Larry Robinson's, initial, clever recognition of how Zamora's
'UFO' resembled a hot-air balloon.

For what it's worth, this is a copy of a synopsis I posted to
UFORL in 1999:

The following seems to be a relatively accurate summary of the
events following Zamora's main encounter with the enigmatic
object.

It sets in context the main issues and is taken from 'Socorro
Saucer', by Ray Stanford. My comments are clearly marked:

[Start]

 From the moment of getting out of the police car, Zamora had
been carefully noting details. "From my new position [viewing
from northwest] I was able to see mainly what might be the side
of the object. ...It was oval shaped. ...It was smooth. Saw no
windows or doors"

...Zamora is certain that the object continued to rest on its
legs or landing gear until the roar and smokeless 'flame'
started. Then immediately, the thing started lifting away from
the earth.

After getting up from the prone position, running, then striking
the car and falling, due to the fact that he was watching back
over his shoulder as the vehicle lifted upward, Zamora again got
up quickly. He was too scared to lose any time in picking up his
glasses and sunshades. He kept running north across the hill or
mesa as fast as his legs would carry him. "I was still thinking
about keeping the car and some space between me and that thing.
Wasn't takin' no chances!" Zamora admitted later.

"When I started running again - after falling, that is - guess I
looked back maybe two times or so at first", the policeman
related. "Noted the object had risen maybe to level with the car
- could'a been twenty feet above bottom of arroyo. I'd say it
took about six seconds for it to get that high above where it
had been sitting. I was about half-way to where I finally turned
around - guess I'd run maybe twenty-five feet when I glanced
back and noticed the thing level with the car, and then kept on
running".

[COMMENT]
The flame and associated roar starts up, Zamora is frightened,
turns, runs and:

- hits his car
- falls down
- loses his glasses
- [maybe briefly searches for them]
- looks back a couple of times
- and some twenty-five feet from his starting position, notices
the object has slowly risen about 20 feet.

Sounds like it may have taken more than six seconds for the
object to make that short ascent.
[COMMENT]


"I kept on running, maybe another twenty-five feet and jumped
just over the [north] edge of the hill. That's when I turned
toward the object and shielded my eyes with my arm in case it
might explode. That's when the roar stopped. That surprised me,
I think. Guess I expected it to continue on roaring like that.

Had thought about running on down the [north] slope, but that
roar was what was scaring me. So, it stopped. Then, I stopped,
and turned around. Immediately, I heard sharp tone, a whining
sound. Sound went from high tone to low tone, in say, maybe a
second, then stopped".

[COMMENT]
Zamora:
- runs a further twenty-five feet
- jumps over the hill's edge
- turns towards the object, shielding his eyes
- the roar stops, leaving a short whining, which also stops

The 'whining' was presumably a motor/fan or similar, powering
down a second later and in connection with the flame's source.
[COMMENT]


"After that, there was no sound. You could'a heard a pin drop.

Noticed at this time that object was no longer rising. It just
started moving away from me to the west-southwest, stayin' about
the same distance above the ground, moving away fast. I never
heard another sound from it".

[COMMENT]
The object stops rising and starts moving, in a lateral
direction, keeping about the same distance above ground level.

Doubtless it was being controlled by the 'two figures wearing
what resembled white coveralls', which Zamora also reported
briefly seeing.

Curiously... maintaining a suitable distance above ground level,
taking advantage of a wind current that's taking you in the
direction you want, is a distinctive characteristic of hot-air
ballooning.
[COMMENT]


Zamora recalled, "It looked like it went over the dynamite
shack, about three feet over it". Yet, analysis of the object's
departure course reveals that it probably only appeared to pass
directly over the dynamite shack. All facts considered, it
likely passed 50-100 feet south of it, whilst visually appearing
from Zamora's location northwest of the patrol car to pass over
it.

Thus the policeman's description of the departure of the object
is only relatively accurate.

...since Sergeant Sam Chavez had not arrived, Zamora dashed back
toward where he had bumped the car and fallen, picked up his
glasses, jumped hurriedly into the car and radioed the Socorro
sheriff dispatcher, Nep Lopez, once more.

"...Look out the window to see if you can see an object!".

He forgot to tell the dispatcher that it was the south window
out of which he should look, and that to do so he would have to
leave the dispatcher's office and go across the hall...

Lopez was at a loss to know what the policeman meant by an
'object'! Therefore the dispatcher asked, "What is it?"

...Zamora answered, "It looks like a balloon".

Zamora, with his glasses and sunshades back on, watched the
craft disappear into the distance. It was visible from the
police car while he was still talking to headquarters. [End]


Just to clarify - according to Zamora's affidavit, he left his
sunglasses on the ground.

So, from the time of that initial lift-off, the itinerary now
reads something like:

Zamora is frightened, turns and runs. He -

- hits his car
- falls down
- loses his glasses
- [maybe briefly searches for them]
- looks back a couple of times
- and some twenty-five feet from his starting position, notices
   the object has slowly risen about 20 feet

- runs a further twenty-five feet
- jumps over the hill's edge
- turns towards the object, shielding his eyes
- the roar stops, leaving a short whining, which also stops

- Zamora runs back to his car, whilst keeping watch on the object
(per his affidavit)
- finds his glasses
- gets into the car
- calls the station and speaks to Nep Lopez.


Stanford also writes:

[Start]
He [Zamora] later commented: "I couldn't tell what might have
kept the thing up or going; it was now completely silent. It
kept about that same height above the ground - ten to fifteen
feet - and never did get much higher until it got over near the
perlite mill on the west side of US 60, maybe a mile away. Then
it angled up at a steep climb and got small in the distance,
over the canyon or mountain that way, very fast".

[...]

In talking with Zamora, I could not help but be impressed with
how puzzled he seemed about the flight characteristics of the
craft he had seen. When asked about this specifically, he
commented, "When there was the 'flame' and roar, the object rose
slowly, like it was heavy. Seemed like an effort getting up that
twenty feet or so, I'd say.

But when there was silence and no roar or 'flame' or nothing,
everything looked easy!.

Looked like no effort to take off across the perlite mill and to
climb up at least at a 45 degree angle real fast after that".
[End]

That 'real fast' climb isn't what Zamora says in his statement,
where he confirms, "As I was calling Nep, I could still see the
object. The object seemed to lift up slowly, and to 'get small'
in the distance, very fast".


Overall, it seemingly depicts a vehicle which:

- requires some form of flame emitting propulsion to take off
and the initial uplift takes several seconds to be completed

- thereafter, the vehicle can silently travel, without any
visual propulsion, maintaining an apparently constant (although
maybe not, as Zamora had lost his glasses) altitude with the
ground

- it's able to eventually, slowly rise upwards, etc.


Given all that can be documented as taking place from the
initial lift-off stage until the object was disappearing in the
direction of some nearby mountains, this does not appear to have
been the 'rocket-like' departure implied in some interpretations
of events.


So, was it an earthly or extraterrestrial vehicle.

Really, is that a question which has to be asked, even in
conjecture?

Difficult to imagine why an ET race would require primitive
rocket-jet technology to struggle through a lift off, when they
had, as Fowler concluded likely, an obviously advanced silent
propulsion at their disposal.

Such an arguably 'primitive' alien device, wasn't of course so
far-fetched in 1964.

Deducing it therefore had a terrestrial origin, what vehicle
existed in 1964 that utilised a flame-propelled take-off, could
then travel silently, slowly gaining altitude from a horizontal
flight, and which looked like a balloon.


The reason 'Socorro' remained a puzzle, was that there was no
distinct candidate for Zamora's 'craft' at the time, especially
when two assumptions had been made:

1. The trace evidence could only have come from a solid, rocket-
propelled ship.

2. Any balloon would have been travelling against the prevailing
wind.


The first, although a warranted deduction then, isn't
necessarily correct and so far as I can see, what evidence
exists for the second premise is sparse and certainly
questionable.

Of infinitely greater significance is there might now be an
explanation for the hot-air balloon hypothesis proposed by Larry
Robinson and which I had highlighted.

Robinson's recollections were a trip into the wilderness.

There was almost certainly no 'International Paper' hot-air
balloon in 1964. If one ever existed, it may have been a helium-
filled, cable driven balloon used for carrying logs from
mountain slopes - a development in later years.

Robinson referred to a 1965-Feb 1967 article which featured a
"multi-state series of hot-air balloon flights". In this, the
balloonist(s) reportedly mentioned the anecdote of how a local
policeman thought the hot-air balloon was a space-ship.

The 'multi-state series' was almost certainly a transcontinental
crossing of the U.S. by Tracy Barnes from April to September
1966, a story which appeared in a number of magazines. One
source I heard about was the July 1966 issue of 'Popular
Science' and thanks to Joel Carpenter's efforts, it's now
confirmed that this contains no humorous tales of spooked
lawmen.


However, like any adventure, you often meet some interesting
characters and encounter new, expanded horizons.

Following Robinson's trial, I didn't find evidence to support
any of his recollections.

Instead, I found evidence of previously unknown, 'classified'
hot-air balloon flights in New Mexico during 1963 and possibly
extending into 1964.

Another list member was able to obtain the testimony from a
participant in this 1963/64 project, who confirmed these flights
to be a proven fact. I have since located additional
confirmation.

This is much earlier than anyone 'outside the loop' realised
hot- air balloons were operational in that area.

All current indications are that these were part of a military
or intelligence agency project, probably involving the 'Office
of Naval Research' (ONR) or CIA.

FOIA requests have duly been submitted to both.


A conceivable connection to the Socorro case should be evident.

A proven connection is another matter and current, informed
indications suggest it may be otherwise.

If it were only that simple though...

I now know we are dealing with a scenario which involves people
who are still engaged in work for the military/intelligence
services and even if they did recall that one of the project's
balloons was in Socorro on 24 April, 1964, possibly could or
simply would, not confirm it. Which is assuming in the first
instance that they would be remotely interested and see any
benefit in doing so.

I understand there's also the distinct probability of
compartmentalisation being an issue - the hot-air balloon aspect
was only one facet [all a hot-air balloon really does is go from
A to B] and certain people may not want to say anything which
might compromise other 'compartments'. Hopefully, I'm able to
expand on this in future.

What should perhaps be given thought in the meantime, is whether
the existence of these hot-air balloon flights had been
considered, investigated and eliminated by 'Project Blue Book',
before declaring 'Socorro' as one of the best documented 'UFO'
cases on record and a complete mystery.

The conclusion a 'UFO' had been seen was perhaps a welcome
surprise to those involved with the balloon project and they
were quite happy to 'let it be'.

If it was an ONR project, we can imagine how distressed the Navy
might have been, knowing the USAF thought a hot-air balloon was
a spacecraft, maybe even from another world.


Let me emphasise; these early 'undocumented' hot-air balloon
flights are now a proven fact.

All else, especially any relation to the 'strange' object Zamora
encountered remains speculation, for the moment.


As there has to be an explanation for the 'vehicle' Zamora
witnessed, a further appraisal of what he actually describes
seeing, might reduce the probabilities somewhat.

I can add that it's been determined there were only two hot-air
balloons which could have been involved in the New Mexico
flights and one of them would have had an insignia in red
letters, confirmed as being "possibly 2 to 3 ft tall", which
sounds close to what Zamora described. This is the subject of
continuing enquiries.

I gave a hint of what was pending when I recently said the
following:

It may be prudent to keep in mind the following, from an article
entitled 'Don Piccard - 50 Years of Ballooning Memories'.

"During his years at Raven, between 1962 and 1964, Piccard
devoted his energy to marketing the Vulcoon, one-man thermal
balloons. Stressing his lack of security clearance at the time,
Piccard says he worked strictly on sport balloons and had no
contact with any of Raven's military contracts. Be that as it
may, following a 1987 interview in Balloon Life with Don
Piccard, where he described his civilian work with Raven, the
CIA library in Langley, Virginia, began to subscribe to the
magazine".

[...]

"Reflecting back to those days at Raven, Piccard thinks the
company's sport balloon division was a cover-up for the military
applications of ballooning. `The sport balloon program, which
was not believed in by the Raven Industry management, was
strictly getting this crazy guy who liked to fly in balloons and
make cover. So, when one of these other balloons went down, it
would just look like a sport balloonist'. When the Navy
terminated its contract with Raven, the sport balloon program
died too. That was in December of 1964".


Although generally realised that the reconnaissance
possibilities offered by hot-air balloons were overtaken by the
successful deployment of spy satellites, this is a significant
'cover up' claim by Piccard, one of the central figures in the
development of hot-air ballooning.

If the "military applications" program was terminated at the end
of 1964, then all work must have taken place before then.

Which means that there were a number of publicly undocumented,
hot-air balloon flights prior to December 1964 and these must
have taken place somewhere.

It's now known exactly where. [END]


In 1962, Piccard organised the world's first hot-air balloon
race in Paris. According to the aforementioned 'Balloon Life'
article, the nascent sport attracted four entrants:

"Don Piccard flew in a civilian balloon Dick Keuser had an old
brown silicon hot-air balloon that had been built for a research
program. Yost flew a Mylar-nylon CIA balloon, and Tracy Barnes
had a homemade balloon made out of parachutes".

The Ed Yost 'CIA' balloon was interesting to read about. In
1956, Yost was one of 'Raven Industries' founders. It's common
knowledge that one of their earliest commissions came from the
ONR and this funding seems to have continued through to 1964.

According to 'Balloon Life', the company's work for the CIA also
stopped that year: "In the autumn of 1964, the CIA had cancelled
their contract with Raven".

The New Mexico balloon flights which took place in that 1963/64
timeframe involved Raven balloons. Although it's known precisely
where, it would be sensible to say no more about that for the
moment. If anyone else claims to have first-hand evidence, they
should be able to confirm the specific location.

Again, I must stress there is nothing at the moment which can
definitely tie-in these balloon flights to the object Zamora
witnessed.

For now, I thought it imperative to reveal what's been taking
place in the background. It's something you might want to
consider when looking at the full picture.

There's more to the overall story and Don Piccard has considered
my broader conclusions about what may have happened, exactly
what the object was, what the red insignia would therefore have
been, etc.

His judgement is that there's already sufficient evidence of
what Zamora witnessed and where it's likely to have originated.

Piccard states, "I would take the position that your surmises
are correct and that the case is closed. Any further
investigation could be considered tilting at windmills".

Although I suspect he's right on both counts, there's more which
needs to be done, and is being done, to hopefully answer the
many questions.

A number of people have assisted in reaching this point,
irrespective of what their own conclusions may be.

Karl Pflock and Joel Carpenter especially have my gratitude.
[END OF UFORL POSTING]


It's known Professor Moore stated how he believed, and possibly
still does, that an 'S-50' type balloon he purchased from 'Raven
Industries' in 1967 was the first hot-air balloon to be used in
the New Mexico/Socorro area.

It would be interesting to learn if he was aware of the much
earlier 'undocumented' flights and whether, in view of all the
above evidence, he still maintains that Zamora's 'UFO' could not
have been a hot-air balloon.


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 21

              Bush'S Unusual Reference In The Inaugural Address

From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 22:23:51 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:36:38 -0500
Subject: Bush'S Unusual Reference In The Inaugural Address


Am I the only one to find this sentence right at the end of
George W. Bush's inaugural address quite unusual.

"And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this
storm. "

On first impression it would seem to be a possible reference to
Ezekiel 1, 4:

"Then I looked, and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the
north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and
brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like
the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. "

For the very few not familiar by now with Ezekiel, Chapter 1 and
its implications, it is posted again here from the New King
James Version:


1   Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth
month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the
captives by the River Chebar, that the heavens were opened and I
saw visions of God.

2   On the fifth day of the month, which was in the fifth year
of King Jehoiachin's captivity,

3   the word of the LORD came expressly to Ezekiel the priest,
the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the River
Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was upon him there.

4   Then I looked, and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the
north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and
brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like
the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire.

5   Also from within it came the likeness of four living
creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the likeness
of a man.

6   Each one had four faces, and each one had four wings.

7   Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were
like the soles of calves' feet. They sparkled like the color of
burnished bronze.

8  The hands of a man were under their wings on their four
sides; and each of the four had faces and wings.

9  Their wings touched one another. The creatures did not turn
when they went, but each one went straight forward.

10   As for the likeness of their faces, each had the face of a
man; each of the four had the face of a lion on the right side,
each of the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and
each of the four had the face of an eagle.

11   Thus were their faces. Their wings stretched upward; two
wings of each one touched one another, and two covered their
bodies.   12  And each one went straight forward; they went
wherever the spirit wanted to go, and they did not turn when
they went.

13   As for the likeness of the living creatures, their
appearance was like burning coals of fire, like the appearance
of torches going back and forth among the living creatures. The
fire was bright, and out of the fire went lightning.

14   And the living creatures ran back and forth, in appearance
like a flash of lightning.

15   Now as I looked at the living creatures, behold, a wheel
was on the earth beside each living creature with its four
faces.

16   The appearance of the wheels and their workings
was like the color of beryl, and all four had the same likeness.
The appearance of their workings was, as it were, a wheel in the
middle of a wheel.

17   When they moved, they went toward any one of four
directions; they did not turn aside when they went.

18   As for their rims, they were so high they were awesome; and
their rims were full of eyes, all around the four of them.

19   When the living creatures went, the wheels went beside
them; and when the living creatures were lifted up from the
earth, the wheels were lifted up.

20   Wherever the spirit wanted to go, they went, because there
the spirit went; and the wheels were lifted together with them,
for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.

21   When those went, these went; when those stood, these stood;
and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were
lifted up together with them, for the spirit of the living
creatures was in the wheels.

22    The likeness of the firmament above the heads of the
living creatures was like the color of an awesome crystal,
stretched out over their heads.

23   And under the firmament their wings spread out straight,
one toward another. Each one had two which covered one side, and
each one had two which covered the other side of the body.

24   When they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the
noise of many waters, like the voice of the Almighty, a tumult
like the noise of an army; and when they stood still, they let
down their wings.

25
A voice came from above the firmament that was over their heads;
whenever they stood, they let down their wings.

26   And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness
of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the
likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a
man high above it.

27   Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as
it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all
around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and
downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with
brightness all around.

28   Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day,
so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was
the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. So when
I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard a voice of One
speaking.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 21

                 The Cydonian Imperative - 1-20-01: Martian

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 22:10:32 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:39:41 -0500
Subject: The Cydonian Imperative - 1-20-01: Martian


1-20-01

THE CYDONIAN IMPERATIVE

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

For Immediate Release

"Aircraft"-like Anomaly Found on Mars

by Mac Tonnies


Readers of Egroups-Cydonia were recently startled by an image of
what appeared to be a clearly-defined, brightly lit square
formation resting atop a shadowy Martian hill. Post after post
debated the nature of the apparent "strange square" until close
inspection showed that the perplexing "square" was an imaging
artifact brought on by JPL's image compression software. The
image was revised and the "square" disappeared. But the mystery
didn't.

[image]

The "manta" seen in geological context. Note curious "displaced"
sand.

In the corrected image a symmetrical and extremely unusual
manta-shaped formation is clearly visible. Surrounded on all
sides by a lightly wind-tousled desert, the feature isn't easily
reconciled with the region's geography. Its "nose" is crisply
defined by a band of shadow; whatever this is, it's apparently
tipped a few degrees, with the "wing" formations having sunk
slightly in the sand (the right "wing," in particular, appears
to be partially occluded by a sand-drift, suggesting that the
object has been lying around for a while, though for how long is
currently unanswerable). Behind the object is a radiating streak
of bright sand that roughly parallels the mystery object's
orientation.

[image]

The "manta" enlarged. Note central "fuselage" with radiating
spines. Image resolution is 3.5 meters per pixel.

Remarkably, the overall impression is of a landed aircraft of
some kind, with the radiating streak of sand indicative of
possible sudden displacement. Like the object, this curious
"trail" is unlike anything else seen in context photos of the
region. Together, the trail and "manta" constitute a very real
anomaly, complicated further from what can be seen of the
object's surface detail. "Ribs" or "spines" can be seen
radiating from the feature's central, delineated "fuselage,"
much like support structure on a conventional airframe. One can
speculate that if this indeed a crashed (or abandoned) Martian
"UFO," then the exterior of the craft has been abraded away by
sandstorms. Or this object may owe some of its structural
uniformity from being buried and preserved by drifting Martian
sands; this scenario, however, is inconsistent with the
displaced sand trail, which suggests a more recent origin. Or
perhaps the "displaced" sand is simply the result of the
object's blocking the tenuous Martian wind (a theory that's
still at odds with the placement of the dunes).

[image]

The "manta" formation with "nose" outlined with shadow.

Could the easily seen "ribs" be sand dunes? While this is a
logical prosaic explanation, it's ruled out by the fact that
they're facing the wrong direction when observed in context with
the surrounding terrain. Moreover, the mystery object's
geometric shape remains coherent from what can be seen of it in
the single image at our disposal. While it could possibly be an
outcropping of rock, one is hard-pressed to explain the degree
of symmetry--not to mention the isolation--of the feature in
question.

As with everything else featured on this website, more study is
needed to order to properly rule out geological explanations.
For instance, it would be helpful to know is there are rock
outcroppings elsewhere on Mars bearing the mystery object's
strange internal detail. Perhaps the proposed "ribs" are an
illusion due to natural ridges etched into the sides of a flat
rock. In this case, the manta-shaped "wreck" may be a geological
feature predating the surrounding desert--or possibly even a
chunk of debris tossed out of a long-dormant Martian volcano. It
could also be a bizarre form of meteorite partially embedded in
the sand (in which case the sand-trail could literally be the
effect of a "recent" collision or the echo of an atmospheric
shockwave).

Throughout looking at high-resolution images of the Martian
surface, I've come across several odd features dubbed all manner
of "vehicles," from the military-style "tanks" Richard Hoagland
"identified" at Sagan Memorial Station (apparently to his own
embarrassment, as this avenue of speculation came to a tellingly
quiet end...) to the bright, teardrop-shaped features located
near the Face in Cydonia.

In my own opinion, the "manta" is the first proposed Martian
"vehicle" that provides the context and detail necessary for a
serious, potentially fruitful, exploration of possible
artificiality.

(Thanks to Efrain Palermo for once again calling our attention
to a most interesting Martian anomaly!)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 21

              [LA-F] Interesting Article (Conspiracy Theory) Re

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:54:18 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:42:18 -0500
Subject: [LA-F] Interesting Article (Conspiracy Theory) Re


Source: Andrew Brownstein, "Human Brain Implant Research
Suspended At Major University," Albany Times Union
( www.timesunion.com ), August 25, 1999.


University of Albany Suspends Mind Control Implant Research
Project

The University at Albany, N.Y., has shut down a research project
investigating the claims of individuals who believe that they
were surgically implanted with communications devices which can
read and transmit their thoughts.

Professor Kathryn Kelley, a fully-tenured psychology professor
at the University at Albany, has focused her work in recent
years on surgically-implanted mind control devices. A brief
statement released in August by university spokeswoman Mary
Fiess said, "The university imposed the suspension [of Kelley's
research] because of serious concerns that the experiment did
not meet the standards governing such projects on campus. While
we're working to gather all the facts in this case, we cannot
comment further."

That same week, according to the Albany Times-Union, all
professors and graduate students at the University at Albany
were instructed in a memo to refer all calls "looking for
information on any psychological research conducted in our
department" to the university's public relations office.

Sources in the psychology department told the Times-Union that
the school's Institutional Review Board closed the project after
receiving a complaint filed last spring by a student who
reportedly was not allowed to leave a lecture that was part of
Kelley's experiment -- an alleged violation of National Science
Foundation guidelines.

However, researchers also have ethical obligations to fully
brief human subjects on the experiment in which they will
participate, and to fully debrief subjects after the experiment
is concluded. There has been no clarification of the exact
circumstances of the student's complaint. Although Kelley has
declined to speak to the press regarding the suspension of her
research, colleagues told the Times-Union that she had privately
claimed that "the university is violating her academic freedom."

University at Albany sociology Professor David Wagner, the
outgoing chair of the Institutional Review Board, told the
Times-Union that shutting down a professor's research was "quite
rare." The suspension of Kelley's research is the first such
incident at UAlbany since the early 1970s. The university
reportedly considers the ongoing investigation of Kelley's work
to be "highly sensitive."

In 1995, gunman Ralph Tortorici held a class of 37 students
hostage at the University at Albany, claiming that the
government had planted microchips in his body. Tortorici, who
shot one of the students during a struggle, reportedly hanged
himself in his state prison cell last summer.

Kelley earned her Ph.D. from Purdue University in 1977, and her
earlier research had focused on issues such as date rape,
risk-taking, and gender differences. In spring of 1998,
according to the Times-Union, the university's psychology
department first became aware of Kelley's interest in mind
control technology when she posted a note on her office door
announcing a lecture called "The Psychology of Invading the
Self." The note reportedly described implant research funded by
the National Security Agency and the Department of Defense with
an annual budget of $2 billion. The note stated that the devices
were typically implanted in "uninformed, unconsenting subjects"
who were usually "federal prisoners and political dissidents."

Also in the spring of 1998, the school's Institutional Review
Board approved a research project by Kelley to explore "advances
in technology that affect interpersonal communication." Kelley
filed a 16-page outline with the board which described her plans
to investigate uses of technology for "monitoring and control."
According to the Times-Union, Kelley's outline proposed
"presenting a lecture to research subjects and then having them
respond to 60 questions about how the case study she would
describe affected their views."

A graduate student who worked on Kelley's project said that the
research was intended to examine how people would perceive
individuals with microchip implants, and whether there might be
a social stigma attached to having such implants.

At the 1999 annual conference of the Eastern Psychological
Association (www.easternpsychological.org), held in Providence,
R.I., Kelley delivered a paper that examined microchip implant
claims "as one of the indicators of schizophrenia."

In August 1999, Kelley delivered a paper to the "World
Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics"
(www.iiis.org/sci97.htm) in Orlando, Fla., which described the
use of devices she called RAATs -- Radio wave, Auditory,
Assaultive, Transmitting implants -- which could be implanted in
a subject during anesthesia. The only signs of implantation,
Kelley wrote, might be tiny stitches visible in the ear.

"When (short-wave) operators transmit to or scan RAAT implants
in victims, they can talk to the victims remotely and
anonymously, and hear the victim's speech and thoughts," Kelley
wrote.

Although her research was suspended, Kelley continues to teach
classes at the University at Albany.


--
John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 21

                         Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:36:31 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:48:24 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille


 >Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:00:07 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:56:36 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille

 >>>Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:19:21 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>>Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Hello Roger,

<snip>

 >As I outlined in another post, a skeptic can be a debunker but a
 >debunker cannot be a skeptic. If you really feel that Andy is a
 >debunker at heart, then to label his as both is incorrect. I
 >only make a point of this because you've made accuracy of
 >communication the focus of this discussion. Since you listed him
 >as both, should I take that as a reflection of your ability to
 >communicate? Should I read something into your words that isn't
 >really there?

<snip>

Your posts have become required reading and should be considered
gospel?

<snip>

 >Regarding semantics, again there has been no survey taken that
 >says "IFO" means what only you claim. In fact, while I find
 >"UFO" in five different dictionaries, the term "IFO" doesn't
 >appear once. To claim that there is a consensual agreement on
 >the meaning of "IFO" is simply not true. However, I will make a
 >note of the meaning that you prefer, as unspecific and confusing
 >as it may be.

 >More to the point, Andy was asked what he meant and he gave a
 >very clear answer. The fact that you don't want to believe him
 >really doesn't change the meaning of the answer. In fact, it
 >would seem to me that your position has more to do with your
 >distaste for Andy than it does for clarifying the "IFO" issue.
 >I'm not sure that personality likes and dislikes is a good
 >barometer for validating information.

<snip>

What we have here is failure to communicate. I have tried my
best. Looks like the English language was insufficient or I
failed to make my point clear. I wouldn't want you to believe
that you could be mistaken.

<snip>

 >After all, you once wrote:

 >>>I hope SETI keeps on being a flop.  Why?  Because any success
 >>>would give the same SOBs more un-earned respectability and more
 >>>un-earned credibility.  The people from SETI are, in my opinion,
 >>>on the OTHER side of the fence: the side of mainstream science,
 >>>which has deliberately and malevolently kept ufology in a
 >>>ghetto.

 >and this charmer:

 >>>I hope they choke.

 >Now, should I use semantics and interpret the above info however
 >I prefer? Do you really want contact with ET life to be a
 >failure? Do you really feel that SETI mothers are of
 >questionable heritage? And just how many Ufologists live in
 >public housing, by the way? Do "mainstream scientists" come
 >around every so often in white hoods and deliberately and
 >malevolently burn crosses to keep the Ufologists from getting
 >"uppity".

 >And finally, should I assume that you really want SETI
 >participants to die?

 >After all, I think there is a consensual understanding of what
 >the term "choke" means.

 >Think about this when questioning the meaning of what others
 >write.

<snip>

This is where unsolved mysteries becomes unresolved conflicts.

I didn't know I had made such an impression on you.

Phew, talking about splitting hairs.


Regards,

Serge









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 21

             Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:49:22 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:04:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -


 >Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:53:28 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:37:44 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:18:13 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, Robert wrote:

 >>>The AA film, (known in some circles as the Alien Fraudtopsy) is
 >>>an interesting piece of work. In this case all we have is the
 >>>so-called 'testimony of the camera' and not the testimony of the
 >>>photographer, nor can any photog be found, dead or alive.

 >Sean replied:

 >>Excuse me for nosing in here. Has the AA film been conclusively
 >>proven to be fake?

 >Well, I have to agree with Robert on this. The AA film is pretty
 >much a bust as the alleged cameraman seems to be as elusive as
 >smoke.

 >Regarding your comment:

 >>I'm sorry but I was still under the impression that the evidence
 >>was still inconclusive.

 >I guess that depends on what you consider as "evidence". I see
 >nothing in the video that seems "real" to me based on my
 >experience in O.R. as a medical illustrator or based on my
 >experience as a cinematographer producing documentaries and the
 >like.

 >To the average person, the scene may look real; indeed, I
 >believe that is what the intended audience was expected to be.
 >However, the average person probably believes that a 357 Magnum
 >really sounds like Dirty Harry's 357 Magnum in the movies. They
 >have no idea that a REAL 357 magnum sounds like "bonk" when
 >recorded on tape. What is used in the movies is a recording of a
 >75mm cannon, played at double speed. Likewise, anyone that has
 >ever seen a real fist fight knows that a fist hitting a guy's
 >jaw sounds pretty unimpressive, as compared to the movies.
 >Additionally, so many fake documentaries have used the
 >"shaky-cam" approach that it has become ubiquitous within
 >programs trying to make it seem "real" when, in reality, most
 >documentaries have very carefully staged and smooth camera
 >moves.

 >In short, movies have become so pervasive in our lives that
 >people's expectations of a reality they've never experienced
 >have been skewed in favor of a higher fantasy element. Like the
 >"hyped" 357, fist fight or shaky-cam, AA plays up to the general
 >audience's EXPECTATIONS of what archival documentary footage
 >would look like as opposed to what REAL documentary footage
 >would look like.

 >Think of it like this: Let's say you stumbled, unexpectedly,
 >upon a flying saucer in the woods and, upon closer inspection,
 >you felt the skin and it turned out to be paper-mache. You could
 >either assume that A) the ETs in question have advanced
 >paper-mache interstellar craft building techniques or B) that
 >the craft is a fake, even though you have absolutely no
 >background as a designer of interstellar craft.

 >AA may "look" real to the average person, but the sloppiness of
 >the camera work, alone, is the "paper mache touch" that gives it
 >away as a fake, in my opinion.

 >Just ask yourself this question: Given that such an event would
 >have been the singular, most important discovery in the history
 >of the world, does it really make sense that the government
 >would have been so cheap and hurried in the execution of both
 >the autopsy or the documentation? If all U.S. documentary
 >footage up to that time shared the same characteristics as the
 >AA footage, then a point could be made in favor of authenticity.
 >Such is not the case. Likewise, if NASA was known to use
 >paper-mache in building rockets then, perhaps, the flying saucer
 >in the woods might stand up to such scrutiny. Such is not the
 >case.

 >Common sense says that rockets aren't made of paper mache when
 >metal is available and documentaries of aliens from outer space
 >aren't shot out of focus in low light on super grainy black and
 >white stock by clumsy cameramen when better resources are
 >obviously available to a government that has nothing but better
 >resources.

 >One last thing: For those that believe that the sloppy
 >appearance of AA was because there was a critical time element
 >involved; I say nonsense. It was a common practice then, and
 >today, to refrigerate bodies until adequate preparations were in
 >effect. Something as important as the alleged event that was the
 >catalyst for AA would have generated more serious and competent
 >handling of both the autopsy and the documentation.

 >Roger

Roger,

You write a great deal here, but say very little, why so much
smoke?. What factual points in particular can you refute?

As one still involved in following up this contentious case from
an image analysis point of view, I'd like to here them.


Neil









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

             Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:34:59 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:03:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -


 >Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:53:28 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>I'm sorry but I was still under the impression that the evidence
 >>was still inconclusive.

 >I guess that depends on what you consider as "evidence". I see
 >nothing in the video that seems "real" to me based on my
 >experience in O.R. as a medical illustrator or based on my
 >experience as a cinematographer producing documentaries and the
 >like.

Roger,

This is old ground but I guess it must be trod again since you
have brought it up. I too have extensive experience in a
hospital setting. I worked as an orderly in Albuquerque in
1957-1959 and again in 1961 at Kaiser Hospital in San Francisco.

I spent many hours in surgery since I usually did all the male
surgical preps during my shift and was quite familiar with
surgical techniques and surgeons in general. I also worked in
the emergency room and assisted emergency surgery on many
occasions.

While you're correct that the AA doesn't have the look of an
autopsy, it does have the look and feel of a surgery. I would
say that this was more like an exploratory surgery, one where
they didn't know exactly what was going to happen. The one
factor that convinced me that the Doctors in the AA were real
surgeons was the way they touched the creature and handled their
instruments. This comes from long practice and I don't believe
that an actor could fake it.

Several months ago my foster son had to take one of his friends
to the emergency room of our local hospital. He always carries
his laptop with him and as he was waiting for his friend, he
began watching the Alien Autopsy that we'd just loaded a few
days before. One of the emergency room doctors happened to see
what my son was watching, became interested, and began viewing
the AA himself. When it was finished, my son asked him what he
thought. The doctor said that it looked real to him.

<snip>

 >Like the
 >"hyped" 357, fist fight or shaky-cam, AA plays up to the general
 >audience's EXPECTATIONS of what archival documentary footage
 >would look like as opposed to what REAL documentary footage
 >would look like.

How much time have you spent viewing the AA? There is no
evidence of what you characterize as "shaky-cam". That must be
something you've imagined.

The footage is very steady and well done considering the
limitations placed on the cameraman.

 >AA may "look" real to the average person, but the sloppiness of
 >the camera work, alone, is the "paper mache touch" that gives it
 >away as a fake, in my opinion.

Your opinion is just that: your opinion. I thought we were finally going
to discuss evidence. Is this the only evidence you have to offer?
I think we all need to be on the same page so I'd like to offer
the following to you and other researchers.

Neil Morris has digitized the AA. Not the original footage sold
by Ray, but the betacam version. The quality is outstanding and
it can be downloaded and then manipulated with Photoshop type
software and viewed frame by frame.

I'll send a package of the four AA CDs (postage included) to
anyone who sends me $35.

Ed Gehrman
PO Box 543
Quincy, Ca. 95971

If you are the least bit interested in understanding the nature
of the creature shown in the AA and the debris of the craft it
was flying, then you should purchase this CD set. It's well
worth the price.

 >One last thing: For those that believe that the sloppy
 >appearance of AA was because there was a critical time element
 >involved; I say nonsense. It was a common practice then, and
 >today, to refrigerate bodies until adequate preparations were in
 >effect. Something as important as the alleged event that was the
 >catalyst for AA would have generated more serious and competent
 >handling of both the autopsy and the documentation.

No one has said that time was critical and it's only your
opinion that the work was "sloppy". This is a straw man that
you've created. We should remember that the rolls of footage
that comprise the AA are the rolls that had problems. Even then,
upon closer examination, I can't see anything that would
indicate that the cameraman was rushed or that time was a
factor. Where did you get the idea that it was?










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

                           Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:33:03 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:06:07 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:36:31 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille

 >>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:00:07 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>As I outlined in another post, a skeptic can be a debunker but a
 >>debunker cannot be a skeptic. If you really feel that Andy is a
 >>debunker at heart, then to label his as both is incorrect. I
 >>only make a point of this because you've made accuracy of
 >>communication the focus of this discussion. Since you listed him
 >>as both, should I take that as a reflection of your ability to
 >>communicate? Should I read something into your words that isn't
 >>really there?

Serge replied:

 >Your posts have become required reading and should be considered
 >gospel?

Hello, Serge!

If you take issue with the meanings I prefer to give to
"skeptic" and "debunker", then bring on your best counter
argument. Do you believe that the two mean the same thing? If
so, then why use them both in the same sentence? To say that
Andy is an admitted "skeptic and debunker" is a lot like saying
someone is "quick and fast". On the other hand, if you maintain
that Andy is a skeptic and that, as a result, occasionally ends
up debunking something, then you should really be more clear.
But then, merely calling Andy a "skeptic" isn't quite as
insulting, is it?

My posts are hardly gospel nor are they required reading. That
said, there's no need to ignore them just to avoid backing up
your position on a topic that you brought up. You don't want to
talk about it? Fine. But, please, no more lectures on how:

 >Communication is in essence exchanging ideas. To do so, people
 >need a common language with common understanding of words.
 >Semantics encompasses the true meaning of human discourse.

As such, I wrote:

 >>Regarding semantics, again there has been no survey taken that
 >>says "IFO" means what only you claim. In fact, while I find
 >>"UFO" in five different dictionaries, the term "IFO" doesn't
 >>appear once. To claim that there is a consensual agreement on
 >>the meaning of "IFO" is simply not true. However, I will make a
 >>note of the meaning that you prefer, as unspecific and confusing
 >>as it may be.

 >>More to the point, Andy was asked what he meant and he gave a
 >>very clear answer. The fact that you don't want to believe him
 >>really doesn't change the meaning of the answer. In fact, it
 >>would seem to me that your position has more to do with your
 >>distaste for Andy than it does for clarifying the "IFO" issue.
 >>I'm not sure that personality likes and dislikes is a good
 >>barometer for validating information.

Serge replied:

 >What we have here is failure to communicate. I have tried my
 >best. Looks like the English language was insufficient or I
 >failed to make my point clear. I wouldn't want you to believe
 >that you could be mistaken.

Nor yourself, Serge. You made a statement that you simply
couldn't back up with any documented evidence. Somehow that's
_my_ problem or a failure of the English language? How about the
simple notion that you were just plain wrong? But then again,
you have a history of writing things that you later regret and
would like to be forgotten.

Regarding such I noted this blast from the past:

 >>>>I hope SETI keeps on being a flop.  Why?  Because any success
 >>>>would give the same SOBs more un-earned respectability and more
 >>>>un-earned credibility.  The people from SETI are, in my opinion,
 >>>>on the OTHER side of the fence: the side of mainstream science,
 >>>>which has deliberately and malevolently kept ufology in a
 >>>>ghetto.

and this charmer:

 >>>>I hope they choke.

To which I asked:

 >>Now, should I use semantics and interpret the above info however
 >>I prefer? Do you really want contact with ET life to be a
 >>failure? Do you really feel that SETI mothers are of
 >>questionable heritage? And just how many Ufologists live in
 >>public housing, by the way? Do "mainstream scientists" come
 >>around every so often in white hoods and deliberately and
 >>malevolently burn crosses to keep the Ufologists from getting
 >>"uppity".

 >>And finally, should I assume that you really want SETI
 >>participants to die?

 >>After all, I think there is a consensual understanding of what
 >>the term "choke" means.

 >>Think about this when questioning the meaning of what others
 >>write.

Serge replied:

 >This is where unsolved mysteries becomes unresolved conflicts.

 >I didn't know I had made such an impression on you.

 >Phew, talking about splitting hairs.

I don't know, Serge. You're the one that wants to make "IFO"
mean anything except "Identified Flying Object" just to suit
your own personal beef with Andy. When it comes to hair
splitting, me thinks your ax is kept a little sharper than
mine...

Later,

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

             Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:10:09 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:08:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:49:22 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

 >>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:53:28 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written this about AA:

 >>To the average person, the scene may look real; indeed, I
 >>believe that is what the intended audience was expected to be.

<snip>

 >>Additionally, so many fake documentaries have used the
 >>"shaky-cam" approach that it has become ubiquitous within
 >>programs trying to make it seem "real" when, in reality, most
 >>documentaries have very carefully staged and smooth camera
 >>moves.

 >>In short, movies have become so pervasive in our lives that
 >>people's expectations of a reality they've never experienced
 >>have been skewed in favor of a higher fantasy element. Like the
 >>"hyped" 357, fist fight or shaky-cam, AA plays up to the general
 >>audience's EXPECTATIONS of what archival documentary footage
 >>would look like as opposed to what REAL documentary footage
 >>would look like.

<snip>

 >>AA may "look" real to the average person, but the sloppiness of
 >>the camera work, alone, is the "paper mache touch" that gives it
 >>away as a fake, in my opinion.

 >>Just ask yourself this question: Given that such an event would
 >>have been the singular, most important discovery in the history
 >>of the world, does it really make sense that the government
 >>would have been so cheap and hurried in the execution of both
 >>the autopsy or the documentation? If all U.S. documentary
 >>footage up to that time shared the same characteristics as the
 >>AA footage, then a point could be made in favor of authenticity.

<snip>

 >>Common sense says that rockets aren't made of paper mache when
 >>metal is available and documentaries of aliens from outer space
 >>aren't shot out of focus in low light on super grainy black and
 >>white stock by clumsy cameramen when better resources are
 >>obviously available to a government that has nothing but better
 >>resources.

 >>Something as important as the alleged event that was the
 >>catalyst for AA would have generated more serious and competent
 >>handling of both the autopsy and the documentation.

Neil replied:

 >You write a great deal here, but say very little, why so much
 >smoke?. What factual points in particular can you refute?

 >As one still involved in following up this contentious case from
 >an image analysis point of view, I'd like to here them.

Hi, Neil!

The very film is a factual point that refutes itself!
Documentary footage and documentaries shot by the Armed services
are some of the most "static" in the history of film. Check out
any at your local library and you will find NO walk around,
"shaky-cam shots" or the like. In addition, most were shot in
35mm, not 16mm (though they were usually released on 16mm). In
addition, many were in color. The ones that were in black and
white were not anything like the grainy results fostered on the
viewing public ala AA.

I understand your interest. However, let me turn this around: If
you disagree (and I'm not implying that you do; you're pretty
open minded, in my opinion) please show me other Armed services
documentaries of events that rival the importance of this moment
in history that looked as bad as this. Now, I'm not talking
about combat footage shot by grunts or combat cameramen in
uncontrolled conditions. I'm talking about the customary
documentation for major events in the history of the U.S. Armed
Services. (think nuclear energy, training, tests, parades,
commissions, and, most importantly, other medical
documentaries!) After all, AA would certainly rank higher than,
say, a film on how to throw hand grenades, yes? Try comparing
them. Even films on "How to Clean up the Mess Hall" are bright,
pristine, rock steady and, of course, in focus compared to the
hack work of AA.

Here's another way to look at it: Supporters of AA have gone on
and on about how everything in the AA film looks authentic such
as the phone and the instruments  and the clothing, etc. The
notion is that if something didn't match, then that would be a
"tell" of fakery. Fair enough; but how about the execution of
the film, itself? The style of the footage should match other
Armed services documentary footage just as the objects seen in
the footage should be accurate and true to that time period. In
the end, the objects seen in the footage might match, but the
execution of the footage doesn't match anything from the Armed
services that I've ever seen.

Of course if this was, like, the 50th alien autopsy that they'd
done and were just getting real casual about things, then I
guess it might be justified. Otherwise, unless someone can
provide evidence that AA is typical of how the Armed services
documented important events of monumental historical
significance, then I feel that the film doesn't hold up to
scrutiny.


Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

                Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural

From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:44:09 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:10:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural


 >From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 22:23:51 EST
 >Subject: Bush'S Unusual Reference In The Inaugural Address
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Am I the only one to find this sentence right at the end of
 >George W. Bush's inaugural address quite unusual.

 >"And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this
 >storm. "

 >On first impression it would seem to be a possible reference to
 >Ezekiel 1, 4:


I caught that remark too. Almost like Bush had been already
been briefed on some interesting inside information.

Regarding this, I recalled a couple of posts to Jeff Rense's
Sightings website. Here they are:


1. "George Washington's Strange Vision of America's Future"

Wherein the future president is supposedly visited by an
angel at his tent at Valley Forge. The angel describes the
future of America to him, sort of. An interesting tale...

This one is still available online at Jeff's site at:
http://www.sightings.com/ufo/washingtonsvision.htm


2. "Los Alamos Scientists Develop 'Anti-Gravity' Device"
   (from the Sacramento Bee 1-11-01)

Here's a few interesting excerpts from item 2;
note the reference to Bush therein:

   The "Zero-G" is still a classified project and I can only
   comment on some of the achievements the room has made.
   First, the square footage is well under 300 feet but can
   produce antigravity or negative gravity as we call it,
   with enough force to enable a 250 pound object to levitate.
   The room has not yet been tested with humans.

   ...

   I can only say that we're using some really leading edge
   science to do this. Magnetic forces are being used in the
   Zero G Room that 10 years ago would have been thought
   impossible to produce. The size of the magnetic equipment
   is still too large to fit in a space vehicle, but we're
   confident that the size should be down to a manageable size
   within 2 to 3 years. We'll also need to miniatureize the
   magnetic super-cooling system; Browne said.

   With such technologies come added discoveries. Along the
   research path to the "Zero G Room"; our scientists confimed
   the existence of a new element that can produce energy a
   million times over current special nuclear materials. What
   I am referring to is the "Buck Rogers" part, that being a
   Matter Anti-Matter reaction.

   ...

   It has been rumored that President Elect George W. Bush has
   asked Los Alamos to study the new element for use in military
   weapons. Neither Browne or the Bush Administration would
   comment on that subject.

   Former Los Alamos researcher Bob Lazar says he feels that
   a load has been lifted from his shoulders. Lazar claims
   to have witnessed "reverse engineering"; research of captured
   alien space vehicles commonly reported as "UFO; or "flying
   saucers." During those claims Lazar mentioned a new element
   discovery and "matter-anti-matter" power sources.

   "The technology behind the "Zero G Room"; on the Hill (Los
   Alamos) is based in part on those gravity amplifiers we
   worked on in Nevada. The new element is produced by an
   alien technology that is so classified that not even the
   President of the United States knows much about it",
   Lazar said during an interview last week.

   Lazar added, "What worries me is now that they (Los Alamos)
   know how to tap this energy source, how long will it be
   before they turn in into another weapon of mass destruction?
   ..."


Although I downloaded the 2nd item just recently from Sightings,
I can't find it there now. Maybe I just didn't search hard
enough, or maybe Jeff removed it for some reason. Anyway, the
point is, there may some some interesting substance behind
Bush's final innaugural comment.

-Brian C.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:04:19 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:18:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - Easton
 >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:40:28 -0000

 >Regarding...

 >>From: Luis R. Gonzalez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:52:32 +0100
 >>Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:07:59 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

 >>>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >>>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:35:17 -0500

<snip>

Hi James,

You and some others are missing the obvious.

Lonnie Zamora said the object was the size of a car. Given that
volume of gas or hot air it couldn't have lifted 20 pounds off
the ground let alone two men or boys, the burners, the
carriage/basket, ballast. BTW what were little boys doing
operating a sensitive government sponsered balloon anyway.

ZAMORA SIGHTING- HOT AIR BALLOON THEORY: NOT AN OPTION.

Any serious balloonist would toss that theory just on the
strength of the low bag volume to begin with.

You've got to learn to research this stuff more thoroughly James,
instead of running off half-cocked. Your hypotheses keep falling
apart. Rendlesham, Kenneth Arnold the Vulcan Bomber
explanation... the list goes on and on. You keep it up and you're
going to get booted out of the debunker's society.

Also, notice how short I kept this? :-)

Fact takes little time while obviation requires a great deal of
rhetoric to cover the lack of same.

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

                            P-47: Blue Book 1950

From: Joel Carpenter <carpenter_joel@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:41:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:21:13 -0500
Subject: P-47: Blue Book 1950


In 1948, when America was the world's only nuclear power and
most of its leaders expected it to be so for years to come, its
air defense network was a remarkably primitive apparatus. Not
counting small war-surplus mobile units, it consisted of a
paltry nine permanent military radar stations: four in
Washington state (the closest portion of the country to the
Soviet Union, and home to the strategic Boeing bomber plant and
the Hanford nuclear facility), one in Oregon, one in California,
two in New Jersey, and one on Long Island. Incredibly, most of
these radars did not even operate on a 24-hour basis.

Fighters dedicated to air defense were mostly leftover WW II
types -- propeller driven Northrop P-61 Black Widows and, later,
a few P-82 Twin Mustangs equipped with rudimentary airborne
radar and armed with light machine guns. The majority of these
planes were deployed close to the radar sites in the Pacific
Northwest. Their performance was so mediocre that they could
barely reach the cruising altitude of the average contemporary
American bomber. A senior air defense officer expressed the
opinion of many Air Force officials when he called them
"practically worthless" as serious weapons. He might as well
have been describing the air defense system as a whole. Only
three years after the end of World War II, American defensive
airpower was a travesty.

US strategic air doctrine favored a strong offense, and the Air
Force had come out of World War II with an unparalleled wealth
of experience in massive long-range bomber operations. Strategic
Air Command (SAC) emerged as the winner of the post-war military
infighting over still-scarce nuclear resources, and there was
strong political support for an offensive force structure. The
pervasive feeling in strategy circles was that the next war
would be deterred not by vowing to stop an enemy strike in its
tracks, but by the threat of overwhelming counterattacks on the
aggressor's vital military, industrial, and governmental
centers. SAC was by far the most politically powerful branch of
the Air Force and consumed the lion's share of funding, and
consistently resisted proposals to organize a serious air
defense arm. But even the staunchest believers in offensive
airpower acknowledged that some type of functional air defense
system would be necessary for the United States.

A continental air defense system, as envisioned in the late
1940s, would serve three basic functions. Pragmatically, the Air
Force and the Truman administration recognized the political
necessity to reassure the public that it had some type of
protection against enemy air attack. Second, a warning network
would be essential to alert SAC to enemy penetrations of US
airspace which might be the prelude to a full-scale attack,
giving the bomber force time to prepare a counterattack.
Finally, although there was skepticism within the Air Force over
the ability of interceptors to blunt a major Soviet strike, at
least a measure of damage limitation for vital military and
urban sites could be provided by defensive fighter forces. Air
Force studies as late as 1952 (and highly classified at the
time) estimated that the US air defense system had an appalling
_three in one hundred_ chance of detecting, tracking, and
identifying an intruder, launching an interceptor, directing it
to a target, and shooting the target down. Of course the public
was never told of these statistics in anything but the most
euphemized terms.

In December 1948, the Air Force submitted a plan for an interim
air defense radar network composed of any equipment and
communications links that could be made available in the
shortest possible time. The system, appropriately named
"Lashup," was built from mothballed World War II heavy radars
and a limited number newer radar units that were just becoming
available. The deficiencies of Lashup were well understood by
CONAC, the Continental Air Command, but while the network might
be nearly useless against future high-speed jets or evasive
intruders using electronic jamming, it would be barely adequate
to give warning of a massed attack by propeller-driven Soviet
bombers.

One of the most glaring defects of Lashup was its limited
coverage, both in area and altitude. The network consisted of
only 44 fixed sites, and even the so-called Permanent System
intended to succeed Lashup would have only about 85 fixed sites.
The airspace of the continental United States was simply too
vast to be effectively guarded against incursions by enemy
aircraft at all altitudes with the technology available in the
late 1940s. Since radar is generally a line-of-sight device, the
curvature of the earth and other technical factors set limits on
the minimum altitudes a radar site could scan. Below these
limits, aircraft had a good chance of sneaking through a radar
network undetected. Lashup's old AN/CPS-5, and even its newer
General Electric AN/CPS-6B surveillance units, were unable to
reliably paint targets below roughly 5,000 feet, an
uncomfortably high base which could allow a large aircraft to
approach a target undetected.

As Lashup went operational, the Air Force began the long process
of designing a permanent, full-coverage continental radar
network. But it would take a catastrophe - the detonation of the
first Soviet nuclear device - to spur real action. In the fall
of 1949, in the wake of the detection of the Soviet nuclear
test, Air Force Vice Chief of Staff General Muir Fairchild
assigned the task of defining an adequate air defense radar
network to General Samuel Anderson, Director of Plans and
Operations. Anderson appointed his deputy, Colonel T. J.
Dayharsh, to head a study group on the problem. The study
group's proposal was to be known as the "Blue Book plan."

First presented at a meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on
March 2, 1950, the "Blue Book" air defense plan envisioned a
workable permanent national radar network to be put in place by
July 1, 1952. However, this date was also thought to represent
the "critical date when the Soviets would pose a dangerous
threat." The Air Force's Director of Intelligence, General
Cabell, projected that by that time the USSR would possess as
many as 90 nuclear bombs and enough Tu-4 bombers -- copies of
the Boeing B-29 -- to carry them to US targets.

The Blue Book plan recommended that squadrons of radar-equipped
jet interceptors be put on alert at the earliest opportunity to
guard the nation's most vital facilities. In order of priority,
Blue Book identified SAC nuclear weapons facilities; the Hanford
nuclear plant; Washington, DC; New York, and other major cities
as primary sites to be guarded by fighters.

Dayharsh's Blue Book team strongly suggested that a coordinated,
interservice air defense structure would need to be implemented
to give the United States a reasonable chance of confronting a
Soviet attack. To help give sufficient early warning of incoming
intruders, naval patrol craft off the coasts would have to
forward radar tracking reports to Air Force control centers.
Army anti-aircraft gunners likewise would have to work closely
with their blue-suit counterparts. This would require more than
just planes and electronic systems: it would mean a change in
national consciousness about vulnerability to air attack.

Furthermore, until greater numbers of improved radars could be
installed, the Air Force had no choice but to turn to the public
to help fill Lashup's low-altitude gaps. Until more radars could
be put in place, CONAC proposed boosting the number of spotters
in the ranks of the largely inactive Ground Observer Corps, the
civil defense organization responsible for keeping a lookout on
American airspace.

The Ground Observer Corps was something of a political hot
potato. There was a general reluctance to incorporate a civilian
organization into the military chain of command, and the Defense
Department worried correctly that a sudden urgent request to
watch for enemy aircraft would create public unease. Moreover,
the poor performance of civilian observers in their one
operational test during World War II - "Sunset Project", the
defense against the Japanese Fu-Go balloons - gave little
encouragement to Air Force officers who might have to rely on
them to detect a nuclear sneak attack. Despite these drawbacks,
the service felt that it had no choice but to reactivate the GOC
until greater numbers of more capable radars became available.

There had been 6,000 GOC posts at the height of WW II
operations, but after the surrender of Japan the organization
had been mothballed. Until the announcement of the existence of
the Soviet bomb in 1949, response to requests for GOC volunteers
was apathetic. In February 1950, in spite of the mediocre
performance of test units of the GOC, Air Force Headquarters
authorized planning for the activation of a full-time, permanent
GOC as an arm of the air defense system. As the Air Force was
unwilling to play up the idea that the country was at risk from
Soviet attack, the public remained largely unresponsive to calls
for GOC volunteers. By mid 1950, only five percent of the
desired posts had been staffed. The outbreak of the Korean War,
coupled with increased publicity, helped somewhat, and at the
end of that year, 26 filter centers and several thousand
observers were trained and operational on a part-time basis.

The seeds of trouble were sown as early as June 1950, when
Flying magazine ran an article soliciting GOC observers, titled
"Wanted: 180,000 Spotters." The cover story of the same issue
was "Flying Saucers -- Fact or Fiction?" by Curtis Fuller,
Flying's editor, who also wrote for Fate, Raymond Palmer's
flying saucer pulp. The cover plane was the Vought V-173 "Zimmer
Skimmer."


"[GOC] spotters won't be plane identification experts," Fuller
wrote. "In fact, the Air Force won't ask them to spend time
memorizing aircraft silhouettes. Today's bombers and fighters
fly so high and so fast -- and attack so often at night -- that
key officers believe it's useless to train civilians on the fine
points of identification."

As in World War II, the observers would submit aircraft sighting
reports over commercial phone lines to military-staffed air
filter centers, where controllers would manually plot reports of
target motion and compare them with flight plans of known air
traffic. These "screened" tracks of suspicious objects would in
turn be passed to interceptor control centers, which would use
Ground Controlled Intercept (GCI) radars to guide fighters, by
voice radio command, to the vicinity of targets. Once close to
the target, the fighter would hopefully acquire the object
either visually or with its own radar. It was a slow, cumbersome
procedure that seems utterly turned on its head by modern
standards, its inherent flaw being that it necessarily placed
great emphasis on early warning from visual observers and used
radar primarily to direct fighters. And these visual observers
were deliberately not trained in the "fine points" of aircraft
identification....

Simultaneous with the reactivation of Project Grudge, a major
flying saucer film opened in theaters across the nation.
Appropriately, the very first image inThe Day the Earth Stood
Still was a rotating AN/CPS-5 radar antenna, the basic unit of
the Lashup air defense system.


Holy Mackerel! Get the Lieutenant!

That thing's doing 4,000! That can't be aircraft! Must be a buzz
bomb!

I have a bogey at two zero zero thousand feet, four zero zero
zero miles an hour...



The Day The Earth Stood Still debuted in New York City on
Tuesday, September 18, 1951. The first teaser advertisements for
the coming film explicitly linked it to the Fort Monmouth radar
incidents ("Were you frightened by the 'Flying Disc' over New
Jersey? Wait till you see The Day the Earth Stood Still").

On October 10 the film opened in Washington with considerable
newspaper hoopla: "Tonight at 7:30 P.M. Gala Premiere! Lights
will shine! Bands will play! See the planet men land in
Washington! RKO Keith's 18th at G."

"The picture carries a special filip for Washington in that it
all happens right here, with local backgrounds, and with a
strong suggestion that we might behave like idiots in a panicky
situation," a DC reviewer noted presciently.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:03:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:47:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:40:28 -0000
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:30:34 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

 >Regarding...

 >>From: Luis R. Gonzalez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:52:32 +0100
 >>Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:07:59 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

 >Luis wrote:

 >>>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >>>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:35:17 -0500

 >>>Looking it the direction of the UFO's departure one can see
 >>>that the balloon theory constructed by super Christian
 >>>fundamentalist Larry Robinson is difficult to contemplate. Of
 >>>course, we had an expert balloonist with us who didn't think
 >>>much of this theory either.

 >>After reading Larry Robinson proposal in The Anomalist 9 article
 >>about the Socorro case (and also in his web page) I would be
 >>very interested if you elaborate (publicly or privately).

 >Luis,

 >You might wish to consider another viewpoint.

 >I'm not sure why Larry Robinson deserves being called a 'super
 >Christian [sic] fundamentalist [sic]'. Is this somehow related
 >to Larry's commendable efforts to solve a 'UFO' case rather than
 >perpetuate the supposed 'mystery'?

 >Whatever the reason, I presume it's not meant to be
 >complimentary! I'm sure Larry - a fully-paid-up skeptic - will
 >be more amused than horrified at being labelled thus.

<snip>

This is typical Eastonian post, avoiding the hard stuff and
giving lines and lines of lectures on ETH and other material
unrelated to the investigation of this case.

For the record, I have never contended or posited that any UFO
was an ET spaceship. Neither does Professor Moore say the
Socorro UFO was an ET spaceship.

So basically, we can eliminate that smoke screen. Larry Robinson
is a true believer, see his web page about his belief on ET, see
his take on UFOs and the Bible. Easton is constantly on people
about their belief system, but he seems to have nothing to say
except Robinson is "a fully paid up skeptic." Whatever that
means.

If you have a balloon, then the most important thing about
ballooning is not a thumbnail sketch about Raven Industries or
CIA special projects.  There are two factors in addition to lift
which will tell one about the flight of a balloon, wind speed
and direction. Do you find any such consideration in Robinson
site? No, he was in his own words too busy to check that....  He
wasn't too busy to put the idea on his web page. That is all it
is, an idea. Not well supported by facts or investigation or
even checks of the most important factors for this possible
explanation.

As you look in the direction of departure of the balloon, you
have an unobstructed view in a long distance. How did the thing
go out of sight? Fifty knot wind?

Prof. Moore did his own investigation with Zamora. One of the
things Zamora told him was that the object kicked dirt and
debris at him when it left the area. Does that sound like a hot
air balloon? (Please note Easton completely ignores this
factor.) One thing Moore noted about Zamora was that he answered
the questions put to him and nothing more, one had to grill him
to get all the details out of him.

Now, somehow if you bring Piccard's opinion into the mix that is
suppose to settle everything. Hardly, Piccard is talking in
generalities, he had not investigated the case.

There is more, but that is for another time after we get 200
more lines of mostly irrelevant outpourings.

Flight direction and speed of a balloon is determined by what?
Wind Direction and Speed. (Say that five times and make it
yours.)

Jan Aldrich









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

                   Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - King

From: Jeff King <Boroimhe@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 20:48:58 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:50:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - King


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:22:33 -0500
 >updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham

All hail to the List:

In his recent posting, Bruce Maccabee concludes with:

 >The 'bottom line' is that Willingham could well have, correctly,
 >remembered that radar detected the object and at the same time
 >he may have incorrectly assumed that it was detected by the DEW
 >line radar that was well publicized in 1953. He was not, after
 >all, involved in the development of radar so would not be
 >expected to know how various radar setups were designated.


Interesting. When the Air Force used the "mixed-up different
years" argument in Case Closed, people went ballistic. Now it's
used to rehabilitate a witness.

A more serious problem with Willingham's story is his claim to
be flying out of Dyess Air Force Base in 1950. Dyess wasn't
opened until 1956. Groundbreaking didn't even occur until 1953.
Perhaps he wasn't involved enough in his career to know the
various bases to which he was assigned.

At least Willingham's story is internally consistent. He
scrambled out of a base that didn't exist to intercept a UFO
detected on a radar system that also didn't exist. Maybe his UFO
really crashed in 1953, or 1956, or ...

Jeff King

\






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:52:04 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:07:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


Richard Hall Comments On The Socorro Discussion

Richard Hall's UFO Evidence II has just been released by
Scarecrow Press and contains sections on both the Socorro
incident and the Rendelsham Forest sighting. But in response to
some of the issues being raised on Updates, he has offered this
assessment:

=== forwarded comment from Richard Hall ===

PELICANS IN SOCORRO

I can hear their wings flapping! We "believers in ET" at least
do our homework. If you are not familiar with the research
literature on old "classic" cases, you have no business trying
to debunk them. Socorro was investigated by the Army, Air Force,
FBI, police, and civilians (including NICAP) quite thoroughly,
and was fully reported in the local newspaper. A few pertinent
facts from the various investigation reports with regard to the
balloon hypothesis:

Zamora was first attracted to the UFO while in a police car in
hot pursuit of a speeder when he hear a "roar" (over the sound
of his car and presumably a siren), looked and saw a flame
descending. As determined by the military investigators, he was
at a point about 3/4 of a mile from the landing spot. That's
some loud balloon! That's also some flame! There has been some
confusion about the orientation of the oval or ellipse he saw
when he went to investigate. At "first glance" which was very
brief, he was looking at a slightly downward angle at what he
thought was an upturned car, a sort of end-on view at which
point the oval appeared to have its "long axis vertical" and
from this perspective two legs about 2.5 feet long were visible
protruding from underneath. However, when the object rose off
the ground it was seen from the side to be an "oval with long
axis horizontal" and the red "lettering" was in the center. This
orientation and description is confirmed by sketches contained
in the USAF report.

The object did not disappear slowly; it _rose_ slowly (i.e.,
increased its altitude) while "traveling very fast." (On the
basis of times and distances, the speed was later estimated to
be at least 120 m.p.h. as the object disappeared over the
mountains.) That's some fast balloon! The object was shiny,
aluminum-colored (i.e., metallic, not flat white in color). The
physical trace evidence included the four rectangular imprints
each about 6 in. x 16 in in size, forming a trapezoidal pattern
about 12-15 feet on the side. According to interviews in the
newspaper, they appeared to be made "by an object of
considerable weight settling to earth at slow speed and not
moving after touching the ground." The imprints remained clearly
visible after 3.5 months of weather and erosion. That's some
big, and heavy, balloon!

The "burned clumps of green grass and greasewood" were still
smoldering when Sgt. Chavez of the State Police arrived.
According to a 4/28/64 FBI teletype report, the site was still
smoldering on April 26. Not to mention the reported fused sand
found at the site and secretly analyzed. That's some hot
balloon!

Did the USAF investigate balloon activity? Major Hector
Quintanilla of Project Blue Book in 1966 published an article
about UFO investigation in Studies In Intelligence. I quote:
"During the course of the investigation ... everything that was
humanly possible to verify was checked...The Holloman AFB
Balloon Control Center was checked for balloon activity. All
local stations and Air Force bases were checked for release of
weather balloons...." He goes on to say that the USAF checked
with all military bases and facilities in the area, with
negative results.

Hot-air balloon propellant as the source of sound, heat,
physical evidence? Quintanilla: "Laboratory analysis of the
burned brush showed no chemicals that could have been propellant
residue."

Richard Hal










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 06:20:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:10:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - Easton
 >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:40:28 -0000

<snip>

 >Regarding...

<snip>

 >Luis,

 >You might wish to consider another viewpoint.

 >I'm not sure why Larry Robinson deserves being called a 'super
 >Chrirstian [sic] fundmentalist [sic]'. Is this somehow related
 >to Larry's commendable efforts to solve a 'UFO' case rather than
 >perpetuate the supposed 'mystery'?

 >Whatever the reason, I presume it's not meant to be
 >complimentary! I'm sure Larry - a fully-paid-up skeptic - will
 >be more amused than horrified at being labelled thus.


James-

The problem I've had with Larry's theory is that is has been
based on his alleged recollection of an article that he read
many years ago and now cannot find, describing a strange
encounter by the balloon crew and a local law enforcement
officers. If that article has been found, please post the
information pertaining to it, so that we can all locate a copy
of it and read it. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe that
he hasn't confabulated this memory based on his current beliefs
and his experiences through the years. Skeptics and Debunkers
have always emphasized the limitation of memories, and it would
seem that you (like those on the other side of the spectrum)
would like to pick and choose how you apply that limitation.

I find the theory to be interesting, but not supported by the
reactions of law enforcement officials or the military in their
investigation into the incident. But as you noted, this
discussion was played out on the UFO Research list and there was
no resolution to it there. It would seem that it comes down to a
question of what and who you want to believe to be the best
solution, and that isn't scientific proof. For all the verbosity
I've seen on Socorro and the "Hot Air Balloon" theory, there has
been nothing in the way of evidence and a large amount of raw
speculation.

On the other hand, we did learn quite a bit about the history of
Hot Air Balloons and how they evolved in the early 60's. [Not to
mention the orthinological education we've all gotten regarding
high flying Pelicans in the Northwestern US.]

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

                Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:29:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:13:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural


 >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:44:09 -0600 (CST)
 >From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural Address


 >2. "Los Alamos Scientists Develop 'Anti-Gravity' Device"
 >   (from the Sacramento Bee 1-11-01)

 >Although I downloaded the 2nd item just recently from Sightings,
 >I can't find it there now. Maybe I just didn't search hard
 >enough, or maybe Jeff removed it for some reason. Anyway, the
 >point is, there may some some interesting substance behind
 >Bush's final innaugural comment.


Brian;

This is one item that I had exchanged email with Ohio researcher
George Belanus about, and we were both puzzled that the report
was 'pulled' after its brief appearance. Belanus searched for
and did not find any such  article at the Sacramento Bee and
also said he contacted Mr. James Neff, webmaster for the
Sightings page and was told, by e-mail, that the page was pulled
because it was suspected to be a hoax. I've been keeping alert
for any clarification on this vanishing article thing so we'll
see if anything comes along.


Thanks,

Kenny Young
--
      U F O   R e s e a r c h
     http://home.fuse.net/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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

             Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:47:14 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:15:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:34:59 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

 >>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:53:28 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Ed wrote:

 >While you're correct that the AA doesn't have the look of an
 >autopsy, it does have the look and feel of a surgery. I would
 >say that this was more like an exploratory surgery, one where
 >they didn't know exactly what was going to happen.

Hi, Ed...

Well, this is pretty much my whole point. AA does not look like an
autopsy, we both agree on that. However, it looks like no surgery that I
was ever witness to. That said, I guess we'll just have to disagree on
that point. I think you are correct, though, when you imply that, if a
real event, it would be a situation where they weren't sure exactly what
was going to happen. As such, I can not imagine them being so unprepared
and sloppy in the execution of the procedure or the documentation.
Knowing going into this that it was a once in a lifetime event, the end
result would have been much more involved and documented in a better,
more informative fashion. Color film would have been mandatory, don't
you think?

Regarding such, I wrote:

 >>Like the
 >>"hyped" 357, fist fight or shaky-cam, AA plays up to the general
 >>audience's EXPECTATIONS of what archival documentary footage
 >>would look like as opposed to what REAL documentary footage
 >>would look like.

Ed replied:

 >How much time have you spent viewing the AA? There is no
 >evidence of what you characterize as "shaky-cam". That must be
 >something you've imagined.

 >The footage is very steady and well done considering the
 >limitations placed on the cameraman.

This is wishful thinking on your part, Ed. The footage, compared
to other Armed Services documentaries, is crap. And, of course,
this is the real point that you seem to ignore.

Even if we considered the debate a draw concerning the
authenticity of the procedure, itself, the fact that other Armed
Services documentaries about subjects of far lessor importance
are far superior in quality and execution can not be dismissed.
To simply say that the film looked pretty good considering the
limitations of the cameraman is to ignore fact that, given the
magnitude of the event, documentation would have certainly
entailed multiple 35mm cameras shooting color film from several
different angles. Such a once in a life time event would not
have been shot in 16mm black and white in low light, with push
processing which would knowingly make the film more grainy by a
single camera man that couldn't even manage to keep the image in
focus. All these effects are just "trimming" designed to play up
to a modern audiences' expectations of what Armed Services
documentaries would look like as opposed to the reality of what
they look like.

There is no way you can explain why something of such monumental
and historical importance would have been documented in such
haphazard and amateur fashion when other, better resources were
available with a single phone call. Instead of watching the AA
film over and over, comparing it to itself, go to your local
library and check out documentaries available from the Armed
Services. _That_ is what you need to compare it to.


Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

             Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:50:10 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:20:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -


 >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:10:09 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:49:22 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

Roger,

 >The very film is a factual point that refutes itself!

Explain?.

 >Documentary footage and documentaries shot by the Armed services
 >are some of the most "static" in the history of film.

I don't think we're talking "documentary production" here, are
we?. Are you now saying you think this was shot by a US Army
Film Unit?.

 >Check out
 >any at your local library and you will find NO walk around,
 >"shaky-cam shots" or the like. In addition, most were shot in
 >35mm, not 16mm (though they were usually released on 16mm).

Considering the hand held nature of the filming the shots are
really quite steady and though extreme close-ups _are_ out of
focus, on the whole much of the remaining footage is resonably
sharp.

35mm? Why did the US Military issue 16mm movie cameras to their
cameramen?.

 >In
 >addition, many were in color.

What color stock available in 1947 would you have recommended to
be used in

(a) An enclosed tent under "field conditions" with only the
     inside ambiant light available?.

(b) A small cluttered autopsy room with only one overhead light
     source?.

 >The ones that were in black and
 >white were not anything like the grainy results fostered on the
 >viewing public ala AA.

You "push process" you get grain, even with today's Kodak
emulsions! Has anyone ever said these images were ever for
public consumption?

 >I understand your interest. However, let me turn this around: If
 >you disagree (and I'm not implying that you do; you're pretty
 >open minded, in my opinion) please show me other Armed services
 >documentaries of events that rival the importance of this moment
 >in history that looked as bad as this. Now, I'm not talking
 >about combat footage shot by grunts or combat cameramen in
 >uncontrolled conditions. I'm talking about the customary
 >documentation for major events in the history of the U.S. Armed
 >Services. (think nuclear energy, training, tests, parades,
 >commissions, and, most importantly, other medical
 >documentaries!)

MMmm...Well there _were_ plenty of these self same 16mm clockwork
camera's present at the signing by the Japanes High Command of
the surrender documents at the official end of WWII,(have a good look
in the backgrounds) but that wasn't a "documentary _production_" was
it?, though I would class it as one of _the_ most important and
historical events of WWII.

What those 16mm cameras _were_ doing though was "documenting
events" which is just what the AA footage appears to do,
wouldn't you agree?. There is a significant difference, it
wasn't a "production number".

 >After all, AA would certainly rank higher than,
 >say, a film on how to throw hand grenades, yes? Try comparing
 >them. Even films on "How to Clean up the Mess Hall" are bright,
 >pristine, rock steady and, of course, in focus compared to the
 >hack work of AA.

You _are_ saying it was a US Army Film Unit production, "How to
Autopsy an Alien"!.

 >Here's another way to look at it: Supporters of AA have gone on
 >and on about how everything in the AA film looks authentic such
 >as the phone and the instruments  and the clothing, etc. The
 >notion is that if something didn't match, then that would be a
 >"tell" of fakery. Fair enough; but how about the execution of
 >the film, itself? The style of the footage should match other
 >Armed services documentary footage just as the objects seen in
 >the footage should be accurate and true to that time period. In
 >the end, the objects seen in the footage might match, but the
 >execution of the footage doesn't match anything from the Armed
 >services that I've ever seen.

It depends what you've seen, the clean tight shots that end up
on our tv screens or the rest of the stuff the archive
researcher puts back on the shelf. Even today we only get to see
a fraction of what gets sent back from "war zones", if you watch
satellite news feeds (it's another hobby) you get to see what
never makes it to the final product, one incident after a middle
east car bomb explosion sticks in mind, a Reuters feed relayed a
good 10 mins of rough footage their cameraman had shot including
a police officer taking the fingerprints from a hand, no arm or
body, just a hand!.

Needless to say that bit of the footage _never_ made the Evening
News.

 >Of course if this was, like, the 50th alien autopsy that they'd
 >done and were just getting real casual about things, then I
 >guess it might be justified. Otherwise, unless someone can
 >provide evidence that AA is typical of how the Armed services
 >documented important events of monumental historical
 >significance, then I feel that the film doesn't hold up to
 >scrutiny.


Roger, it depends again on "who's" official history, I don't
know what the situation is like in the US, similar to our's in
the UK I guess, though you have the FOIA we don't. As the years
roll by and we get further and further away from the WWII period
more and more UK official documents are coming to light, we have
what is termed the 30 year and 50 year (100 year and never,
also) rules which relate to just how long official Govt
documents are held back from public view. As many of the
classified documents from the late and post war years have been
released it's been quite a suprise to interested historians just
how different the "accepted" histories differ from what is now
known to have actually happened as recorded in "official"
papers, I think I've mentioned before in this forum the UK
Resistance Force set up as a completely "black" project in 1941
and who's existance was completely unknown until a few documents
refering to it surfaced in the early 80's.

Recorded history is dependant on who is recording it.

If we were to take Imperial Newsreels of the day at face value
we would still believe our POW's working on the Burma Railway
were living in holiday camps rather than dieing in their
thousands.

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


*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

                              Telescope & UFOs

From: Adam Lowe <nicap@freechariot.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:21:36 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:22:56 -0500
Subject: Telescope & UFOs


Hi Errol, List.

I spotted this about a new telescope which mentions UFOs as well.
I bet the people at SETI would like the way the two subjects are
mixed together. I apologise for the long link address.

Adam.

http://www.teletext.co.uk/news/focusmain.asp?intArticleID=17568&intarticlenumber
=4&intRegionID=19&intSubsectionID=4&indent=7


FACTFILE: MESSAGES FROM SPACE

A telescope designed to search for messages from aliens will
start scouring the skies early next year, American scientists
have announced.

In 1992 Lerwick Observatory recorded 17 sightings of a "very
low, very fast, large white object".

During the same year, two pilots claimed their Boeing 737 was
buzzed by a UFO - a "black, lozenge-like object" - as they
prepared to land at Gatwick.

FACTFILE: MESSAGES FROM SPACE Aliens' visits to Earth have been
the topic of speculation for years and now scientists have
unveiled a telescope designed to search for alien messages.

Arizona University scientists in November 1990 developed a
"language" for talking to alien civilisations.

In October 1989, a Russian news agency reported that a city had
been visited by a spaceship crewed by 3ft humanoids and a robot.

A telescope designed to search for messages from aliens will
start scouring the skies early next year, American scientists
have announced.

Space agency Nasa began to use a "super-computer" in May 1988 to
pick up signals from distant civilisations.

British and American scientists launched a transatlantic bid to
find alien life in December last year by pooling their
knowledge.

FACTFILE: MESSAGES FROM SPACE The possibility that aliens visit
Earth has been the subject of speculation for years and now
scientists are to use a telescope to search for alien messages.

Flying saucer sightings began in 1947 when a pilot claimed to
have seen nine "semi-circular aircraft".

Two weeks later, on July 8, 1947, many believe that a UFO
crashed in Roswell, New Mexico, but the US government has denied
this claim.













   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:24:24 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:16:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:07:17 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

<snip>

 >Unless I am very mistaken, virtually any and every person in
 >ufology, those whose opinions I respect at least, consider the
 >AA (Santilli) film to be a complete and utter fake... as phony
 >as a three dollar bill.

Well I guess since I am not a big name in Ufoolagy I guess I
don't have to worry about your respect <g>. I would like to
believe that the AA film is genuine, but I am sitting on the
fence as to whether it is or not.

I must say however, I can name a few people who _are_ "big"
names in Ufology who feel the same way I do.

 >Nobody will have absolute proof until Santilli and/or company
 >'fess up of course, but for the time being, I consider it to be
 >trashed beyond recognition.

I don't think Ray on Co. will "'fess up". I think they stand to
make more money from it the more it remains "unresolved".

 >The universe is not infinite.

Hmm, by what yardstick are you measuring it? <g>

--

    In an infinite universe, infinitely anything is possible.
                         Sean Jones
               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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 22

             Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:34:41 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:17:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -



 >Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:53:28 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Evening Roger

 >Regarding your comment:

 > >I'm sorry but I was still under the impression that the evidence
 > >was still inconclusive.

 >I guess that depends on what you consider as "evidence". I see
 >nothing in the video that seems "real" to me based on my
 >experience in O.R. as a medical illustrator or based on my
 >experience as a cinematographer producing documentaries and the
 >like.

<Huge snip>

With all respect Roger everything you said was either
speculation or opinion. These are free countries, yours and
mine, so we are entitled to our own opinions.

I would beg to differ from yours.

I say this on three grounds.

1) Without the actual film to validate/invalidate the footage
_absolute_ proof is being denied to the UFO community. No matter
how many gesticulate or proclaim loudly, there is no rock solid
proof.

2) The origins of the film are shrouded in mystery, yes, and
sold by the worst kind of used car salesman to boot. _But_ that
does not invalidate the film pro-quo. I have received many
sighting reports from "less than honourable people" who are no
less credible than your upstanding specimens of society.

3) My gut feeling.


All the best.

--

    In an infinite universe, infinitely anything is possible.
                         Sean Jones
               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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:58:20 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:22:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:03:55 -0500


 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:40:28 -0000
 >>Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:30:34 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

 ><snip>

 >This is typical Eastonian post, avoiding the hard stuff and
 >giving lines and lines of lectures on ETH and other material
 >unrelated to the investigation of this case.

<snip>

 >If you have a balloon, then the most important thing about
 >ballooning is not a thumbnail sketch about Raven Industries or
 >CIA special projects. There are two factors in addition to lift
 >which will tell one about the flight of a balloon, wind speed
 >and direction. Do you find any such consideration in Robinson
 >site? No, he was in his own words too busy to check that.... He
 >wasn't too busy to put the idea on his web page. That is all it
 >is, an idea. Not well supported by facts or investigation or
 >even checks of the most important factors for this possible
 >explanation.

<snip>

 >There is more, but that is for another time after we get 200
 >more lines of mostly irrelevant outpourings.

 >Flight direction and speed of a balloon is determined by what?
 >Wind Direction and Speed. (Say that five times and make it
 >yours.)

 >Jan Aldrich

Hi Jan,

Excellent points! Speaking of which, it reminds me of the
Rendlesham case:

If you have a lighthouse what are the two most important factors
in determining its relevance to the UFO case? Direction and
Visibility.

What two factors are most often evaded or misrepresented by
skeptics and debunkers of this case? Direction and Visibility.

Brad








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

             Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:36:28 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:40:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:50:10 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)

 >>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:10:09 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>The very film is a factual point that refutes itself!

Neil asks:

 >Explain?.

Hi, Neil!

Okay, let me try and take a different approach. Much has been
made of the "accuracy" of items seen in the AA video. Obviously,
if we saw something that should not be there, like say a digital
clock, then we could assume that the video is suspect until
proof of a circa 1940's digital clock was produced by AA
proponents. Likewise, if something was obviously missing from
the shot, like say scalpels, then we could also assume that the
video was suspect until proof that doctors regularly tore bodies
open with their hands was produced by AA proponents.

Therefore, it is safe to say that we must judge the AA video,
not only by what we see, but by what is obviously absent. In
this particular case we have an example of both. We have too
much "shaky-cam" compared to other Armed Services footage and
not enough "quality" compared to other Armed Services footage.

Regarding such, I had written:

 >>Documentary footage and documentaries shot by the Armed services
 >>are some of the most "static" in the history of film.

Neil replied:

 >I don't think we're talking "documentary production" here, are
 >we?. Are you now saying you think this was shot by a US Army
 >Film Unit?.

Precisely my point!!! Precisely my point!!!

Considering the importance of the event it _should_ have been
shot by a US Army Film Unit! The obvious question is why films
about cleaning of latrines or lobbing hand grenades ranks above
the importance given to the single most important event in the
history of man? The notion that this would have been shot on
16mm film in black and white under low light by, arguably, the
worst cameraman the military had to offer is absurd, in my
opinion.

Again, regarding such I wrote:

 >>Check out
 >>any at your local library and you will find _no_ walk around,
 >>"shaky-cam shots" or the like. In addition, most were shot in
 >>35mm, not 16mm (though they were usually released on 16mm).

Neil replied:

 >Considering the hand held nature of the filming the shots are
 >really quite steady and though extreme close-ups _are_ out of
 >focus, on the whole much of the remaining footage is resonably
 >sharp.

 >35mm? Why did the US Military issue 16mm movie cameras to their
 >cameramen?.

 >What color stock available in 1947 would you have recommended to
 >be used in

 >(a) An enclosed tent under "field conditions" with only the
 >    inside ambiant light available?.

 >(b) A small cluttered autopsy room with only one overhead light
 >    source?.

Frankly, Neil, this is all academic. To claim that the cameraman
did pretty good "considering the conditions he was forced to
work in" requires one to accept, in advance, that such
conditions would likely be in effect for something so important.
A casual glance at other Armed Services documentaries says that
such adverse conditions would have been avoided in the first
place. Again, look at topics of even lesser importance such as
V.D. films and the like. Certainly, documentation of a creature
from outer space would get better treatment than that! Instead,
we get something that doesn't even measure up to basic training
films on health and personal hygiene.

Continuing, I wrote:

 >>The ones that were in black and
 >>white were not anything like the grainy results fostered on the
 >>viewing public ala AA.

Neil replied:

 >You "push process" you get grain, even with today's Kodak
 >emulsions! Has anyone ever said these images were ever for
 >public consumption?

A distinction without a difference, Neil. The question isn't
"what happens if you push process 16mm film". The question is
"why shoot in low light on 16mm film to begin with?" Again, what
prevented them from simply turning on another light? More to the
point at hand, doctors like _lots_ of light; the more the
better. General medical practice dictates that push processing
would have never even been necessary, even if it had been shot
on 16mm black and white film. The amount of light require for
surgery would have been more than enough to A) prevent the film
from being underexposed and B) would have required a high enough
F stop that focus would have never been a problem, even for the
close ups.

Regarding public consumption; again, no real connection to the
issue at hand. In addition, the fact is that training films that
were _not_ for public consumption all look better than the AA
footage. But now that you brought it up, why would they _not_
want the best documentation they could get? How would they know,
in advance, that they were going to just blow this footage off
and lose track of it? We can't look at how the footage was
ultimately handled as justification for how it appears. We have
to ask why it looks like it does, in the first place.

Regarding such, I wrote:

 >>I understand your interest. However, let me turn this around: If
 >>you disagree (and I'm not implying that you do; you're pretty
 >>open minded, in my opinion) please show me other Armed services
 >>documentaries of events that rival the importance of this moment
 >>in history that looked as bad as this. Now, I'm not talking
 >>about combat footage shot by grunts or combat cameramen in
 >>uncontrolled conditions. I'm talking about the customary
 >>documentation for major events in the history of the U.S. Armed
 >>Services. (think nuclear energy, training, tests, parades,
 >>commissions, and, most importantly, other medical
 >>documentaries!)

Neil replied:

 >MMmm...Well there _were_ plenty of these self same 16mm clockwork
 >camera's present at the signing by the Japanes High Command of
 >the surrender documents at the official end of WWII,(have a good look
 >in the backgrounds) but that wasn't a "documentary _production_" was
 >it?, though I would class it as one of _the_ most important and
 >historical events of WWII.

 >What those 16mm cameras _were_ doing though was "documenting
 >events" which is just what the AA footage appears to do,
 >wouldn't you agree?. There is a significant difference, it
 >wasn't a "production number".

You make an interesting point. However, while the cameras in the
background were, indeed, 16mm, many of the cameras that captured
the very images you speak of were, in fact, 35mm. I have never
said that 16mm was never used in the field. What I have said is
that 35mm was used when ever possible to ensure the best quality
image. The one BIG difference is where the documentation took
place and the amount of preparation required. While the
surrender took place aboard a ship, AA was produced in the
United States where any resource necessary was only a phone call
away. No excuses, here.

Continuing, I wrote:

 >>After all, AA would certainly rank higher than,
 >>say, a film on how to throw hand grenades, yes? Try comparing
 >>them. Even films on "How to Clean up the Mess Hall" are bright,
 >>pristine, rock steady and, of course, in focus compared to the
 >>hack work of AA.

Neil replied:

 >You _are_ saying it was a US Army Film Unit production, "How to
 >Autopsy an Alien"!.

No, I am saying it _should_ have been. The obvious lack of
quality says it wasn't.

Neil wrote:

 >It depends what you've seen, the clean tight shots that end up
 >on our tv screens or the rest of the stuff the archive
 >researcher puts back on the shelf.
 >Recorded history is dependant on who is recording it.

<snip>

 >If we were to take Imperial Newsreels of the day at face value
 >we would still believe our POW's working on the Burma Railway
 >were living in holiday camps rather than dieing in their
 >thousands.

Frankly, this is confusing content over quality. Even if you
want to consider the content of AA to be valid, i.e. that the
people and props "look" right, the quality of the production
doesn't measure up to other footage, used or used, that a US
Army Film Unit would have produced for such an event. Again, it
all comes down not only to what we do see in the AA film, but
what we do NOT see that should be there: Quality documentation
of the single, most important event in the history of mankind.

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

                           Pre-1947 UFO Encounters

From: Chris Aubeck <chrisaubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:14:53 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:42:29 -0500
Subject: Pre-1947 UFO Encounters


I am currently in the final stages of a long project relating to
very old UFO cases. This year marks the tenth year of my
research effort and I am expecting to publish at least one book
on the theme of pre-1947 cases, especially close encounters with
entities, next year.

I am as up-to-date as I can possibly be regarding internet
resources and databases. However, I have a number of doubts
about specific cases that have not been dealt with in books or
on the net.

At the moment I am particularly interested in two 18th century
cases of which I know very little. Can you help?

The two cases are:

the Alenon 'crash' of 1790

and a lesser-known Russian incident of very similar
characteristics, which supposedly took place in the village of
Don in 1796.

I understand that the first of these two was published in a
magazine called CLYPEUS, volume III, by an Italian ufologist
called Alberto Fenoglio. Some references on the internet imply
that he has falsified cases and testimonies in the course of his
writing career. Is there any solid information about him that I
may use in my book? Did he invent both of the stories mentioned
above?

If anyone can enlighten me or at least point me in the right
direction, I would deeply appreciate a swift response.

Thankyou.

Chris Aubeck









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

                Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural

From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:04:46 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:44:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural


 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:29:14 -0500
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural Address

 >>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:44:09 -0600 (CST)
 >>From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural Address

 >>2. "Los Alamos Scientists Develop 'Anti-Gravity' Device"
 >> (from the Sacramento Bee 1-11-01)

 >>Although I downloaded the 2nd item just recently from Sightings,
 >>I can't find it there now. Maybe I just didn't search hard
 >>enough, or maybe Jeff removed it for some reason. Anyway, the
 >>point is, there may some some interesting substance behind
 >>Bush's final innaugural comment.

 >Brian;

 >This is one item that I had exchanged email with Ohio researcher
 >George Belanus about, and we were both puzzled that the report
 >was 'pulled' after its brief appearance. Belanus searched for
 >and did not find any such  article at the Sacramento Bee and
 >also said he contacted Mr. James Neff, webmaster for the
 >Sightings page and was told, by e-mail, that the page was pulled
 >because it was suspected to be a hoax. I've been keeping alert
 >for any clarification on this vanishing article thing so we'll
 >see if anything comes along.


Kenny,

Well, one way to pursue this might be to contact Bob Lazar, whom
the article said was interviewed about the announcement. If he
really was interviewed, he could almost certainly tell you (1)
how he learned about the announcement, and (2) who interviewed
him; ie, was it somebody for the Sacramento Bee, or for some
other organization?


Just a thought,

-Brian C.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

             Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:43:13 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:51:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -


 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:47:14 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:34:59 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

 >>>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:53:28 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, Ed wrote:

 >>While you're correct that the AA doesn't have the look of an
 >>autopsy, it does have the look and feel of a surgery. I would
 >>say that this was more like an exploratory surgery, one where
 >>they didn't know exactly what was going to happen.

 >Hi, Ed...

 >Well, this is pretty much my whole point. AA does not look like an
 >autopsy, we both agree on that. However, it looks like no surgery that I
 >was ever witness to.

Yes we can agree that it is not like an autopsy, at least none
that I have witnessed. And on the whole, it isn't exactly like
any surgery I have witness either but it has the _feel_ of
surgery. My opinions are subjective, as are yours.

 >That said, I guess we'll just have to disagree on
 >that point. I think you are correct, though, when you imply that, if a
 >real event, it would be a situation where they weren't sure exactly what
 >was going to happen. As such, I can not imagine them being so unprepared
 >and sloppy in the execution of the procedure or the documentation.
 >Knowing going into this that it was a once in a lifetime event, the end
 >result would have been much more involved and documented in a better,
 >more informative fashion. Color film would have been mandatory, don't
 >you think?

See Neil's response. I agree with him. I don't recall ever
seeing any surgical procedure from the armed services in color
or black and white for that matter. I don't think any autopsies
were filmed during that time period, and I doubt if they are
even now. Do you know for sure?

 >>How much time have you spent viewing the AA? There is no
 >>evidence of what you characterize as "shaky-cam". That must be
 >>something you've imagined.

 >>The footage is very steady and well done considering the
 >>limitations placed on the cameraman.

 >This is wishful thinking on your part, Ed. The footage, compared
 >to other Armed Services documentaries, is crap. And, of course,
 >this is the real point that you seem to ignore.

As Neil mentioned, the filming is quite good considering the
limitations. The cameraman was wearing a decontamination suit
just like the doctors. He had to move around, therefore a tripod
would have been useless. And as Neil pointed out, only a small
percentage of the footage would have been used in a full fledged
documentary. You should try viewing the CDs Neil produced and
then comment. There is still some footage that is out of focus
but the cameraman had a steady hand; none of the footage could
be characterized as "shaky".

 >All these effects are just "trimming" designed to play up
 >to a modern audiences' expectations of what Armed Services
 >documentaries would look like as opposed to the reality of what
 >they look like.

I disagree. This footage was never meant to be seen by anyone
other than those with a 'Need To Know' classification. If this
were a hoax, then why didn't the hoaxer(s) take your (you and
the others who would argue these points) concerns into
consideration. If they had wanted a finished product to look
like an Armed services documentary, don't you think it was in
their power to do so? If this is a hoax, it's very skillfully
done and one assumes the hoaxers were talented enough to film it
any way they pleased.

Wew all need to take another look at the AA, and then judge for
ourselves whether it's believable.

Then, if you and I were to have a disagreement as to whether
something were shaky or not, we could point to a certain frame
or section of the footage and argue about what we see. I would
think that a person like yourself, with such strong feeling
about the AA, would be the first to order the new AA CDs.

I'll make you an offer. Send me your mailing address and I'll
mail you a set when I get them copied.

If you don't think they're worth $35, then download them, and
return the CDs. If you think they're worth the price, then send
me $35.











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

                Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:51:12 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:53:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural


 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:29:14 -0500
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural Address

 >>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:44:09 -0600 (CST)
 >>From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural Address

 >>2. "Los Alamos Scientists Develop 'Anti-Gravity' Device"
 >> (from the Sacramento Bee 1-11-01)

 >>Although I downloaded the 2nd item just recently from Sightings,
 >>I can't find it there now. Maybe I just didn't search hard
 >>enough, or maybe Jeff removed it for some reason. Anyway, the
 >>point is, there may some some interesting substance behind
 >>Bush's final innaugural comment.

 >Brian;

 >This is one item that I had exchanged email with Ohio researcher
 >George Belanus about, and we were both puzzled that the report
 >was 'pulled' after its brief appearance. Belanus searched for
 >and did not find any such  article at the Sacramento Bee and
 >also said he contacted Mr. James Neff, webmaster for the
 >Sightings page and was told, by e-mail, that the page was pulled
 >because it was suspected to be a hoax. I've been keeping alert
 >for any clarification on this vanishing article thing so we'll
 >see if anything comes along.


Hello Kenny,

I immediately suspected a hoax because if it was a true story it
would have been a major breakthrough, the Sacramento Bee would
have picked it up from a news service, and it would have been
run in most media organs. In other words, we all would have
known about it by now and would have read a lot of posts
regarding this breakthrough right here on this list.

I also checked out the newspaper archives and could not find
such a story. I also checked with the Los Alamos National
Laboratory and it had not been issued. So, it looks like this
was a "too good to be true" story.

It is similar to Donald Ware's story that a three-star General
told him that the B2 and the F117 have onboard electrogravitic
anti-gravity systems. Without any verifiable evidence it is
nothing more than a yarn. Ware's being a retired Colonel does
not give any credence to the story.

Who knows, maybe the General told him that story for humorous,
disinformation, or any other untruthful reasons.


Levitating on my hoverboard,

Josh Goldstein










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:22:29 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:55:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Richard Hall comments on the Socorro discussion
 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:52:04 -0500

 >Richard Hall Comments On The Socorro Discussion

 >Richard Hall's UFO Evidence II has just been released by
 >Scarecrow Press and contains sections on both the Socorro
 >incident and the Rendelsham Forest sighting. But in response to
 >some of the issues being raised on Updates, he has offered this
 >assessment:

 >=== forwarded comment from Richard Hall ===

 >PELICANS IN SOCORRO

 >I can hear their wings flapping! We "believers in ET" at least
 >do our homework. If you are not familiar with the research
 >literature on old "classic" cases, you have no business trying
 >to debunk them. Socorro was investigated by the Army, Air Force,
 >FBI, police, and civilians (including NICAP) quite thoroughly,
 >and was fully reported in the local newspaper. A few pertinent
 >facts from the various investigation reports with regard to the
 >balloon hypothesis:

Using the sktibunker mind set, it was pelican droppings that
were ignited by a nearby lighthouse. :) Or better yet we will
hear something along the lines of "Well, sooner or later it will
be explained, so by that logic trail, it is now explained.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:42:54 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:00:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)


 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:47:14 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:34:59 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)

<snip>

 >Ed replied:

 >>How much time have you spent viewing the AA? There is no
 >>evidence of what you characterize as "shaky-cam". That must be
 >>something you've imagined.

 >>The footage is very steady and well done considering the
 >>limitations placed on the cameraman.

 >This is wishful thinking on your part, Ed. The footage, compared
 >to other Armed Services documentaries, is crap. And, of course,
 >this is the real point that you seem to ignore.

I agree with Roger on this one. Here we have the event of a
lifetime, the fraudtopsy (oops autopsy) of a real life, ET,
alien carcass from another world. This would not be an event
covered by _one_ camerman, but two or three. By all alleged
admission from Santilli, the alleged photographer was a very
experienced military camerman, yet the quality is that of a poor
amateur. You would also have still cameramen covering the
shooting with both color and b&w film.

Lets also not forget about the storys Ray Santilli was telling,
that turned out not to be totally accurate, not to mention how
Ray would not even cough up _one_ frame of film (of the event of
the century) for analysis by Kodak. We then heard tales and
storys about how President Truman was seen on one of the rolls
of film, yet later when the truth came out, the name "Truman"
was on the alleged label of an alleged roll of film.

When Rays stories started collapsing, and people were leaning on
Ray from evidence, we then here the story about how Volker
actually owns the film and has refused to provide the clip...
blah, blah.

The next thing we hear is something along the lines of 'Well,
poor Ray didn't make any money on the film.....' It's been said
that Ray and company had peddled about 400-500 thousand copies
of the film world wide which would equate to about 6.4 to 8
million dollars.

Even if the film cost $400,000 to a million dollars to make,
that still a nice chunk of change. As I recall, Roger knows
something about the costs of production, so lets ask him.

Roger, if you were going to create an AA type film, how much
would you estimate it would cost?


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

             Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

From: William Sawers <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:38:21 +1300
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:11:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -


 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:47:14 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:34:59 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

 >>>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:53:28 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>While you're correct that the AA doesn't have the look of an
 >>autopsy, it does have the look and feel of a surgery. I would
 >>say that this was more like an exploratory surgery, one where
 >>they didn't know exactly what was going to happen.

 >Well, this is pretty much my whole point. AA does not look like an
 >autopsy, we both agree on that. However, it looks like no surgery that I
 >was ever witness to. That said, I guess we'll just have to disagree on
 >that point. I think you are correct, though, when you imply that, if a
 >real event, it would be a situation where they weren't sure exactly what
 >was going to happen. As such, I can not imagine them being so unprepared
 >and sloppy in the execution of the procedure or the documentation.
 >Knowing going into this that it was a once in a lifetime event, the end
 >result would have been much more involved and documented in a better,
 >more informative fashion. Color film would have been mandatory, don't
 >you think?

If I may interceed on this point regarding Educational Armed
Services Training Films or Documentaries, e.g. 'How To Throw A
Hand-Grenade', etc. We must assume that this cameraman may have
been all that was available, or next on 'the list'.

No one is saying he was a Cecil B DeMill, he made his money as some kind
of freelance. He wouldn't have been prepared for what he was to encounter
out in the desert.

There was NO precedent on HOW to film an AA.

He'd just been out in the desert, sent on short notice with a
'Need To Know' contract/job..... There was no time to make notes
and plan shooting angles as you would in a contracted education
film.

Also the photographer made his living or in those days scraped a
living taking film He was trying to sell some film that probably
didn't sell in the early fifties of a somewhat unpopular,
unknown would be singing star, I mean Elvis of course. How much
would he have been paid for that film in those days. Not much
I'll bet. Maybe thats why he still had them to offer to
Santilli??. But in those days he would have grabbed every job
offered and not asked too many questions...

 >>>Like the
 >>>"hyped" 357, fist fight or shaky-cam, AA plays up to the general
 >>>audience's EXPECTATIONS of what archival documentary footage
 >>>would look like as opposed to what REAL documentary footage
 >>>would look like.

 >Ed replied:

 >>How much time have you spent viewing the AA? There is no
 >>evidence of what you characterize as "shaky-cam". That must be
 >>something you've imagined.

 >>The footage is very steady and well done considering the
 >>limitations placed on the cameraman.

 >This is wishful thinking on your part, Ed. The footage, compared
 >to other Armed Services documentaries, is crap. And, of course,
 >this is the real point that you seem to ignore.

 >Even if we considered the debate a draw concerning the
 >authenticity of the procedure, itself, the fact that other Armed
 >Services documentaries about subjects of far lessor importance
 >are far superior in quality and execution can not be dismissed.
 >To simply say that the film looked pretty good considering the
 >limitations of the cameraman is to ignore fact that, given the
 >magnitude of the event, documentation would have certainly
 >entailed multiple 35mm cameras shooting color film from several
 >different angles. Such a once in a life time event would not
 >have been shot in 16mm black and white in low light, with push
 >processing which would knowingly make the film more grainy by a
 >single camera man that couldn't even manage to keep the image in
 >focus. All these effects are just "trimming" designed to play up
 >to a modern audiences' expectations of what Armed Services
 >documentaries would look like as opposed to the reality of what
 >they look like.

 >There is no way you can explain why something of such monumental
 >and historical importance would have been documented in such
 >haphazard and amateur fashion when other, better resources were
 >available with a single phone call. Instead of watching the AA
 >film over and over, comparing it to itself, go to your local
 >library and check out documentaries available from the Armed
 >Services. _That_ is what you need to compare it to.

I don't know why you'd say "better resources were available with
a single phone call"! Unless you are familiar with the way the
Armed Services requisitioned phtographers, which I'm not.. but I
would imagine there would be some sort of priority list, or
seniorority system, or even a "you scratch mine and I scratch
yours" system which could make it a little more difficult than a
single phone call to set up a shoot than you presume.

I feel we have to be a bit more aware of the mindset of the mid
to late 40's. Things didn't race along at the speed of the
internet. There were certain criteria, usually followed to the
letter. The AA would have been so far out in left-field a
certain 'panic-stricken' mode would pervade anything to do with
it. I think if we put it in this perspective we could easily
forgive any naievety and mistakes that we... 'of the
sophisticates' <g> would, of course, spot.


William









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

             Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:45:39 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:14:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -


 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:50:10 +0000
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)

 >>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:10:09 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snp>

 >>The very film is a factual point that refutes itself!

 >Explain?.

 >>Documentary footage and documentaries shot by the Armed services
 >>are some of the most "static" in the history of film.

 >I don't think we're talking "documentary production" here, are
 >we?. Are you now saying you think this was shot by a US Army
 >Film Unit?.

 >>Check out
 >>any at your local library and you will find NO walk around,
 >>"shaky-cam shots" or the like. In addition, most were shot in
 >>35mm, not 16mm (though they were usually released on 16mm).

 >Considering the hand held nature of the filming the shots are
 >really quite steady and though extreme close-ups _are_ out of
 >focus, on the whole much of the remaining footage is resonably
 >sharp.

 >35mm? Why did the US Military issue 16mm movie cameras to their
 >cameramen?.

 >>In
 >>addition, many were in color.

 >What color stock available in 1947 would you have recommended to
 >be used in

 >(a) An enclosed tent under "field conditions" with only the
 >inside ambiant light available?.

Didn't Phillip Mantle come up with the fact or prove that some
of the footage was a hoax?


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:03:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:23:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


Hello  all,

 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:03:55 -0500

 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:40:28 -0000
 >>Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:30:34 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

 >>Regarding...

 >>>From: Luis R. Gonzalez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>>Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:52:32 +0100
 >>>Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:07:59 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

 >>Luis wrote:

 >>>>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >>>>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:35:17 -0500

 >>>>Looking it the direction of the UFO's departure one can see
 >>>>that the balloon theory constructed by super Christian
 >>>>fundamentalist Larry Robinson is difficult to contemplate. Of
 >>>>course, we had an expert balloonist with us who didn't think
 >>>>much of this theory either.

Not being a balloonist but have flown powered aircraft in the
general area at the same time of year (April, May) you would
have to be a drooling fool to fly Balloons of any sort, for
whatever purpose, in the windy months of a Socorro Spring.

 >>>After reading Larry Robinson proposal in The Anomalist 9 article
 >>>about the Socorro case (and also in his web page) I would be
 >>>very interested if you elaborate (publicly or privately).

 >>You might wish to consider another viewpoint.

 >>I'm not sure why Larry Robinson deserves being called a 'super
 >>Christian [sic] fundamentalist [sic]'. Is this somehow related
 >>to Larry's commendable efforts to solve a 'UFO' case rather than
 >>perpetuate the supposed 'mystery'?

 >>Whatever the reason, I presume it's not meant to be
 >>complimentary! I'm sure Larry - a fully-paid-up skeptic - will
 >>be more amused than horrified at being labelled thus.

Gee, I'm a Christian and not a skeptic, though a... well,
debunker, sometimes. Just a believer in the Fallen Nature of
Humanity as a whole. But, one who believes in a "God who is
there." - Francis Schaeffer.

 >This is typical Eastonian post, avoiding the hard stuff and
 >giving lines and lines of lectures on ETH and other material
 >unrelated to the investigation of this case.

 >For the record, I have never contended or posited that any UFO
 >was an ET spaceship. Neither does Professor Moore say the
 >Socorro UFO was an ET spaceship.

 >So basically, we can eliminate that smoke screen. Larry Robinson
 >is a true believer, see his web page about his belief on ET, see
 >his take on UFOs and the Bible. Easton is constantly on people
 >about their belief system, but he seems to have nothing to say
 >except Robinson is "a fully paid up skeptic." Whatever that
 >means.

Oh I am sure that Easton is willing to jump into whatever pond
offers the most sanctuary, even one that has a view of the world
that is 'Superfunementalistichristianity' oriented - whatever that
is.

 >If you have a balloon, then the most important thing about
 >ballooning is not a thumbnail sketch about Raven Industries or
 >CIA special projects.  There are two factors in addition to lift
 >which will tell one about the flight of a balloon, wind speed
 >and direction. Do you find any such consideration in Robinson
 >site? No, he was in his own words too busy to check that....  He
 >wasn't too busy to put the idea on his web page. That is all it
 >is, an idea. Not well supported by facts or investigation or
 >even checks of the most important factors for this possible
 >explanation.

 >As you look in the direction of departure of the balloon, you
 >have an unobstructed view in a long distance. How did the thing
 >go out of sight? Fifty knot wind?

Hey, no problem. In the Spring, in the Southwest, one name
folks; Alamogordo 2000! The wind blows, the wind blows very
hard. However, to fly lighter-than-air in such conditions...

 >Prof. Moore did his own investigation with Zamora. One of the
 >things Zamora told him was that the object kicked dirt and
 >debris at him when it left the area. Does that sound like a hot
 >air balloon? (Please note Easton completely ignores this
 >factor.) One thing Moore noted about Zamora was that he answered

Been around a lot of Hot Air (Balloons that is) never had one
kick dirt in my face. (But I am not a 90lb. weakling either.)
Sounds to me that the thing was putting out meaningful thrust.

 >the questions put to him and nothing more, one had to grill him
 >to get all the details out of him.

 >Now, somehow if you bring Piccard's opinion into the mix that is
 >suppose to settle everything. Hardly, Piccard is talking in
 >generalities, he had not investigated the case.

Yeah, he hadn't invented or saw a small Balloon that could do
that! Achimedies's theory of displacement works well here.
Somthing that small ain't a Balloon.

 >There is more, but that is for another time after we get 200
 >more lines of mostly irrelevant outpourings.

 >Flight direction and speed of a balloon is determined by what?
 >Wind Direction and Speed. (Say that five times and make it
 >yours.)

Try making a downwind run into a downburst in a fully loaded
DC-7 Airtanker, somewhere in the high New Mexican desert. I am
alive because of a God who is there. Otherwise, there would have
been a recreation of the Roswell incident, metal shards, smoking
hole and all. Though the Wright R-3350's would have been hard to
explain, if found at Roswell. Nah, that would have helped,
B-29's used the same (somewhat) powerplant.

<snip>

There has always been an element to the Socorro story that
bugged me. Being so close to the White Sands Range, I have
always thought that he saw a Test Vehicle that had wandered
'off-range'. Who knows what Technology it was testing?


GT McCoy







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

                         Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:59:53 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:45:11 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille


 >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:33:03 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:36:31 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille

 >>>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:00:07 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>>Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca


Hello Roger,

<snip>

 >>Your posts have become required reading and should be considered
 >>gospel?

 >Hello, Serge!

 >If you take issue with the meanings I prefer to give to
 >"skeptic" and "debunker", then bring on your best counter
 >argument. Do you believe that the two mean the same thing? If
 >so, then why use them both in the same sentence?

<snip>

My problem at this moment is that you and I obviously live in
two different worlds, and your interest lies elsewhere than in
precision.

<snip>

 >My posts are hardly gospel nor are they required reading. That
 >said, there's no need to ignore them just to avoid backing up
 >your position on a topic that you brought up. You don't want to
 >talk about it? Fine. But, please, no more lectures on how:

 >>Communication is in essence exchanging ideas. To do so, people
 >>need a common language with common understanding of words.
 >>Semantics encompasses the true meaning of human discourse.

<snip>

I never brought up the topic.

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/jan/m17-015.shtml

Andy Roberts replies to Sean Jones' post of January 15:

"Sean, for some bizarre reason, resurrected the following
from me and wrote: >Andy Roberts said: "All UFOs are IFOs in
waiting. >Now at first this really annoyed me.

What are you going to throw at me because I'm right: 200 lines?

The meaning is in the eye of the beholder. What you call
lecturing in basic understanding of human relationship. If that
is lecturing from your point of view, there's nothing I can do
about it.

<snip>

 >As such, I wrote:

<snip>

Constantly referring to your own writing has me wondering: "If this
is not gospel, this must be pedantry."

<snip>

 >Nor yourself, Serge. You made a statement that you simply
 >couldn't back up with any documented evidence. Somehow that's
 >_my_ problem or a failure of the English language? How about the
 >simple notion that you were just plain wrong?

<snip>

I bet you that nothing I ever come up with will ever change
anything - as far as you are concerned. I do feel that you are
loosing patience, and I don't know why.

<snip>

 >But then again,
 >you have a history of writing things that you later regret and
 >would like to be forgotten.

<snip>

You are not resorting to insinuation. If there is only one single
point I'd like to have cleared up, this is the one. I have a
"history of writing things that", I, "later regret and would like
forgotten"?

WHAT FREAKING FANTASY IS THIS?

<snip>

 >Regarding such I noted this blast from the past:

 >>>>>I hope SETI keeps on being a flop.  Why?  Because any success
 >>>>>would give the same SOBs more un-earned respectability and more
 >>>>>un-earned credibility.  The people from SETI are, in my opinion,
 >>>>>on the OTHER side of the fence: the side of mainstream science,
 >>>>>which has deliberately and malevolently kept ufology in a
 >>>>>ghetto.

 >and this charmer:

 >>>>>I hope they choke.

<snip>

This 'blast from the past' was effectively a blast. I was just
taking a sip of coffee when I read this. My keyboard owes its
life to a last minute jerking of my right elbow triggered by
sudden and uncontrollable hilarity.

As the meaning came clear, it was not funny anymore. I'll try to
make it clear to you and give you free advise: if you've had any
problem whatsoever one or two years ago on this List and still
feel the need to bring it up, it is called an 'unresolved
conflict'. You never got over it.

Your need to recall a past event - which was undoubtedly a
personal negative experience - to plug me, is something one
wouldn't expect from a mature individual.

We're all entitled to our bad days. You brought this subject up,
_twice_. If you're trying to get at me personally, you've got
the wrong guy. If you're not and this is a part of your
idiosyncrasies, then change them.

<snip>

 >>This is where unsolved mysteries becomes unresolved conflicts.

 >>I didn't know I had made such an impression on you.

 >>Phew, talking about splitting hairs.

 >I don't know, Serge. You're the one that wants to make "IFO"
 >mean anything except "Identified Flying Object" just to suit
 >your own personal beef with Andy. When it comes to hair
 >splitting, me thinks your ax is kept a little sharper than
 >mine...

<snip>

For someone who doesn't know, you make a lot of assumptions.

I have no personal beef with Andy. It's always a pleasure though
to answer a skeptic and a debunker playing semantic games with
UFO and IFO.

And you're right: my axe is definitely sharper than yours is.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

                          Filer's Files #4 -- 2001

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:50:27 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:15:35 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #4 -- 2001


Filer's Files #4 -- 2001, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
January 24, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Majorstar@Aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

"AND AN ANGEL RIDES IN A WHIRLWIND AND DIRECTS THIS STORM!" GOD BLESS YOU
ALL, AND GOD BLESS AMERICA," were the closing comments of President George W.
Bush's inaugural address. In recent weeks we discussed angels as being God's
messengers in unidentified flying objects. In a short speech the President
twice quotes this passage that an angel rides in a whirlwind and directs this
storm. He promised to tell us about UFOs if elected, is it possible he has
already? It is interesting that our new President should choose to use these
statements and discuss that we are guided by a power larger than ourselves.
He says, "We will build our defenses beyond challenge. We will confront
weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors."
He plans on building an antimissile system sometimes called 'Star wars.' The
whirlwind in the Bible generally refers to the restless and sweeping
destruction sure to overtake the wicked. He states, "And this is my solemn
pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity."
This was a powerful speech from an apparently religious man and to understand
him it will be prudent to become acquainted with the Bible. The Book of
Ezekiel 1-4 states," Then I looked, and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of
the north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and brightness
was all around it and radiating out of its midst like the color of amber, out
of the midst of the fire. "

PHOTO CONTROVERSY -- Whenever photos are found of UFOs or possible alien
activity a controversy develops between those who are convinced they are
real, hoaxed, or just cases of mistaken identity. Often the actual identity,
and motivation of the photographer is more important than the details of the
actual photograph. Two recent photos, one of a Chinese missile launch and
the so-called Alien Choir are causing concern. The investigation is just
beginning, and there may be mundane explanations for both photographs. Some
people suggest I should not mention them until the investigation is over,
realistically that can take years. My readers ask for the latest reports and
investigation may or may not prove they are factual. A report a few hours
old is much easier to investigate than one weeks or months old. We only have
to prove one case to prove that UFOs are real. MUFON investigators are
standing by to interview the photographer in Alabama. The original
photographers in China or Alabama have not shown a willingness to let us
interview them. These two cases are discussed in more detail below. UFOs
have been seen in Connecticut, Georgia and Texas. Practically everyday, I
talk to sincere people who see or photograph unidentified flying objects in
our skies. I personally chased them while in the Air Force and had them on
my aircraft radar. Something unknown is flying in our skies, being an
optimist I think they may be helping us. Although, accidents may occur when
we get in each others way. When I get a call from a farmer in Canada or an
architect in New Jersey who have spotted a UFO, and they describe the same
craft including the rust on its side, I'm convinced they are seeing the same
object. When they see the a photo taken in Mexico years ago they identify it
as the same craft. When President Bush flew jet fighters for the Air
National Guard, I wouldn't be surprised if he saw a UFO since there were many
operating in Texas at the time. Many people's lives are changed forever by
the experience.
Watch the skies particularly before sunrise and at sunset. You might be
surprised what you see.

CHINA SHENZHOU SPACE LAUNCH AND UFO INVESTIGATION

BEIJING -- China's state television announced that the Shenzhou II spaceship,
which blasted off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in northwest
China's Gansu Province on January 9, 2001, in the country's second test of
its future manned spacecraft, returned to Earth on January 18. Nick Balakas
wrote that the Shenzhou Spacecraft photo discussed last week, was actually an
earlier daylight test of the rocket powered "escape tower" that is attached
to the Shenzhou spacecraft itself and is mounted on top of its tall Long
March rocket booster." The Shenzhou II spaceship launch was actually at
night. "As for what the bell shaped object is, I do not know although it
does remind me of a small weather balloon which may have been released just
before the escape tower test." Jeff has done a great job in picking out
unknown or unexplained objects in space but this picture of a bell shaped
object in the atmosphere is certainly no evidence of a UFO monitoring the
launch of Shenzhou-2. Thanks to Nick Balaskas

Author Whitley Strieber also wrote, "The picture you have on your web site as
the launch of the Shenzou-2 rocket is apparently a test of an escape tower,
probably of the Shenzou-1 module. It is possible that the object seen is the
Shenzou-1 capsule descending on its parachute. Thanks to Whitley Strieber Go
to http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/1921/shenzhou.htm to
confirm.

Jeff Challender responds, "While looking at the photos of the launch, I
noticed a bell or pyramid shaped object flying next to the space launch
during the flight to orbit. At first I considered that it might be a piece
of the launch shroud which protects the space craft during ascent. That must
be ruled out since in the picture it can be seen that the escape tower
rockets have just been fired. These must be clear before the shroud can be
jettisoned. "Further research has indicated that I was a bit hasty in my
mistaken belief that the photo was of the Shenzou 2 launch. I stand
corrected on this point. I must disagree with Mr.Balaskas concerning his
explanation for the UFO. I have seen many a weather balloon in my home area.
  We live but three miles from McClellan AFB, and the object displays none of
the characteristics of such a balloon. Where is the instrument package
carried by the balloon? There is none. Balloons also have a pronounced
"inverted onion" shape, and the object's shape is nothing like that. What's
more, the "bells" seen during STS-101 were in space, where there are no
balloons. I still say the object in the rocket picture bears a striking
resemblance to the "bells" seen during STS-101. I don't see anything like a
parachute. There are no shrouds, nor is there a canopy. The parachutes used
by the Chinese on their capsules are quite colorful and would be difficult to
miss. The official Chinese space agency photograph can be seen at
www.filersfiles.com. Thanks to Jeff Challender.

Editor's Note: It appears the Chinese have released photos of several
launches causing some confusion. The daylight photo is probably the Shenzhou
1, which looks almost exactly like the 2. It is interesting that the Chinese
should release a daylight photo of an earlier launch showing what appears to
be a UFO? There is nothing that appears to be missing from the rocket, such
as shrouds or escape test tower, the two deployed aero-panels, rockets or the
reentry vehicle to account for the unidentified bell shaped flying object.
The Shenzhou is listed as 3.35 meters in diameter while the UFO appears to be
  about five meters or about 20 feet in diameter. In another released photo
the reentry vehicle is about three meters (10 feet) in diameter and hanging
below a huge parachute. I agree with Jeff that there may be an unidentified
flying object flying below the test rocket that is larger than in diameter
than any part of the Shenzhou. The photographer may have a mundane
explanation but China nor the Beijing Evening Post have not explained what
the object is. Instead the photo is published with only "Escape Tower Test"
explanation. We should remember that the Chinese are very clever and have
officially asked the United Nations to study UFOs. They report their fighter
aircraft attempt to intercept the UFOs, and that airliners have had midair
collisions with them. The US has provided the chief obstruction to this
study.

ALABAMA ALIEN CHOIR IMAGE

Australian researcher Barry Taylor writes, "I strongly suggest that the image
not be called a HOAX. This indicates that the photographer and researchers
involved deliberately and knowingly falsified the evidence presented. After
close examination of the image, I am fully convinced that this is not the
case. I consider that the illumination was actually at the scene when the
image was taken by the photographer. This makes this case, "a
misidentification and misinterpretation of the image in question." I have
looked for obvious signs of 'pasting' within the image, and have found none.
The larger 'background' pixels are consistent throughout the whole image.
The smaller pixels within the brighter illumination areas are also consistent
with the way the illumination is displayed. Strong contrast creates the
'pixel boarder' around the 'Alien choir' illumination. Firstly, when scaled
to the daylight image, the "Alien Choir" aligns with the tree trunks and
lower branch outline against the wall of the white house positioned above the
garage roof in the image. Now study the "False Color Enhanced" image
(fcolor~1.jpg ) This image shows the make-up of the "falloff" of the
brightness of the illumination as the effect of the trees trunks and branches
interfere with the edges of the main illumination.

The concentric rings of color indicate the way the light fades from the
brightest to the dullest. The "Heads and necks" of the "Alien Choir" are
caused by gaps in the branches, showing the reflected light off the wall of
the house behind the trees. Vertical Movement in the Image. I am not sure,
by I think a Digital camera was used to take the original images. The 'pixel
scatter' around the electric wires in the daytime image, and the pixel
'glitches' and abnormal color pixels in the night image seems to indicate a
digital camera. Digital cameras use a 'Progressive Scan' feature when
viewing to frame your scene to photograph. As you slowly move the camera,
you can see the image in the view finder 'jumping' as the progressive scan
feature is working. The vertical distortions seen in the 'Alien choir' image
could have resulted when the photo was taken 'between progressive scans of
the image in view.' This would show up in the resulting image as the top
half of one image blending in with the lower half of the second image during
slight movement during progressive scan within the camera. [slight elongation
of brightest features, especially under low light conditions] I hope careful
study of my findings will also convince you that this explains the truth
behind the 'Alien Choir' image. Barry Taylor UFO Researcher Australia.
stingray@nor.com.au

Bruce Maccabee writes, "Here is a comment from another Bruce: the picture
appears to have been jiggled vertically during exposure. All images have the
same sort of vertical stretch. This means that the Shapes pf the images are
not the true shapes of the light sources. I don't know what made the light
sources, perhaps a UFO, but IMHO the image shapes do not represent the true
shapes. Also, overexposed images are always larger than they would be
without overexposure, so the brightness is another cause for image
distortion. Supposedly there is no light normally at that location. But I
would like to see a nighttime photo taken under identical conditions by a
reputable investigator.
The photo is still under investigation. Thanks Bruce Maccabee
brumac@compuserve.com

Marilyn Ruben says that, "In response to the various questions forwarded from
you or your readers over the "alien choir" photograph, I have addressed many
issues at the web site on page http://www.abduct.com/photos/pn010.htm or
http://www.abduct.com/photos/pn007.htm
Thanks to Marilyn Ruben

Editor's Note: I felt the photograph should be investigated in much greater
detail. Perhaps even more important is the integrity of the photographer
since advancements in computers and photography make almost any photo
suspect. MUFON State Director s Tom Sheets and investigator John Thompson
have offered their services in investigating this case. I personally think
the case is important because of the report of the humming power lines, and
the green colors in a digital photo. It is important to attempt to duplicate
the scene at night. Security lights or transformer arcing might explain the
photo. Other similar photos are turning up.

CONNECTICUT HEXAGON SHAPED OBJECT

MONROE -- On Jan 16, 2001, at about 7:30 PM, a resident of Newtown was
traveling on Route 25 near Monroe. A hexagonal shaped object flew across the
roadway in front of her. The object was about as long as a commercial jumbo
jet, and was a dark gray or black in color. This witness saw some sort of
'ridges' on the bottom surface, with a blue/green light at each of 5 points,
and a small red light on the 6th point. There are similar hexagon type
reports on file for Georgia and Pennsylvania. In 1992, Corinth Georgia
investigation by John Thompson MUFON/ISUR- Hexagon shaped object with 3
triangular lights at each corner, hovering; 28 Sept 99, Chatsworth Georgia,
investigation by Tom Sheets MUFON/ISUR. Thanks to Tom Sheets, ISUR Board,
SD-MUFONGA.

MARYLAND UFO SOUNDS

SILVER SPRINGS -- Five years ago in August at 8:00 PM in Wheaton, my wife and
I heard the sound of a large slow craft pass directly over our top third
floor apartment. The sound was similar to the Rense recreation except
instead of a wavering treble pitch component going up and down, there was a
pulsing HUMM of ~ G 2 octaves below middle C and about 2-3 pulses per second
there were also more undertones than overtones)*. As a classically trained
musician I am accurate in sound memory. Two other sightings in this area
over 6 years have produced another large disk and one triangle which I
previously reported with some excitement due to the fact there was a live
re-enactment of the craft using a helicopter with hanging lights within 2
hours of the initial triangle sighting. I feel an obligation to my old
friend Alan Hynek to report what needs to be reported. Regards Don Hakman
j12_lanl_underg_facilities.htm

GEORGIA UFO INVESTIGATIONS

Tom Sheets MUFONGA State Director writes, Field Investigator Olivia Newton of
Lilburn is currently training and supervising the personnel of Georgia's
foremost haunting and paranormal scientific investigation group. On the
night of November 26, 2000, a group of investigator's were returning from a
case in Walton County. Ms. Olivia was driving one portion of the team, with
additional members in a second vehicle. About 8:30 PM, they were driving up
Good Hope Rd. when a series of lights in the SW sky drew their attention.
Upon closer observation, it appeared to be a double row of brilliantly
glowing pearl like spheres, a reddish orange to amber in color, hovering in
the sky about 1 mile away. She indicated that they were aspirin size at
arm's length (AAL) and in a straight line. As everyone turned to look, and
while seeking a spot to pull off, some trees obscured the view and the
objects had then disappeared. Total event duration was about 1 minute.
There have also been some other reports of unusual objects on the East side
of Atlanta. She has extensive investigative experience with a world renowned
university academic who specializes in paranormal research.

On January 3, 2001, MUFONGA investigators Carl and Helen Thim were driving
west on Hwy 54 just outside of Fayetteville proper. At 5:32 PM, twilight
conditions, Ms. Helen noticed a glowing object in the sky about 30 degrees
off of  the SW horizon. Closer observation revealed it to be acorn shaped
with a rounded top, about thumbnail size AAL, and glowing with a yellowish
light, also appearing to have a mist like vapor at the top. As they
continued westbound in traffic, she observed it to begin a slow descent of
about 5 degrees, leaving what appeared to be a misty trail tracing the
descent. She pointed this out to her husband Carl who was trying to drive
and observe. About this time, they reached the central area of town and
noticed 2 jet like contrails in the sky near the object. These contrails
appeared to circle in the sky as if in reaction to what was being observed,
but no aircraft were seen. About this same time a helicopter was observed
flying north away from Fayetteville. Ms. Helen added that before their
visual was lost, the object did a Z shaped maneuver. Upon arriving home, she
phoned the Fayette County Sheriff's Department and spoke to Sheriff Randall
Johnson. He advised that their agency had received no other calls regarding
the object. The Thims were later perplexed, Carl observed the object to be
of a definite silver disc but Helen did not. This team has conducted several
excellent investigations and are widely respected. They both are former
aerospace employees, Carl being seconded from Boeing to the Pacific Missile
Range for 5 years and working as an electronics specialist in our manned
space program. He is currently a senior instructor with one of the largest
aviation corporations in the world. There are similar cases in which two or
more reliable witnesses in close proximity observe the same phenomena, but
each describe different object types and/or different details. High
strangeness in Dixieland, God's country.

We continue to receive inquiries about MUFONGA from law enforcement officers
in several regions of Georgia. John Bodin, our south Georgia DD who is also
with the Peace Officer's Association of Georgia, recently advised me that a
follow-up article to the original piece for the Peace Officer's magazine
would be welcome. I will be working on that a little later. MUFONGA
historian and FI Michael Hitt wrote an excellent article on the Milledgeville
UFO event from 1967 (MUFON Journal Dec00), which involved several law
enforcement officer witnesses. He later spoke with retired Milledgeville
Chief Eugene Ellis who was also a witness and a central figure when various
'officials' arrived to investigate. Michael suspects that there was a
certain 'twisting' of the facts by these  'officials', which varied from the
astute and correct observations of the police officers i.e. the truth. We've
made arrangements for John Bodin to sit down with Chief Ellis and debrief him
in detail about  the events from those days in 1967. Being that we three
are from the Georgia law enforcement community, the Chief will no doubt have
some  revelations for us. John Bodin indicated he will be carrying a court
stenographer with him for that debriefing. Thanks to Tom Sheets, FSA Scot,
SD-MUFONGA, ISUR Board

TEXAS SIGHTINGS

CANYON LAKE -- ..Michael Harman writes, My wife and I saw an object over the
lake and were a little scared, but my wife confirmed what I was seeing. It
hovered over our house, and made its way over the lake. Two nights ago at
10:00 PM, this object got really close to the water and within seconds a huge
spotlight was cast upon it by the Corp of Engineers that are stationed next
door. Two minutes later, four helicopters come out of nowhere surrounding
this object. The object got bigger as the copters came closer. Within a few
minutes of maneuvering, the object disappeared. I proceeded to call the Corp
of Engineers and they stated that nothing happened, no copters had landed and
no spotlight was projected. I took digital pictures but they did not come
out too well, but you can see the copters. The colors shining from this
object were very bright and colorful. I've seen this exact object 10 to 12
times in the last two years. The object camouflages as a star, almost going
undetected. I always thought it was a probe from the army base in San
Antonio checking the air quality, water, etc.  This adventure took almost
four hours. Its now 12:30 AM, and its back and brought two more that are
hovering around the lake. "This is just too weird for me." If anyone wishes
to investigate this on-going event, I suggest renting a small boat and
spending a night out on Canyon Lake and you'll likely see a UFO up real and
close. There's a lot happening in the state of Texas, See our "60 Years of
Texas Sightings" database. Visit the web site at:
http://ufo-pi.homepage.com/index.html  www.homestead.com/ufopi2/index.html
Thanks to Mike Harman

CANADA GOVERNMENT RELEASES 100 UFO SIGHTINGS

HBCC UFO Research writes, You and your readers may be interested to know that
I received 98 pages from the Canadian National Defense through the Freedom of
Information Act. These reports are sightings of objects dating from 1995 to
1999, which were reported and gathered by the Canadian Government. I have
most of them placed on my web site at http://www.homestead.com/ufo3/ufo.html
  yogi@glacierweb-bc.com

CANADIAN MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT SPEAKS AT CONFERENCE

WHITEHORSE, YUKON -- Ms. Louise Hardy, Canadian Member of Parliament who
spoke at the Yukon UFO Conference on October 14, 2000, stated, "Well I'd
like to thank Martin Jasek for inviting me and I want you to know how hard he
has worked on this. He's come to my office at different times over the
years to let me know what work he was doing, the reports that he was
compiling and I was impressed with how serious Martin was and the fact that
he has a very scientific background, and he wanted to bring the study of
unidentified objects to the forefront and to a more normal area because it
does come with stigma, and I know that. I've had a few nudges and winks when
I tell people that I'm coming to the UFO Conference. But I remember being a
teenager, and the curiosity we have. I think drive and curiosity are so
important because it is bout wanting to know what it is that is around us,
not just our own lives, not just our own planet. We know that there's a
wider world out there and I see this work as people coming together to
investigate and study that wider world so I hope everybody enjoys the
conference and I hope that you know that you are on the cutting edge here!
There's not too many places that have UFO Conferences so congratulations!"
Louise Hardy, M.P., Yukon. Thanks to EcoNews Service -
http://www.ecologynews.com/ Prague Ecotoday@aol.com

GERMANY TRIO SIGHTS TRIANGULAR UFO

FREIBURG -- On Monday, January 1, 2001, at 12:25 AM, Dr. Jann Arende, a
physician and amateur astronomer, his wife and his sister-in-law were
watching the New Year's celebration fireworks from a lofty hillside in the
suburbs west of Freiburg, a city in southern Germany. "The sky was almost
clear and visibility quite good," Dr. Arende reported, "When walking back
down the hill at about 12:25 AM, we suddenly noticed a flickering object
approaching from the east. The object appeared somewhat oval or triangular
in shape. The color was yellow or orange, with a glistening or flickering of
the color across the object. It then appeared as if the object were hovering
up in the sky. The size was about one-quarter of the full moon." "The
object moved slowly and stealthily towards us at great altitude. It took
one minute for the object to reach a point directly above us. We heard no
sounds. The color continued to flow across the object. When the object had
reached a point roughly above us, it stopped moving and remained motionless
at a point close to the star Capella. "After about three to four minutes, it
started to move north. The (departure) speed was similar to its speed during
approach." "When the object halted above us, we started running home to get
our binoculars. Viewing it as it went away, the object seemed smaller in
size and retained its flowing orange color.  The shape appeared to be
similar to a triangle with a convex rounded base. At that point, the object
disappeared."  Thanks to UFO Roundup Volume 6, Number 3 January 18, 2001
Editor: Joseph Trainor http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/

NEW NASA SHUTTLE VIDEO OF UFOs IN SPACE

Jeff Challender has prepared a new tape of various UFOs that were caught on
recent Shuttle video footage. Jeff has over an hour long tape of UFOs shot
in space. Jeff spends hundreds of hours watching the shuttle broadcasts from
space and is now an expert on NASA missions and even those onboard the
shuttle are unlikely to see what Jeff does. Using Jeff's directions you will
be able to learn the difference between space junk, ice crystals and real
UFOs. One segment has 24 UFOs watching the shuttle from space. I feel
confident we could go into a court of law and convince any jury that there
are UFOs moving at high speed around the Earth. Send $25 to: Jeff Challender
2768 Mendel Way - Sacramento, California 95833-2011

BEFORE YOU BUY OR SELL A HOME SEE MY FREE REPORT

All real estate agents are not the same? Some real estate agents or sales
representatives are part timers and inexperienced. Others are experts with
an excellent experience and capabilities. When you are selling or buying
your home, you need to make sure you have the best real estate agent working
for you before you make any important financial decisions on one your biggest
investments! Remember, the majority of people do not know the right
questions to ask, and what pit falls can cause major problems. Picking the
right real estate agent can be a wonderful experience, and picking the wrong
one can be a big mistake that can waste your time and cost you thousands!
Find out, " What you need to understand before hiring any real estate agent!"
  These are the questions that many agents do not want you to ask. Learn how
you can obtain the best real estate agent for your needs. To get a free copy
of this report, just call (609) 654-0020 or e-mail us at Majorstar@aol.com.
We can also help you with your own or corporate Worldwide Relocation to
Australia, Benelux, Canada, Cayman Is, England, France, Guam, Hong Kong,
Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Papua New Guinea,
Philippines, Puerto Rico, and the US.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative reports
subscribe to the MUFON JOURNAL that costs only $30 per year by contacting
MUFONHQ@Aol.com. Mention that I recommended you for membership. Filer's
Files is copyrighted 2000 by George A. Filer, all rights reserved. Readers
may post items from the files on their Web Sites provided that they credit
the newsletter and its editor by name and list the date of issue that the
item appeared. Caution: Most of these are initial reports and require
further investigation. These reports and comments are not necessarily the
official MUFON viewpoint. Send your letters to Majorstar@aol.com. Sending
mail automatically grants permission for us to publish and use your name.
Please state if you wish to keep your name, address, or story confidential.











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

                Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural

From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:03:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:46:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural


 >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:44:09 -0600 (CST)
 >From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Bush's Unusual Reference In The Inaugural Address

 >>From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 22:23:51 EST
 >>Subject: Bush'S Unusual Reference In The Inaugural Address
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Am I the only one to find this sentence right at the end of
 >>George W. Bush's inaugural address quite unusual.

 >>"And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this
 >>storm. "

 >>On first impression it would seem to be a possible reference to
 >>Ezekiel 1, 4:

Howdy all!

To me, this reference is a no-brainer, much like the new
President.

The "angel" is the United States, and the "whirlwind" is the
current state of chaos in the world.

The United States will continue to "direct" what is going on in
the rest of this world through its influence and military might.

Why is this so hard to figure out?

The United States has been exerting its influence on the rest of
the world for quite some time now, and no other country,
including the USSR, is even close to its technological
superiority in military technology.

Basically, the States can go in and kick the ass out of any
country in this world that starts creating trouble, plain and
simple, and they have already proved they will do that.

All this stuff about the Bible and everything else is just
speculation. I think, myself, that the message is quite clear.
Mess with the "new world order" and you will promptly get your
ass kicked!


Take care,

Marty Murray

The NAIL Online
http://members.home.net/mmurray31/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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

              Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:17:39 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:49:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?


 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:24:24 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

 >>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:07:17 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)?

 ><snip>

 >>Unless I am very mistaken, virtually any and every person in
 >>ufology, those whose opinions I respect at least, consider the
 >>AA (Santilli) film to be a complete and utter fake... as phony
 >>as a three dollar bill.

 >Well I guess since I am not a big name in Ufoolagy I guess I
 >don't have to worry about your respect <g>. I would like to
 >believe that the AA film is genuine, but I am sitting on the
 >fence as to whether it is or not.

 >I must say however, I can name a few people who _are_ "big"
 >names in Ufology who feel the same way I do.

 >>Nobody will have absolute proof until Santilli and/or company
 >>'fess up of course, but for the time being, I consider it to be
 >>trashed beyond recognition.

 >I don't think Ray on Co. will "'fess up". I think they stand to
 >make more money from it the more it remains "unresolved".


Hello Sean,

I wasn't referring to "big names" in ufology, as in the ones who
appear on late-nite talk shows etc. and are known to the general
public, but rather the ones whose opinions make the most sense
to me.

Naturally if that is so, and they do good work in the field,
they gain my respect and that of others. I don't want to start
some awful thread by naming names BTW.

I agree that Ray and Company will probably remain silent until
they have squeezed the last pound, dollar and franc out of their
film. Then maybe they will move on to some other scam.


 >>The universe is not infinite.

 >Hmm, by what yardstick are you measuring it? <g>

I prefer light-years for distances to nearby stars, but
astronomers
usually prefer parsecs. One parsec (pc) = 3.26 Light Years
(LY)

The average separation between stars in a galaxy like our own is
a few parsecs at most. The diameter of a galaxy like our own
Milky Way is something like 100,000 pc or 100 kilo-pc.

The separation between galaxies in a cluster of galaxies like
our local cluster is typically several Mpc - millions of
parsecs. The separation between clusters of galaxies is
typically around 10 Mpc. The most distant galaxies observed are
thousands of Mpc away from us, i.e. billions of parsecs.

I got these handy data from the web page:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/distances/units.html

It doesn't stop there of course, there is no doubt space and
matter beyond anything we could ever see, but nobody considers
this "infinite". OUR physical universe is believed to have
originated from a single stupendous explosion called the "big
bang". However large, it can only have spread out so far, and
started with some incredibly immense yet finite mass.

Thus, there is huge but finite distance to the edge of our
universe, and that necessitates some finite volume of space to
contain it.

There was an initial mass/energy at the big bang as well. This
should be invariant according to our present knowledge of
physics. While matter and energy are interchangeable under
certain conditions, in a closed ( and finite) system like our
universe, their sum should remain immense, but finite and
constant.

The person man to prove otherwise is a good candidate for the
Nobel prize.

The mind-numbing size of these cosmic masses and distances
makes the universe "infinite" for all practical purposes,
I will grant you that. No man alive will see but an
infinitesimal part of it.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

                      Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:22:13 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:51:46 -0500
Subject: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly


------------------------------------------------------------
MARS MANTA-WINGED AIRCRAFT ANOMALY

For Immediate Release

The Electric Warrior : Mars Online January 23, 2001

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/MarsOnline007.htm


Mars Online Gazette: "Aircraft"-like Anomaly Found on Mars

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/MarsOnlineGazett.htm

------------------------------------------------------------

THE MARTIAN EQUATOR

For Mars anomaly researchers, the going got weird a quarter
century ago, when a face turned up in Cydonia. The presumably
lo-tech culture that fashioned the Martian monument suddenly
looked more space-age than stone-age, when a triangular anomaly
-- resembling an aircraft -- was uncovered at the Martian
equator.

Last weekend, The Cydonian Imperative announced "the first
proposed Martian 'vehicle' that provides the context and detail
necessary for a serious...exploration of possible
artificiality." The finding echoes a similar discovery last
year, which The Enterprise Mission (TEM) called a Martian Flying
Saucer.

TEM's Richard Hoagland, the foremost champion of Cydonia
research, has argued for years that Martains posessed an
advanced scientific knowledge he calls hyperdimensional physics.
Hoagland's flying saucer is parked precariously at the edge of
one of Mars' astounding canyons, Ophir Chasma.

The new Mars UFOs are imaged at the limits of NASA's current
technology, shot at a pixellated resolution both provactive and
inconclusive: Like last generation Viking photos of the Face on
Mars.

------------------------------------------------------------

STRANGE SQUARE

The manta-wing anomaly was first noticed in a washed-out digital
reproduction of a Mars Global Surveyor image, released to NASA's
Platentary Image Atlas last October.

"When I came across the 'Strange Square' I had a feeling that it
was an imaging artifact, but I was curious as to why NASA would
post such a blatant error," explains Ephrain Palermo. Palermo
has been investigating the numerous dark stains found in many
MGS images.

The high-contrast image Palermo encountered had a pure-white
too-much-information burn, that suggested a light source in the
middle of the Martian desert. "The strange square was too
strange to be real," he said.

Steve Wingate provided a cleaner image on his Anomalous Images
Website, by downloading NASA's raw data and processing the image
himself. After Wingate's processing had pulled the anomalous
image out of the digital mud, others remarked that the delta
shaped anomaly resembled the saucer posted by The Enterprise
Mission.

"As with many of the anomalies I and others have uncovered,"
Palermo told The Electric Warrior, "many of these features could
be explained by natural, if exotic, Martian geology."

"The artifact was apparently created by NASA's excessive JPEG
compression," says Steve Wingate. "With lower contrast
enhancement, the mesa does appear to be anomalous, however."

------------------------------------------------------------

MARS ONLINE GAZETTE

Mac Tonnies ventured his own opinion of the unusual formation in
The Cydonian Imperative: "Remarkably, the overall impression is
of a landed aircraft of some kind, with the radiating streak of
sand indicative of possible sudden displacement."

Readers of the Mars Online Gazette are already familiar with
Tonnies' fastitious approach to Mars anomaly reasearch. The
Gazette's cyberspace correspondant has been covering Mars since
the MGS spacecraft made targeted observations of the Cydonia
region in the Spring of 1998.

"I think the "manta" lends itself to analysis because it's a
discrete formation. It really stands out," says Tonnies. Mac's
full report on the aircraft-like anomaly is featured in the Mars
Online Gazette, hosted by The Electric Warrior Website.

------------------------------------------------------------

RELATED RESOURCES

Wanna Take a Ride?: Enterprise Discovers Martian ... Flying Saucer?
http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/marssaucer.jpg

Steve Windgate rendering of the delta-shaped anomaly

http://www.anomalous-images.com/temp/m1101534_raw_ds_detail_x2_slw.gif

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
January 23, 2001
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this article
or any portion thereof, provided The Electric Warrior is cited
as the source.

Images are created exclusively for the Electric Warrior Website.
They can be downloaded and cached for individual use, but may
not be reproduced or used in any other context without
permission.

Web developers, the URL address for this content is:
http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/MarsOnline007.htm

eWarrior@electricwarrior.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

             Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:20:20 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:54:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:45:39 EST
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:50:10 +0000
 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)

 >>What color stock available in 1947 would you have recommended to
 >>be used in

 >>(a) An enclosed tent under "field conditions" with only the
 >>inside ambiant light available?.

 >Didn't Phillip Mantle come up with the fact or prove that some
 >of the footage was a hoax?


Robert,

Indeed he did, the "tent footage", and I agree with him on that.
I was actually contacted by the "whistle blower" along with
Philip regarding this piece of "video".


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


*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

                 AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:21:09 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:57:15 -0500
Subject: AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:42:54 EST
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:00:05 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)

 >>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:47:14 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:34:59 -0800
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)

Previously, Ed had written:

 >>>The footage is very steady and well done considering the
 >>>limitations placed on the cameraman.

I replied:

 >>This is wishful thinking on your part, Ed. The footage, compared
 >>to other Armed Services documentaries, is crap. And, of course,
 >>this is the real point that you seem to ignore.

Robert writes:

 >I agree with Roger on this one. Here we have the event of a
 >lifetime, the fraudtopsy (oops autopsy) of a real life, ET,
 >alien carcass from another world. This would not be an event
 >covered by _one_ camerman, but two or three. By all alleged
 >admission from Santilli, the alleged photographer was a very
 >experienced military camerman, yet the quality is that of a poor
 >amateur. You would also have still cameramen covering the
 >shooting with both color and b&w film.

<snip>

 >The next thing we hear is something along the lines of 'Well,
 >poor Ray didn't make any money on the film.....' It's been said
 >that Ray and company had peddled about 400-500 thousand copies
 >of the film world wide which would equate to about 6.4 to 8
 >million dollars.

 >Roger, if you were going to create an AA type film, how much
 >would you estimate it would cost?

Hi Robert!

I must agree with your assessment about the lack of
photographers in the O.R. Considering how the "surgeons" on
display were slicing and dicing the body of the alleged alien,
there should have been at least one photographer with a
Speedgraphic 4x5 making SOME kind of photographic documentation
of the body and the procedure. We can argue all we want about
the "quality" of the AA footage versus other Armed Services
footage, but the obvious lack of a still photographer is highly
suspect.

Regarding cost, this is sort of treading on old territory, but
I'll condense my take on it to basically this:

The AA film isn't very long and the production values, by their
very nature, are slim to none on purpose. In addition, the
actors faces are conveniently hidden. Now, the question before
us is whether or not Santilli stood to make any money off such a
spoof.

Here are the facts (not opinion):

1) I directed a _really_ bad horror film back in 1987 called
"Forever Evil". The script was pretty stale and my direction
was, shall we say, less than inspired (I was not a profit
participant). The entire two hour film had unknown talent and
was produced for a flat fee of $120,000, complete with a
multitude of make-up effects that were certainly on par with AA.
"Forever Evil" has played on the USA network several times and
has, to date I believe, grossed well over 2 million dollars
domestically in video cassette and television sales. In
addition, anytime a foreign sale is made, the upfront money is
around $50,000 minimum for every border you cross.

2) I checked with my lawyer and, because the actors' faces are
covered, they could never prove any connection with the AA
project. Therefore, if they "spilled the beans" and cost
Santilli money on lost sales as a result, then they could be
held liable in a civil suit that Santilli would, according to my
attorney, most certainly win. Most importantly, as Santilli were
to get more powerful entities involved, such as the Fox Network,
then the legal opposition for the "whistle blowers" becomes VERY
intimidating since everyone would want to protect their
interest.

Regarding such, it is also quite possible that the actors
involved were profit participants, themselves. I'll admit that
this is speculation, but it would be just one more reason why no
one involved would come forward and "spill the beans".

Therefore, all subjective debates aside about quality and the
like, is there any reason to believe that a lot of money would
have to be spent to create a salable product like AA? None what
so ever. More importantly, was there reason for Santilli to
believe that he'd make money off of his cheap little "movie"?
Absolutely.

Roger






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

                 AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:21:09 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:58:15 -0500
Subject: AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:42:54 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)

 >>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:47:14 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:34:59 -0800
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)

Previously, Ed had written:

 >>>The footage is very steady and well done considering the
 >>>limitations placed on the cameraman.

I replied:

 >>This is wishful thinking on your part, Ed. The footage, compared
 >>to other Armed Services documentaries, is crap. And, of course,
 >>this is the real point that you seem to ignore.

Robert writes:

 >I agree with Roger on this one. Here we have the event of a
 >lifetime, the fraudtopsy (oops autopsy) of a real life, ET,
 >alien carcass from another world. This would not be an event
 >covered by _one_ camerman, but two or three. By all alleged
 >admission from Santilli, the alleged photographer was a very
 >experienced military camerman, yet the quality is that of a poor
 >amateur. You would also have still cameramen covering the
 >shooting with both color and b&w film.

<snip>

 >The next thing we hear is something along the lines of 'Well,
 >poor Ray didn't make any money on the film.....' It's been said
 >that Ray and company had peddled about 400-500 thousand copies
 >of the film world wide which would equate to about 6.4 to 8
 >million dollars.

 >Roger, if you were going to create an AA type film, how much
 >would you estimate it would cost?

Hi Robert!

I must agree with your assessment about the lack of
photographers in the O.R. Considering how the "surgeons" on
display were slicing and dicing the body of the alleged alien,
there should have been at least one photographer with a
Speedgraphic 4x5 making SOME kind of photographic documentation
of the body and the procedure. We can argue all we want about
the "quality" of the AA footage versus other Armed Services
footage, but the obvious lack of a still photographer is highly
suspect.

Regarding cost, this is sort of treading on old territory, but
I'll condense my take on it to basically this:

The AA film isn't very long and the production values, by their
very nature, are slim to none on purpose. In addition, the
actors faces are conveniently hidden. Now, the question before
us is whether or not Santilli stood to make any money off such a
spoof.

Here are the facts (not opinion):

1) I directed a _really_ bad horror film back in 1987 called
"Forever Evil". The script was pretty stale and my direction
was, shall we say, less than inspired (I was not a profit
participant). The entire two hour film had unknown talent and
was produced for a flat fee of $120,000, complete with a
multitude of make-up effects that were certainly on par with AA.
"Forever Evil" has played on the USA network several times and
has, to date I believe, grossed well over 2 million dollars
domestically in video cassette and television sales. In
addition, anytime a foreign sale is made, the upfront money is
around $50,000 minimum for every border you cross.

2) I checked with my lawyer and, because the actors' faces are
covered, they could never prove any connection with the AA
project. Therefore, if they "spilled the beans" and cost
Santilli money on lost sales as a result, then they could be
held liable in a civil suit that Santilli would, according to my
attorney, most certainly win. Most importantly, as Santilli were
to get more powerful entities involved, such as the Fox Network,
then the legal opposition for the "whistle blowers" becomes VERY
intimidating since everyone would want to protect their
interest.

Regarding such, it is also quite possible that the actors
involved were profit participants, themselves. I'll admit that
this is speculation, but it would be just one more reason why no
one involved would come forward and "spill the beans".

Therefore, all subjective debates aside about quality and the
like, is there any reason to believe that a lot of money would
have to be spent to create a salable product like AA? None what
so ever. More importantly, was there reason for Santilli to
believe that he'd make money off of his cheap little "movie"?
Absolutely.

Roger






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

                           Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:39:56 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:59:45 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:59:53 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille

 >>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:33:03 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>If you take issue with the meanings I prefer to give to
 >>"skeptic" and "debunker", then bring on your best counter
 >>argument. Do you believe that the two mean the same thing? If
 >>so, then why use them both in the same sentence?

Serge replied:

 >My problem at this moment is that you and I obviously live in
 >two different worlds, and your interest lies elsewhere than in
 >precision.

And I suppose you consider making "IFO" mean anything you want
other than "Identified Flying Object" is the definition of
"precision"?

Let me know when the Salvaille's New World Dictionary is out in
paperback.

Regarding your comment:

 >And you're right: my axe is definitely sharper than yours is.

Considering the constant grind you put it through, I'm sure it
is, Serge.

Later,

Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

               Re: AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:16:36 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:40:37 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged


 >From: William Sawers <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
 >Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:38:21 +1300
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

 >>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:47:14 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>Knowing going into this that it [AA] was a once in a lifetime
 >>event, the end result would have been much more involved and
 >>documented in a better, more informative fashion. Color film
 >>would have been mandatory, don't you think?

William wrote:

 >If I may interceed on this point regarding Educational Armed
 >Services Training Films or Documentaries, e.g. 'How To Throw A
 >Hand-Grenade', etc. We must assume that this cameraman may have
 >been all that was available, or next on 'the list'.

 >No one is saying he was a Cecil B DeMill, he made his money as
 >some kind of freelance. He wouldn't have been prepared for what
 >he was to encounter out in the desert.

 >There was NO precedent on HOW to film an AA.

 >He'd just been out in the desert, sent on short notice with a
 >'Need To Know' contract/job..... There was no time to make notes
 >and plan shooting angles as you would in a contracted education
 >film.

<snip>

Hi, William!

The problem is when you say, "We must assume..."

Why must we assume that the sloppy method used in AA was the
only possible way it could have been handled when, logically,
something of such magnitude would have demanded better
treatment? More importantly, it is clear from other topics of
lesser importance that it was not only _possible_ to produce
better looking documentary footage, it was the norm, not the
exception. The issue of "how the cameraman overcame unexpected
obstacles" is pointless unless you accept the illogical notion
that he would have been put in such a position to begin with!

Think about this for a moment: The most important event in the
history of man and, while they just happen to have contamination
suits, they could not manage to string an extension cord for
more light? While they could rustle up a team of doctors worthy
of dissecting the only known creature from another world, they
couldn't get a camera man that could calculate exposure or
focus? While they record what they are doing for posterity in
writing, they have absolutely NO still cameras there for
documentation of what, obviously, would be of great visual
interest to medical doctors the world over?

What about the President? Doesn't it seem likely HE'D want to
see the damn thing? Since the 16mm footage was "lost", can you
imagine the poor smuck that has to deliver nothing but a hand
written description to the President saying, "Sorry, but we
don't have any pictures of the alien guy. But here's a really
GREAT description written by one of the doctors!" (soft shoe,
soft shoe, exit stage left..)

I mean, come on...

If anything, "we must assume" that better methods would have
been employed since it is proven that they were available for
subjects of far lesser importance. To "assume" otherwise shows
an obvious predisposition in favor of AA's authenticity, despite
the lack of logic in doing so. In the face of years of
consistent photographic and production quality by the Armed
Services, it's my opinion that AA's sloppy appearance is as much
an anomaly as finding a touch tone phone on the wall in the
film's O.R.


Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:49:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:43:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:03:47 -0800>

<snip>

 >There has always been an element to the Socorro story that
 >bugged me. Being so close to the White Sands Range, I have
 >always thought that he saw a Test Vehicle that had wandered
 >'off-range'. Who knows what Technology it was testing?


 >GT McCoy

That's a suggestion that has been made, but one would have
thought that the Air Force would have been aware of it and
Project Blue Book officials might have been advised at some
level.

I believe that early prototypes of what would later be developed
into the lunar lander were being tested, but records indicate no
free flights during those tests at that time.

I spoke with one person who had just arrived in Socorro the year
before the incident, and as an official at the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology he was asked to go out to the
alleged landing site very soon after the incident. Speaking of
it in 1997, his best guess was that Zamora had stumbled across a
military test vehicle that probably wasn't supposed to be there.
Something had left a definate impression in the ground and the
smell of burning pinon pine was still in the air when he
arrived.

The problem that I have with this explanation is the extensive
effort that Project Blue Book performed to try and resolve it,
which included a search for any experimental craft that might
have fit the description. None were found, and Project Blue Book
Director Hector Quintinella (sp?) described the Sorocco incident
as the most baffling he had seen.

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

                   Re: Pre-1947 UFO Encounters - McGonagle

From: Joe McGonagle <jmcgonagle@breathe.com>
Date: 23 Jan 2001 20:20:33 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:46:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Pre-1947 UFO Encounters - McGonagle


 >From: Chris Aubeck <chrisaubeck@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Pre-1947 UFO Encounters
 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:14:53 -0000

<snip>

 >and a lesser-known Russian incident of very similar
 >characteristics, which supposedly took place in the village of
 >Don in 1796.
 >[snip]

Chris, Alexander Beletsky of the RIAP organisation may be able
to offer assistance with the Russian incident. His address is
tolimak@nettaxi.com


Hope that helps,

Joe









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

               Re: AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:01:58 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:54:04 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:43:13 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

 >>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:47:14 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:34:59 -0800
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

 >>>>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:53:28 -0600
 >>>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I wrote:

 >>I think you are correct, though, when you imply that, if a
 >>real event, it would be a situation where they weren't sure exactly what
 >>was going to happen. As such, I can not imagine them being so unprepared
 >>and sloppy in the execution of the procedure or the documentation.
 >>Knowing going into this that it was a once in a lifetime event, the end
 >>result would have been much more involved and documented in a better,
 >>more informative fashion. Color film would have been mandatory, don't
 >>you think?

Ed replied:

 >See Neil's response. I agree with him. I don't recall ever
 >seeing any surgical procedure from the armed services in color
 >or black and white for that matter. I don't think any autopsies
 >were filmed during that time period, and I doubt if they are
 >even now. Do you know for sure?

Hi, Ed.

You mean you don't know? Then why use that as some basis for
your argument against the idea? I'm just as sure that you don't
recall ever seeing any other autopsies of an alien creature in
color or black and white, either.

In fact, that's the whole point!

This was an _important_event_. This was not some second rate
V.D. film or a reel that dealt with fungus in your boots. This
was documentation about an alien being from outer space! The
fact that you have never seen surgical footage has nothing to do
with the issue at hand which isn't _what_ they shot footage of
but how they shot the footage. The point isn't whether or not
they would use color or black and white to document a typical
surgical procedure or autopsy, but whether or not they would use
the best possible medium to document a very _non-typical_, once
in a lifetime event such as AA.

Continuing, Ed wrote:

 >As Neil mentioned, the filming is quite good considering the
 >limitations. The cameraman was wearing a decontamination suit
 >just like the doctors. He had to move around, therefore a tripod
 >would have been useless. And as Neil pointed out, only a small
 >percentage of the footage would have been used in a full fledged
 >documentary.

<snip>

 >This footage was never meant to be seen by anyone
 >other than those with a 'Need To Know' classification.

Ed, this really makes no sense. Did it ever occur to you that,
the more uncommon the event, the greater the need to document it
as best as possible, _especially_ if the only way others will
later be able to witness the event is though said documentation?
You really can't have it both ways. This is either a "Top
Secret" event of great importance that only few eyes will see in
person. Or it's a run of the mill event that matters little if
the documentation is good or not since so many people know about
it to begin with.

I find it odd that you can accept AA as a "Top Secret" event of
great importance but can't accept the notion that it should have
been documented in a more adequate fashion. Of course, the truth
is that you really don't know if this footage was meant for only
those with a 'Need To Know' classification. You are simply using
that stance as a form of skewed justification for the crappy
image quality despite the illogic in doing so.

As such you wrote:

 >If this
 >were a hoax, then why didn't the hoaxer(s) take your (you and
 >the others who would argue these points) concerns into
 >consideration. If they had wanted a finished product to look
 >like an Armed services documentary, don't you think it was in
 >their power to do so? If this is a hoax, it's very skillfully
 >done and one assumes the hoaxers were talented enough to film it
 >any way they pleased.

Well, they weren't that skillful, or they _would_ have made it
look like it was supposed to. Likewise, if AA were the "real
deal" then it would look better than it does. The only people on
a "Need To Know" basis was the general, paying audience of
videos like AA. _That's_ who this footage was meant to be seen
by and, as such, was shot in a way that plays up to a general
audience's expectations of what archival footage looks like. The
reality, of course, is something else and can be seen in any
real footage shot by the Armed Services. The style and quality
of the two simply do not match. To account for the difference
means manufacturing a scenario that is counter to all logic,
common sense and probability. More importantly, doing so
completely ignores a vast history of film record that indicates
AA is out of synch with military practices regarding quality
documentation of important events.


Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

             Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

From: William Sawers <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:16:30 +1300
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:08:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:42:54 EST
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:47:14 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:34:59 -0800
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)

 ><snip>

 >>Ed replied:

 >>>How much time have you spent viewing the AA? There is no
 >>>evidence of what you characterize as "shaky-cam". That must be
 >>>something you've imagined.

 >>>The footage is very steady and well done considering the
 >>>limitations placed on the cameraman.

 >>This is wishful thinking on your part, Ed. The footage, compared
 >>to other Armed Services documentaries, is crap. And, of course,
 >>this is the real point that you seem to ignore.

 >I agree with Roger on this one. Here we have the event of a
 >lifetime, the fraudtopsy (oops autopsy) of a real life, ET,
 >alien carcass from another world. This would not be an event
 >covered by _one_ camerman, but two or three. By all alleged
 >admission from Santilli, the alleged photographer was a very
 >experienced military camerman, yet the quality is that of a poor
 >amateur. You would also have still cameramen covering the
 >shooting with both color and b&w film.

Do we really know if this was the event of a lifetime? There was
apparently more than one body in the crash.

We don't know if there were other _top-secret_ autopsies going
on at other bases/hospitals. ".....you don't put all your eggs
in one basket" thinking. To really know what was going on
we need to know

"who knew what"
"when/if it became Top Secret"
"what was the attitudes of the participants"
(i.e. was there a pre-alien invasion mindset)

 >Lets also not forget about the storys Ray Santilli was telling,
 >that turned out not to be totally accurate, not to mention how
 >Ray would not even cough up _one_ frame of film (of the event of
 >the century) for analysis by Kodak. We then heard tales and
 >storys about how President Truman was seen on one of the rolls
 >of film, yet later when the truth came out, the name "Truman"
 >was on the alleged label of an alleged roll of film.

 >When Rays stories started collapsing, and people were leaning on
 >Ray from evidence, we then here the story about how Volker
 >actually owns the film and has refused to provide the clip...
 >blah, blah.

Not rushing to defend Ray but, if I was a business man able to
project financial futures as (perhaps) Volker is, I might be
unwilling to let go of even one frame of film.

Especially if we thought, _it may possibly become one of the
most important (and valuable) pieces of film documenting mans
first contact with an alien race_??

Each frame could become almost priceless, like a bad drawing by
Picasso(sp?) would fetch maybe hundreds of 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 23

                   Re: Filer's Files #4 -- 2001 - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:38:36 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:10:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #4 -- 2001 - Balaskas


 >From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:50:27 EST
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Filer's Files #4 -- 2001

<snip>

 >Nick Balakas wrote that the Shenzhou Spacecraft photo discussed
 >last week, was actually an earlier daylight test of the rocket
 >powered "escape tower" that is attached to the Shenzhou
 >spacecraft itself and is mounted on top of its tall Long March
 >rocket booster." The Shenzhou II spaceship launch was actually
 >at night. "As for what the bell shaped object is, I do not know
 >although it does remind me of a small weather balloon which may
 >have been released just before the escape tower test." Jeff has
 >done a great job in picking out unknown or unexplained objects
 >in space but this picture of a bell shaped object in the
 >atmosphere is certainly no evidence of a UFO monitoring the
 >launch of Shenzhou-2. Thanks to Nick Balaskas

<snip>

 >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/1921/shenzhou.htm

<snip>

Hi George and everyone.

I had another close look at this UFO picture in George Filer's
web site, as well as some other related images of the Chinese
manned space program at the web site above. From what I saw this
UFO may be a helicopter!

Have a look at the two helicopters in the second of two
"Re-entry capsule" photos in this web site. Note that the
helicopter flying in the sky seems to be the same model as the
one on the ground. The front view of this type of helicopter
(Russian built or designed?) do have a bell shape profile,
similar to the UFO in the "Escape tower test" photo. I propose
that two faint white spots just above and below this UFO (which
no one seems to have noticed) are the visible ends of the
ellipse produced by the rapidly spinning rotor blades of such a
helicopter making a sharp turn.

Maybe I am wrong but what about the UFO in the 'Parachute Test'
photo which everyone seems to have overlooked completely,
including our sharp eyed friend Jeff Challender? On my screen
this other UFO (to the left of the Shenzhou capsule) looks like
two round balloons touching. Could this be yet another UFO the
Chinese want us to know about that was present at a different
space program test? Wishful thinking or just simply another one
of their own helicopters?


Nick 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                          Secrecy News -- 01/23/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:35:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:02:56 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 01/23/01

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
January 23, 2001

**JUSTICE DEPT REBUFFED CIA SECRECY CLAIMS IN 1999
**LAST OF DOE "OPENNESS" TEAM DEPARTS
**INVENTION SECRECY STATS DISCLOSED


JUSTICE DEPT REBUFFED CIA SECRECY CLAIMS IN 1999

The Department of Justice dismissed an audacious claim by the
Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) that he possesses
independent authority to classify information and that his
classification determinations are not subject to review by
Presidential appointees, according to a 1999 DOJ Office of Legal
Counsel Opinion that was released last week.

The issue arose after the Central Intelligence Agency challenged
the jurisdiction of the Interagency Security Classification
Appeals Panel (ISCAP) to review and overturn CIA classification
decisions.  The ISCAP, which was created by the 1995 executive
order 12958, is authorized by the President to consider appeals
of "mandatory declassification review" requests that have been
denied.  The Chair of the ISCAP is appointed by the President.

When the ISCAP began considering declassification of certain CIA
documents that the Agency wanted kept secret, the DCI asserted
that his classification decisions pertaining to intelligence
sources and methods are not subject to ISCAP review and hence,
he insisted, the CIA documents would not be declassified.

Specifically, the DCI argued that the National Security Act of
1947 gives him unqualified authority to protect intelligence
sources and methods, and that this authority could not be
infringed upon by the President's ISCAP.

But in a rare legal defeat for the CIA, the Department of
Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) soundly rejected the DCI's
claims and implied that the CIA's position violated
constitutional principles.

The OLC ruled that the National Security Act obligation to
protect sources and methods is in support of the President's
authority, and not independent of it.

"Indeed, to assume otherwise would raise grave concerns about
the constitutionality of the National Security Act," the OLC
Opinion declared.  "A construction of the Act that permitted the
DCI to block the release of national security information that
the President believes should be disclosed would appear to
conflict with the Framers' considered judgment... that... all
authority over matters of national defense and foreign affairs
is vested in the President...."

This is a rather startling finding, mainly because no one in
authority ever talks that way to the DCI.  Federal judges, for
example, almost always yield to even the silliest of CIA
arguments about the supposed hazards of information disclosure.
No judge in a Freedom of Information Act proceeding has ever
compelled the CIA to release a document it did not want to
disclose (though the CIA has "voluntarily" agreed to release
previously withheld records under pressure of litigation).

The landmark Office of Legal Counsel ruling against the CIA was
not the end of the story, however.  Once the legal battle over
ISCAP's authority was lost, CIA officials resorted to
arm-twisting.  They exerted political pressure on the heads of
ISCAP member agencies to defer to CIA's views.  As a result, the
ISCAP even voted to withhold the documents that had given rise
to the CIA's unsuccessful legal challenge in the first place.
Likewise, the ISCAP upheld the CIA's position against disclosure
of the 1988 intelligence budget total, even though the more
recent and therefore presumably more sensitive 1997 and 1998
budget totals had already been declassified.  The ISCAP has also
yielded to CIA on continued classification of the President's
Daily Brief from over three decades ago.

Thus, one of the few remaining checks and balances on CIA
secrecy policy has been largely neutered by the Agency.

The newly released OLC Opinion, authored by Randolph D. Moss, is
posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/iscap/olc_opinion.html


LAST OF DOE "OPENNESS" TEAM DEPARTS

The Department of Energy's vaunted "Openness Initiative" is
fading into memory as the last of the senior officials
associated with the Initiative has retired.  Roger K. Heusser,
acting director of the DOE Office of Nuclear and National
Security Information, retired on December 28.  His predecessor,
Bryan Siebert, who had directed the Office of Declassification
through its glory days, left the Department two years ago.

As a sort of parting gift, Mr. Heusser oversaw eleven new
declassification decisions last year.  One of these was the
disclosure of some 99 hydronuclear experiments conducted by
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory at the Nevada Test Site
between 1954 and 1966, a period which included a U.S.-Russia
moratorium on nuclear testing.

An informal tribute to Mr. Heusser, prepared by a DOE official,
is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/doelast.html


INVENTION SECRECY STATS DISCLOSED

Under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, the government imposes
"secrecy orders" on patent applications when they involve
inventions in certain national security technology areas.  These
secrecy orders impose various levels of restriction on
disclosure of the invention, ranging from export controls to
national security classification.

At the end of Fiscal Year 2000, there were 4,741 secrecy orders
in effect, according to the latest statistics released by the
Office of Patent and Trademark at the U.S. Department of
Commerce.  Most of these were renewals of existing secrecy
orders from past years.  (In the recent past, secrecy order
activity peaked at 6,193 orders in FY 1991.)

The Invention Secrecy Act raises serious constitutional
concerns, since it appears to involve prior restraint on
individual free speech.  These concerns are particularly acute
in those cases where private individuals or small businesses, as
opposed to government contractors, are involved.  While the
majority of secrecy orders are in fact imposed in cases where
the government has a contractual or property interest in the
invention, a significant fraction of them, known as "John Doe"
secrecy orders, are imposed on private inventors.

The Atomic Energy Act is the only other statute under which the
government asserts a right to seize privately generated
intellectual property and to prevent its disclosure.

Of the 83 new secrecy orders imposed in FY 2000, 24 were "John
Doe" secrecy orders.  The constitutionality of this practice has
never been tested in court.

A statistical breakdown of patent secrecy order activity for the
last few years is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/stats.html

Additional background on invention secrecy may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/index.html

******************************
To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message:
subscribe secrecy_news [your email address]


To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message:
unsubscribe secrecy_news [your email address]
Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:22:51 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:05:35 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:20:20 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:45:39 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Neil had asked:

 >>>What color stock available in 1947 would you have recommended to
 >>>be used in

 >>>(a) An enclosed tent under "field conditions" with only the
 >>>inside ambiant light available?.

Robert correctly pointed out:

 >>Didn't Phillip Mantle come up with the fact or prove that some
 >>of the footage was a hoax?

Neil replied:

 >Indeed he did, the "tent footage", and I agree with him on that.
 >I was actually contacted by the "whistle blower" along with
 >Philip regarding this piece of "video".

Hi, Neil!

Not trying to be accusational in tone, but why ask what color
stock would be appropriate for shooting in an enclosed tent when
you knew that the tent footage was fake? Seems a bit
misdirective to me.

The truth is that the AA took place under controlled conditions.
The degree of control is the real issue at hand. As such, it
should be noted that any place with electricity would negate the
need for shooting under low light, regardless of whether it was
shot in 16mm or 35mm. To imply a harsher "field condition" is
expanding the myth that AA looks the way it does for reasons out
of the control of the people involved.

Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                           Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:43:13 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:40:52 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Evans


 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:39:56 -0600
 >Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:59:53 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO - Salvaille

 >>>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:33:03 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>>Subject: Re: UFO vs IFO
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Hello Roger,

<snip>

 >>>If you take issue with the meanings I prefer to give to
 >>>"skeptic" and "debunker", then bring on your best counter
 >>>argument. Do you believe that the two mean the same thing? If
 >>>so, then why use them both in the same sentence?

 >Serge replied:

 >>My problem at this moment is that you and I obviously live in
 >>two different worlds, and your interest lies elsewhere than in
 >>precision.

 >And I suppose you consider making "IFO" mean anything you want
 >other than "Identified Flying Object" is the definition of
 >"precision"?

 >Let me know when the Salvaille's New World Dictionary is out in
 >paperback.

<snip>

I notice that you 'casually" snipped out the:

 ><snip>

 >>But then again,
 >>you have a history of writing things that you later regret and
 >>would like to be forgotten.

 ><snip>

 >You are not resorting to insinuation. If there is only one single
 >point I'd like to have cleared up, this is the one. I have a
 >"history of writing things that", I, "later regret and would like
 >forgotten"?

 >WHAT FREAKING FANTASY IS THIS?

And other interesting stuff about your idiosyncrasies.

Aren't you the guy who wrote:

 >>Nor yourself, Serge. You made a statement that you simply
 >>couldn't back up with any documented evidence. Somehow that's
 >>_my_ problem or a failure of the English language? How about the
 >>simple notion that you were just plain wrong?

Comes to the mind that the only difference between your mirror
and your computer screen is the keyboard.

<snip>

 >Regarding your comment:

 >>And you're right: my axe is definitely sharper than yours is.

 >Considering the constant grind you put it through, I'm sure it
 >is, Serge.

<snip>

Seems that you confuse grind and perspicacity. It's not
constant, mind you, but I do my best. I suppose I should
apologize?


Regards,

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                    Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:51:41 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:05:00 -0500
Subject: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway


Hello Listers,

I'm now referring to what I was actually watching on my TV set
this evening; 23 January, 2001. The TV channel was NRK 1,
regarded as the most serious and conservative TV channel in
Norway - and also the oldest one (established in 1959).

In the program "Redaksjon 21", the very popular 9:00 p.m.
program, some video footage was shown, taken by a person in the
valley of Namdalen, in the county of North Trondelag
(Nord-Trndelag), Norway. The footage showed a "fairly large",
spherically-shaped light, or object, hovering, or slightly
moving, above the ground late in the evening.

The observer/photographer - allegedly a woman - wanted to remain
unknown. However, a representative of UFO Norge (Norway), Arnulf
Lken (see his name mentioned in the referred to website/URL
articles below), was also TV interviewed about his opinions on
the footage - and he seemed "fairly convinced".

To me, the light looked like two spheres cut in half, and being
"loosely attached"; i.e., somewhat "irregular" in the middle
part of "it"; just not attached properly. The size - we were
told by the reporter - was somewhat less than the full moon;
maybe the size of the object/light could be that of a house, or,
maybe a car.

 From my viewpoint, the two, "not properly-attached",
hemispheres, looked like as if could actually split - if they
wanted to (but, we didn't see them split on the video).

As some car headlights were showing up, the light ball suddenly
("got scared", and) became smaller in size, and - most likely -
vanished into the background/night at some high speed (this we
were told by the photographer).

Right above, and right underneath the spherical object, me - and
the reporter - I did observe some kind of "streaming gas";
"quasar-like" gas jets streaming out from from the shining,
static, hovering, or moving, gas "ball". They (the "jets") were,
however, difficult to observe; they both being rather thin in
appearance; they - each - stretched out approx. at the same
length as the "diameter" of the "ball" (at least the visible
part of them).

It didn't really look like a "conventional", mechanical
aircraft, or a blimp, rather some atmospheric phenomena, with
somewhat fuzzy outlines - the _whole_ object was actually
shining. But, it was rather difficult to draw any concrete
conclusion on "the design" and to determine this exactly, due to
the fairly blurred outlook.

In the area of Namdalen, numerous sightings of these
"atmospheric phenomena" (or, "UFOs") have been reported/observed
recently; maybe approx. 40 of them - we were told by the TV
reporter. In this area, maybe, nearly half of the total UFO
observations in Norway have been reported.

The footage looked quite convincing both to me and, of course,
to the "conservative" NRK 1 channel (we really felt that we saw
what the observer/ photographer also did see in her viewfinder).

"UFO" reports are very seldom referred to in Norwegian news
programs - at least on this rather conservative channel - so
this was quite clearly a very rare event!

Related articles on some of these recent "atmospheric
sightings/observations" ("UFOs") in Namdalen (sorry; in
Norwegian only...):

http://www.t-a.no/index.nsf/webpub/74F0A5AF8D4A6F21C12569300074AA46

http://www.t-a.no/index.nsf/webpub/59604A364E3AA1ACC12569300074186A

http://www.login.eunet.no/~baardaun/s_h_ufo.htm


http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2000/08/04/214068.html


Best Regards,

AWS







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:53:54 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:10:20 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman


 >Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:21:09 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell...]
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Roger to robert gates:

 >I must agree with your assessment about the lack of
 >photographers in the O.R. Considering how the "surgeons" on
 >display were slicing and dicing the body of the alleged alien,
 >there should have been at least one photographer with a
 >Speedgraphic 4x5 making SOME kind of photographic documentation
 >of the body and the procedure. We can argue all we want about
 >the "quality" of the AA footage versus other Armed Services
 >footage, but the obvious lack of a still photographer is highly
 >suspect.

The above statements are highly speculative. We have absolutely
no way of knowing what those in power were thinking. And how are
we, those who think the AA is legitimate, to answer criticism
such as this. You write there should have been a photographer
for this momentous occasion but everything we know about Roswell
makes us believe that the lid was on. The cameraman states that
he worked alone on this project. He clearly explained the
circumstances but no one will accept his testimony except for
those of us who think the AA is on the up and up. Perhaps you
could take another look at the AA.

 >. Now, the question before
 >us is whether or not Santilli stood to make any money off such a
 >spoof.

Ray Santilli is an honest business man. You have no proof or
evidence to the contrary. He was never know to hoax anything
else. Where is your evidence that he would ever even think of
doing such a thing. I've had five years of correspondence with
him and he is not dishonest. He has no interest or knowledge of
the UFO scene. You have no evidence that he could even put
something like this together successfully.

 >The entire two hour film had unknown talent and
 >was produced for a flat fee of $120,000, complete with a
 >multitude of make-up effects that were certainly on par with AA.

Roger, have you spent any time viewing the AA? Dennis Murphy,
who in his estimate spent hundreds of hours viewing the AA and
is a trained metallurgist considered all the possible ways the
debris could have been fabricated. His conclusions:

    "If any of the these processes could be made to work, or if
    this type of detail could be produced with some other type of
    process, then far more money could be made producing real
    products than could ever be made from an Alien dissection
    hoax film."

 >More importantly, was there reason for Santilli to
 >believe that he'd make money off of his cheap little "movie"?
 >Absolutely.

Again Ray Santilli was _not_ in the UFO crowd.

He couldn't make a UFO movie. He didn't know a thing about
UFOs nor do you have one piece of evidence he did.

All the above is speculation.

But, we bring you real evidence and you refuse to take a look.
Email me your address and I'll send you the CDs.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:26:10 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:14:33 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: William Sawers <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:16:30 +1300
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:08:07 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:42:54 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, William wrote:

 >Do we really know if this was the event of a lifetime? There was
 >apparently more than one body in the crash.

 >We don't know if there were other _top-secret_ autopsies going
 >on at other bases/hospitals. ".....you don't put all your eggs
 >in one basket" thinking. To really know what was going on
 >we need to know

 >"who knew what"
 >"when/if it became Top Secret"
 >"what was the attitudes of the participants"
 >(i.e. was there a pre-alien invasion mindset)

Hi, William!

I had previously written:

 >Of course if this was, like, the 50th alien autopsy that they'd
 >done and were just getting real casual about things, then I
 >guess it [sloppiness] might be justified.

The problem is that we can't manufacture situations that we have
no evidence existed to prop up another situation that is already
suspect. Sure, there could have been other AA's and _maybe_
that's why the footage is sloppy. However, my observation is
that the military adopts certain routines after repeated events.
In other words, if they had already done other AA's, then they
would have had a better facility already set up, would have had
a film unit standing by, would have had better lighting, been
better prepared, etc. In short, the AA film in question should
have benefited from previous experience and looked even better
than I maintain it should. As such, I feel that AA, if real, is
a one of a kind.

Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                        Re: AA Film Redux - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:53:02 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:20:40 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Goldstein


 >From: William Sawers <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:38:21 +1300

 >>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:47:14 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:34:59 -0800
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

 >>>>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:53:28 -0600
 >>>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>While you're correct that the AA doesn't have the look of an
 >>>autopsy, it does have the look and feel of a surgery. I would
 >>>say that this was more like an exploratory surgery, one where
 >>>they didn't know exactly what was going to happen.

 >>Well, this is pretty much my whole point. AA does not look like an
 >>autopsy, we both agree on that. However, it looks like no surgery that I
 >>was ever witness to. That said, I guess we'll just have to disagree on
 >>that point. I think you are correct, though, when you imply that, if a
 >>real event, it would be a situation where they weren't sure exactly what
 >>was going to happen. As such, I can not imagine them being so unprepared
 >>and sloppy in the execution of the procedure or the documentation.
 >>Knowing going into this that it was a once in a lifetime event, the end
 >>result would have been much more involved and documented in a better,
 >>more informative fashion. Color film would have been mandatory, don't
 >>you think?

 >If I may interceed on this point regarding Educational Armed
 >Services Training Films or Documentaries, e.g. 'How To Throw A
 >Hand-Grenade', etc. We must assume that this cameraman may have
 >been all that was available, or next on 'the list'.

 >No one is saying he was a Cecil B DeMill, he made his money as some kind
 >of freelance. He wouldn't have been prepared for what he was to encounter
 >out in the desert.

 >There was NO precedent on HOW to film an AA.

 >He'd just been out in the desert, sent on short notice with a
 >'Need To Know' contract/job..... There was no time to make notes
 >and plan shooting angles as you would in a contracted education
 >film.

 >Also the photographer made his living or in those days scraped a
 >living taking film He was trying to sell some film that probably
 >didn't sell in the early fifties of a somewhat unpopular,
 >unknown would be singing star, I mean Elvis of course. How much
 >would he have been paid for that film in those days. Not much
 >I'll bet. Maybe thats why he still had them to offer to
 >Santilli??. But in those days he would have grabbed every job
 >offered and not asked too many questions...

 >>>>Like the
 >>>>"hyped" 357, fist fight or shaky-cam, AA plays up to the general
 >>>>audience's EXPECTATIONS of what archival documentary footage
 >>>>would look like as opposed to what REAL documentary footage
 >>>>would look like.

 >>Ed replied:

 >>>How much time have you spent viewing the AA? There is no
 >>>evidence of what you characterize as "shaky-cam". That must be
 >>>something you've imagined.

 >>>The footage is very steady and well done considering the
 >>>limitations placed on the cameraman.

 >>This is wishful thinking on your part, Ed. The footage, compared
 >>to other Armed Services documentaries, is crap. And, of course,
 >>this is the real point that you seem to ignore.

 >>Even if we considered the debate a draw concerning the
 >>authenticity of the procedure, itself, the fact that other Armed
 >>Services documentaries about subjects of far lessor importance
 >>are far superior in quality and execution can not be dismissed.
 >>To simply say that the film looked pretty good considering the
 >>limitations of the cameraman is to ignore fact that, given the
 >>magnitude of the event, documentation would have certainly
 >>entailed multiple 35mm cameras shooting color film from several
 >>different angles. Such a once in a life time event would not
 >>have been shot in 16mm black and white in low light, with push
 >>processing which would knowingly make the film more grainy by a
 >>single camera man that couldn't even manage to keep the image in
 >>focus. All these effects are just "trimming" designed to play up
 >>to a modern audiences' expectations of what Armed Services
 >>documentaries would look like as opposed to the reality of what
 >>they look like.

 >>There is no way you can explain why something of such monumental
 >>and historical importance would have been documented in such
 >>haphazard and amateur fashion when other, better resources were
 >>available with a single phone call. Instead of watching the AA
 >>film over and over, comparing it to itself, go to your local
 >>library and check out documentaries available from the Armed
 >>Services. _That_ is what you need to compare it to.

 >I don't know why you'd say "better resources were available with
 >a single phone call"! Unless you are familiar with the way the
 >Armed Services requisitioned phtographers, which I'm not.. but I
 >would imagine there would be some sort of priority list, or
 >seniorority system, or even a "you scratch mine and I scratch
 >yours" system which could make it a little more difficult than a
 >single phone call to set up a shoot than you presume.

 >I feel we have to be a bit more aware of the mindset of the mid
 >to late 40's. Things didn't race along at the speed of the
 >internet. There were certain criteria, usually followed to the
 >letter. The AA would have been so far out in left-field a
 >certain 'panic-stricken' mode would pervade anything to do with
 >it. I think if we put it in this perspective we could easily
 >forgive any naievety and mistakes that we... 'of the
 >sophisticates' <g>would, of course, spot.

 >William


William, Ed,

I'll try to be polite about this but I think both of you are
grasping for straws and nitpicking amongst them. There is
nothing in this film or anything provided by Santilli to verify
the truth of his claims. The onus has been on him for what, six
or seven years? He has been nothing but deceitful and deceptive,
making excuses like a four year old who got caught stealing a
cookie - oh, the cookie fell into my hand. Santilli misled Bob
Shell, Kodak, and anyone else who tried to verify its accuracy.
When asked for a piece of actual film to be tested he provided a
piece of blank that could have come from any film of that
period. Where was an identifiable image? It was not provided and
it seems like Santilli thought he could get away with that. Face
it, he has led nothing but a charade regarding this so called AA
autopsy. The onus has been on him to provide proof and he never
has. Both of you are like suckers who could have easily been
taken in a carny game. That seems like what Santilli performed
with a great many soft minded people. Face it, you have good
intentions but you have been fooled. To me it is rather pathetic
that after all these years you are scrambling to come up with
suppositions to try to make your point that this may have been a
real film of a real event. How about some real evidence rather
than a deductive guessing game? Who cares how much it would have
cost to shoot? From the looks of that filming he and his
financier made a huge profit bundle.

I agree with Roger's points regarding the quality of the
filming. There is no point in anyone who is not a professional
in film to make weak arguments. I don't know if either of you
have served in the military. They don't use freelance
photographers or poor photographers who are next on call. They
have fully trained and equipped crews ready to go at a moment's
notice. I don't think any officer in charge of the autopsy would
have ever let it be filmed under such poor conditions. When I
was in the middle of the war in Vietnam we certainly performed
better than that. Imagine the OIC having to answer to his
superior officers as to why the filming was so terrible. I
served in the military and things would never have been done
that badly under any conditions. I certainly think that would
have also been the case in the 1940s.

To me, this issue was buried a long time ago unless Santilli
magically comes up with something to prove it real. I pity
anyone who is still holding his breath after all these years.
Nit picking guesses about the film are not going to prove
anything. I would much rather see the bytes that have gone into
these posts regarding the AA autopsy spent on answering points
of more substantial cases with more to show for them. To me,
this AA autopsy film is a dead issue until the truth comes out
of Santilli. So far he has been nothing but a con artist. Let's
please not end up in the pathetic position of James Eastman,
still wildly flailing his pelican wings without the sense to
pick his feet up from the mud he has stuck himself into. The
poor pelican has crashed so many times without even getting off
the ground. I am sure there are other UFO related issues where
both of you can do a lot better than that. Without help from Los
Alamos I can't even get my hoverboard off the ground. Maybe I'll
get some giant magnets and make a levitron big enough to suspend
me. I need help. Maybe I should get together with Bob Lazar and
steal some element 115 from site S4. We could also convert his
jet dragster to run on it. I wonder why he has not thought of
that?  Just like the AA autopsy, we played a huge guessing game
about him. See the parallel? <G>


Working on my new hoax,

Josh Goldstein










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:22:00 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:32:16 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Young


 >Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:01:58 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell...]
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Hi, Roger, Ed:

I forget, now, but was the AA film b & w or color? I recall
reading someplace that most US WWII combat footage was shot in
color, but because the technicolor process wasn't perfected
until the late 40s, the duplicated copies supplied to movie
houses and generally seen by the public are b & w.

If the AA film is b & w it might indicated that it is a copy, if
authentic; or a clumsy fake made to look like "WWII era"
newsreels. I recall seeing, when I was in Army basic, a film
about frostbite which showed sequences of frostbitten soldiers
in Korea. As I recall the Korea sequences were in color. Of
course this would have been '50 or later.

Bob Young










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

              Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:30:42 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:36:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly - Goldstein


 >From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly
 >Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:22:13 -0800

 >------------------------------------------------------------
 >MARS MANTA-WINGED AIRCRAFT ANOMALY

 >For Immediate Release

 >The Electric Warrior : Mars Online January 23, 2001

 >http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/MarsOnline007.htm

 >Mars Online Gazette: "Aircraft"-like Anomaly Found on Mars

 >http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/MarsOnlineGazett.htm

 >------------------------------------------------------------

 >THE MARTIAN EQUATOR

 >For Mars anomaly researchers, the going got weird a quarter
 >century ago, when a face turned up in Cydonia. The presumably
 >lo-tech culture that fashioned the Martian monument suddenly
 >looked more space-age than stone-age, when a triangular anomaly
 >-- resembling an aircraft -- was uncovered at the Martian
 >equator.

 >Last weekend, The Cydonian Imperative announced "the first
 >proposed Martian 'vehicle' that provides the context and detail
 >necessary for a serious...exploration of possible
 >artificiality." The finding echoes a similar discovery last
 >year, which The Enterprise Mission (TEM) called a Martian Flying
 >Saucer.

 >TEM's Richard Hoagland, the foremost champion of Cydonia
 >research, has argued for years that Martains posessed an
 >advanced scientific knowledge he calls hyperdimensional physics.
 >Hoagland's flying saucer is parked precariously at the edge of
 >one of Mars' astounding canyons, Ophir Chasma.

 >The new Mars UFOs are imaged at the limits of NASA's current
 >technology, shot at a pixellated resolution both provactive and
 >inconclusive: Like last generation Viking photos of the Face on
 >Mars.

 >------------------------------------------------------------

 >STRANGE SQUARE

 >The manta-wing anomaly was first noticed in a washed-out digital
 >reproduction of a Mars Global Surveyor image, released to NASA's
 >Platentary Image Atlas last October.

 >"When I came across the 'Strange Square' I had a feeling that it
 >was an imaging artifact, but I was curious as to why NASA would
 >post such a blatant error," explains Ephrain Palermo. Palermo
 >has been investigating the numerous dark stains found in many
 >MGS images.

 >The high-contrast image Palermo encountered had a pure-white
 >too-much-information burn, that suggested a light source in the
 >middle of the Martian desert. "The strange square was too
 >strange to be real," he said.

 >Steve Wingate provided a cleaner image on his Anomalous Images
 >Website, by downloading NASA's raw data and processing the image
 >himself. After Wingate's processing had pulled the anomalous
 >image out of the digital mud, others remarked that the delta
 >shaped anomaly resembled the saucer posted by The Enterprise
 >Mission.

 >"As with many of the anomalies I and others have uncovered,"
 >Palermo told The Electric Warrior, "many of these features could
 >be explained by natural, if exotic, Martian geology."

 >"The artifact was apparently created by NASA's excessive JPEG
 >compression," says Steve Wingate. "With lower contrast
 >enhancement, the mesa does appear to be anomalous, however."

<snip>

 >eWarrior@electricwarrior.com


Hello Listerians,

I guess this is my rant of the night. I'm upset at what has been
coming down in Washington lately (read my lips, my son) and I'll
project my ugly mood on you.<G>

I've had to live with delusions from Richard Hoagland for too
many years. He sure has made himself look like he should be
under medication when he made his embarrasing presentation
before the National Press Club and many others. It certainly
further tarnishes the already tarnished reputation of ufology
with that kind of raving going out to the public. He should be
nominated to the UFO Hall of Shame. Listening Royce? I wish we
had a Mars rocket so he would be the first to go - without a
return vehicle.

My point is that with our inherent pattern recognition we can
see just about any kind of anomolous object we want up there.
The manta ray anomoly is no big deal. I saw a monolith up there
shaped just like my penis. That has great meaning. In a previous
post I made the statement about grasping at straws and then
nit-picking among them. To me that statement certainly applies
to the above post just like it applies to James Bond Johnson
seeing symbols in the anomalous blobs on the Roswell debris
photos. That is like reading UFOs in the mythical Ezekiel's
wheel and biblical references in Bushboy's speech. That is like
the endless diatribe posts regarding skeptics and debunkers.

All I am asking is that we get more scientific and rational in
our approaches and in our posts. My delete button is getting
worn out.


Thanks,

Josh Goldstein











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:06:19 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:21:27 -0500
Subject: Re:  Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:58:20 EST
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:03:55 -0500

 >>>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:40:28 -0000
 >>>Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:30:34 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

 >><snip>

 >>This is typical Eastonian post, avoiding the hard stuff and
 >>giving lines and lines of lectures on ETH and other material
 >>unrelated to the investigation of this case.

 ><snip>

 >>If you have a balloon, then the most important thing about
 >>ballooning is not a thumbnail sketch about Raven Industries or
 >>CIA special projects. There are two factors in addition to lift
 >>which will tell one about the flight of a balloon, wind speed
 >>and direction. Do you find any such consideration in Robinson
 >>site? No, he was in his own words too busy to check that.... He
 >>wasn't too busy to put the idea on his web page. That is all it
 >>is, an idea. Not well supported by facts or investigation or
 >>even checks of the most important factors for this possible
 >>explanation.

 ><snip>

 >>There is more, but that is for another time after we get 200
 >>more lines of mostly irrelevant outpourings.

 >>Flight direction and speed of a balloon is determined by what?
 >>Wind Direction and Speed. (Say that five times and make it
 >>yours.)

 >Excellent points! Speaking of which, it reminds me of the
 >Rendlesham case:

 >If you have a lighthouse what are the two most important factors
 >in determining its relevance to the UFO case? Direction and
 >Visibility.

 >What two factors are most often evaded or misrepresented by
 >skeptics and debunkers of this case? Direction and Visibility.


Hi Jan and Brad,

In an email to Easton a few days ago on this thread I mentioned
that Zamora had described the object as being the size of a
car - or at least at one point he thought it was an overturned
car. No balloon the size of an automobile-even the bigger cars
of the 50s would have had the lifting capability to carry two
even small sized males aloft. For that reason alone it does not
deserve further cosideration.

I've been around ballons myself more than a few times and the 2
person baskets are well over 60 or seventy feet high and 40 plus
in diameter. I'd be more willing to believe this thing was some
sort of test vehicle as GT McCoy feels it might be, however if
we keep bringing this crutch/explanation out 7 out of 10 times
as an explanation for UFOs, we are talking a heck of a lot of
secret test vehicles of many different shapes, sizes and
capabilities.

BTW - as usual I'm still waiting for Easton to respond. He never
does when he's caught out.

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:24:17 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:22:49 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gates


 >From: William Sawers <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)a
 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:16:30 +1300

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:42:54 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:47:14 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:34:59 -0800
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)

 >><snip>

 >>>Ed replied:

 >>>>How much time have you spent viewing the AA? There is no
 >>>>evidence of what you characterize as "shaky-cam". That must be
 >>>>something you've imagined.

 >>>>The footage is very steady and well done considering the
 >>>>limitations placed on the cameraman.

 >>>This is wishful thinking on your part, Ed. The footage, compared
 >>>to other Armed Services documentaries, is crap. And, of course,
 >>>this is the real point that you seem to ignore.

 >>I agree with Roger on this one. Here we have the event of a
 >>lifetime, the fraudtopsy (oops autopsy) of a real life, ET,
 >>alien carcass from another world. This would not be an event
 >>covered by _one_ camerman, but two or three. By all alleged
 >>admission from Santilli, the alleged photographer was a very
 >>experienced military camerman, yet the quality is that of a poor
 >>amateur. You would also have still cameramen covering the
 >>shooting with both color and b&w film.

 >Do we really know if this was the event of a lifetime? There was
 >apparently more than one body in the crash.

 >We don't know if there were other _top-secret_ autopsies going
 >on at other bases/hospitals. ".....you don't put all your eggs
 >in one basket" thinking. To really know what was going on
 >we need to know

What difference does that make?

 >"who knew what"
 >"when/if it became Top Secret"
 >"what was the attitudes of the participants"
 >(i.e. was there a pre-alien invasion mindset)

 >>Lets also not forget about the storys Ray Santilli was telling,
 >>that turned out not to be totally accurate, not to mention how
 >>Ray would not even cough up _one_ frame of film (of the event of
 >>the century) for analysis by Kodak. We then heard tales and
 >>storys about how President Truman was seen on one of the rolls
 >>of film, yet later when the truth came out, the name "Truman"
 >>was on the alleged label of an alleged roll of film.

 >>When Rays stories started collapsing, and people were leaning on
 >>Ray from evidence, we then here the story about how Volker
 >>actually owns the film and has refused to provide the clip...
 >>blah, blah.

 >Not rushing to defend Ray but, if I was a business man able to
 >project financial futures as (perhaps) Volker is, I might be
 >unwilling to let go of even one frame of film.

But on the other hand of it, if he had released one frame of
film and Kodak said it was legit, it would increase the "value"
of the film big time. I suspect the reason that one frame of
film was not coughed up is because it would raise more doubt
then confirmation.

 >Especially if we thought, _it may possibly become one of the
 >most important (and valuable) pieces of film documenting mans
 >first contact with an alien race_??

True and anybody can buy a copy of this possibly priceless film
for $4.95 on closeout sale at a video store.

 >Each frame could become almost priceless, like a bad drawing by
 >Picasso(sp?) would fetch maybe hundreds of K

 From a marketing point of view the film is old news. Kind of like
Lone Range movies. While the tapes may sell here and their, they
won't sell like the initial release. Likely Ray and company have
probably already milked 6 to 8 million out of the film, so everybody
is happy.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:29:01 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:23:37 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:36:28 -0600
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:50:10 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)

 >>>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:10:09 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, I had written:

 >>>The very film is a factual point that refutes itself!

 >Neil asks:

 >>Explain?.

 >Hi, Neil!

 >Okay, let me try and take a different approach. Much has been
 >made of the "accuracy" of items seen in the AA video. Obviously,
 >if we saw something that should not be there, like say a digital
 >clock, then we could assume that the video is suspect until
 >proof of a circa 1940's digital clock was produced by AA
 >proponents. Likewise, if something was obviously missing from
 >the shot, like say scalpels, then we could also assume that the
 >video was suspect until proof that doctors regularly tore bodies
 >open with their hands was produced by AA proponents.

 >Therefore, it is safe to say that we must judge the AA video,
 >not only by what we see, but by what is obviously absent. In
 >this particular case we have an example of both. We have too
 >much "shaky-cam" compared to other Armed Services footage and
 >not enough "quality" compared to other Armed Services footage.


Roger,

You're insisting on seeing this as a finished "production", it's
not.

It presents itself as unedited raw footage just as it came out
of the camera "warts and all". You can't compare chalk with
cheese.

 >>>Documentary footage and documentaries shot by the Armed services
 >>>are some of the most "static" in the history of film.

 >Neil replied:

 >>I don't think we're talking "documentary production" here, are
 >>we?. Are you now saying you think this was shot by a US Army
 >>Film Unit?.

 >Precisely my point!!! Precisely my point!!!

 >Considering the importance of the event it _should_ have been
 >shot by a US Army Film Unit! The obvious question is why films
 >about cleaning of latrines or lobbing hand grenades ranks above
 >the importance given to the single most important event in the
 >history of man? The notion that this would have been shot on
 >16mm film in black and white under low light by, arguably, the
 >worst cameraman the military had to offer is absurd, in my
 >opinion.

So multi-camera, 35mm fixed mount color film, you would need the
400 foot magazines, the basic camera's zipped through the 100 ft
of film in aprox 65 seconds. Plus a few extra lights here and
there to cope with the slow film speed, color's not impossible
to tank process but send it to the nearest base with a
continuous process machine, once you get your footage back edit
up the master and run off ????how many copies? get them
processed and distributed to ....who?  and to what ends?

The "lone cameraman" got in the way in the tiny autopsy room,
where would you put your bulky camera mounts for your static
camera's?, no room for those, dab!, where are you going to place
your light stands?

And what about all those extra people you're involving?, this
thing's bigger than the A bomb isn't it?, where's your security
consideration??

Or were you going to go round all the crews involved and remind them that
"bullets were cheap".

The "lone cameraman" was just the one pair eyes who was known
and so it was thought, could be controlled.

 >Again, regarding such I wrote:

 >>>Check out
 >>>any at your local library and you will find _no_ walk around,
 >>>"shaky-cam shots" or the like. In addition, most were shot in
 >>>35mm, not 16mm (though they were usually released on 16mm).

Not so... this from a former Air Force cameraman.


   "My basic assumption here is the the original film was, in
   fact, 16mm and not 35mm. The US military used 35mm movie
   cameras throughout WWII and Korea, although 16mm was more
   common. The issue 35mm hand-held motion picture camera was a
   militarized version of the Bell & Howell "Eyemo", a spring or
   electrically driven camera with a 100 foot capacity. The Eyemo
   dates back to at least the early 1930s, 16mm and 8mm cameras
   were derived from the same basic chassis: the 70-series 16mm
   (I don't know the 8mm model series [the filmo 8]). 100 feet of
   35mm film runs about 1 minute, 5 seconds at 24 frames per
   second, so any shots in the Roswell film longer than this mean
   it had to be 16mm, or if 35mm, then the camera was equipped
   with both an electric drive motor and the accessory 400 foot
   magazine."

 >Neil replied:

 >>Considering the hand held nature of the filming the shots are
 >>really quite steady and though extreme close-ups _are_ out of
 >>focus, on the whole much of the remaining footage is resonably
 >>sharp.

 >>35mm? Why did the US Military issue 16mm movie cameras to their
 >>cameramen?.

 >>What color stock available in 1947 would you have recommended to
 >>be used in

 >>(a) An enclosed tent under "field conditions" with only the
 >>  inside ambiant light available?.

 >>(b) A small cluttered autopsy room with only one overhead light
 >>  source?.

 >Frankly, Neil, this is all academic. To claim that the cameraman
 >did pretty good "considering the conditions he was forced to
 >work in" requires one to accept, in advance, that such
 >conditions would likely be in effect for something so important.

You're ducking the issue here, these basic location factors are
vital in determining just how and with what the subject was
filmed.

 >A casual glance at other Armed Services documentaries says that
 >such adverse conditions would have been avoided in the first
 >place. Again, look at topics of even lesser importance such as
 >V.D. films and the like. Certainly, documentation of a creature
 >from outer space would get better treatment than that! Instead,
 >we get something that doesn't even measure up to basic training
 >films on health and personal hygiene.

Again you're not judging like with like.

 >Continuing, I wrote:

 >>>The ones that were in black and
 >>>white were not anything like the grainy results fostered on the
 >>>viewing public ala AA.

 >Neil replied:

 >>You "push process" you get grain, even with today's Kodak
 >>emulsions! Has anyone ever said these images were ever for
 >>public consumption?

 >A distinction without a difference, Neil. The question isn't
 >"what happens if you push process 16mm film". The question is
 >"why shoot in low light on 16mm film to begin with?" Again, what
 >prevented them from simply turning on another light? More to the
 >point at hand, doctors like _lots_ of light; the more the
 >better. General medical practice dictates that push processing
 >would have never even been necessary, even if it had been shot
 >on 16mm black and white film. The amount of light require for
 >surgery would have been more than enough to A) prevent the film
 >from being underexposed and B) would have required a high enough
 >F stop that focus would have never been a problem, even for the
 >close ups.

If you check the reflective surfaces you'll see there was only
the main overhead light and as above, where would you place
you're light stands in that small cluttered room?.

 >Regarding public consumption; again, no real connection to the
 >issue at hand. In addition, the fact is that training films that
 >were _not_ for public consumption all look better than the AA
 >footage. But now that you brought it up, why would they _not_
 >want the best documentation they could get? How would they know,
 >in advance, that they were going to just blow this footage off
 >and lose track of it? We can't look at how the footage was
 >ultimately handled as justification for how it appears. We have
 >to ask why it looks like it does, in the first place.

Again you're back to production numbers, you're training films
and documentaries were produced for a wide audience and would
have gone through the necessary production stages before ending
up on the shelf. Where as what we see in the AA film can only be
likened to "fly on the wall" raw, uncut footage, and I _have_
seen _very_ shaky camera work just like the AA in those types of
films.

 >Regarding such, I wrote:

 >>>I understand your interest. However, let me turn this around: If
 >>>you disagree (and I'm not implying that you do; you're pretty
 >>>open minded, in my opinion) please show me other Armed services
 >>>documentaries of events that rival the importance of this moment
 >>>in history that looked as bad as this. Now, I'm not talking
 >>>about combat footage shot by grunts or combat cameramen in
 >>>uncontrolled conditions. I'm talking about the customary
 >>>documentation for major events in the history of the U.S. Armed
 >>>Services. (think nuclear energy, training, tests, parades,
 >>>commissions, and, most importantly, other medical
 >>>documentaries!)

 >Neil replied:

 >>MMmm...Well there _were_ plenty of these self same 16mm clockwork
 >>camera's present at the signing by the Japanes High Command of
 >>the surrender documents at the official end of WWII,(have a good look
 >>in the backgrounds) but that wasn't a "documentary _production_" was
 >>it?, though I would class it as one of _the_ most important and
 >>historical events of WWII.

 >>What those 16mm cameras _were_ doing though was "documenting
 >>events" which is just what the AA footage appears to do,
 >>wouldn't you agree?. There is a significant difference, it
 >>wasn't a "production number".

 >You make an interesting point. However, while the cameras in the
 >background were, indeed, 16mm, many of the cameras that captured
 >the very images you speak of were, in fact, 35mm. I have never
 >said that 16mm was never used in the field. What I have said is
 >that 35mm was used when ever possible to ensure the best quality
 >image. The one BIG difference is where the documentation took
 >place and the amount of preparation required. While the
 >surrender took place aboard a ship, AA was produced in the
 >United States where any resource necessary was only a phone call
 >away. No excuses, here.

See above comments by ex US Air Force cameraman.

 >Continuing, I wrote:

 >>>After all, AA would certainly rank higher than,
 >>>say, a film on how to throw hand grenades, yes? Try comparing
 >>>them. Even films on "How to Clean up the Mess Hall" are bright,
 >>>pristine, rock steady and, of course, in focus compared to the
 >>>hack work of AA.

 >Neil replied:

 >>You _are_ saying it was a US Army Film Unit production, "How to
 >>Autopsy an Alien"!.

 >No, I am saying it _should_ have been. The obvious lack of
 >quality says it wasn't.

 >Neil wrote:

 >>It depends what you've seen, the clean tight shots that end up
 >>on our tv screens or the rest of the stuff the archive
 >>researcher puts back on the shelf.
 >>Recorded history is dependant on who is recording it.

 ><snip>

 >>If we were to take Imperial Newsreels of the day at face value
 >>we would still believe our POW's working on the Burma Railway
 >>were living in holiday camps rather than dieing in their
 >>thousands.

 >Frankly, this is confusing content over quality. Even if you
 >want to consider the content of AA to be valid, i.e. that the
 >people and props "look" right, the quality of the production
 >doesn't measure up to other footage, used or used, that a US
 >Army Film Unit would have produced for such an event. Again, it
 >all comes down not only to what we do see in the AA film, but
 >what we do NOT see that should be there: Quality documentation
 >of the single, most important event in the history of mankind.


Roger,

You're again judging the AA against what it obviously isn't -
i.e. a clean, finished film unit production. I refer you back to
my "fly on the wall" comments earlier.


Best Regards

Neil.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                             More Pre-1947 Cases

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:22:31 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:24:07 -0500
Subject: More Pre-1947 Cases


I was pleasantly surprised to hear from so many critical-minded
researchers as a result of my last post enquiring about pre-1947
encounter cases. There is obviously a lot of interest in this
topic, although little has been done to get to the bottom of
many of the cases that are so enthusiastically added to
databases and catalogues everywhere. This has prompted me to
compile a list of "old" close encounter reports that need
updating, reinvestigating or discarding.

Below is a list of 15 cases which I have been unable to research
any further, and with which I require some help. (I will post 15
more another day.) Perhaps someone out there can throw some
light on them

1) October 25th 1593 � Spanish soldier undergoes apparent
abduction and is transported to Mexico. (The earliest mention of
the story in English as far as I know is in M.K. Jessup's 'The
Case for the UFO'. According to Jessup the incident was recorded
by the monks of the Orders of San Augustn and Santo Domingo,
and is mentioned by Luis Gonzlez Obregn in Las calles de
Mxico and by Dr. Antonio de Morga in Sucesos de las Islas
Filipinas. De Morga was an important high court judge in Nueva
Espaa (New Spain). Has anyone out there ever read the original
text?)

2) November 1661 � Albert d'Orville, a Belgium Jesuit
missionary, allegedly saw a UFO like a "Chinese double hat" in
Tibet. (I know he existed but I haven't seen any proof that he
really wrote about this. The only English reference I can find
is Hartwig Hausdorf's book, 'The Chinese Roswel'l, where he
quotes von Dniken.)

3) December 8th 1733 � One of the earliest British sightings of
a metallic disc-shaped object. James Cracker of Fleet in Dorset
reported his daylight sighting of the object with these words:

   "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."

Cracker was not the only witness to the UFO:

    "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."

The only other reference I have come across for this sighting
comes from an internet site called 'The Universe of Life.' It
contains an interesting page bearing the title 'News From Around
The World', and here we find the following brief item:

    "Local BBC radio news announced today (8th December) that in
    1733 on the 8th December a large shield shape object was
    observed in the skies over Dorset. When I contacted the BBC
    to enquire where they obtained their information I was told
    that a report was discovered in the archives at the County
    Records Office. From the records it states, "A large shield,
    over a furlong in length, was seen with the sun shining on it
    as it travelled across the skies of Dorsetshire, it caused
    great alarm to the people of Dorsetshire." "The people of
    Dorsetshire saw it as a sign from God.""

(I have not been able to check this further.)

4) August 9, 1762 � a UFO was allegedly  photographed' for the
first time in history by Monsieur de Rostan, an astronomer and
member of the Medicophysical (?) Society of Basel, Switzerland.
The observation, which was with the aid of a telescope, was of a
spindle-shaped object crossing and eclipsing the sun. This
object could be observed daily for almost a month from Lausanne
and also by a second astronomer in Sole, near Basel. Monsieur de
Rostan traced its outline with a camera and sent the image to
the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris. (Let us not forget that
we are not referring to a photograph as such but to a picture
traced by hand using a primitive pinhole camera. This kind of
image was invented by the Chinese in the fifth century BC and
was used regularly until the 1850s when Sir David Brewster, a
Scottish scientist, popularised actual pinhole photographs in
the 1850s.)

5) This one bugs me almost as much as the Alenon hoax did. It
is said that a Chinese man was abducted on May 8th 1880. The
details of the story depend largely on which version one
believes, but the basic idea is as follows: an inhabitant
(sometimes a farmer named Ju Tan) of a small village called
Songei in the Chinese province of Hubei observed a multicoloured
luminous object far above him (or a glowing UFO in the bushes).
He subsequently began to float up into the sky himself and
promptly found that he was among the clouds. He then lost
consciousness. He reappeared some time later in Guizhou, a
thousand kilometres (or three hundred miles!) from his home.
(Some sources say that this account was found in the county
records of Sung-Xian.)

6) Again in 1880, in Eastern Venezuela, a 14-year-old boy
observed a luminous sphere coming down from the sky. It moved
towards him and he felt "drawn" to it. The frightened lad said
he managed to get away from it before anything untoward could
occur. (This is one of Vallee's. I keep reading that many of the
Magonia cases proved to be false, but nobody ever specifies
WHICH ONES!)

7) In 1897 something odd occurred in Williamston, Michigan. On
April 17th, a dozen or so farmers witnessed an object move
around the sky for an hour. It then landed, and a tall being
emerged. He was naked but seemed to be suffering from the heat.
"His talk, while musical, seemed to be a repetition of
bellowings," said one of the witnesses later. One of the farmers
approached the strange visitor "and received a blow that broke
his hip." (Another Magonia case.)

8) In 1903, a polish woodcutter, Petrovsky Ivanhu (or Petrovszky
Ivanku, depending on the version), who had gone out to fetch
some water, disappeared in a strange luminous sphere in the
presence of several neighbours in the village of Szuhabapatak.
He never reappeared. Other villagers gathered at the local
church, believing the end of the world had arrived. (I have no
more details about the incident, but the 'plot' certainly rings
a bell.)

9) I have come across references to a strange event which
allegedly occurred in the year 1900 but so little has been
published about it that I am unable to comment either on its
veracity or its relevance to my project. The story concerns
three fishermen from the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides who
set off for the Flannan Isles Light Beacon. When they reached
the lighthouse they discovered that the lighthouse keepers whose
posts they were to relieve had disappeared. Yet nothing seemed
to be wrong, they found no signs of panic, the boats were in
their place, and no fuel was missing. It is said that at the
time of this event there strange lights had been reported near
the West Coast of the Isle of Lewis.

10) A shining cigar-shaped object landed in Hamburg, Germany, in
June 1914. At 4:00am, Gustav Herwagen came out of his house and
observed the craft and its four of five occupants. The beings
wore light-coloured clothing. When they realised they were being
watched, they returned to the object and took off, rising
vertically.

11) In August the same year, a spherical object came to land in
the water at Georgia Bay in Canada. Two small men dressed in
green and purple stood on one side of the deck, plunging a hose
into the water. On the other side there were three 'people'
wearing brown clothes and square, shoulder-length masks. Eight
witnesses reported this sighting, as well as the fact that when
the occupants of the craft noticed they had been discovered,
they returned to their vehicle and flew off. (Any follow up
available on these cases?)

12) In July 1919 at Webster City, Iowa, a little being was
observed scooping water into a can. When he realised he had been
seen, he rushed off to an object resting on the ground nearby.
Another entity emerged to help him and the craft took off so
hastily that it snapped branches off the treetops as it brushed
past them. (???)

13) Lawrence Bradley, an Irish Republic Army man, wrote to the
editor of Watford and West-Herts Post magazine (4/30/64) about a
sighting he had had at some date time in 1922. While fighting
off a scattered rearguard, he said, mainly in the Donegal
mountains, he came across a cave. The vegetation at the mouth of
the cave had been scorched, and inside there was a group of sick
and wounded people who were unable to walk. Six able-bodied
soldiers were looking after them. They told Bradley that they
had been awakened just before dawn by a whirring noise outside
the cave. Thinking it was an armoured car, they fired their
rifles in the direction of the noise. However, the object
retaliated by shooting jets of flame at them, nearly suffocating
the soldiers. They staggered out to observe a glowing metal
disc-shaped craft rising into the sky. (I haven't yet been able
to check this one up but it sounds interesting.)

14) On June 12 1929 at around 11:00 at night, Luis Brosseau,
aged 20, was riding home on his horse when a dark object with a
yellow light appeared ahead of him. The horse became anxious.
Four or five dwarfish beings were hurrying to and from a few
metres away from the craft, speaking in high-pitched childlike
voices. The object, which was some 15 metres wide and 5 metres
tall, then took off with a machine-like sound and a rush of air.
(Are there any more details anywhere?)

15) In 1930 it is said there was an abduction that took place in
Wisconsin, USA. The beings were aggressive, large-headed and
short-statured. But I don't have the original report. Any ideas?

I would be surprised if nobody could fill me in on some of these
cases, although I have begun to realise that I'm working in an
area that has been neglected for a very long time. If you have
any leads for me, please let me know


Chris Aubeck

Jose del Prado y Palacios, 3-1�
Madrid 28030
Espaa (Spain)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:11:30 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:24:55 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:22:51 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:20:20 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:45:39 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s)
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, Neil had asked:

 >>>>What color stock available in 1947 would you have recommended to
 >>>>be used in

 >>>>(a) An enclosed tent under "field conditions" with only the
 >>>>inside ambiant light available?.

 >Robert correctly pointed out:

 >>>Didn't Phillip Mantle come up with the fact or prove that some
 >>>of the footage was a hoax?

 >Neil replied:

 >>Indeed he did, the "tent footage", and I agree with him on that.
 >>I was actually contacted by the "whistle blower" along with
 >>Philip regarding this piece of "video".

 >Not trying to be accusational in tone, but why ask what color
 >stock would be appropriate for shooting in an enclosed tent when
 >you knew that the tent footage was fake? Seems a bit
 >misdirective to me.

 >The truth is that the AA took place under controlled conditions.
 >The degree of control is the real issue at hand. As such, it
 >should be noted that any place with electricity would negate the
 >need for shooting under low light, regardless of whether it was
 >shot in 16mm or 35mm. To imply a harsher "field condition" is
 >expanding the myth that AA looks the way it does for reasons out
 >of the control of the people involved.


Roger,

Your above response illustrates to me you've obviously never
bothered to view _all_ the available AA footage and as such are
jumping to the conclusions you profess to so ardently _not_
having seen the evidence.

The AA comprised of 5 seperate sections that we know of.

1) Autopsy 1 - Only seen by a few researchers, never publicly
released.

2) Autopsy 2 - The main AA film that was widely seen in edited
form.

3) The Debris Footage - Aprox 3 mins of the "debris" including
the "control panels", symbol beams and other misc mangled junk.

4) The Tent Footage - The "hoaxed" video footage, withdrawn by
Santilli before the general release of (2) and (3)

5) The Fragments - A few damaged frame sequences tagged on to
reel 53 but not consistant with the Autopsy, a doorway with a
sheet covered table or bed can be seen, it might be a hospital
bed.

_If_ you had looked at (2) thro (5) of the above you would have
known that (3) was also shot apparently outdoors in a tent, you
can see the canvas walls of the tent "breath" in and out with
what seems to be a light breeze.

I suggest you do some homework and take up Ed's offer of my
CD's, all is there except for Autopsy 1, we might then have some
constructive debate.

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


*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Johnson

From: James Bond Johnson <JBONJO@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:01:52 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:25:22 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Johnson


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:53:54 -0800

<snip>

 >Again Ray Santilli was _not_ in the UFO crowd.

 >He couldn't make a UFO movie. He didn't know a thing about
 >UFOs nor do you have one piece of evidence he did.

 >All the above is speculation.

 >But, we bring you real evidence and you refuse to take a look.
 >Email me your address and I'll send you the CDs.


James Bond Johnson replies:

Since I took the Ramey office photos of the Roswell crash debris
53 years ago I have kept an open mind as to what the real story
was. I do have to say that the recent Flatland Magazine #17 that
Ed 'guest edited' really laid some convincing evidence. The
comparison between the symbols in my Ramey photos and those
found in the AA films - which look identical! - has me
scratching my head. _How_ could that be?


James Bond 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                 Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway -

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:52:14 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:25:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway -


 >From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:51:41 +0100
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:05:00 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Subject: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway

 >Hello Listers,

 >I'm now referring to what I was actually watching
 >on my TV set this evening; 23 January, 2001. The
 >TV channel was NRK 1, regarded as the most
 >serious and conservative TV channel in Norway -
 >and also the oldest one (established in 1959).
 >In the program "Redaksjon 21", the very popular
 >9:00 p.m. program, some video footage was shown,
 >taken by a person in the valley of Namdalen,
 >in the county of North Trondelag (Nord-Trndelag),
 >Norway. The footage showed a "fairly large",
 >spherically-shaped light, or object, hovering, or
 >slightly moving, above the ground late in the
 >evening.

<snip>

 >Regards,
 >AWS


Hi All,

I now got hold of the TV channel's website URL, where this
particular program is referred to:

http://www3.nrk.no/kanal/nrk1/redaksjon_21/

http://www3.nrk.no/kanal/nrk1/redaksjon_21/728878.html

You are now able to judge for yourselves!

On TV, this "shining ball of light" ("UFO") was more detailed,
and we could see that it looked more like two, loosely attached
hemispheres of light.

Please also note the weak, "quasar-like", "gas jets", "streaming
out" above and beneath the object.


Regards,

AWS






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

              Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:55:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:26:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - Velez

 >From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Sighting in Namdalen, Norway
 >Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:51:41 +0100

 >Hello Listers,

 >I'm now referring to what I was actually watching on my TV set
 >this evening; 23 January, 2001. The TV channel was NRK 1,
 >regarded as the most serious and conservative TV channel in
 >Norway - and also the oldest one (established in 1959).

 >In the program "Redaksjon 21", the very popular 9:00 p.m.
 >program, some video footage was shown, taken by a person in the
 >valley of Namdalen, in the county of North Trondelag
 >(Nord-Trndelag), Norway. The footage showed a "fairly large",
 >spherically-shaped light, or object, hovering, or slightly
 >moving, above the ground late in the evening.

<snip>

 >Related articles on some of these recent "atmospheric
 >sightings/observations" ("UFOs") in Namdalen (sorry; in
 >Norwegian only...):

 >http://www.t-a.no/index.nsf/webpub/74F0A5AF8D4A6F21C12569300074AA46

 >http://www.t-a.no/index.nsf/webpub/59604A364E3AA1ACC12569300074186A

 >http://www.login.eunet.no/~baardaun/s_h_ufo.htm


 >http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2000/08/04/214068.html

Hi Asgier,

Would it be too much of an imposition to ask you to 'translate'
one or two of the shorter pieces for us? I for one would be very
grateful for any English versions you can provide.

Interesting sighting.

Regards,

John Velez


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                       Re: More Pre-1947 Cases - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:20:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:27:05 -0500
Subject: Re: More Pre-1947 Cases - Velez


 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:22:31 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: More Pre-1947 Cases
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I was pleasantly surprised to hear from so many critical-minded
 >researchers as a result of my last post enquiring about pre-1947
 >encounter cases. There is obviously a lot of interest in this
 >topic, although little has been done to get to the bottom of
 >many of the cases that are so enthusiastically added to
 >databases and catalogues everywhere. This has prompted me to
 >compile a list of "old" close encounter reports that need
 >updating, reinvestigating or discarding.

Hi Chris,

I have often wondered why the written testimony of Joseph
Smith (the founder of the Mormon religion/church) is never
considered to be a 'contact' report by modern ufologists.

    "Glowing beings," coming and going in the night, buried
    plates of gold and silver with strange glyphs on them. There
    are even two documents (witness testimony) provided in the
    introduction section of the Book of Mormon. One is signed by
    three individuals who claim to have seen the gold and silver
    plates, and a second document signed by eight others who
    claim to have seen -and- handled the plates themselves.

    "BE IT KNOWN unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people,
    unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the
    translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of
    which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold;
    and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we
    did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings
    thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and
    of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of
    soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have
    seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has
    got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names
    unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have
    seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it."

It's an interesting account/story in light of modern ufology
because it shares a lot of the elements of more recent contact
reports. I've just always found it a bit of a curiosity that
more attention isn't paid to this rather well documented account
by modern ufologists. It is as 'formally' documented a case as
one could hope for.

Chris, have you (or anybody else you may know of,) ever
included/considered the Joseph Smith material an 'old' alien
contact report?

Regards, and thanx for sharing those interesting accounts.

Fun reading.


John Velez
Contactado

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                       Original Alien Jigsaw Web Site

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:17:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:27:31 -0500
Subject: Original Alien Jigsaw Web Site


The Original Alien Jigsaw Web site: Back by popular demand...

This is to inform my friends and associates that the original
Alien Jigsaw Web site has been re-posed. The URL has never
changed, but there are now two sites: the new site with the
artwork and "Contents" section to the left, and the original
site which can be accessed by clicking on the puzzle piece from
the title page.

I hope everyone enjoys the site:

http://www.alienjigsaw.com/>http://www.alienjigsaw.com

Sincerely,

Katharina Wilson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

               Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:28:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly - Tonnies


 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:30:42 +0100
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly

<snip>

 >My point is that with our inherent pattern recognition we can
 >see just about any kind of anomolous object we want up there.

 >The manta ray anomoly is no big deal. I saw a monolith up there
 >shaped just like my penis. That has great meaning. In a previous
 >post I made the statement about grasping at straws and then
 >nit-picking among them. To me that statement certainly applies
 >to the above post just like it applies to James Bond Johnson
 >seeing symbols in the anomalous blobs on the Roswell debris
 >photos. That is like reading UFOs in the mythical Ezekiel's
 >wheel and biblical references in Bushboy's speech. That is like
 >the endless diatribe posts regarding skeptics and debunkers.

 >All I am asking is that we get more scientific and rational in
 >our approaches and in our posts. My delete button is getting
 >worn out.

Josh--

I made no claims in my essay, and I certainly never said it was
an aircraft--merely that it looked sort of like one.

If there is a possibility there is an extinct civilization on
Mars, and I think there is, then we owe it to ourselves to be on
the lookout for "oddities."

If by "scientific" you mean never never addressing anomalies,
then you suffer from a misunderstanding of what science is all
about.

I find it interesting that since I wrote my piece on the
manta-shaped whatever-it-is, it's come to my attention that it's
located on the Martian equator, placing it in the same plane as
the well-known "Runway" feature on top of Hecates Tholus.

Hoagland brandishes "conclusions." I try very hard not to
because I'm aware of the daunting lack of data. The main purpose
of my posts has always been to alert readers that we need _more_
data is this weird new field dubbed "planetary SETI" is going to
get off the ground and distance itself from the lunatic fringe.

If your sensibilities were offended by my essay, I
extend my apologies.


Mac Tonnies

(macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

"He runs after facts like a beginner learning to skate, who,
furthermore, practices somewhere where it is forbidden." --Franz
Kafka







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                    Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:28:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:28:36 -0500
Subject: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter

http://sightings.com/general7/texufo.htm

WORLD EXCLUSIVE
Family Videotapes Its Own
UFO Close Encounter In Texas

By Santiago Yturria
1-24-01


Jeff,

I send you this report of the Cardenas family from Washington
State whom I met last month when they came to Monterrey. They
had a most unique experience on December 17 and I'm sure you
will find it very interesting.

My best wishes,

Santiago

-----

Note - The following report looms as one of the most important
in years due to the fact this family actually videotaped, with
sound, a very close encounter with an unknown object in the
middle of the desolate Texas countryside...an encounter which
may have been far more than just a close-up visual sighting...

As one of Mexico's top researchers, Santiago has been intensely
involved in a number of major investigations, especially of
objects flying above his city of Monterrey. You can find his
earlier reports via our site search engine. Thank you, Santiago,
and congratulations...this is truly an amazing report which will
be talked about and studied for years to come.

Jeff Rense


http://sightings.com/general7/texufo.htm

[The report plus stills are available at the URL above --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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

                Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:53:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:34:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly - Velez

 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:30:42 +0100
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly

 >>From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly
 >>Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:22:13 -0800

 >>------------------------------------------------------------
 >>MARS MANTA-WINGED AIRCRAFT ANOMALY

<snip>

 >>"As with many of the anomalies I and others have uncovered,"
 >>Palermo told The Electric Warrior, "many of these features could
 >>be explained by natural, if exotic, Martian geology."

 >>"The artifact was apparently created by NASA's excessive JPEG
 >>compression," says Steve Wingate. "With lower contrast
 >>enhancement, the mesa does appear to be anomalous, however."

 ><snip>

 >>eWarrior@electricwarrior.com

Hiya Josh, All,

Josh wrote:

 >Hello Listerians,

 >I guess this is my rant of the night. I'm upset at what has been
 >coming down in Washington lately (read my lips, my son) and I'll
 >project my ugly mood on you.<G>

There was a coup d'etat in this country that was executed by the
Supreme Court. You're not the only one that is in a "mood" about
what is going on in DC. We need another revolution.

 >I saw a monolith up there shaped just like my penis. That has
 >great meaning.

True, but only when it is pointing at 19.5 degrees!  <LMAO>

 >All I am asking is that we get more scientific and rational in
 >our approaches and in our posts.

Crying out in the wilderness eh? ;)  You're in good company.
John the Baptist was in the same business years ago.

Regards,

John Velez

******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:10:21 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:49:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:06:19 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:58:20 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >>>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:03:55 -0500

 >>>>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>>>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:40:28 -0000
 >>>>Fwd Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:30:34 -0500
 >>>>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

 >>><snip>

 >>>This is typical Eastonian post, avoiding the hard stuff and
 >>>giving lines and lines of lectures on ETH and other material
 >>>unrelated to the investigation of this case.

 >><snip>

 >>>Flight direction and speed of a balloon is determined by what?
 >>>Wind Direction and Speed. (Say that five times and make it
 >>>yours.)

 >>Excellent points! Speaking of which, it reminds me of the
 >>Rendlesham case:

 >>If you have a lighthouse what are the two most important factors
 >>in determining its relevance to the UFO case? Direction and
 >>Visibility.

 >>What two factors are most often evaded or misrepresented by
 >>skeptics and debunkers of this case? Direction and Visibility.


 >Hi Jan and Brad,

 >In an email to Easton a few days ago on this thread I mentioned
 >that Zamora had described the object as being the size of a
 >car - or at least at one point he thought it was an overturned
 >car. No balloon the size of an automobile-even the bigger cars
 >of the 50s would have had the lifting capability to carry two
 >even small sized males aloft. For that reason alone it does not
 >deserve further cosideration.

 >I've been around ballons myself more than a few times and the 2
 >person baskets are well over 60 or seventy feet high and 40 plus
 >in diameter. I'd be more willing to believe this thing was some
 >sort of test vehicle as GT McCoy feels it might be, however if
 >we keep bringing this crutch/explanation out 7 out of 10 times
 >as an explanation for UFOs, we are talking a heck of a lot of
 >secret test vehicles of many different shapes, sizes and
 >capabilities.

 >BTW - as usual I'm still waiting for Easton to respond. He never
 >does when he's caught out.

 >Best,

 >Don Ledger


Hi Don,

Skeptics and debunkers are afraid of science, math and logic, as
I've found in trying to get responses from Easton, Ridpath and
Jenny Randles to simple facts of magnetic compass directions,
terrain visibility and mapping in the Rendlesham case for the
past several months since Aug 2000 (Jenny qualifies as more of a
skeptic on Rendlesham). A lot of believers are too, but this is
more surprising about the skeptics because they always claim to
represent the voice of hard science, solid fact, irrefutable
logic.

A long time ago on Easton's list I brought up the question of
size and volume of the Zamora UFO versus any possible hot-air
balloon. The response was basically that there were exotic mixed
types of hot-air balloons under development then, etc. etc., but
without any calculation of size and volume to see if it was
possible within the framework of Zamora's observations. Observer
error in making size estimates are a source of great difficulty
in UFO investigations so I was willing to grant that Zamora's
non-quantitative "car" size estimate maybe was in error.

However, someone pointed out that there was a framework of
mesquite bushes that limit the maximum possible size of Zamora's
landed UFO. I don't recall who posted this and I don't think a
specific size was given, but if someone on this List knows about
this please post the data.


Regards,

Brad










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 24

              Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:39:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:07:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter - Velez

 >Source: Jeff Rense's sightings.com

 >http://sightings.com/general7/texufo.htm

 >WORLD EXCLUSIVE
 >Family Videotapes Its Own
 >UFO Close Encounter In Texas

 >By Santiago Yturria
 >1-24-01


 >Jeff,

 >I send you this report of the Cardenas family from Washington
 >State whom I met last month when they came to Monterrey. They
 >had a most unique experience on December 17 and I'm sure you
 >will find it very interesting.

 >My best wishes,
 >
 >Santiago

 >-----

 >Note - The following report looms as one of the most important
 >in years due to the fact this family actually videotaped, with
 >sound, a very close encounter with an unknown object in the
 >middle of the desolate Texas countryside...an encounter which
 >may have been far more than just a close-up visual sighting...
 >As one of Mexico's top researchers, Santiago has been intensely
 >involved in a number of major investigations, especially of
 >objects flying above his city of Monterrey. You can find his
 >earlier reports via our site search engine. Thank you, Santiago,
 >and congratulations...this is truly an amazing report which will
 >be talked about and studied for years to come.

 >Jeff Rense

 >http://sightings.com/general7/texufo.htm
 >[The report plus stills are available at the URL above --ebk]

Hi Jeff, Santiago, All,

Wow! Checked out the webpage. Interesting stuff to say the
least. I will look forward (as I'm sure will many others) to
following any new developments in this case. Can't wait to see
the whole video!

*Hope we don't have to wait to see it on the Fox Network! :)

I only hope that nobody tries to induce this family to submit to
hypnosis for the sake of finding out what may, or may not, have
happened during any 'missing time.' The price that the family
will have to pay for providing that information is; they'll have
to live in doubt with whatever they recall about that night for
the rest of their lives. Insuring, not risking, their continued
well being should be priority one.

Thank you Santiago for bringing this most interesting case to
our attention. And thank you Jeff for making it 'known to all.'
;) Please be sure to keep us all posted as to progress.

Regards,

John Velez

******************************************************
           A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
            www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                   jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 25

                 Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter -

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:22:54 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:27:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter -


 >Source: Jeff Rense's sightings.com

 >http://sightings.com/general7/texufo.htm

 >WORLD EXCLUSIVE
 >Family Videotapes Its Own
 >UFO Close Encounter In Texas

 >By Santiago Yturria
 >1-24-01

Jeff,

 >I send you this report of the Cardenas family from Washington
 >State whom I met last month when they came to Monterrey. They
 >had a most unique experience on December 17 and I'm sure you
 >will find it very interesting.

 >My best wishes,

 >Santiago

 >-----

 >Note - The following report looms as one of the most important
 >in years due to the fact this family actually videotaped, with
 >sound, a very close encounter with an unknown object in the
 >middle of the desolate Texas countryside...an encounter which
 >may have been far more than just a close-up visual sighting...

 >As one of Mexico's top researchers, Santiago has been intensely
 >involved in a number of major investigations, especially of
 >objects flying above his city of Monterrey. You can find his
 >earlier reports via our site search engine. Thank you, Santiago,
 >and congratulations...this is truly an amazing report which will
 >be talked about and studied for years to come.

 >Jeff Rense

 >http://sightings.com/general7/texufo.htm

I want to thank Jeff for posting this account. Having once been
a researcher in the field of atmospheric sciences, the Oz
effect, which occurred during this encounter, intrigues me. And
especially when the wind suddenly ceases and it stays calm
during the rest of the encounter. Where have we heard of that
before!! Obviously, this phenomenon defies the laws of physics
as we know them, as do UFOs.

It would be great if whomever this happens to next time should have the
presence of mind to check on a few things. Can they see any evidence of
wind in thet distance, as in moving dust picked up by wind, cloud motions,
distant tree tops moving? (Unfortunately, when it occurs at night, these
things may be unobservable.) Can you feel yourself inhale and exhale -- the
exhalation being a local "wind"? Evidently so, if the people involved can
still talk and hear each other. Can you throw a rock a distance onto the
roadway and hear it when it hits? These are questions trying to get at how
great a distance away the Oz effect typically extends. If those involved
see no other cars around for quite a while, when they're otherwise to be
expected, it implies the Oz umbrella covers a large distance.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 25

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:22:53 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:34:17 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman


 >From: James Bond Johnson <JBONJO@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:01:52 EST
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >James Bond Johnson replies:

 >Since I took the Ramey office photos of the Roswell crash debris
 >53 years ago I have kept an open mind as to what the real story
 >was. I do have to say that the recent Flatland Magazine #17 that
 >Ed 'guest edited' really laid some convincing evidence. The
 >comparison between the symbols in my Ramey photos and those
 >found in the AA films - which look identical! - has me
 >scratching my head. _How_ could that be?


Bond, List, EBK,

For those who order a CD set, I'll include issue #17
of Flatland

http://www.flatlandbooks.com/flatmag.html

which has two articles on the AA.

One is written by Neil Morris that discusses Ramey letter and
the relationship between the debris in the Ft Worth photos and
the AA.

The other is by M. Dennis and is a detailed discussion on the
nature of the debris.

This is not a scam or a way for Neil and me to make some quick
cash.  We'd just like to cover our costs.

Anyone who has the slightest interest in the AA and unraveling
this mystery should own a set, especially all those folks who
have made up their minds without taking a close look at the
footage.


Ed








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 25

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:31:33 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:40:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:10:21 EST
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:06:19 +0000
 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:58:20 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Hi Don,

 >Skeptics and debunkers are afraid of science, math and logic, as
 >I've found in trying to get responses from Easton, Ridpath and
 >Jenny Randles to simple facts of magnetic compass directions,
 >terrain visibility and mapping in the Rendlesham case for the
 >past several months since Aug 2000 (Jenny qualifies as more of a
 >skeptic on Rendlesham). A lot of believers are too, but this is
 >more surprising about the skeptics because they always claim to
 >represent the voice of hard science, solid fact, irrefutable
 >logic.

 >A long time ago on Easton's list I brought up the question of
 >size and volume of the Zamora UFO versus any possible hot-air
 >balloon. The response was basically that there were exotic mixed
 >types of hot-air balloons under development then, etc. etc., but
 >without any calculation of size and volume to see if it was
 >possible within the framework of Zamora's observations. Observer
 >error in making size estimates are a source of great difficulty
 >in UFO investigations so I was willing to grant that Zamora's
 >non-quantitative "car" size estimate maybe was in error.

 >However, someone pointed out that there was a framework of
 >mesquite bushes that limit the maximum possible size of Zamora's
 >landed UFO. I don't recall who posted this and I don't think a
 >specific size was given, but if someone on this List knows about
 >this please post the data.


Hi Brad,

After going over the sighting again I noted the depressions in
the ground which I had for gotten. One might ask themselves how
a lighter than air balloon could leave depressions - widely
spaced - in the ground. Balloons are normally anchored to the
ground, straining to drift aloft, not pressing firmly against
the Earth. They have no weight, that's why they float.

You're right, it seems that Easton hasn't even applied basic
science in this case.

Notice also the absence of a response.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 25

             'Captain Edward J. Ruppelt: Summer of the Saucers'

From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:48:28 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:41:46 -0500
Subject: 'Captain Edward J. Ruppelt: Summer of the Saucers'


Our new book, Captain Edward J. Ruppelt: Summer of the Saucers -
1952 by Mike Hall and Wendy Connors is now available for
purchase from Amazon.com or Arcturus Books, 1443 S.E. Port St.
Lucie Blvd., Port St. Lucie, FL 34952.

In the current issue of UFO Magazine is an in-depth review of
the book by Diana Botsford of Destination: Space and a review in
the current issue of Saucer Smear.


Thank you,

Wendy Connors & Mike Hall









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 25

                 Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter -

From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:54:40 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:21:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter -


 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:39:37 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter

 >>Source: Jeff Rense's sightings.com

 >>http://sightings.com/general7/texufo.htm

 >>WORLD EXCLUSIVE
 >>Family Videotapes Its Own
 >>UFO Close Encounter In Texas

 >>By Santiago Yturria
 >>1-24-01

 >>Jeff,

 >>I send you this report of the Cardenas family from Washington
 >>State whom I met last month when they came to Monterrey. They
 >>had a most unique experience on December 17 and I'm sure you
 >>will find it very interesting.

 >Hi Jeff, Santiago, All,

 >Wow! Checked out the webpage. Interesting stuff to say the
 >least. I will look forward (as I'm sure will many others) to
 >following any new developments in this case. Can't wait to see
 >the whole video!

 >*Hope we don't have to wait to see it on the Fox Network! :)

 >I only hope that nobody tries to induce this family to submit to
 >hypnosis for the sake of finding out what may, or may not, have
 >happened during any 'missing time.' The price that the family
 >will have to pay for providing that information is; they'll have
 >to live in doubt with whatever they recall about that night for
 >the rest of their lives. Insuring, not risking, their continued
 >well being should be priority one.


Not to mention having to suffer the inevitable deprecations to
be hurled in their direction by critics from certain quarters:


* "Obviously west Texas swamp gas; only believers could miss
    that." -Alpha

* "Clearly a pelican swept off its course by strong cold front
    from Washington state."
   -Beta

* "No doubt a truck mirror hung in the distance by a man
    intent on perpetrating a hoax, which I'll demonstrate as
    soon as I get my camera fixed."
   -Gamma


Naturally, any correspondence between the Greek alphabet and
extant critics is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

-Brian C.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 25

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:04:06 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:24:47 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:29:01 +0000
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:36:28 -0600
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

Hi, all (assuming anyone is still reading about AA...)

I am going to combine two posts from Neil into one response in
order to save EBK some editing.

Previously, I had written:

 >>Therefore, it is safe to say that we must judge the AA video,
 >>not only by what we see, but by what is obviously absent. In
 >>this particular case we have an example of both. We have too
 >>much "shaky-cam" compared to other Armed Services footage and
 >>not enough "quality" compared to other Armed Services footage.

Neil replied:

 >You're insisting on seeing this as a finished "production", it's
 >not.

 >It presents itself as unedited raw footage just as it came out
 >of the camera "warts and all". You can't compare chalk with
 >cheese.

Hi, Neil!

I don't think you understand the point, here. Production quality
is something that is determined before a shoot, not after, and
is not simply a roll of the dice. The technique(s) used to
ensure high quality imagery would affect all footage produced,
used or unused. If an editor has to exclude footage because of a
lack of quality, then the cameraman simply did not do his job
correctly.

That, of course, is the issue at hand: Was the procedure
documented using methods that would ensure the quality that such
an event deserved? Considering the vast film record that
dictates the military always tried for the best documentation
for topics of even lesser importance, then it makes no sense
that something as important as AA would have as many "warts" as
you so readily accept.

In the end, the best footage from AA is of lesser quality than
the worst footage out of any other Army documentary that I have
ever seen, and I've seen hundreds. Therefore, your assertion
that the AA footage looks like it does because it is presented
"warts and all" would only be correct _if_ the military had a
habit of producing footage, used or unused, with the same kind
of "warts" seen in AA. The film record clearly indicates
otherwise.

Regarding such, I wrote:

 >>Considering the importance of the event it _should_ have been
 >>shot by a US Army Film Unit! The obvious question is why films
 >>about cleaning of latrines or lobbing hand grenades ranks above
 >>the importance given to the single most important event in the
 >>history of man? The notion that this would have been shot on
 >>16mm film in black and white under low light by, arguably, the
 >>worst cameraman the military had to offer is absurd, in my
 >>opinion.

Neil replied:

 >So multi-camera, 35mm fixed mount color film, you would need the
 >400 foot magazines, the basic camera's zipped through the 100 ft
 >of film in aprox 65 seconds. Plus a few extra lights here and
 >there to cope with the slow film speed, color's not impossible
 >to tank process but send it to the nearest base with a
 >continuous process machine, once you get your footage back edit
 >up the master and run off ????how many copies? get them
 >processed and distributed to ....who?  and to what ends?

 >The "lone cameraman" got in the way in the tiny autopsy room,
 >where would you put your bulky camera mounts for your static
 >camera's?, no room for those, dab!, where are you going to place
 >your light stands?

 >And what about all those extra people you're involving?, this
 >thing's bigger than the A bomb isn't it?, where's your security
 >consideration??

How interesting that you make that comparison, considering that
A bomb footage was shot on 35mm color film and was quite
splendid in its quality. If you maintain that AA is bigger than
the A bomb, then you've pretty much proved my point.

The issue here is whether or not the camera man, or the doctors
for that matter, would have been forced to work under the
conditions that the AA footage suggests. To say that 35mm film
would have been too slow, the equipment too big for the room, or
the film too difficult to process is to "assume" that conditions
for such a procedure could not have been altered or improved
upon. On the contrary, the historical film record clearly
indicates that more care and preparation was exercised on topics
of even lesser importance than AA. And, as you so clearly
pointed out, AA was bigger than the A bomb, which was shot on
35mm color film.

As you say, you can't compare chalk with cheese.

Or is it your opinion that they absolutely had to use a room
that small or that they had to use low light or that a host of
other problems simply could not be overcome for a subject more
important than the A bomb? Using a larger room and more light
would do nothing to compromise security and adding good
documentation would do wonders for allowing others to later view
the event on a "need to know" basis. If anything, the fewer
people that are allowed to view the event first hand, the more
vital it is to have the best documentation possible for later
viewing.

To maintain that better documentation could not have taken
place, based on the imagery seen in the AA footage, puts the
cart before the horse, in terms of validity. You can't accept
the conditions displayed as correct unless you've already
accepted the AA film as authentic. If, on the other hand, you
look at the larger picture, then it is obvious that the
conditions displayed simply don't make sense when compared to
the past film record of the military regarding documentation of
even the most mundane of topics. AA certainly was not mundane.

Regarding such, I had written:

 >>>>Check out
 >>>>any at your local library and you will find _no_ walk around,
 >>>>"shaky-cam shots" or the like. In addition, most were shot in
 >>>>35mm, not 16mm (though they were usually released on 16mm).

Neil replied:

 >Not so... this from a former Air Force cameraman.

 >"My basic assumption here is the the original film was, in
 >fact, 16mm and not 35mm. The US military used 35mm movie
 >cameras throughout WWII and Korea, although 16mm was more
 >common. The issue 35mm hand-held motion picture camera was a
 >militarized version of the Bell & Howell "Eyemo", a spring or
 >electrically driven camera with a 100 foot capacity. The Eyemo
 >dates back to at least the early 1930s, 16mm and 8mm cameras
 >were derived from the same basic chassis: the 70-series 16mm
 >(I don't know the 8mm model series [the filmo 8]). 100 feet of
 >35mm film runs about 1 minute, 5 seconds at 24 frames per
 >second, so any shots in the Roswell film longer than this mean
 >it had to be 16mm, or if 35mm, then the camera was equipped
 >with both an electric drive motor and the accessory 400 foot
 >magazine."

For the record, AA looks like 16mm film to me, too. That said,
however, the issue is whether or not it _should_ have been shot
in 16mm and this guy says nothing that supports that idea. He
merely says that it looks like 16mm to him, as well. More to the
point, he clearly indicates that 35mm cameras were commonly
handed out for military use! Again, this merely supports my
point that 35mm was the preferred format of choice.

Therefore, the question would be,"If 16mm were good enough, why
hand out 35mm cameras, at all?" The obvious reason is that some
events dictated a higher quality image than others. If not, then
no 35mm cameras would have been handed out in the first place. I
would think that dissection of a creature from outer space would
rank pretty high, in terms of qualifying for 35mm and better
lighting and better preparation, etc. Even if you wanted to
accept the single cameraman limitation, the obvious question is
why he shot on 16mm when, according to your own information,
35mm cameras were commonly available. The issue of color aside,
even 35mm black and white would have been a vast improvement
than the 16mm AA footage.

Continuing, I wrote:

 >>Frankly, Neil, this is all academic. To claim that the cameraman
 >>did pretty good "considering the conditions he was forced to
 >>work in" requires one to accept, in advance, that such
 >>conditions would likely be in effect for something so important.

Neil replied:

 >You're ducking the issue here, these basic location factors are
 >vital in determining just how and with what the subject was
 >filmed.

With all due respect, Neil, you are the one ducking the issue.

The issue here is whether such conditions would exist, in the
first place, for something so important. Just because you "see"
that it was shot on 16mm doesn't mean a thing. We also see an
alien and we see doctors and we see a small room and we also see
low light that resulted in push processing. Just because we
"see" these things does not validate them since, like everything
else in AA, they could have been faked. In short, you have no
evidence that the conditions seen in AA are valid any more than
you know if the alien displayed is real. All you have is the
unverified statement of a non-existant cameraman.

In a related post, Neil wrote:

 >_If_ you had looked at (2) thro (5) of the above you would have
 >known that (3) was also shot apparently outdoors in a tent, you
 >can see the canvas walls of the tent "breath" in and out with
 >what seems to be a light breeze.
 >
 >I suggest you do some homework and take up Ed's offer of my
 >CD's, all is there except for Autopsy 1, we might then have some
 >constructive debate.

We might have some constructive debate if you weren't
predisposed to believing (without any proof, I might add) that
the conditions presented in AA were real. It matters not whether
parts of AA take place in a tent or a tiny room; to selectively
accept a part of the AA video as real while maintaining that
other parts are still unproven makes absolutely no sense, at
all. They are all woven from the same material. Accept one part
and you must accept them all. Reject one, and the others must
follow. You really can't have it both ways, Neil.

Now, I have presented my evidence that there is no pattern of
the military producing footage as bad as AA in the standard
course of documenting topics of any level of importance. Just
"seeing" the conditions in the AA footage validates nothing.
This issue is whether the conditions are real. Just what
evidence has convinced you that the conditions seen in AA are
"real" or even logical, considering the magnitude of the event
in question?


Best,

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 25

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:53:01 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:41:25 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:53:54 -0800
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:21:09 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: AA Film Redux [was: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell...]
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>I must agree with your assessment about the lack of
 >>photographers in the O.R. Considering how the "surgeons" on
 >>display were slicing and dicing the body of the alleged alien,
 >>there should have been at least one photographer with a
 >>Speedgraphic 4x5 making SOME kind of photographic documentation
 >>of the body and the procedure. We can argue all we want about
 >>the "quality" of the AA footage versus other Armed Services
 >>footage, but the obvious lack of a still photographer is highly
 >>suspect.

Ed replies:

 >The above statements are highly speculative. We have absolutely
 >no way of knowing what those in power were thinking.

Hi, Ed.

Gee that's funny, previously you wrote:

 >This footage was never meant to be seen by anyone
 >other than those with a 'Need To Know' classification.

Talk about speculative! As usual, you seem to have a way of
knowing what these people were thinking when it suits your point
of view. I know I am wasting my breath, Ed, but the only way you
can accept the lack of quality in AA is if you are predisposed
to believe the film is real, in the first place. Your logic is
that conditions in the AA footage reflect the cameraman's
description of events, therefore, the cameraman is telling the
truth. And, since the cameraman is telling the truth, therefore,
the conditions in the AA footage must be valid. This is circular
logic at its dizzying best.

Continuing, you ask:

 >And how are
 >we, those who think the AA is legitimate, to answer criticism
 >such as this.

The fact that you can't isn't really my problem, Ed.

You maintain:

 >You write there should have been a photographer
 >for this momentous occasion but everything we know about Roswell
 >makes us believe that the lid was on. The cameraman states that
 >he worked alone on this project. He clearly explained the
 >circumstances but no one will accept his testimony except for
 >those of us who think the AA is on the up and up. Perhaps you
 >could take another look at the AA.

Ed, I could look at AA another 100 times. It won't make the
discrepancies between it and real military footage any less
glaring. On the other hand, perhaps you could look at a few
military films to get a better idea of the level of quality that
was expected from their cameramen, especially on topics as
important as AA.

Until then, I'm afraid there's really nothing more for you and
me to talk about. You've already made up your mind that AA is
real and you refuse to see the discrepancies between the AA
footage and real military footage for what it implies.

I think this thread is dead, as far as our conversation goes.

(See, EBK? This time it was pretty short!)

Roger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 25

                Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly - Jonach

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:14:15 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:09:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly - Jonach


 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:23:05 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly - Goldstein
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:30:42 +0100
 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Mars Manta-Wing Aircraft Anomaly

Josh wrote:

 >>My point is that with our inherent pattern recognition we can
 >>see just about any kind of anomolous object we want up there.

Agreed. And folks who recognize this kind of pattern -- seeing
things that aren't there -- may find it hard to distinguish
between UFOs on Mars and UFOs [ahem..] elsewhere?

Anyway, I keep reading this whole nasty UFO business is going to
be cleared up, any day now. Been reading that for a long time,
too. So, it must be true.

Mac wrote:

 >I made no claims in my essay, and I certainly never said it was
 >an aircraft--merely that it looked sort of like one.

 >Hoagland brandishes "conclusions." I try very hard not to
 >because I'm aware of the daunting lack of data.

In Mac's defense, he never brought up Hoagland's UFO. He
wouldn't even let me 'reprint' his article until I had put the
word aircraft in quotes -- this inside a Javascript Drop-down
List. (Hope you all noticed the quotes, Mac is very careful
about what he says. Staid syllogism.).

------------------------------------------------------------
 >>My delete button is getting worn out.

I commend Josh's advice to anyone on this List. Read 'em or
delete 'em with impunity. It's a public forum (thanks to EBK)
where you can see what's been offered. Items are posted to UFO
UpDates, not somebody's personal email address.

-kj











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 25

                        Alien Autopsy Archive Updated

From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:19:36 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:11:48 -0500
Subject: Alien Autopsy Archive Updated


To all on the List.

Please be aware that our 'Alien Autopsy Archive' has now been
up-dated on our web site. It can be located at:

www.beyondroswell.com

I trust you will find it of some interest.

All the best,

Philip

--
Philip Mantle,
1 Woodhall Drive, Batley, West Yorkshire, England, WF17 7SW.
Tele: 01924 444049. E-mail: pmquest@dial.pipex.com
www.beyondroswell.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                       Re: More Pre-1947 Cases - Russo

From: Edoardo Russo <e.russo@cisu.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:01:20 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:41:11 -0500
Subject: Re: More Pre-1947 Cases - Russo


 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:20:51 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: More Pre-1947 Cases

Hello John!

 >>I have often wondered why the written testimony of Joseph
 >>Smith (the founder of the Mormon religion/church) is never
 >>considered to be a 'contact' report by modern ufologists.

It was, indeed.

New York journalist, writer and ufologist John Keel devoted part
of a chapter of this book "Our Haunted Planet" to Joseph Smith's
story as a precursor of modern contactees, just like many others
before and after.

 >reports. I've just always found it a bit of a curiosity that
 >more attention isn't paid to this rather well documented account
 >by modern ufologists. It is as 'formally' documented a case as
 >one could hope for.

 >Chris, have you (or anybody else you may know of,) ever
 >included/considered the Joseph Smith material an 'old' alien
 >contact report?

The answer to your doubt is above.


Regards,

Edoardo Russo

Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici
CISU, Casella postale 82, 10100 Torino
tel 011-3290279 - fax 011-545033
http://www.cisu.org          e-mail: e.russo@cisu.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                   Joseph Smith [was: More Pre-1947 Cases]

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:15:52 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:47:57 -0500
Subject: Joseph Smith [was: More Pre-1947 Cases]

 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:20:51 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: More Pre-1947 Cases

<snip>

 >I have often wondered why the written testimony of Joseph
 >Smith (the founder of the Mormon religion/church) is never
 >considered to be a 'contact' report by modern ufologists.

Hi John,

Actually, I have always found the Joseph Smith story to be a
very interesting encounter case. A few years ago I wrote the
following, which I always mean to update with the results of my
recent research into UFO incidents of the same period. For many
ufologists this may be very common ground already, but for the
record here it is:


1820: Joseph Smith

An incident occurred in the spring of 1820, which was so
important that it led to the creation of a new branch of
Christianity. The place was Manchester, New York, and the
witness was a young man named Joseph Smith.

It was a sunny day. Smith, a youth of fourteen or fifteen, felt
distressed and confused by the quarrelling that had begun in his
town as different Christian sects fought for new members.
Wishing to meditate alone upon the question for a while, he went
for a stroll by himself, heading for a hill near his house. What
he expected to find was that the peace and sounds of nature
would help him decide which spiritual path to follow. What he
did not expect was that the answer would come to him so
dramatically.

...immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely
overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to
bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness
gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were
doomed to sudden destruction.

Moments later,

...a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness
of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

The next thing he knew, "I saw two Personages, whose brightness
and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air."
They called him by name and introduced themselves as father and
son. Needless to say, Joseph Smith�s life was to change forever
as a result of this first encounter, which proved to be but one
of many.


This story can be found in the writings of Joseph Smith himself,
and is thus to be considered a report, albeit a religious one.
The story of the founding of the Church of Latter Day Saints has
found its way into several works dealing with UFOs and close
encounters. It is not my intention to detract from the
deeply-rooted beliefs of the Mormons by treating Smith�s
encounter as 'just another UFO story', but I feel there are
grounds for including it here, as it forms a curious link in an
unbroken chain of similar claims that continues to grow even
today.

The most important of Smith�s 'visitations' happened on
September 21 1823.


I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to
increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when
immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the
air, for his feet did not touch the floor.

The entity had no shoes on but wore a loose white robe that
shone so brightly that Smith declared that he did not "believe
that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly
white and brilliant." The figure introduced itself as Moroni, a
messenger sent by God. Moroni had a message for the young man.
Smith had been chosen to translate part of the scriptures that
would let the world know the true history of the American
continent. All he had to do was to dig them up at a particular
spot on the Hill of Cumorah, where they had lain buried for
centuries, and translate them into English. Adding a few quotes
from the Old Testament for good measure, mainly about ancient
prophecies that were shortly going to be fulfilled, Moroni left.
This is how Joseph Smith described the moment that this
happened:

...I saw the light in my room gather immediately around the
person of him who had been speaking to me, and it continued to
do so until the room was again left dark, except just around
him; when, instantly I saw, as it were, a conduit open right up
into heaven, and he ascended until he entirely disappeared...

A little while later, on the same night, the 'angel' reappeared
in Smith's room. As if he thought the boy would forget the
contents of the message too soon, Moroni again related the very
same things which he had done at his first visit, without the
least variation...

According to the visitor, the future was grim, and "great
desolations by famine, sword and pestilence" would be coming.
(This happens to be exactly what abductees are told today by
their little grey captors.) "Having related these things, he
again ascended as he had done before."

Smith was not going to get a wink of sleep. A short time later,
Moroni came yet again, exactly as before, with the same
unchanging message, almost as if the apparition were being
played several times over by mistake.

The next day, Joseph told his Presbyterian father about his
nocturnal visitor. Surprisingly, the boy was not laughed at.
Instead, the man, a European immigrant, was sure that his son
had been given a divine mission to carry out.


The rest of the Mormon story is too well known to
repeat here. Anyone familiar with it knows that Joseph
Smith eventually received the ancient book (in 1827),
which was inscribed on wafer-thin gold plates, and the
means to translate it.

 From this text he produced the enigmatic Book of Mormon, the
alleged secret history of the inhabitants of the Americas from
2200 BC to AD421 and their connection with the Old World and
with Jesus Christ. The document comprises 275,000 words, which
includes lengthy quotes from the Old Testament.

It was published in book-form in 1830, but by 1834 there were
already claims that Smith had plagiarized a large section of
another book, View of the Hebrews; or, The Tribes of Israel in
America, written by Ethan Smith in 1823.

Leaving aside the book�s controversial contents, Smith published
some even more startling claims about God himself. According to
Mormon doctrine, we are not alone in the galaxy. The universe is
teeming with living beings, which live on different planets.
God, we learn, lives near a star called Kolob (Abraham 3:1-3)
and is a physical being with a flesh-and-blood body (Doctrines
and Covenants 130:22). These were not the kind of 'facts'
welcomed by American fundamentalists at the time, and are not
easily swallowed by Christians anywhere. They are certainly
astonishing ideas for any illiterate, early nineteenth-century
teenager to come up with alone.

Was Joseph Smith visited by an angel? An extraterrestrial? Was
it all a dream? A hoax? The Mormon Church has around six million
members today, making it the largest group of believers to have
ever come together because of something that began in the form
of a typical 'bedroom visitation.'


Well, thats it. You know, eleven people, not all of whom were
advocates of Smith�s religious ideas, swore that they had seen
and handled the plates. After the translation was made, the
manuscript was returned to Moroni for safekeeping and was never
seen again. When one page of the transcription of the book was
shown to scholars, the general consensus was that the
hieroglyphic characters engraved there were likely to be false.
Smith called them "reformed" Egyptian characters, a term which
is more or less meaningless. Meanwhile, archaeologists outside
the Church generally refrain from taking the Mormon version of
America's prehistory seriously. Neither, it must be said, do
they go out of their way to mock it.


Chris Aubeck









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                            'Six Days In Roswell'

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:29:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:50:08 -0500
Subject: 'Six Days In Roswell'



Oh my lord...  If you haven't yet seen this on the Travel
Channel, you _must_!

I don't know if or when it'll be on again (I haven't searched
the online TV guides) but do watch out for it.

It's like the UFO version of "Trekkies", the doc/mock-umentary
of Star Trek fans.

At any rate, there's a web page:

http://www.roswell6.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                 Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter -

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:12:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:56:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter -


 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:22:54 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter

 >>Source: Jeff Rense's sightings.com

 >>http://sightings.com/general7/texufo.htm

 >>WORLD EXCLUSIVE
 >>Family Videotapes Its Own
 >>UFO Close Encounter In Texas

 >>By Santiago Yturria
 >>1-24-01


 >I want to thank Jeff for posting this account. Having once been
 >a researcher in the field of atmospheric sciences, the Oz
 >effect, which occurred during this encounter, intrigues me. And
 >especially when the wind suddenly ceases and it stays calm
 >during the rest of the encounter. Where have we heard of that
 >before!! Obviously, this phenomenon defies the laws of physics
 >as we know them, as do UFOs.

 >It would be great if whomever this happens to next time should have the
 >presence of mind to check on a few things. Can they see any evidence of
 >wind in thet distance, as in moving dust picked up by wind, cloud motions,
 >distant tree tops moving? (Unfortunately, when it occurs at night, these
 >things may be unobservable.) Can you feel yourself inhale and exhale -- the
 >exhalation being a local "wind"? Evidently so, if the people involved can
 >still talk and hear each other. Can you throw a rock a distance onto the
 >roadway and hear it when it hits? These are questions trying to get at how
 >great a distance away the Oz effect typically extends. If those involved
 >see no other cars around for quite a while, when they're otherwise to be
 >expected, it implies the Oz umbrella covers a large distance.


Hi Jim and all you lovely UFO people!

Now, I have often heard the term 'Oz effect' and have a general
idea on what it means but would love it if someone here (perhaps
Jim!) could elaborate for me. Is it sort of like Jenny Randles
time storms? Errol, if this is too vague a question - sorry!


Kelly








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:28:11 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:57:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:31:33 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:10:21 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:06:19 +0000
 >>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

 >>>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:58:20 EST
 >>>>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>Hi Don,

 >>Skeptics and debunkers are afraid of science, math and logic, as
 >>I've found in trying to get responses from Easton, Ridpath and
 >>Jenny Randles to simple facts of magnetic compass directions,
 >>terrain visibility and mapping in the Rendlesham case for the
 >>past several months since Aug 2000 (Jenny qualifies as more of a
 >>skeptic on Rendlesham). A lot of believers are too, but this is
 >>more surprising about the skeptics because they always claim to
 >>represent the voice of hard science, solid fact, irrefutable
 >>logic.

 >>A long time ago on Easton's list I brought up the question of
 >>size and volume of the Zamora UFO versus any possible hot-air
 >>balloon. The response was basically that there were exotic mixed
 >>types of hot-air balloons under development then, etc. etc., but
 >>without any calculation of size and volume to see if it was
 >>possible within the framework of Zamora's observations. Observer
 >>error in making size estimates are a source of great difficulty
 >>in UFO investigations so I was willing to grant that Zamora's
 >>non-quantitative "car" size estimate maybe was in error.

 >>However, someone pointed out that there was a framework of
 >>mesquite bushes that limit the maximum possible size of Zamora's
 >>landed UFO. I don't recall who posted this and I don't think a
 >>specific size was given, but if someone on this List knows about
 >>this please post the data.


 >Hi Brad,

 >After going over the sighting again I noted the depressions in
 >the ground which I had for gotten. One might ask themselves how
 >a lighter than air balloon could leave depressions - widely
 >spaced - in the ground. Balloons are normally anchored to the
 >ground, straining to drift aloft, not pressing firmly against
 >the Earth. They have no weight, that's why they float.

 >You're right, it seems that Easton hasn't even applied basic
 >science in this case.

 >Notice also the absence of a response.>

 >Don Ledger


Hi Don,

Another factor that bothers me is how could two pilots get off a
hot-air balloon without the balloon instantly shooting up into
the air once 200+ pounds lighter (even assuming jockey-sized
pilots), if there was no anchor on the ground to attach. If the
balloon was so seriously lacking in lift, by 200+ pounds, so
that two pilots could get off without the balloon shooting up,
then it would have taken a very long time to reheat and
re-inflate the balloon so that it could lift off with the two
men aboard. How could that be done in the short period of time
from Zamora seeing the "figures" and the object's blastoff?

The hot-air balloon theory _superficially_ seems plausible but
breaks down in the details of the sighting and basic physics.
Most skeptical explanations seem to have that problem.


Brad








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 4

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:50:52 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:04:35 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 4

Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 6, Number 4
January 25, 2001
Editor: Joseph Trainor

CHUPACABRAS ATTACK A FAMILY'S HOME IN CALAMA

Four Chupacabras attacked a family's home in a rural district
of Calama, Chile early Friday morning, January 19, 2001,
killing six chickens and a rooster.

"A family from the barrio O'Higgins (neighborhood) lived
through several frightening hours after having encountered four
very strange beasts in their backyard. Neighbors are fearful
that it could represent a mass attack by so-called Chupacabra
creatures."

"The affected parties, who live in Calle Sargento Aldea 3445
(street) were still unable to convince themselves (of the
reality--S.C.) of this singular episode in their lives."

The house's owner, Elena W., "was awakened by the of her
chickens were kept in a cage in her backyard.. But there were
no words to describe her astonishment when she went out to see
what was going on and found herself facing four creatures
working in unison to open the birdcage."

"'At first I thought they were dogs, although I was startled by
the fact that they were larger and more hairy,'" she said.

She said she did nothing at first but merely stared at in which
two of the beings worked to open the gate 'while the others
watched, as if trained or had thought patterns similar to
humans.'"

"She remarked that, overcoming her fear, she grabbed a club and
tried to scatter them away, but the animals' attitude left her
petrified. They passed by her so quickly 'that I didn't see
them running, I only felt the wind left in their wake as they
went past my side.'"

Sra. W. said, "she screamed for her husband to help her, He ran
out of the house and after the creatures but he couldn't find
any trace of the immense animals when he got to the end of the
street. ."

"'It was all so strange, as if the critters had vanished into
thin air or had been teleported to a different location,'" Sr.
W. said.

""After the commotion, the entire family investigated the
henhouse and found six dead chickens and one dead rooster, all
of which bore the telltale marks of the mythic Chupacabras."

"The birds were not devoured but they were left dry (drained of
blood--J.T.) with a single wound under the wings. Furthermore,
the pen was well-secured and, to judge from the creatures'
size, they would have brought the whole structure crashing down
if they'd tried to put a foot on the roof,:

"She claimed that at 3:30 a.m. the chickens were still alive
'because the rooster crowed and we were watching movies until
four o'clock in the morning, and we still can't explain how the
creatures got into the enclosure,'" Sra. W. said."then killed
the birds noiselessly and then abandoned the premises. It could
only be that they flew.'"

"But the strangest thing for the family was that their three
guard dogs were not even stirred by the presence of the four
intruders in the backyard. 'Only when I screamed for my husband
did the oldest of the digs wake up to defend me, without the
poor thing being able to strike at anything.'" (See the Chilean
newspaper La Estrella del Lia for January 20, 2001, "Strange
animals stage massive attack." Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales,
autor de los libros Chupacabras and Other Mysteries y Forbidden
Mexico, y tambien Gloria Coluchi para eso articulo de diario.)

LUMINOUS SAUCER CAUSES A BLACKOUT IN BRAZIL

Four seaside cities in southern Brazil suffered a massive power
blackout on Thursday night, January 11m 2001 when a luminous
saucer overflew the area.

All electrical power was lost in the communities of Santos,
Cubatao, Sao Vicente and Praia Grande Picaras. All are located
along Brazil's South Atlantic shore, just southeast of Sao
Paulo, which is the largest city in South America.

"Following a sudden and unexplained power failure in the
region, UFOs were seen over Cubatao and Santos and also in Sao
Vicente and on the beach in Praia Grande Picaras. The UFOs
remained in view for approximately 20 minutes. The situation
took place at about 3:30 a.m."

"The blackout was lifted technicians and power line workers
restored electricity to the area." Brazil's "Policia Militar
were contacted by several Brazilian ufologists but gave no
explanation for the sightings or the blackout."

According to Sra. Carmina Moura de Freitas, "My daughter and
her friends were having a party on the beach party on the
beach" at Praia Grande Picaras "when the lights all went out.
While they were listening to the (battery-powered) radio, they
heard a burst of static. They looked up and saw a glowing disc
flying out to sea," heading southeast towards the South
Atlantic Ocean. (Muito obrigado aos Visitantes Cosmicas e
tambem Sra. de Freitas por eso caso.)

TRIANGULAR UFO HOVERS OVER THE ISLE OF MAN

On Sunday, January 14, 1001, at 4:20 p.m., "a large object had
been seen above Snaefell mountain, on the north side of the
Isle of Man in the Irish Sea.

"A triangular UFO was observed hovering near a (BBC) radio mast
at the summit" of Snaefell. Man is a small island west of Wales
in UK.

"The police have searched but they have no clues to the mystery
centered on the summit of Snaefell mountain."

"A full search, including the RAF, IOM (Isle of Man--J.T.)
Coastguard, Fire services, Civil Defence and IOM Constabulary,
has failed to find any trace of evidence following reports of
an aircraft at the top of the mountain. The police received
reports yesterday of a large object had been seen above
Snaefell."

"The reports said that it appeared to strike the large
communications mast on the summit. An immediate search of the
area, including a helicopter from RAF Valley," an air base in
Anglesey, Wales, UK, "failed to find any trace of an accident
but continued with the search until 11:10 p.m."

"The police still have no clue as to what it was that had been
reported to hit the mast and are appealing to anybody who may
have been around Snaefell at 4:20 p.m. yesterday who may have
seen anything unusual on the northern side of the island."

UFO Roundup is presently trying to track down an Isle of Man
resident who reportedly shot three to four minutes of video
footage of the mystery object with his camcorder. The footage
reportedly shows a dark triangular object with three red
lights, one at each corner, hovering above the tall radio mast.
More information will be reported as it becomes available.
(Many thanks to ufologist Chris Rolfe (UFOMEK), UFO Magazine
(UK) and reporter Cleator for this story.)

MYSTERIOUS SKY BOOM JOLTS ASHTABULA, OHIO

"Residents are still wondering what caused a boisterous boom
accompanied by a quivering of the ground late Friday," January
19, 2001, "evening. Police and fire dispatchers fielded several
calls from folks in Saybrook and Ashtabula Townships and in
Ashtabula (population 22,000) who felt the unexplainable tremor
around 9:13 p.m. and wanted to know what was going on."

"The two-to-three-second vibration--similar to what one might
experience in an explosion--occurred just minutes before a gas
main on East 27th Street in Ashtabula Township was reported by
an Ohio-American Water crew using a backhoe to fix a water line
(pipe--J.T.) leak."

"Officials say the two incidents are unrelated."

"'The seismographic site did report some kind of blip,' Ed
Semppi, director of the Ashtabula County Emergency Management
Agency said, 'But there's no reason as to what happened yet.'"

"Semppi received a call from an Ashtabula County Sheriff's
Office stating that officials from the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) Geologic Survey in Columbus had noticed
a tremor-like vibration at their Jefferson-based seismographic
site."

"Three other local seismographic sites, located, located at
Lakeland Community College in Kirtland; Lake Erie College in
Painseville; and the Museum of Natural History in Cleveland,
had no indication of any seismic activity. 'It could have been
in the lake close to our site, not close to their sites,'
Stemppi said."

Ashtabula is on Ohio Route 20 approximately 91 miles (145
kilometers) east of Cleveland. (See the Ashtabula Star-Beacon
for January 21, 2001, "Tremble still a mystery." Many thanks to
Gerry Lovell for this newspaper article.)

(Editor's Comment: Ashtabula was the scene of several UFO
sightings during the year 2000. It sounds as if there was a
saucer lying on the bottom of Lake Erie just offshore.)

DARK OBLONG UFO SEEN IN VANDERBILT, PENNSYLVANIA

On Thursday evening, January 18, 2001, Matthew I. was outdoors
in his hometown of Vanderbilt Pennsylvania when he saw an
unusual object in the night sky, "approaching from the
northwest."

"We saw lights, different colored, which appeared to be
together" around the object. "They flew really close to each
other. I also got it on film. The lights were round and
blinking with white, red, yellow, blue and green. I watched it
move around" for a few minutes "before it left." (Email Form
Report)

LOREN COLEMAN'S CLASSIC IS BACK IN PRINT

One of the best books on the subject of Forteana to appear in
the Twentieth Century was Loren Coleman's classic Mysterious
America (Faber & Faber, Boston, Mass., 1982) And now there's
good news for Forteans everywhere, this Coleman classic is back
in print.

Mysterious America: The Revised Edition by Loren Coleman has
just been published by Paraview Press of New York City. Like
the original, it's a cornucopia of Forteana, including spook
lights, mystery beasts, phantom ship sightings, "crazy crocs"
or out-of-place alligators, plus numerous lake and river
monsters here in the USA.

Remember the old story about alligators in the sewers of New
York City? An urban legend, you say? Not so! Coleman tracked
down the original news report of a "crazy croc" found in a Big
Apple sewer during the winter of 1935. It's just one of the
many amazing cases of Forteana available in this volume.

(Editor's Comment: As one who was born in Taunton, Mass., the
heart of the "Bridgewater Triangle," I was particularly
interested in the phenomena there.)

In addition to the original material, Coleman has added all-new
chapters on such phenomena as the "giant catfish" sightings in
the southern USA, the Minnesota Iceman of 1968, the Eastern
Bigfoot and the "Devil Monkeys" often seen around the USA.

A professor of biology at the University of Southern Maine,
Coleman has written several books and articles on sociology. He
is considered the dean of American cryptozoologists, having
co-authored two of the most important books in the field. These
are The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti and Other Mystery Primates
Worldwide, written in cooperation with Patrick Huyghe; and
Cryptozoology from A to Z: The Encyclopedia of Loch Monsters,
Sasquatch, Chupacabras and Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature,
co-written with ufologist Jerome Clark.

Mysterious America: The Revised Edition costs $16.95 and can be
ordered from Amazon.com or your local Waldenbooks or other
bookstore. If you are ordering from a bookstore, be sure to
include the ISBN number with the other data.

Tell your bookseller that you want to order:

Mysterious America: The Revised Edition by Loren Coleman

Paraview Press, New York, N.Y., 2--1

ISBN No. 1-931044-05-8

(Many thanks to T. Peter Park for this information.)

EDITORIAL

DUBYA, PLEASE OPEN THE OLDER UFO FILES

During his meeting with the White House staff on Monday,
January 22, 2001, incoming USA President George W. Bush said,
"I want it said of us that promises made were promises kept."
(See USA Today for January 23, 2001, "President orders staff to
fall in line." page 6A.)

Last summer, Mr. President, when asked by a MUFON
representative from Texas, you stated that you would be willing
to open heretofore Top Secret files to ufologists and other
researchers. The UFO community hopes that you will keep this
promise.

I realize that current defense concerns, which for the sake of
national security, cannot be shared with the general public,
may prohibit you from releasing more recent UFO material.
However, I would hope that you would be willing to declassify
UFO material that is several decades old.

To be specific, UFO Roundup would like to see you drop the
Class A National Defense Secret rating from old War Department
and Navy Department files regarding UFO phenomena during the
period January 1, 1910 through December 31, 1930.

This material will include any UFO sightings or related
phenomena reported by the early Army Air Corps under Gen.
Benjamin Foulois, reports from Army Air Corps pursuit squadrons
that may have encountered UFOs in Europe during World War One,
and reports of UFO phenomena reported by Army and Navy pilots
who sighted UFOs while flying the U.S. Mail during the 1920s.

Mr. President, these Army and Navy files are all over 70 years
old and can have no possible bearing on the national defense
posture of the USA in the year 2001.

UFO Roundup hopes that you will give this request every
consideration. Our readers thank you


We'll be back again in another week with more UFO and
paranormal news from around the planet Earth, brought to you by
"the paper that goes home-- UFO Roundup." See you then!


UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2001 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.

E-Mail Reports to: Joseph Trainor <Masinaigan@aol.com>
or use the Sighting Report Form at:

http://ufoinfo.com/forms/form_sighting.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of the UK UFO Network Bulletin,
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences,
UFO + PSI Magazine also available, plus archives of
Filer's Files and Oz Files.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                       New at Magonia Online - 01-2001

From: Mark Pilkington <m.pilkington@virgin.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:16:54 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:10:50 -0500
Subject: New at Magonia Online - 01-2001


Martin Kottmeyer's Entirely Disposed - A devastating assault on abduction
apologists (in MMS 32)

http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/ethbull/mms32.html


Magonia Monthly Supplement # 31- Dennis Wheatley and UFOs

http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/ethbull/ethbindex.html



Mark Pilkington
m.pilkington@virgin.net

----------------------------------------------------------------

"The blood is the life, but electricity is the
life of the blood." Dr Carter Moffat, 1892

----------------------------------------------------------------

Fortean Times online: http://www.forteantimes.com

Magonia online: http://www.magonia.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:55:53 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:13:12 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman


 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:53:01 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >Ed, I could look at AA another 100 times.

Roger,

I doubt whether you've looked at it at all, at least not the
Santilli video or the debris. And I know you haven't looked at
it very closely. Do you have the Fox version? Why do you refuse
to look at the evidence we've gathered? You have a chance to get
a free set of AA CDs (and a Flatland). Roger, come on partner!
We think we have the smoking gun! All folks have to do is read
what we have to say and study the evidence we've collected and I
think everyone will come away with a different appreciation for
the footage, and the Ft. Worth photos, and what they represent.


 >Until then, I'm afraid there's really nothing more for you and
 >me to talk about. You've already made up your mind that AA is
 >real

Yes I have! You're absolutely correct.

I've believed the AA was real since I first viewed the uncut
Santilli video, which I purchased soon after it came out. I've
been gathering evidence ever since but it wasn't until I started
working with Neil that I felt we had a chance to prove the AA's
legitimacy once and for all.

 >and you refuse to see the discrepancies between the AA
 >footage and real military footage for what it implies.

I see and understand your arguments but no, I don't think it
implies what you seem to think it implies.

Why not take a fresh look at the new AA CDs and read the Fatland
articles before you judge the competence of the cameraman or
whether he was telling the truth. If the AA is a hoax, you
should be able to find your own smoking gun to prove your
contentions.


 >I think this thread is dead, as far as our conversation goes.

That's fine with me but I hope you don't think that this kills
the thread. We haven't had a chance to present our evidence. Do
you mind if we continue on without you? Ed








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Liddle

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:02:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:15:56 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Liddle


 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:53:01 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Ed, I could look at AA another 100 times. It won't make the
 >discrepancies between it and real military footage any less
 >glaring. On the other hand, perhaps you could look at a few
 >military films to get a better idea of the level of quality that
 >was expected from their cameramen, especially on topics as
 >important as AA.

 >Until then, I'm afraid there's really nothing more for you and
 >me to talk about. You've already made up your mind that AA is
 >real and you refuse to see the discrepancies between the AA
 >footage and real military footage for what it implies.

 >I think this thread is dead, as far as our conversation goes.

I have watched the film about a dozen times (the last involving
a bit of Guinness, popcorn, friends and laughter). I can say
that as one who served a few years in the military was forced to
watch the most moronic films produced by the yanks, that the AA
video does not compare in quality even to "protecting your feet
from disease". :)

Just watch the recently released footage of nuclear tests. Look
at the detail to quality in what you would think is just setting
up a camera to film an explosion. Cripes, look at the quality of
one of the _horrid_ "Protect your feet from DISEASE" videos.
Compare these to the AA video. The AA video has more in common
with the Blair Witch Project. Not to mention the improper
techniques used for proper autopsy.

I wish it was real. I really have spent all of my adult life
hoping for such a smoking gun.


Sean Liddle
KAPRA








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:54:17 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:18:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


Regarding:

 >From: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: <02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers :>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing
 >Date: 22 January 2001 19:48

Jan wrote:

 >If you have a balloon, then the most important thing about
 >ballooning is not a thumbnail sketch about Raven Industries or
 >CIA special projects.  There are two factors in addition to lift
 >which will tell one about the flight of a balloon, wind speed
 >and direction. Do you find any such consideration in Robinson
 >site?

Jan,

As I did explain, Larry contributed considerably more
information during lengthy discussions on the 'UFO Research
List' [UFORL].

Would you agree that you are not aware of the content from these
discussions at all?

 >No, he was in his own words too busy to check that....  He
 >wasn't too busy to put the idea on his web page. That is all it
 >is, an idea. Not well supported by facts or investigation or
 >even checks of the most important factors for this possible
 >explanation.

The material on Larry's web site was, in fact, supported by his
aforementioned contributions.

Again, would you agree that you are not aware of the content
from these discussions at all?

 >Prof. Moore did his own investigation with Zamora. One of the
 >things Zamora told him was that the object kicked dirt and
 >debris at him when it left the area. Does that sound like a hot
 >air balloon?

In his official statement, Zamora recalls that when the object
landed, he, "Noted some 'commotion' at bottom--dust? Possibly
from windy day--wind was blowing hard".

How was he able to determine that when it departed, any
'commotion' wasn't also possibly due to the wind, notably
"blowing hard"?

Of course, if the object was a hot-air balloon, a significant
clue would be if Zamora observed the 'flame' to be wider at the
bottom than the top - in reverse of what a 'rocket' flame looks
like.

Zamora stated:

"It was a narrow type of flame. It was like a 'stream down'--a
funnel type--narrower at top than at bottom. Flame possibly 3
degrees or so in width--not wide. Flame about twice as wide at
bottom as top".

Would you agree this is consistent with a hot-air balloon?

Would you agree it's inconsistent with a 'rocket-type'
propulsion?

We would also expect to find that, if a hot-air balloon, it
would lift-off slowly.

Zamora claimed:

"Hardly turned around from car, when heard roar (was not exactly
a blast), very loud roar--at that close was real loud. Not like
a jet--knows what jets sound like. Started low frequency
quickly, then roar rose in frequency (higher tone) and in
loudness--from loud to very loud. At same time as roar saw
flame. Flame was under the object. Object was starting to go
straight up--slowly up. Object slowly rose straight up".

Would you agree this is consistent with a hot-air balloon?

Would you agree it's inconsistent with a 'rocket-type'
propulsion?

We might further expect that, at some point, Zamora would
recognise - once he had found his glasses - that the object
resembled a balloon.

He said:

"I picked up my glasses (I left the sun glasses on ground), got
into the car, and radioed to Nep Lopez, radio operator, to 'look
out of the window, to see if you could see an object.' He asked
what is it? I answered 'It looks like a balloon'."

Would you agree this is consistent with a hot-air balloon?

 >(Please note Easton completely ignores this factor.)

Shouldn't you instead be noting that I had highlighted
substantial data, much of which would be for many UpDates
subscribers a new insight into the 'UFO' probabilities,
extending beyond 'Socorro' as a 'UFO' case.

You're suggesting that one, of many, aspects not featured was an
intentional omission because it can't be addressed?

Are you serious?

 >One thing Moore noted about Zamora was that he answered the
 >questions put to him and nothing more, one had to grill him to
 >get all the details out of him.

What relevance does this have to the factual case evidence?

 >Now, somehow if you bring Piccard's opinion into the mix that is
 >suppose to settle everything. Hardly, Piccard is talking in
 >generalities, he had not investigated the case.

Would you agree that you are, in fact, not aware of the extent
to which Don Piccard investigated the available evidence,
perhaps at my request?

 >Flight direction and speed of a balloon is determined by what?
 >Wind Direction and Speed. (Say that five times and make it
 >yours.)

You've lost me here.

Maybe you can simply answer the questions raised and do so
civilly.

Incidentally, concerning Zamora's "two seconds" observation of
two "small adults", who were "normal in shape" and wearing
"white coveralls", if I recall correctly, it was pointed out
during UFORL discussion that 'spy' missions and training
favoured low- weight, 'jockey' balloonists.

A 1965 photograph of two 'pilots' in white coveralls, heading
for their aerial vehicle, can be seen on my web site, at:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/balloon2.jpg


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

              Exopolitics: The Non-Terrestrial Politics Website

From: Alfred Webre <editor@universebooks.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:03:20 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:09:02 -0500
Subject: Exopolitics: The Non-Terrestrial Politics Website


Vancouver, BC - Exopolitics: The Non-Terrestrial
Politics website is now online as an Internet source for
news, research and articles on Exopolitics: Extraterrestrial
Politics.

http://www.exopolitics.com

mailto:exopolitics@exopolitics.com


Alternate Mirror Website:

http://www.extraterrestrial.ca


"We are witnessing the end of terrestrial, Earth-based
politics," said "Non-terrestrial Politics" Website founder
Alfred Lambremont Webre. "Exopolitics.com is an Internet source
for fresh views on non-terrestrial, Universe politics."

VANCOUVER, BC - 'Exopolitics: A Decade of Contact', a new book
by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, a former director of the
1977 White House Extraterrestrial Study, claims that we live in
a populated, organized Universe. Exopolitics, an emerging
discipline, is the study of law, politics and government in the
Universe. "A non-terrestrial, Universe government monitors
Earth," Webre states, "and may be preparing an eventual end to
Earth's quarantine in Outer Space."

Webre, a former futurist at Stanford Research Institute, led an
abortive 1977 study of extraterrestrial communication approved
by the Jimmy Carter White House. The White House study was
abruptly terminated in September, 1977 by intervention of the
Pentagon.

Features on The Non-Terrestrial website include:

Current Exopolitics (Non-terrestrial Politics) News, updated
daily


Exopolitics articles - Non-terrestrials & Politics


Exopolitics articles - Non-terrestrials & the Environment


Updates on the DISCLOSURE Project, sponsored by CSETI


Updates on Open Disclosure Hearings - In the US Congress
(X- PPAC); Canadian Parliament


Updates on Open International Hearings on Disclosure


Books on Exopolitics - Extraterrestrial Politics


Newsitems and articles on Exopolitics: Extraterrestrial politics
may be submitted for publication at: exopolitics@exopolitics.com


"Being aware of exopolitics is important. Non-terrestrial,
exopolitics affects every one of us, and every community on
Earth," says Webre.

"As with other historical transformations of human society,
politics may be a key mechanism for navigating Earth�s
integration into Universe society. Politics is a process by
which the interests of individuals, groups, and institutions
will mediate, compromise, and create a collective future.
Politics, however, does not end at Earth�s edge. Politics is a
process that is universal. Earth�s integration into Universe
society is occurring as part of a definable political process
within Universe government. That process is part of the
discipline we can term exopolitics."


_______
EXOPOLITICS - THE "NON-TERRESTRIAL POLITICS" WEBSITE
http://www.exopolitics.com mailto:exopolitics@exopolitics.com
1512 West 40 Ave. Vancouver, BC V6M 1V8
Tel: 604-733-8134 Fax:604-733-8135
geri destefano, phd alfred lambremont webre, jd, med







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:47:33 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:14:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:31:33 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com
 >>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:10:21 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>Skeptics and debunkers are afraid of science, math and logic, as
 >>I've found in trying to get responses from Easton, Ridpath and
 >>Jenny Randles to simple facts of magnetic compass directions,
 >>terrain visibility and mapping in the Rendlesham case for the
 >>past several months since Aug 2000 (Jenny qualifies as more of a
 >>skeptic on Rendlesham). A lot of believers are too, but this is
 >>more surprising about the skeptics because they always claim to
 >>represent the voice of hard science, solid fact, irrefutable
 >>logic.

 >>A long time ago on Easton's list I brought up the question of
 >>size and volume of the Zamora UFO versus any possible hot-air
 >>balloon. The response was basically that there were exotic mixed
 >>types of hot-air balloons under development then, etc. etc., but
 >>without any calculation of size and volume to see if it was
 >>possible within the framework of Zamora's observations. Observer
 >>error in making size estimates are a source of great difficulty
 >>in UFO investigations so I was willing to grant that Zamora's
 >>non-quantitative "car" size estimate maybe was in error.

 >>However, someone pointed out that there was a framework of
 >>mesquite bushes that limit the maximum possible size of Zamora's
 >>landed UFO. I don't recall who posted this and I don't think a
 >>specific size was given, but if someone on this List knows about
 >>this please post the data.


 >Hi Brad,

 >After going over the sighting again I noted the depressions in
 >the ground which I had for gotten. One might ask themselves how
 >a lighter than air balloon could leave depressions - widely
 >spaced - in the ground. Balloons are normally anchored to the
 >ground, straining to drift aloft, not pressing firmly against
 >the Earth. They have no weight, that's why they float.

 >You're right, it seems that Easton hasn't even applied basic
 >science in this case.

 >Notice also the absence of a response.

<snip>

Hello Don, Brad and List,

Socorro is one of the best-documented UFO cases.

Skeptibunkers have no support for whatever prosaic explanation
they could come up with: the balloon theory does not cut it and
should occupy first place on the stupidity scale.

Zamorra testified that he was so frightened by the "roar" of the
object at take off that he ran away to take cover, as he thought
it was going to explode. From 'The Landing at Socorro' W.T.
Powers. in FSR Special "The Humanoids", 1968, 47-51:

"Hardly turned around from car, when heard roar" (was not exactly
blast), "very loud roar - at that close was real loud. Not like a
jet - know what jet sound like. Started low frequency quickly,
then rose in frequency (higher tone) and in loudness - from loud
to very loud. Flame was under object. Object was starting to go
straight up - slowly up [...] Thought, from roar, it might blow
up [...] Cannot describe flames farther except blue and orange.
No smoke, except dust in immediate area."

"As soon as saw flame and heard roar, turned away, ran away from
object but did turn head toward object. Bumped leg on car - back
fender area. Car facing southwest [...] I guess I ran about
halfway to where I ducked down, just over the edge of the
hill..."

Did everybody forget about the asymmetric and original print of
the landing gear? The footprints? The _4_ burns? The noisy take
off but the silent high speed across country?

BTW, this was about 5:45 PM on April 24, in New Mexico: we were
in broad daylight.

The object went in a SW direction (Powers, p. 49), and Hynek
(Clark, p. 554) mentions that "there was a very strong southwest
wind". The object traveled at high speed, 10-15 feet above the
ground _against_ a strong wind, and this would be a balloon?

It should be noted about J. Allen Hynek on Socorro (Clark, pp.
553):

"Still, Hynek was impressed. 'I think this case may be the
Rosetta stone,' he concluded. 'There's never been a strong case
with so unimpeachable a witness.'"

'Socorro is a balloon' is only one thing: a mantra for meditation
to cut oneself from reality.


Regards,

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:10:28 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:16:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


Regarding:

 >From: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: <02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers :>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing
 >Site?
 >Date: 22 January 2001 20:08

Steve wrote:

 >Richard Hall Comments On The Socorro Discussion

 >Richard Hall's UFO Evidence II has just been released by
 >Scarecrow Press and contains sections on both the Socorro
 >incident and the Rendlesham Forest sighting.

Steve,

As Hall believes 'Rendlesham' is 'best evidence ever,
guaranteed' of ET incursions, why should anyone take his
comments on that, or any other 'UFO' case seriously?

Honestly, is he still completely oblivious to the _fact_ that
Halt's 'starlight scoped UFO' never 'exploded' [duh...] and was
then later seen again - as documented on the 'Halt tape', "clear
off to the coast"?

For some reason, in re-telling the tale and refuting suggestions
Orford Ness lighthouse [clear off to the coast] had been
mistaken for a 'UFO', as now proven it had been by those who
instigated the 'UFO' scares, Halt has never, ever mentioned that
subsequent sighting.

I'm baffled, as doubtless Hall is.

Can anyone think of a reason why?


If you want to cite a 'testimony', is it too much to ask that it
comes from someone who has at least demonstrated the capacity
for critical assessment of any 'UFO' case.

"Not to mention the reported fused sand found at the site and
secretly analyzed".

Yes, let's *not* mention this ludicrous, supposed 'secret cover-
up'.

Still, didn't Corso quote it, or am I thinking of either Greer,
Hoagland, Boylan, Pope, Lazar, Morton, Gersten, Reed, Raith,
Bell, Dames, Dean, Hesemann, Warren, Marrs, Streiber, Leir,
Wendelle Stevens [this would take up too much bandwidth...]. Or
was it the appallingly maligned Lee Shargel.

Or was it Richard Hall.


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

              Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - Young

From: BobYoung <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:45:46 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:23:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - Young


 >From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway
 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:52:14 +0100

 >>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >>Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:51:41 +0100
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:05:00 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Subject: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway

 >>I'm now referring to what I was actually watching
 >>on my TV set this evening; 23 January, 2001. The
 >>TV channel was NRK 1

<snip>

 >>To me, the light looked like two spheres cut in half, and being
 >>"loosely attached"; i.e., somewhat "irregular" in the middle
 >>part of "it"; just not attached properly. The size - we were
 >>told by the reporter - was somewhat less than the full moon;
 >>maybe the size of the object/light could be that of a house, or,
 >>maybe a car.

 >>From my viewpoint, the two, "not properly-attached",
 >>hemispheres, looked like as if could actually split - if they
 >>wanted to (but, we didn't see them split on the video).

Hi, Asgeir, List readers:

Were the hemispheres vertically above and below each other or
horizontally aranged?

 >>As some car headlights were showing up, the light ball suddenly
 >>("got scared", and) became smaller in size, and - most likely -
 >>vanished into the background/night at some high speed (this we
 >>were told by the photographer).

It may be that this was the result of the automatic action of
the camera - stopping itself down when the car headlights
illuminated the camera.  Thus a light source dimmer than the car
headlights would dim, and might even could be said to have
looked as if it "sped away".

We could conclude, tentatively, that the object was dimmer
(smaller) than the Moon and also dimmer than the car headlights.
Of course, the source could have been intrinsically brighter
than this, but just at a greater distance, say if it were
aircraft lights, or even an astronomical object.

 >>Right above, and right underneath the spherical object, me - and
 >>the reporter - I did observe some kind of "streaming gas";
 >>"quasar-like" gas jets streaming out from from the shining,
 >>static, hovering, or moving, gas "ball". They (the "jets") were,
 >>however, difficult to observe; they both being rather thin in
 >>appearance; they - each - stretched out approx. at the same
 >>length as the "diameter" of the "ball" (at least the visible
 >>part of them).

Did you notice this for the car headlights or any other ground
lights or objects in the video?  If so, this could be an
atmospheric effect, or perhaps a glare in the camera lens.

 >>It didn't really look like a "conventional", mechanical
 >>aircraft, or a blimp, rather some atmospheric phenomena, with
 >>somewhat fuzzy outlines - the _whole_ object was actually
 >>shining. But, it was rather difficult to draw any concrete
 >>conclusion on "the design" and to determine this exactly, due to
 >>the fairly blurred outlook.

<snip>

 >I now got hold of the TV channel's website URL, where this
 >particular program is referred to:

 >http://www3.nrk.no/kanal/nrk1/redaksjon_21/
 >http://www3.nrk.no/kanal/nrk1/redaksjon_21/728878.html

 >You are now able to judge for yourselves!

 >On TV, this "shining ball of light" ("UFO") was more detailed,
 >and we could see that it looked more like two, loosely attached
 >hemispheres of light.

What was the time and exact location of this sighting, and do
you know in what direction the object was seen?


Clear skies,

Bob Young









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

               The Skeptical Believer/The Cydonian Imperative

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:59:39 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:25:47 -0500
Subject: The Skeptical Believer/The Cydonian Imperative


Author and columnist John Shirley ("The Skeptical Believer") has
added his thoughts on Martian anomalies to The Cydonian
Imperative website (page 11). Also avilable via TCI is Shirley's
excellent UFO novel 'Silicon Embrace', my review of which can be
found here:

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/postmodern.html



Mac Tonnies

(macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
"He runs after facts like a beginner learning to skate, who,
furthermore, practices somewhere where it is forbidden." --Franz
Kafka










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                 Re: Family Videos Close Encounter - Murray

From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:40:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:28:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Family Videos Close Encounter - Murray


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: 02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers
 >Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:53 PM
 >Subject: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter


 >Source: Jeff Rense's sightings.com

 >http://sightings.com/general7/texufo.htm

 >WORLD EXCLUSIVE
 >Family Videotapes Its Own
 >UFO Close Encounter In Texas

 >By Santiago Yturria
 >1-24-01


 >Jeff,

 >I send you this report of the Cardenas family from Washington
 >State whom I met last month when they came to Monterrey. They
 >had a most unique experience on December 17 and I'm sure you
 >will find it very interesting.

 >My best wishes,

 >Santiago

Howdy All!

This is a fantasitic story, and the accompanying video must be
amazing to watch. However, I'm intrigued by the comment that the
times on the video seem to be out of whack in some way. This is
never completely explained in the story.

How are there discrepancies on the video, as far as the times
are concerned? What exactly are these? Can someone please
explain this point in more detail?


Thanks, take care,

Marty












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 4 - Corrections

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:46:21 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:30:02 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 4 - Corrections


Correction:
===========

Isle Of Man Incident

Please note that the correct day of the sighting is Sunday 14th
January 2001, _not_ Friday 19th January.

-----

Also Loren Coleman points out that the original edition of
'Mysterious America' was 1983, not 1982.

My apology for the incorrect correction!!

Best wishes,

E-Mail Reports to: Joseph Trainor <Masinaigan@aol.com>
or use the Sighting Report Form at:

http://ufoinfo.com/forms/form_sighting.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of the UK UFO Network Bulletin,
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences,
UFO + PSI Magazine also available, plus archives of
Filer's Files and Oz Files.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                              Re: Joseph Smith

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:22:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:32:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith


 >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:15:52 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Joseph Smith [was: More Pre-1947 Cases]
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:20:51 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: More Pre-1947 Cases

 ><snip>

 >>I have often wondered why the written testimony of Joseph
 >>Smith (the founder of the Mormon religion/church) is never
 >>considered to be a 'contact' report by modern ufologists.

 >Hi John,

 >Actually, I have always found the Joseph Smith story to be a
 >very interesting encounter case. A few years ago I wrote the
 >following, which I always mean to update with the results of my
 >recent research into UFO incidents of the same period. For many
 >ufologists this may be very common ground already, but for the
 >record here it is:

 >1820: Joseph Smith

<snip>

 >Chris Aubeck


Hi Chris, Edoardo, All,

Thanx for posting that piece from the intro to the Book of
Mormon Chris. It is this following paragraph that'll grab
you right by the ya-ya's if you are at all familiar with the
details (events and sequence of events) of many modern
abduction reports.

 >I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to
 >increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when
 >immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in
 >the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.

It is a "classic" abduction related report in every detail. I
myself could have written that report. I can't begin to tell you
how many letters I've gotten over the years that relate
-identical- kinds of experiences from people scattered all over
the globe. (And in the same 'sequence.')

There is _no_difference_ between the content of Joseph Smith's
'report' and that of many modern abductees. For the sake of
discussion (leaving all arguments for or agin the reality of
alien abduction behind for a moment) the clear implication is;
that "abductions" (as they are being reported by so many people
today) have been going on for a very_long_time.

Extrapolate the example of Joseph Smith and Mormonism back into
time and it is just a hop, skip, and a jump, to the accounts of
all the strange phenomena surrounding the founders of other
major religions. Jesus in particular. The Jesus story is _rife_
with 'UFO' and 'abduction' related references. Beginning with
the glowing "Angel" that visited Mary in the middle of the night
(whose visit resulted in her "virgin" impregnation) to the
"star" that the Oriental Wise men followed to Jesus' birth
place. To anyone familiar with ufology circa 2001, it all reads
like a pretty much run of the mill "UFO" and "alien
contact/abduction" report.

The Smith report, when stripped of religious interpretation,
could have been written by any number of modern 'abductees.'
Myself included. We may need to perform some serious revisions
on our collective World History textbooks someday.

"We ain't in Kansas anymore!" This world may not be the place we
think it is, and 'we' may not be who we think we are.

*Thanx Edoardo, I'll try to track down a copy of the book you
mentioned!  ;)

Joseph Smith, ... interesting stuff.

Nasty implications.


Regards,

John Velez



******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                     Re: New at Magonia Online - 01-2001

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:40:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:34:40 -0500
Subject: Re: New at Magonia Online - 01-2001


 >From: Mark Pilkington <m.pilkington@virgin.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: New at Magonia Online
 >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:16:54 -0000


 >Martin Kottmeyer's Entirely Disposed - A devastating assault on
 >abduction apologists (in MMS 32)

 >http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/ethbull/mms32.html


Hi Greg, hi All,

Mr. Sandow, you may want to come out of retirement long enough
to address some of criticisms that were levelled at you and the
piece you wrote, 'The Abduction Conundrum'. The above article
mentions you repeatedly. Unless you have already covered all
this ground before, you may want to check it out and post a
response of your own.


Regards,

John Velez
'The Grand Mixer'  ;)


******************************************************
                     A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center -
                      www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htm
                                    jvif@spacelab.net
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
******************************************************








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:30:37 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:40:23 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:04:06 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:29:01 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:36:28 -0600
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

 >Hi, all (assuming anyone is still reading about AA...)

 >I am going to combine two posts from Neil into one response in
 >order to save EBK some editing.

 >Previously, I had written:

 >>>Therefore, it is safe to say that we must judge the AA video,
 >>>not only by what we see, but by what is obviously absent. In
 >>>this particular case we have an example of both. We have too
 >>>much "shaky-cam" compared to other Armed Services footage and
 >>>not enough "quality" compared to other Armed Services footage.

 >Neil replied:

 >>You're insisting on seeing this as a finished "production", it's
 >>not.

 >>It presents itself as unedited raw footage just as it came out
 >>of the camera "warts and all". You can't compare chalk with
 >>cheese.

 >Hi, Neil!

 >I don't think you understand the point, here. Production quality
 >is something that is determined before a shoot, not after, and
 >is not simply a roll of the dice. The technique(s) used to
 >ensure high quality imagery would affect all footage produced,
 >used or unused. If an editor has to exclude footage because of a
 >lack of quality, then the cameraman simply did not do his job
 >correctly.

 >That, of course, is the issue at hand: Was the procedure
 >documented using methods that would ensure the quality that such
 >an event deserved? Considering the vast film record that
 >dictates the military always tried for the best documentation
 >for topics of even lesser importance, then it makes no sense
 >that something as important as AA would have as many "warts" as
 >you so readily accept.

 >In the end, the best footage from AA is of lesser quality than
 >the worst footage out of any other Army documentary that I have
 >ever seen, and I've seen hundreds. Therefore, your assertion
 >that the AA footage looks like it does because it is presented
 >"warts and all" would only be correct _if_ the military had a
 >habit of producing footage, used or unused, with the same kind
 >of "warts" seen in AA. The film record clearly indicates
 >otherwise.

Roger,

You confirm my thoughts that you have not yet grasped(or are
ignoring) my point here.

Working with the only background information we have on the AA,
the cameraman's brief story. It may be hogwash but it's all we
have and has to stand together with what we see in the film it
relates to.

You state above:

"Production quality is something that is determined before a
shoot,"

The cameraman claims he had no idea what he was to film other
than the comment it was "an aircrash", he was also deployed at a
few hours notice, only taking his camera, film would be
available at his destination.

He also claims later that from the crash site he was further
deployed without prior notice to film the autopsies a couple of
days later.

Where was his preparitory/assement time here? he had to shoot
what he found in the conditions he found it with what he had
available, and by the way a couple of period military cameramen
_have_ confirmed color stock at that time was _very_ thin on the
ground.

He appears to have shot what he saw with what was available in
what I have described before as a "fly on the wall" technique.
If these _were_very_ high security "real time" events being
recorded as they happened and requiring the absolute minimum of
contact with other branches of the military (the smaller the
knowledge base the easier to control and trace if a leak
occures), the method used by the "lone camraman" would seem to
me to be a very good choice in the circumstances and conditions
he was tasked to work in.

If you disagree Roger please explain how you would have shot the
footage given one camera, the _same_ materials _and_ conditions,

I would be interested to know?.


 >Regarding such, I wrote:
 >
 >>>Considering the importance of the event it _should_ have been
 >>>shot by a US Army Film Unit! The obvious question is why films
 >>>about cleaning of latrines or lobbing hand grenades ranks above
 >>>the importance given to the single most important event in the
 >>>history of man? The notion that this would have been shot on
 >>>16mm film in black and white under low light by, arguably, the
 >>>worst cameraman the military had to offer is absurd, in my
 >>>opinion.

 >Neil replied:

 >>So multi-camera, 35mm fixed mount color film, you would need the
 >>400 foot magazines, the basic camera's zipped through the 100 ft
 >>of film in aprox 65 seconds. Plus a few extra lights here and
 >>there to cope with the slow film speed, color's not impossible
 >>to tank process but send it to the nearest base with a
 >>continuous process machine, once you get your footage back edit
 >>up the master and run off ????how many copies? get them
 >>processed and distributed to ....who?  and to what ends?

 >>The "lone cameraman" got in the way in the tiny autopsy room,
 >>where would you put your bulky camera mounts for your static
 >>camera's?, no room for those, dab!, where are you going to place
 >>your light stands?

 >>And what about all those extra people you're involving?, this
 >>thing's bigger than the A bomb isn't it?, where's your security
 >>consideration??

 >How interesting that you make that comparison, considering that
 >A bomb footage was shot on 35mm color film and was quite
 >splendid in its quality. If you maintain that AA is bigger than
 >the A bomb, then you've pretty much proved my point.

Far from it Roger, I would have been amazed if the A bomb tests
had _not_ been recorde in such a way, circumstances and
conditions dictated it _should_ be recorded so. The military
knew weeks if not months in advance and to the minute just when
the test would occure. Army film units had all the time they
needed to precure sufficient stock, B+W and color 35mm and 16mm
plus extensive still image coverage.

The significant point being it could all be _pre-planned_.

If the story we are told is true, I don't imagine the US Army
had been informed weeks in advance that an "unknown" would be
dropping out of the sky SW of Soccoro, in these circumstances
you have no time, therefore no opportunity to prepare
beforehand.

 >The issue here is whether or not the camera man, or the doctors
 >for that matter, would have been forced to work under the
 >conditions that the AA footage suggests. To say that 35mm film
 >would have been too slow, the equipment too big for the room, or
 >the film too difficult to process is to "assume" that conditions
 >for such a procedure could not have been altered or improved
 >upon. On the contrary, the historical film record clearly
 >indicates that more care and preparation was exercised on topics
 >of even lesser importance than AA. And, as you so clearly
 >pointed out, AA was bigger than the A bomb, which was shot on
 >35mm color film.

 >As you say, you can't compare chalk with cheese.

Er,just who was in charge of this show?, the cameraman or Army
Command?. The Army would do it just how _they_ wanted it, the
cameraman would be stuck with what he was presented with, like
it or lump it.

 >Or is it your opinion that they absolutely had to use a room
 >that small or that they had to use low light or that a host of
 >other problems simply could not be overcome for a subject more
 >important than the A bomb? Using a larger room and more light
 >would do nothing to compromise security and adding good
 >documentation would do wonders for allowing others to later view
 >the event on a "need to know" basis. If anything, the fewer
 >people that are allowed to view the event first hand, the more
 >vital it is to have the best documentation possible for later
 >viewing.

Assuming the apparent biological hazard was correct and
precautions _were_ seen as being taken, for all we know the room
shown could have been the _only_ suitable/safe place to perform
those proceedures.

 >To maintain that better documentation could not have taken
 >place, based on the imagery seen in the AA footage, puts the
 >cart before the horse, in terms of validity. You can't accept
 >the conditions displayed as correct unless you've already
 >accepted the AA film as authentic. If, on the other hand, you
 >look at the larger picture, then it is obvious that the
 >conditions displayed simply don't make sense when compared to
 >the past film record of the military regarding documentation of
 >even the most mundane of topics. AA certainly was not mundane.

I think I have looked at "the larger picture" of the alleged
circumstances in which the footage was shot, going over it again
as above I don't see a problem in accepting the information as
given, additionally when many elements _are_ supported by
military cameramen of the period.

 >Regarding such, I had written:
 >>>>>>Check out
 >>>>>any at your local library and you will find _no_ walk around,
 >>>>>"shaky-cam shots" or the like. In addition, most were shot in
 >>>>>35mm, not 16mm (though they were usually released on 16mm).

 >Neil replied:

 >>Not so... this from a former Air Force cameraman.

 >>"My basic assumption here is the the original film was, in
 >>fact, 16mm and not 35mm. The US military used 35mm movie
 >>cameras throughout WWII and Korea, although 16mm was more
 >>common. The issue 35mm hand-held motion picture camera was a
 >>militarized version of the Bell & Howell "Eyemo", a spring or
 >>electrically driven camera with a 100 foot capacity. The Eyemo
 >>dates back to at least the early 1930s, 16mm and 8mm cameras
 >>were derived from the same basic chassis: the 70-series 16mm
 >>(I don't know the 8mm model series [the filmo 8]). 100 feet of
 >>35mm film runs about 1 minute, 5 seconds at 24 frames per
 >>second, so any shots in the Roswell film longer than this mean
 >>it had to be 16mm, or if 35mm, then the camera was equipped
 >>with both an electric drive motor and the accessory 400 foot
 >>magazine."

 >For the record, AA looks like 16mm film to me, too. That said,
 >however, the issue is whether or not it _should_ have been shot
 >in 16mm and this guy says nothing that supports that idea. He
 >merely says that it looks like 16mm to him, as well. More to the
 >point, he clearly indicates that 35mm cameras were commonly
 >handed out for military use! Again, this merely supports my
 >point that 35mm was the preferred format of choice.

 >Therefore, the question would be,"If 16mm were good enough, why
 >hand out 35mm cameras, at all?" The obvious reason is that some
 >events dictated a higher quality image than others. If not, then
 >no 35mm cameras would have been handed out in the first place. I
 >would think that dissection of a creature from outer space would
 >rank pretty high, in terms of qualifying for 35mm and better
 >lighting and better preparation, etc. Even if you wanted to
 >accept the single cameraman limitation, the obvious question is
 >why he shot on 16mm when, according to your own information,
 >35mm cameras were commonly available. The issue of color aside,
 >even 35mm black and white would have been a vast improvement
 >than the 16mm AA footage.

I'm not arguing the points here, but I accept the cameraman had
his own 16mm camera and was therefore shooting 16mm film, IMO he
shot high speed B+W because the conditions and circumstances he
found dictated this, further he had _no_ control or detailed
prior warning over the location, circumstances and proceedures
he was expected to record. Frankly, as I have asked above Roger,
if you were dropped in the same position presented with the same
equipment and conditions as that of the alleged cameraman how
would you have recorded events?. Remember you're on your own,
you have no say in matters, your job is just to record the
events as they happen, when they happen.

As I've said, in these circumstances the "fly on the wall"
technique used in the autopsy footage to me, seems the best way
out of a bad job. If and when you ever bother to view the
"debris footage", you might note that this is _not_ the
technique our cameraman uses here. Though still apparently hand
held, that footage is far more "controlled" with "staged" shots
of the beams panels etc.

Different set of circumstances, different film technique used.

 >Continuing, I wrote:

 >>>Frankly, Neil, this is all academic. To claim that the cameraman
 >>>did pretty good "considering the conditions he was forced to
 >>>work in" requires one to accept, in advance, that such
 >>>conditions would likely be in effect for something so important.

 >Neil replied:

 >>You're ducking the issue here, these basic location factors are
 >>vital in determining just how and with what the subject was
 >>filmed.

 >With all due respect, Neil, you are the one ducking the issue.

 >The issue here is whether such conditions would exist, in the
 >first place, for something so important. Just because you "see"
 >that it was shot on 16mm doesn't mean a thing. We also see an
 >alien and we see doctors and we see a small room and we also see
 >low light that resulted in push processing. Just because we
 >"see" these things does not validate them since, like everything
 >else in AA, they could have been faked. In short, you have no
 >evidence that the conditions seen in AA are valid any more than
 >you know if the alien displayed is real. All you have is the
 >unverified statement of a non-existant cameraman.

Correct, the AA could very well be an extreamly well planned
hoax or disinformation "drop", we have no 100% cast iron proof
of anything. But to date _all_ the contra indicators(not
opinions) placed against the AA have come to nought and I
include here Theresa Carlson's excellent work with blood spots
and smears which I believe I can now demonstrate were in error.

 >In a related post, Neil wrote:

 >>_If_ you had looked at (2) thro (5) of the above you would have
 >>known that (3) was also shot apparently outdoors in a tent, you
 >>can see the canvas walls of the tent "breath" in and out with
 >>what seems to be a light breeze.

 >>I suggest you do some homework and take up Ed's offer of my
 >>CD's, all is there except for Autopsy 1, we might then have some
 >>constructive debate.

 >We might have some constructive debate if you weren't
 >predisposed to believing (without any proof, I might add) that
 >the conditions presented in AA were real. It matters not whether
 >parts of AA take place in a tent or a tiny room; to selectively
 >accept a part of the AA video as real while maintaining that
 >other parts are still unproven makes absolutely no sense, at
 >all. They are all woven from the same material. Accept one part
 >and you must accept them all. Reject one, and the others must
 >follow. You really can't have it both ways, Neil.

 >Now, I have presented my evidence that there is no pattern of
 >the military producing footage as bad as AA in the standard
 >course of documenting topics of any level of importance. Just
 >"seeing" the conditions in the AA footage validates nothing.
 >This issue is whether the conditions are real. Just what
 >evidence has convinced you that the conditions seen in AA are
 >"real" or even logical, considering the magnitude of the event
 >in question?

We are both arguing on shaky ground here, I see clearly your
point of view and accept it, but do not think it applies to the
AA if taken as a whole along with the associated testimony of
the cameraman BUT that's where my premis gets shaky, for how
much do we trust the cameraman's story?.

As for more "formaly" documenting these alleged visitors, if the
cameraman is to be believed, they also had a live walking
(talking?) subject to film as much as they liked, in color and
under controlled conditions for the following 2 years.

Niether you nor I could ever claim victory in this argument
unless an outside element linking the AA footage to a known
historical document presented itself, thats just what might now
have happened, take up Ed's free offer and get that copy of
Flatlands #17.


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


*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 06:50:18 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:42:08 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:55:53 -0800
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:53:01 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >Ed, I could look at AA another 100 times. It won't make the
 >discrepancies between it and real military footage any less
 >glaring.

Ed replied:

 >I doubt whether you've looked at it at all, at least not the
 >Santilli video or the debris. And I know you haven't looked at
 >it very closely.

Hi, Ed.

Well! _That's_ a very scientific argument! Anyone that doesn't
agree with you automatically hasn't looked at AA "close enough"
or hasn't done enough research? Pretty presumptuous of you, Ed.
You have no idea how many times those that disagree with you
have looked at AA. But then, I guess that doesn't matter.
However many times the opposition has looked at it, you've
looked at it more, right? Childish one-upmanship.

Regarding such, Ed wrote:

 >Do you have the Fox version? Why do you refuse
 >to look at the evidence we've gathered? You have a chance to get
 >a free set of AA CDs (and a Flatland).

Let me _try_ and explain the problem with the way you are
approaching this, Ed. Let's say that you stumble across an old
film of a magician doing tricks. Now, you feel that they look
like real magic, as opposed to clever illusions designed to fool
an unsuspecting audience. However, others have looked at the
same footage and see the suspect signs of fakery by the
magician. But you say, "Wait! Look at it again!" or "Wait! I got
some more footage of the same guy doing the same kind of
tricks!"

More to the point, the magician has been called a fraud publicly
and refuses to defend his "magic" by proving there are no wires
or any cards up his sleeve, despite the fact that it would
validate his claims of magical powers. Instead, he ducks the
issue and relies on his fans that simply watch the magic tricks
over and over and over again, calling it "research" and all the
while offering up a defense that the magician, himself, refuses
to participate in.

Obviously, the problem is that repeated viewing or additional
footage doesn't make the signs of fakery go away. A bad trick is
a bad trick. Just how much research is necessary about a trick
that is so bad that even the magician won't defend it?

Now if you could get Santilli to offer up the proof that only he
has, I will consider you to have the best Kung Fu of all known
magicians, Ed. However, instead of insisting your magician come
clean, you simply accept the tricks on display at face value.

Regarding such, I wrote:

 >>Until then, I'm afraid there's really nothing more for you and
 >>me to talk about. You've already made up your mind that AA is
 >>real

Ed replied:

 >Yes I have! You're absolutely correct.
 >
 >I've believed the AA was real since I first viewed the uncut
 >Santilli video, which I purchased soon after it came out. I've
 >been gathering evidence ever since but it wasn't until I started
 >working with Neil that I felt we had a chance to prove the AA's
 >legitimacy once and for all.

Unless you are comparing AA to other military documentary
footage from that time period, then you are simply using one bad
trick to validate another bad trick. If you like bad magic
tricks, that's fine. But comparing them to real magic is like
comparing Star Trek to real science. Watching the episodes over
and over again won't make them real.

Finally, you asked:

 >Why not take a fresh look at the new AA CDs and read the Fatland
 >articles before you judge the competence of the cameraman or
 >whether he was telling the truth. If the AA is a hoax, you
 >should be able to find your own smoking gun to prove your
 >contentions.

See above, Ed. Comparing AA footage to itself is not the same thing as
research.

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                         Re: Joseph Smith - Haggard

From: Michael Haggard <mikeh@cybertrails.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:10:03 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:44:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Haggard


 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:20:51 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: More Pre-1947 Cases

 ><snip>

 >I have often wondered why the written testimony of Joseph
 >Smith (the founder of the Mormon religion/church) is never
 >considered to be a 'contact' report by modern ufologists.

The problem is that he is an unreliable witness. On (I believe)
three occasions (perhaps more) the state of New York tried and
convicted him of confidence fraud for creating false religion
using Masonic ritual and "divined" information. In each case he
plead guilty or was found guilty of milking money from the
masses.

The possibility that the Mormon faith started from another of
these stories and that this one just somehow "took" is too great
a likelihood. The success of the Mormon church depends less on
Smith's work as it does on the 1700 years of history before it.

The "real" Mormon church centered in Missouri (the Supreme Court
of the United States ruled years ago that the Salt Lake City
branch of Mormonism is a faction or a cult splinter) decided
years ago to de-emphasize the Book of Mormon and Smith's role
and to re-emphasize the Bible. All because of the of Smith's
dubious criminal record as it relates to his story.

The Haggard







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                        Re: AA Film Redux - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 26 Jan 2001 06:21:05 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:47:40 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Hamilton


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans
 >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:55:53 -0800

 >>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:53:01 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Ed, I could look at AA another 100 times.

 >Roger,

 >I doubt whether you've looked at it at all, at least not the
 >Santilli video or the debris. And I know you haven't looked at
 >it very closely. Do you have the Fox version? Why do you refuse
 >to look at the evidence we've gathered? You have a chance to get
 >a free set of AA CDs (and a Flatland). Roger, come on partner!
 >We think we have the smoking gun! All folks have to do is read
 >what we have to say and study the evidence we've collected and I
 >think everyone will come away with a different appreciation for
 >the footage, and the Ft. Worth photos, and what they represent.

 >>Until then, I'm afraid there's really nothing more for you and
 >>me to talk about. You've already made up your mind that AA is
 >>real

 >Yes I have! You're absolutely correct.

 >I've believed the AA was real since I first viewed the uncut
 >Santilli video, which I purchased soon after it came out. I've
 >been gathering evidence ever since but it wasn't until I started
 >working with Neil that I felt we had a chance to prove the AA's
 >legitimacy once and for all.

 >>and you refuse to see the discrepancies between the AA
 >>footage and real military footage for what it implies.

 >I see and understand your arguments but no, I don't think it
 >implies what you seem to think it implies.

 >Why not take a fresh look at the new AA CDs and read the Fatland
 >articles before you judge the competence of the cameraman or
 >whether he was telling the truth. If the AA is a hoax, you
 >should be able to find your own smoking gun to prove your
 >contentions.

 >>I think this thread is dead, as far as our conversation goes.

 >That's fine with me but I hope you don't think that this kills
 >the thread. We haven't had a chance to present our evidence. Do
 >you mind if we continue on without you? Ed


Ok, I'll put in a vote to view the evidence. It seems like the
decision on the AA film is "case closed". Isn't that what the
Air Force official statement says about the Roswell incident?
Maybe we should keep the door open a crack and see what else is
turning up.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:32:49 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:52:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:54:17 -0000

 >Regarding:

 >>From: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: <02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers :>
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing
 >>Date: 22 January 2001 19:48

 >Jan wrote:

 >>If you have a balloon, then the most important thing about
 >>ballooning is not a thumbnail sketch about Raven Industries or
 >>CIA special projects.  There are two factors in addition to lift
 >>which will tell one about the flight of a balloon, wind speed
 >>and direction. Do you find any such consideration in Robinson
 >>site?

 >Jan,

 >As I did explain, Larry contributed considerably more
 >information during lengthy discussions on the 'UFO Research
 >List' [UFORL].

 >Would you agree that you are not aware of the content from these
 >discussions at all?

<snip>

Dumping station for James Easton.

This posting doesn't make any sense Errol. It doesn't seem to
respond to anyone. There are posting protocols and Easton should
be abiding by them the same as everyone else - or dump him. Why
let him get away with this. He's using this List to promote only
his own theory without replying to hard questions but
contributing only silliness. He knows his theory is nonesense
yet continues with such claims as that he has photos on a
website to show that the Air Force used small pilots. So what?

It's time to nip this guy in the bud.

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:42:58 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:54:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Young


 >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:15:52 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Joseph Smith [was: More Pre-1947 Cases]
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:20:51 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: More Pre-1947 Cases

<snip>

 >>I have often wondered why the written testimony of Joseph
 >>Smith (the founder of the Mormon religion/church) is never
 >>considered to be a 'contact' report by modern ufologists.

 >Actually, I have always found the Joseph Smith story to be a
 >very interesting encounter case.

<snip>

 >1820: Joseph Smith

<snip>

 >Moments later,

 > ...a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness
 >of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.


Hi, Chris and John:

This vision was probably of a superior Sun pillar, reflection of
sunlight from ice crystals in cirrus clouds, just like those I
can see out of my window right now.

 >The next thing he knew, "I saw two Personages, whose brightness
 >and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air."

Probably Sun Dogs, or parhelia, the most likely spot for them
would be near the 22 degree halo around the Sun. These are also
caused by ice crystals in cirrus, even on a summer day.

<snip>

 >It is not my intention to detract from the deeply-rooted beliefs
 >of the Mormons by treating Smith’s encounter as 'just another
 >UFO story'

Nor is it mine.

 >From this text he produced the enigmatic Book of Mormon, the
 >alleged secret history of the inhabitants of the Americas from
 >2200 BC to AD421 and their connection with the Old World and
 >with Jesus Christ. The document comprises 275,000 words, which
 >includes lengthy quotes from the Old Testament.

 >It was published in book-form in 1830, but by 1834 there were
 >already claims that Smith had plagiarized a large section of
 >another book, View of the Hebrews; or, The Tribes of Israel in
 >America, written by Ethan Smith in 1823.

 >Leaving aside the book’s controversial contents, Smith published
 >some even more startling claims about God himself. According to
 >Mormon doctrine, we are not alone in the galaxy. The universe is
 >teeming with living beings, which live on different planets.
 >God, we learn, lives near a star called Kolob (Abraham 3:1-3)
 >and is a physical being with a flesh-and-blood body (Doctrines
 >and Covenants 130:22). These were not the kind of 'facts'
 >welcomed by American fundamentalists at the time, and are not
 >easily swallowed by Christians anywhere. They are certainly
 >astonishing ideas for any illiterate, early nineteenth-century
 >teenager to come up with alone.

Oh, come on. If he was illiterate, how could he write a 275,000
word book, or include lengthy quotes from the Old Testament?
This probably was just ginned up to defend him from the charge
of pliagarism.

<snip>

 >When one page of the transcription of the book was shown to
 >scholars, the general consensus was that the hieroglyphic
 >characters engraved there were likely to be false. Smith called
 >them "reformed" Egyptian characters, a term which is more or
 >less meaningless. Meanwhile, archaeologists outside the
 >Church generally refrain from taking the Mormon version of
 >America's prehistory seriously. Neither, it must be said, do
 >they go out of their way to mock it.

Of course not, it's religion, not science. Are you suggesting
that these claims are secretly supported by any archeologist who
does not mock them?

With all due respect, Chris, are you a member of the Church of
Latter Day Saints?


Clear skies,

Bob Young








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                         Re: Joseph Smith - Blanton

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:00:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:18:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Blanton


 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:15:52 -0800 (PST)
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

<snip>

 >I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to
 >increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when
 >immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the
 >air, for his feet did not touch the floor.

This description of the apparition is amazingly similar to that
of another Joe -- Joe Firmage. Wasn't Firmage a Mormon at one
time?

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                Re: Exopolitics: The Non-Terrestrial Politics

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:18:56 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:21:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Exopolitics: The Non-Terrestrial Politics


 >From: Alfred Webre <editor@universebooks.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:03:20 -0800
 >Subject: Exopolitics: The "Non-Terrestrial Politics Website

I though that all politics was local. After all, King Ming of
the planet Mongo doesn't allow dissent. Remember what happened
to the Clay Men?


Clear skies,

Bob Young






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                        Re: Secrecy News -- 01/26/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:22:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:23:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Secrecy News -- 01/26/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
January 26, 2001

**      PENTAGON POLYGRAPH REPORT RELEASED
**      PENTAGON BLOCKS DECLASSIFICATION OF STOCKPILE INFO
**      HOWARD MORLAND ON NUCLEAR SECRECY
**      AND MORE


PENTAGON POLYGRAPH REPORT RELEASED

The Department of Defense released its annual report to Congress
on the counterintelligence polygraph program this week.  The
report provides a summary of Pentagon polygraph activity, a
description of ongoing research efforts on the fragile
scientific underpinnings of the polygraph, and a new collection
of anecdotes in which the polygraph saved the day.

The new report is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/dod-2000.html

At his recent confirmation hearing, Energy Secretary Spencer
Abraham said in response to a question that he would reevaluate
the requirement for many thousands of additional polygraph tests
for DOE employees and contractors at the national labs.  Since
this requirement was imposed by Congress, however, it is hardly
within Secretary Abraham's power to modify it.  Meanwhile, the
National Academy of Sciences begins its $860,000 study of the
polygraph with a public meeting today.


PENTAGON BLOCKS DECLASSIFICATION OF STOCKPILE INFO

The Defense Department officially aborted an Energy Department
initiative to declassify information concerning total number of
nuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile.

As previously reported, General Eugene E. Habiger of the
Department of Energy wrote to the Pentagon last May calling for
"declassification of total nuclear weapon stockpile quantities
(past, present, and future) and subcategorization of those
quantities by purpose, delivery system, and active/inactive
status, but not by location, or specific weapon type."  (SN,
01/04/01).

But in a newly obtained December 20, 2000 letter, Assistant
Secretary of Defense Arthur L. Money wrote to General Habiger
rejecting his proposal.  "The DoD believes the current
classification policy is still valid and does not agree with
declassifying this information."

Mr. Money explained further: "The proposed declassification ...
could provide significant information on stockpile
modernization, international treaty compliance and negotiation
positions.  Such stockpile information is directly relevant to
the reconstitution of nuclear forces."

Since DoD concurrence is required under the Atomic Energy Act
for declassification of this information, DOE is unable to
proceed unilaterally.

A copy of the December 20 letter from Assistant Secretary Money
is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/moneylet.html

General Habiger recently left government to join a new arms
control organization funded by Ted Turner and directed by former
Senator Sam Nunn.


HOWARD MORLAND ON NUCLEAR SECRECY

Howard Morland is the author of the infamous 1979 Progressive
magazine article on "The H-bomb secret." Based on interviews and
a review of the unclassified literature, he described in broad
conceptual terms and with some errors how an H-bomb works. It
drove the government crazy. Arguing that the article contained
classified information, Justice Department lawyers won an
unprecedented preliminary injunction barring its publication.
(FAS, incidentally, opposed publication of the article.)  The
government eventually dropped the case against The Progressive
and the article was published in the magazine's November 1979
issue.

In a newly updated retrospective on that landmark case, Morland
reflects on nuclear secrecy, speculates on what might have been
contained in the hundreds of megabytes downloaded by Wen Ho Lee,
and expounds on his view of the urgency of nuclear abolition.
See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/morland.html


AND MORE

**     A new security classification guide for the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization is still "in coordination" and will
probably not be finalized until March or April, said BMDO
spokesman Lt. Col. Rick Lehner.  However, he said that the dates
of interceptor flight tests would NOT be classified.  The
proposed classification of flight test dates was one of several
issues that had elicited public concern.  (See SN, 11/15/00).

**     Pope John Paul II will appoint 37 new cardinals in a
ceremony on February 21 including Avery Dulles, a staunchly
conservative Jesuit theologian and professor at Fordham
University.  Rev. Dulles, 82, is the son of President
Eisenhower's Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and nephew of
the onetime Director of Central Intelligence Allen W. Dulles.
Mazel tov.

**     President Clinton's unexpected pardon of Samuel Loring
Morison should help make it incrementally more difficult for the
government to prosecute those who disclose classified
information to the press.  Morison was an employee of the Naval
Intelligence Support Center who leaked classified satellite
photos of a Soviet aircraft carrier to Jane's Defence Weekly.
In 1984 he was sentenced to two years in prison, the only person
ever convicted under the Espionage Act for such an offense.  The
case set a unique and terrible precedent, but President
Clinton's pardon should tend to reduce its precedential power.
Morison said that he had applied for a pardon two years ago and
that his case had been strengthened by influential supporters,
including historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., who wrote to
President Clinton on his behalf.


******************************

To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message: subscribe
secrecy_news [your email address]

To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message: unsubscribe secrecy_news
[your email address]

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

___________________

Steven Aftergood

Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 26

                 Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter -

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:17:19 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:24:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter -


 >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:12:02 -0500
 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter

 >>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:22:54 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter

 >>>Source: Jeff Rense's sightings.com
 >>>By Santiago Yturria
 >>>1-24-01

 >>I want to thank Jeff for posting this account. Having once been
 >>a researcher in the field of atmospheric sciences, the Oz
 >>effect, which occurred during this encounter, intrigues me. And
 >>especially when the wind suddenly ceases and it stays calm
 >>during the rest of the encounter. Where have we heard of that
 >>before!! Obviously, this phenomenon defies the laws of physics
 >>as we know them, as do UFOs.

 >>It would be great if whomever this happens to next time should have the
 >>presence of mind to check on a few things. Can they see any evidence of
 >>wind in thet distance, as in moving dust picked up by wind, cloud motions,
 >>distant tree tops moving? (Unfortunately, when it occurs at night, these
 >>things may be unobservable.) Can you feel yourself inhale and exhale -- the
 >>exhalation being a local "wind"? Evidently so, if the people involved can
 >>still talk and hear each other. Can you throw a rock a distance onto the
 >>roadway and hear it when it hits? These are questions trying to get at how
 >>great a distance away the Oz effect typically extends. If those involved
 >>see no other cars around for quite a while, when they're otherwise to be
 >>expected, it implies the Oz umbrella covers a large distance.

 >Hi Jim and all you lovely UFO people!

 >Now, I have often heard the term 'Oz effect' and have a general
 >idea on what it means but would love it if someone here (perhaps
 >Jim!) could elaborate for me. Is it sort of like Jenny Randles
 >time storms? Errol, if this is too vague a question - sorry!


Hi Kelly,

Yes, it's been hypothesized that the aliens can thrust their
abductees and surroundings into a different time continuum, to
produce this effect of no noises, no wind, etc. But we have
little idea how large an area of space they can affect in this
manner, if we can then think of space & time still being linked.
I think it was Jenny Randles who coined the term "Oz" for this
effect.


Jim








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:23:20 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:38:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Sparks


 >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:15:52 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Joseph Smith
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Leaving aside the book�s controversial contents, Smith published
 >some even more startling claims about God himself. According to
 >Mormon doctrine, we are not alone in the galaxy. The universe is
 >teeming with living beings, which live on different planets.
 >God, we learn, lives near a star called Kolob (Abraham 3:1-3)
 >and is a physical being with a flesh-and-blood body (Doctrines
 >and Covenants 130:22). These were not the kind of 'facts'
 >welcomed by American fundamentalists at the time, and are not
 >easily swallowed by Christians anywhere. They are certainly
 >astonishing ideas for any illiterate, early nineteenth-century
 >teenager to come up with alone.


Hi Chris,

Apparently the "plurality of worlds" (life elsewhere) notion was
quite popular in the 16th through 19th centuries and was
considered orthodox Christian doctrine. Kepler apparently
believed in lunar inhabitants. One of the earliest popular
treatments was Fontenelle's Conversations on the Plurality of
Worlds, 1686 (Engl. transl. A Discovery of New Worlds, 1688).
There have been scholarly books written that document the
history of this thought, such as those by Michael Crowe and
Steven Dick.

Joseph Smith's ideas were not as "astonishingly" advanced as
they might seem, because he believed there were human
inhabitants _on_ the Sun and other stars, _on_ the alleged star
Kolob, not near it, as well as Quaker-style men and women living
on the Moon. Very quaint. Recent Mormon doctrine considers the
Earth itself a "living thing."

Here are some direct quotes out of official Mormon church
documents:


  "Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that
  shines of an evening, called the moon? ... when you inquire
  about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most
  learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant
  of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of
  the sun [<--NOTE]. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think
  it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it;
  it was not made in vain." - Brigham Young (2nd Mormon Prophet),
  July 24, 1870, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 271 a-b.

  "As far back as 1837, I know that he [Joseph Smith] said the
  moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and
  that they lived to a greater age than we do - that they live
  generally to near the age of a 1000 years. He described the men
  as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite
  uniformly in something near the Quaker style." - Oliver B.
  Huntington, Feb. 6, 1892, Young Woman�s Journal, vol. 3,
  p. 263 b.

  "This earth or planet which we inhabit ... itself is subject to
  certain laws of progression and salvation because of which it
  eventually will become a fit abode for exalted beings. This
  earth was created as a living thing [<--NOTE], and the Lord
  ordained that it should live a celestial law." - Bruce McConkie
  (Mormon Apostle), Mormon Doctrine (1966) p. 210 a-b.


Regards,

Brad








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                    Editor Wanted For UFO + PSI Magazine

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:45:27 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:41:37 -0500
Subject: Editor Wanted For UFO + PSI Magazine


The following message was received from Chris who ran the
UFO + PSI Magazine. If anyone thinks they can help with the
magazine they can contact Chris at the e-mail address below.

Thanks,

John Hayes


=========


Hello all,

This is again not my usual monthly mail but a mail with very bad
news because I have to inform you about the end of the magazine.
I�m very sorry but the "UFO + PSI Research Magazine" has to
cease publication and there will be no Issue No 16.

I know that I promised such an issue for February 10 but - to be
honest - I haven�t even started to write articles yet. It�s not
that I have lost my interest in the UFO topic (far from it) but
it�s simply so that I still haven�t enough time and that I don�t
want to make the magazine in a hurry and thus in low quality. It
was so much easier last year but now I have many other things to
do and many new responsibilities in my life and some of these
things seem more important to me than the magazine.

When I apologized for delays or mistakes in former issues,
people often asked me "Why do you apologize? Why are you always
worried? It hasn�t to be perfect because it�s for free" but I
always wanted the magazine to be perfect, to be very good and to
keep the right balance between belief and scepticism. I feel
that I have no longer enough time to concentrate deeply enough
on my UFO research work to guarantee such a good quality and
that�s the main reason why I decided to cease publication and -
believe me - it wasn�t an easy decision. There is a saying that
you should stop with something when it is at its best and to
stop with it before the quality starts to decrease and that�s
exactly what I�m doing now and I hope it�s the right decision.

We had 15 great issues in the last months and when I look back
at the humble beginning with Issue No 1 in July 1999 I realize
that I had never expected such a success with the magazine, that
I had never expected so many issues, so many readers and so many
very good and insightful articles about very important topics
like UFOs in our Biblical past and much more. I wanted to reach
as many people as possible and show them some of my thoughts
concerning the UFO topic plus lots of other information and
stuff and I think I really have accomplished this in the last 15
issues. The magazine was certainly not important but I�m glad if
it has brought some new thoughts and ideas to you.

Thank you very much to all readers, especially to all people who
read the magazine from the very beginning on and special thanks
to all contributors and to all people who did the very difficult
task of proof-reading my articles. You helped me in the past to
keep the magazine alive for such a long time. Nearly all past
issues will remain in the online archive on
http://www.ufoinfo.com/ufopsi/ (thanks to John Hayes for keeping
the archive even without additions) so you can read them there
whenever you want. Feel also free to use all of my articles if
you need them, there is no copyright on them.

(NOTE: The use of articles applies to those written by Chris.
Other articles might have copyright restrictions)

A very important request: If there is someone who wants to
continue the online magazine as its new editor he or she should
contact me. I would be able to assist you a little bit but I
think I�m no longer able to be the only editor and to do nearly
everything alone. Maybe I will continue with the magazine
someday but certainly not in the next months because I will be
too busy with many other things.

A final recommendation: if you like to read a very good UFO
newsletter with interesting articles I can recommend you the
excellent IRAAP newsletter. Please visit the website
http://www.iraap.org for more information. Some of my former
articles were published there and - who knows - if I have a good
idea and enough time to write an article I will maybe contribute
it to this newsletter so you can continue to read material by me
there (well, at least if the editor thinks my material is good
enough.)

I hope to keep in touch with most of you. I had a great time as
editor of the "UFO + PSI Research Magazine" and I will really
miss it but on the other hand I feel that I have accomplished
far more than I had expected. Whatever, the final truth is still
out there (to use a phrase from TV.)


Best wishes,

Chris

E-Mail: ufo298@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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

               Re: Alien Autopsy Archive Updated - Zeigermann

From: Ralf Zeigermann <kag15@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 23:11:40 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:43:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Archive Updated - Zeigermann


Hello all,

 >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:19:36 +0000
 >From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Alien Autopsy Archive Updated

 >Please be aware that our 'Alien Autopsy Archive' has now been
 >up-dated on our web site. It can be located at:

 >www.beyondroswell.com

 >I trust you will find it of some interest.

Hi Philip, All,

Ahh...Phil - I can't find them! That website's a mess!

Where are those updates then? Or shall I send Mad Frankie Fraser
to find them?


ROFL,

Ralf

----------------------------------------------------
Ralf's 3D-Site
Infos about the German SF series 'Raumpatrouille',
a Bryce-Gallery, models to download and more!

http://www.kag15.dial.pipex.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:58:10 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:46:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:28:11 EST
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:31:33 +0000
 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:10:21 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:06:19 +0000
 >>>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?

<snip>

 >>>Skeptics and debunkers are afraid of science, math and logic, as
 >>>I've found in trying to get responses from Easton, Ridpath and
 >>>Jenny Randles to simple facts of magnetic compass directions,
 >>>terrain visibility and mapping in the Rendlesham case for the
 >>>past several months since Aug 2000 (Jenny qualifies as more of a
 >>>skeptic on Rendlesham). A lot of believers are too, but this is
 >>>more surprising about the skeptics because they always claim to
 >>>represent the voice of hard science, solid fact, irrefutable
 >>>logic.

 >>>A long time ago on Easton's list I brought up the question of
 >>>size and volume of the Zamora UFO versus any possible hot-air
 >>>balloon. The response was basically that there were exotic mixed
 >>>types of hot-air balloons under development then, etc. etc., but
 >>>without any calculation of size and volume to see if it was
 >>>possible within the framework of Zamora's observations. Observer
 >>>error in making size estimates are a source of great difficulty
 >>>in UFO investigations so I was willing to grant that Zamora's
 >>>non-quantitative "car" size estimate maybe was in error.

 >>>However, someone pointed out that there was a framework of
 >>>mesquite bushes that limit the maximum possible size of Zamora's
 >>>landed UFO. I don't recall who posted this and I don't think a
 >>>specific size was given, but if someone on this List knows about
 >>>this please post the data.

 >>After going over the sighting again I noted the depressions in
 >>the ground which I had for gotten. One might ask themselves how
 >>a lighter than air balloon could leave depressions - widely
 >>spaced - in the ground. Balloons are normally anchored to the
 >>ground, straining to drift aloft, not pressing firmly against
 >>the Earth. They have no weight, that's why they float.

 >>You're right, it seems that Easton hasn't even applied basic
 >>science in this case.

 >>Notice also the absence of a response.>

 >Another factor that bothers me is how could two pilots get off a
 >hot-air balloon without the balloon instantly shooting up into
 >the air once 200+ pounds lighter (even assuming jockey-sized
 >pilots), if there was no anchor on the ground to attach. If the
 >balloon was so seriously lacking in lift, by 200+ pounds, so
 >that two pilots could get off without the balloon shooting up,
 >then it would have taken a very long time to reheat and
 >re-inflate the balloon so that it could lift off with the two
 >men aboard. How could that be done in the short period of time
 >from Zamora seeing the "figures" and the object's blastoff?

 >The hot-air balloon theory _superficially_ seems plausible but
 >breaks down in the details of the sighting and basic physics.
 >Most skeptical explanations seem to have that problem.


Hi Brad,

They fixate on one detail to the exclusion of all others.
Easton's latest was the fact that USAF was recuiting and
training shorter pilots for a time back then - presumably to fit
in smaller aircraft. He's got a picture on his website to prove
it?

That's a misinterpretation of the requirements for awhile that
limited the height of the pilots for certain jets because of the
ejection seat clearances. So now the little guys/girls that
Zamora saw were midget pilots flying one of the 2,000 types
experimental aircraft the USAF et al must have been constructing
to explain all of these UFO sightings that weren't Venus, swamp
gas, peligans, Venus, hot-air balloons, weather balloon, Venus,
German made rockets, Soviet aircraft, Mars, Jupiter or Venus.

Since Easton won't respond to any of our queries and
explanations [note that he only submits his posts to the updates
site] I guess he's admitting-tacitly- that he was in error on
this one.

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                        Re: Joseph Smith - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:35:43 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:18:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Deardorff


 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:22:45 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:15:52 -0800 (PST)
 >>From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Joseph Smith [was: More Pre-1947 Cases]
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:20:51 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: More Pre-1947 Cases

 >><snip>

 >>>I have often wondered why the written testimony of Joseph
 >>>Smith (the founder of the Mormon religion/church) is never
 >>>considered to be a 'contact' report by modern ufologists.

 >>Hi John,

 >>Actually, I have always found the Joseph Smith story to be a
 >>very interesting encounter case. A few years ago I wrote the
 >>following, which I always mean to update with the results of my
 >>recent research into UFO incidents of the same period. For many
 >>ufologists this may be very common ground already, but for the
 >>record here it is:

 ><snip>

 >>Chris Aubeck

 >Hi Chris, Edoardo, All,

 >Thanx for posting that piece from the intro to the Book of
 >Mormon Chris. It is this following paragraph that'll grab
 >you right by the ya-ya's if you are at all familiar with the
 >details (events and sequence of events) of many modern
 >abduction reports.

 >>I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to
 >>increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when
 >>immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in
 >>the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.

 >It is a "classic" abduction related report in every detail. I
 >myself could have written that report. I can't begin to tell you
 >how many letters I've gotten over the years that relate
 >-identical- kinds of experiences from people scattered all over
 >the globe. (And in the same 'sequence.')

 >There is _no_difference_ between the content of Joseph Smith's
 >'report' and that of many modern abductees. For the sake of
 >discussion (leaving all arguments for or agin the reality of
 >alien abduction behind for a moment) the clear implication is;
 >that "abductions" (as they are being reported by so many people
 >today) have been going on for a very_long_time.

Hi John,

I'd place this one more in the contactee camp than the abduction
camp. Smith wasn't abducted, I take it, and didn't have to
undergo any "medical" exam. He was wowed by the aliens, and
pestered repeatedly to do what they wanted, but not actually
coerced, as I read it.

 >Extrapolate the example of Joseph Smith and Mormonism back into
 >time and it is just a hop, skip, and a jump, to the accounts of
 >all the strange phenomena surrounding the founders of other
 >major religions. Jesus in particular. The Jesus story is _rife_
 >with 'UFO' and 'abduction' related references. Beginning with
 >the glowing "Angel" that visited Mary in the middle of the night
 >(whose visit resulted in her "virgin" impregnation) to the
 >"star" that the Oriental Wise men followed to Jesus' birth
 >place. To anyone familiar with ufology circa 2001, it all reads
 >like a pretty much run of the mill "UFO" and "alien
 >contact/abduction" report.

Agreed, though even here it's much more on the contact side, I'd
say, than the abduction side. We don't know how Mary was
impregnated; it may even have been through some high tech alien
means (immaculate), and the pregnancy was allowed to go to full
term, quite purposely, evidently, unlike most alien-abduction
impregnations we know about. Also, there's no indication that
Mary was ever abducted later, though she did have the later
contact at the tomb. It seems to me that Mary and Joseph were
mainly short-term contactees, along with the magi, with Jesus
himself later being a long-term contactee.


Jim









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                                Idaho MUFON?

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:07:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:21:08 -0500
Subject: Idaho MUFON?

Errol & List,

I'm looking for a contact number for Ike Bishop, the Idaho State
Director for MUFON as a favour for an acquaintance.  Can anyone
help?


Thanks,

Michel







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:59:22 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:26:21 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:30:37 +0000
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:04:06 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:29:01 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:36:28 -0600
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -

Previously, I had written:

 >>I don't think you understand the point, here. Production quality
 >>is something that is determined before a shoot, not after, and
 >>is not simply a roll of the dice. The technique(s) used to
 >>ensure high quality imagery would affect all footage produced,
 >>used or unused. If an editor has to exclude footage because of a
 >>lack of quality, then the cameraman simply did not do his job
 >>correctly.

 >>That, of course, is the issue at hand: Was the procedure
 >>documented using methods that would ensure the quality that such
 >>an event deserved? Considering the vast film record that
 >>dictates the military always tried for the best documentation
 >>for topics of even lesser importance, then it makes no sense
 >>that something as important as AA would have as many "warts" as
 >>you so readily accept.

 >>In the end, the best footage from AA is of lesser quality than
 >>the worst footage out of any other Army documentary that I have
 >>ever seen, and I've seen hundreds. Therefore, your assertion
 >>that the AA footage looks like it does because it is presented
 >>"warts and all" would only be correct _if_ the military had a
 >>habit of producing footage, used or unused, with the same kind
 >>of "warts" seen in AA. The film record clearly indicates
 >>otherwise.

Neil replied:

 >Working with the only background information we have on the AA,
 >the cameraman's brief story. It may be hogwash but it's all we
 >have and has to stand together with what we see in the film it
 >relates to.

Hi, Neil!

When magicians do tricks on stage, there is always someone in
the audience that he picks "at random" that is really there on
his behalf. This person will always maintain, like the magician,
that they've never met before. The cameraman serves the same
function, here.

Essentially, the cameraman has now returned from the stage with the most
amazing tale of how he was part of a "real" magical experience, all the
time swearing that he was never a part of the set up for the trick
you've just witnessed from the audience.

Now, the question before you is, "Admitting that the guy's story
may be "hogwash" and knowing the magician's reputation for
shenanigans, how can you use the cameraman's story of his
"experience" to validate the magician's trick?"

You can't and this is the real issue, here, Neil. Like Ed, you
maintain that, because the cameraman's story matches what is
seen in AA, then that validates the "trick". Then, you turn
around and maintain that, because the "trick" has now been
validated, then the cameraman's story must be correct!

In the best of circumstances, you can't use two suspect elements
to validate each other. What makes this particular situation
even more impossible is that one of the suspect elements, the
cameraman, isn't even known to exist. It would be like watching
a magician on stage, by himself, and having someone call you
later, claiming to have been on-stage with the magician, and
swearing that no fakery was involved.

How can you reconcile that, Neil? Not only do you not know if
the statement of the cameraman is true, you don't even know if
the guy exists since you never saw him "on stage"!

Therefore, when you write:

 >The cameraman claims he had no idea what he was to film other
 >than the comment it was "an aircrash", he was also deployed at a
 >few hours notice, only taking his camera, film would be
 >available at his destination.

You have no way of knowing if his "claims" are true. The fact
that his claims match what is seen on the screen means nothing.
If AA is a fake, then that are _supposed_ to match; I'd expect
nothing less.

Therefore, since the match means nothing, you have to find
something else to compare AA to. In this respect, I've been
approaching this from a different standpoint.

1) Does the footage match other documentation of that vintage? I
say it does not.

2) Are the conditions presented on screen appropriate for
something so important?

Hardly.

3) Given that the AA took place in the United States where
better resources were available, does it seem likely that it
would have been handled so poorly? Not when compared to topics
of even lesser importance.

4) Could they have waited until better preparations were in
place? Nothing would have prevented them from waiting.

Continuing, Neil writes:

 >If you disagree Roger please explain how you would have shot the
 >footage given one camera, the _same_ materials _and_ conditions,

Well, this is a lot like asking me if I've stopped beating my
wife. ;)

You know that the issue here is whether or not the conditions
and materials in question were valid, not how I would shot given
the same materials and conditions. Come on, Neil, you're really
ducking the issue, here.

In closing, Neil wrote:

 >We are both arguing on shaky ground here, I see clearly your
 >point of view and accept it, but do not think it applies to the
 >AA if taken as a whole along with the associated testimony of
 >the cameraman BUT that's where my premis gets shaky, for how
 >much do we trust the cameraman's story?.

 >As for more "formaly" documenting these alleged visitors, if the
 >cameraman is to be believed, they also had a live walking
 >(talking?) subject to film as much as they liked, in color and
 >under controlled conditions for the following 2 years.

 >Niether you nor I could ever claim victory in this argument
 >unless an outside element linking the AA footage to a known
 >historical document presented itself, thats just what might now
 >have happened, take up Ed's free offer and get that copy of
 >Flatlands #17.

I'll tell you what, I'll look at your stuff if you check into
some of the military documentaries from that time period and do
an honest comparison of not only the quality of the footage, but
the conditions it was shot under. I think you'll be very
surprised.

Until then, adios, amigos...


Take care,

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                        Re: Joseph Smith - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:38:08 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 17:37:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Mortellaro


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:42:58 EST
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:15:52 -0800 (PST)
 >>From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Joseph Smith [was: More Pre-1947 Cases]
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Snip

 >>>I have often wondered why the written testimony of Joseph
 >>>Smith (the founder of the Mormon religion/church) is never
 >>>considered to be a 'contact' report by modern ufologists.

 >>Actually, I have always found the Joseph Smith story to be a
 >>very interesting encounter case.

 ><snip>

 >>1820: Joseph Smith

 ><snip>

 >>Moments later,

 >>...a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness
 >>of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

 >Hi, Chris and John:

 >This vision was probably of a superior Sun pillar, reflection of
 >sunlight from ice crystals in cirrus clouds, just like those I
 >can see out of my window right now.

 >>The next thing he knew, "I saw two Personages, whose brightness
 >>and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air."

 >Probably Sun Dogs, or parhelia, the most likely spot for them
 >would be near the 22 degree halo around the Sun. These are also
 >caused by ice crystals in cirrus, even on a summer day.

 ><snip>

 >>It is not my intention to detract from the deeply-rooted beliefs
 >>of the Mormons by treating Smith’s encounter as 'just another
 >>UFO story'

 >Nor is it mine.

 >>From this text he produced the enigmatic Book of Mormon, the
 >>alleged secret history of the inhabitants of the Americas from
 >>2200 BC to AD421 and their connection with the Old World and
 >>with Jesus Christ. The document comprises 275,000 words, which
 >>includes lengthy quotes from the Old Testament.

 >>It was published in book-form in 1830, but by 1834 there were
 >>already claims that Smith had plagiarized a large section of
 >>another book, View of the Hebrews; or, The Tribes of Israel in
 >>America, written by Ethan Smith in 1823.

 >>Leaving aside the book’s controversial contents, Smith published
 >>some even more startling claims about God himself. According to
 >>Mormon doctrine, we are not alone in the galaxy. The universe is
 >>teeming with living beings, which live on different planets.
 >>God, we learn, lives near a star called Kolob (Abraham 3:1-3)
 >>and is a physical being with a flesh-and-blood body (Doctrines
 >>and Covenants 130:22). These were not the kind of 'facts'
 >>welcomed by American fundamentalists at the time, and are not
 >>easily swallowed by Christians anywhere. They are certainly
 >>astonishing ideas for any illiterate, early nineteenth-century
 >>teenager to come up with alone.

 >Oh, come on. If he was illiterate, how could he write a 275,000
 >word book, or include lengthy quotes from the Old Testament?
 >This probably was just ginned up to defend him from the charge
 >of pliagarism.

 ><snip>

 >>When one page of the transcription of the book was shown to
 >>scholars, the general consensus was that the hieroglyphic
 >>characters engraved there were likely to be false. Smith called
 >>them "reformed" Egyptian characters, a term which is more or
 >>less meaningless. Meanwhile, archaeologists outside the
 >>Church generally refrain from taking the Mormon version of
 >>America's prehistory seriously. Neither, it must be said, do
 >>they go out of their way to mock it.

 >Of course not, it's religion, not science. Are you suggesting
 >that these claims are secretly supported by any archeologist who
 >does not mock them?

 >With all due respect, Chris, are you a member of the Church of
 >Latter Day Saints?


Dear Bob, Listers and Errol;

Messing around with "revelation," no matter whose it may be, is
like messing around with the Pope's Momma. It brings down the
wrath of Kahn and all his kin. Big Time!

Suffice to say that there are in most miraculous events, a
component or components which resemble UFO events. Uh, maybe
that's by design. Maybe not. One thing is certain ... attempting
to associate religion with this phenom (or vice versa) is as
counterproductive as including pelicans, swamp gas or the planet
Venial in the panoply of UFO "facts!"

Hey, associate away guys. But don't expect much. What with all
that rear end cleavage showing.

God bless America and all the ships at sea. Ships.

Docca Morty









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

               Re: Family Videos Close Encounter - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 23:40:28 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 17:40:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Family Videos Close Encounter - Mortellaro


 >From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter
 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:40:31 -0500

 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: 02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers
 >>Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:53 PM
 >>Subject: Rense: Family Videos Close Encounter

 >>Source: Jeff Rense's sightings.com

 >>http://sightings.com/general7/texufo.htm

 >>WORLD EXCLUSIVE
 >>Family Videotapes Its Own
 >>UFO Close Encounter In Texas

 >>By Santiago Yturria
 >>1-24-01

 >>Jeff,

 >>I send you this report of the Cardenas family from Washington
 >>State whom I met last month when they came to Monterrey. They
 >>had a most unique experience on December 17 and I'm sure you
 >>will find it very interesting.

 >>My best wishes,

 >>Santiago

 >This is a fantasitic story, and the accompanying video must be
 >amazing to watch. However, I'm intrigued by the comment that the
 >times on the video seem to be out of whack in some way. This is
 >never completely explained in the story.

 >How are there discrepancies on the video, as far as the times
 >are concerned? What exactly are these? Can someone please
 >explain this point in more detail?

Dear Marty

...damned but I thought the same exact thing. The statement
caught me dead on and I don't know why it did. It was like ...
"in my face!" when I read it. It somehow philosophically
detracted from the story in ways I cannot explain.

Deadened the sound a few db. I shall ask...


Jim






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:42:09 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 17:42:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Rimmer

 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:22:45 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith


 >Thanx for posting that piece from the intro to the Book of
 >Mormon Chris. It is this following paragraph that'll grab
 >you right by the ya-ya's if you are at all familiar with the
 >details (events and sequence of events) of many modern
 >abduction reports.

 >>I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to
 >>increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when
 >>immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in
 >>the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.

 >It is a "classic" abduction related report in every detail. I
 >myself could have written that report. I can't begin to tell you
 >how many letters I've gotten over the years that relate
 >-identical- kinds of experiences from people scattered all over
 >the globe. (And in the same 'sequence.')

 >The Smith report, when stripped of religious interpretation,
 >could have been written by any number of modern 'abductees.'
 >Myself included. We may need to perform some serious revisions
 >on our collective World History textbooks someday.

 >Joseph Smith, ... interesting stuff.

 >Nasty implications.


Like maybe there's something in the psychosocial stuff after all?


John Rimmer

Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                 Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway -

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 20:56:08 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 17:44:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway -


 >From: BobYoung <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:45:46 EST
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:23:26 -0500
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - Young

  >>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
  >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
  >>Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway
  >>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:52:14 +0100

<snip>

  >Hi, Asgeir, List readers:
  >Were the hemispheres vertically above and below
  >each other or horizontally aranged?

_I_ got the impression that there were two hemispheres,
arranged above and below each other, and that they
kept this position on the video footage shown on TV.
However, the area/space in-between them was not so
easy to discover; and, it seemed to stay horizontally.

  >>As some car headlights were showing up, the
  >>light ball suddenly
  >>("got scared", and) became smaller in size, and
  >>- most likely - vanished into the background/night
  >>at some high speed (this we were told by the
  >>photographer).

 >It may be that this was the result of the automatic
 >action of the camera - stopping itself down when the
 >car headlights illuminated the camera.  Thus a light
 >source dimmer than the car headlights would dim, and
 >might even could be said to have looked as if it
 >"sped away". We could conclude, tentatively, that
 >the object was dimmer (smaller) than the Moon and also
 >dimmer than the car headlights. Of course, the source
 >could have been intrinsically brighter than this, but
 >just at a greater distance, say if it were aircraft
 >lights, or even an astronomical object.

Interesting questions; any investigations on camera
performance/details, astronomical object or aircraft,
were not mentioned on TV - I think. However, please
look below for further technical info. on this case.

  >>Right above, and right underneath the spherical
  >>object, me - and
  >>the reporter - did observe some kind of "streaming
  >>gas"; "quasar-like" gas jets streaming out from from
  >>the shining, static, hovering, or moving, gas "ball".
  >>They (the "jets") were,
  >>however, difficult to observe; they both being rather
  >>thin in appearance; they - each - stretched out approx.
  >>at the same
  >>length as the "diameter" of the "ball" (at least the
  >>visible part of them).

 >Did you notice this for the car headlights or any
 >other ground lights or objects in the video?  If so,
 >this could be an atmospheric effect, or perhaps a glare
 >in the camera lens.

Well, it could be; please look below for further info.
I didn't observe the car headlights at all; they were
just mentioned during the interview.

  >>It didn't really look like a "conventional", mechanical
  >>aircraft, or a blimp, rather some atmospheric phenomena,
  >>with somewhat fuzzy outlines - the _whole_ object
  >>was actually shining. But, it was rather difficult to
  >>draw any concrete conclusion on "the design" and to
  >>determine this exactly, due to
  >>the fairly blurred outlook.

  ><snip>

  >>I now got hold of the TV channel's website URL, where this
  >>particular program is referred to:
  >>http://www3.nrk.no/kanal/nrk1/redaksjon_21/
  >>http://www3.nrk.no/kanal/nrk1/redaksjon_21/728878.html
  >>You are now able to judge for yourselves!
  >>On TV, this "shining ball of light" ("UFO") was more
  >>detailed, and we could see that it looked more like two,
  >>loosely attached hemispheres of light.

 >What was the time and exact location of this sighting,
 >and do you know in what direction the object was seen?

Please look below for further info.

 >Clear skies,
 >Bob Young

 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:55:11 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:26:29 -0500
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway
 >- Velez
 >From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Subject: Sighting in Namdalen, Norway
 >Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:51:41 +0100
 >Hi Asgier,

 >Would it be too much of an imposition to ask you to
 >'translate' one or two of the shorter pieces for us?
 >I for one would be very grateful for any English
 >versions you can provide.Interesting sighting.

 >Regards,
 >John Velez


Hi Bob, John, Listers:

Referring to the following URL:

http://www3.nrk.no/kanal/nrk1/redaksjon_21/728878.html

with the following excerpt:

"Av totalt 20 innrapporterte ufo-observasjoner til UFO-Norge i
fjor, kom 13 fra Namdalen i Nord-Trndelag. Et uforklarlig
lysfenomen har ftt mange til  lure p om dette er en ufo.

Namdals-UFO'en filmet

En kvinne fra Namdalen har greid  filme det uforklarlige lyset,
eller det mange mener m vre en UFO. Opptakene er gjort p to
forskjellige kvelder.

Lysfenomenet er beskrevet som et stort, lysende, lydlst objekt.
Kvinnen forklarer at det var et objekt som nesten var p
strrelse med fullmnen som ble filmet. Den varierte i form og
farge.


_My_ rapid translation is:

"Out of 20 reported UFO observations to UFO Norge last year, 13
originated from Namdalen in North Trondelag. An unexplainable
luminous phenomenon has caused many people to wonder whether
this is a UFO.

Namdal's UFO video taped.

A woman from Namdalen has managed to film the unexplainable
light, or, what people thinks has to be a UFO. The recordings
are made at two different nights.

The luminous phenomenon is described as a large, luminous,
sound-/noiseless object. The woman explains that it was an
object nearly as the size of the full moon which was being
filmed. It varied in shape and colour."

Thus, we now have the following two, maybe different(?),
stills, taken from the video footage:

http://real.nrk.no/img/59609.jpeg

http://real.nrk.no/img/59608.jpeg

The object might possibly have been rotating in different
planes, as the shape of it seemed to be changing - as told by
the woman. But this shape change was, however, not observed by
me on the TV screen (except from the complete "vanishing" of the
object).

Please note that the woman (observer/photo- grapher) wanted to
remain anonymous, something which - normally - leads us to draw
the conclusion that the film must be taken with "a few"
precautions"; i.e., taken with "some pinches of salt".

I have also forwarded a copy of this mail to a representative of
UFO Norge (Norway), Mr. Arnulf Lken (see his name mentioned in
the referred to website/URL below);

http://www.ufo.no/english/organisation.html

e-mail: rapport@ufo.no

who was TV interviewed about his opinion on the video footage
(he seemed "fairly convinced" to me).

I - hereby - ask him to kindly answer some of the questions
raised in this topic, and, about his personal feelings on this
particular case, and the credibility of the
observer/photographer - and, also on similar sightings in
Namdalen, Norway.

I hope that he'll return with a response here, at UpDates, on
this case.


Best Regards,

AWS









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                       UFO Shuts Down Russian Airport

From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:06:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 17:46:09 -0500
Subject: UFO Shuts Down Russian Airport


UFO Shuts Down Russian Airport

MOSCOW, Jan 27, 2001 -- (Agence France Presse) An airport in
southern Siberia was shut down for an hour and a half on Friday
when an unidentified flying object (UFO) was detected hovering
above its runway, the Interfax news agency reported.

The crew of an Il-76 cargo aircraft refused to take off,
claiming they saw a luminescent object hovering above the runway
of the Siberia's Barnaul airport, local aviation company
director Ivan Komarov was quoted as saying.

The crew of another cargo plane, refusing to use the runway for
the same reason, landed their jet at another airport, Komarov
said.

The UFO took off and vanished from the airport 90 minutes later,
according to the report. ((c) 2001 Agence France Presse)



http://www.russiatoday.com/news.php3?id=270624

Todd Lemire
Michigan UFO CENTRAL
http://members.home.net/tlemire/UFOCENTRAL.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                 Re: Editor Wanted For UFO + PSI Magazine -

From: Joe McGonagle <joe@mcgonaglenet.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: 27 Jan 2001 20:59:15 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 17:49:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Editor Wanted For UFO + PSI Magazine -


 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:45:27 +0000
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca >
 >From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >Subject: Editor Wanted For UFO + PSI Magazine


Hello, John/Chris/List,

I do hope that someone can step into the breach, because I think
that the magazine is an excellent publication. I don't know if
Chris would consider producing say 3 issues a year? As he
pointed out in his post, the quality is more important than the
quantity.

In any case, Thank you Chris for your efforts throughout the 15
issues that made it to the community!


Regards,

Joe









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Aubeck

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:09:34 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 17:53:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Aubeck


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:42:58 EST
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:15:52 -0800 (PST)
 >>From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Joseph Smith [was: More Pre-1947 Cases]
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:20:51 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: More Pre-1947 Cases

<snip>

 >>1820: Joseph Smith

 ><snip>

 >>Moments later,

 >>...a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness
 >>of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.


 >Hi, Chris and John:

 >This vision was probably of a superior Sun pillar, reflection of
 >sunlight from ice crystals in cirrus clouds, just like those I
 >can see out of my window right now.

 >>The next thing he knew, "I saw two Personages, whose brightness
 >>and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air."

 >Probably Sun Dogs, or parhelia, the most likely spot for them
 >would be near the 22 degree halo around the Sun. These are also
 >caused by ice crystals in cirrus, even on a summer day.

 >>It is not my intention to detract from the deeply-rooted beliefs
 >>of the Mormons by treating Smith’s encounter as just another
 >>UFO story'

 >Nor is it mine.

<snip>

 >>When one page of the transcription of the book was shown to
 >>scholars, the general consensus was that the hieroglyphic
 >>characters engraved there were likely to be false. Smith called
 >>them "reformed" Egyptian characters, a term which is more or
 >>less meaningless. Meanwhile, archaeologists outside the
 >>Church generally refrain from taking the Mormon version of
 >>America's prehistory seriously. Neither, it must be said, do
 >>they go out of their way to mock it.

 >Of course not, it's religion, not science. Are you suggesting
 >that these claims are secretly supported by any archeologist who
 >does not mock them?

 >With all due respect, Chris, are you a member of the
 >Church of Latter Day Saints?

Hello Bob,

Well, no, I'm not a member of that Church. In fact I am not a
member of any Church or temple and I must confess that I feel no
inclination towards any religious group or faith at all.

However, when I make comments about belief-systems that I don't
subscribe to I try to do it with as much respect as I can. Do
you know how many Mormons subscribe to UFO UpDates? (Nor do I.)

I find it a little difficult to believe that Smith's sightings
(invented or not) would have such a prosaic explanation,
especially in the context where it is mentioned. In an analysis
of historical texts context is highly important.

I do not know whether Smith really was illiterate or not.
Similar legends abound about Shakespeare, Cervantes, etc. But if
he was, and the tale is at all true, I doubt he was still
illiterate when he finished transcribing the texts.

My only contact with the Mormons has been at my door, although I
did visit Utah briefly in 1991.

Regards,

Chris Aubeck









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                           Re: Idaho MUFON? - Syes

From: Dan Syes <dsyes@micron.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:38:36 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 17:55:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Idaho MUFON? - Syes


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Idaho MUFON?
 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:07:47 -0500

 >Errol & List,

 >I'm looking for a contact number for Ike Bishop, the Idaho State
 >Director for MUFON as a favour for an acquaintance.  Can anyone
 >help?

 >Thanks,

 >Michel


If it's the same Ike Bishop from Boise, it's 208-345-6174









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                Re: New at Magonia Online - 01-2001 - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:39:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 17:57:51 -0500
Subject: Re: New at Magonia Online - 01-2001 - Sandow


 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:40:54 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: New at Magonia Online - 01-2001

 >>Martin Kottmeyer's Entirely Disposed - A devastating assault on
 >>abduction apologists (in MMS 32)

 >>http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/ethbull/mms32.html

 >Mr. Sandow, you may want to come out of retirement long enough
 >to address some of criticisms that were levelled at you and the
 >piece you wrote, 'The Abduction Conundrum'. The above article
 >mentions you repeatedly. Unless you have already covered all
 >this ground before, you may want to check it out and post a
 >response of your own.


Hi, John!

I answered this on UpDates some time ago, when someone posted
the text here. My reply is in the archives, I'm sure.

I giggled when I read about the "devastating assault". Kottmeyer
didn't even understand my criticisms of him, let alone
"devastate" them.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                Re: Exopolitics: The Non-Terrestrial Politics

From: Alfred Webre <EcoRadio@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:57:51 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:06:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Exopolitics: The Non-Terrestrial Politics


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:18:56 EST
 >Subject: Re: Exopolitics: The Non-Terrestrial Politics Website
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Alfred Webre <editor@universebooks.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:03:20 -0800
 >>Subject: Exopolitics: The "Non-Terrestrial Politics Website

 >I though that all politics was local. After all, King Ming of
 >the planet Mongo doesn't allow dissent. Remember what happened
 >to the Clay Men?


No, no Bob. It is more like "Luke Skywalker deconstructs the
Empire." That more contemporary imagery is definitely a better
gateway into exopolitics, the study of law, government and
politics in the Universe. Exopolitics is our ultimate interface
with non-terrestrial intelligence.

What is the proof that Universal law and politics exist? Oddly
enough, the best proof is the same proof that natural law and
justice exist on Earth - jurisprudence and philosophy. If
natural law and justice exist on Earth, they exists everywhere
in the Universe.

The next best proof that expolitics - non-terrestrial law,
politics, and justice - exist is that between 50 million and 100
million adult North Americans say so, by latest public opinion
polls (Gallup and Zogby). These are no delusionary or
mind-controlled opinions - they come from deep, true intuitions
about the nature of reality. Even Immanuel Kant told us we can
have noumenal (non-thing) knowledge.

The next proofs of non-terrestrial law, politics and government
may be the physical, psychological proofs. For example, the UFO
phenomenon may be a vast, peripheral-cueing, psychological
conditioning program by a Universe society. Conditioning
humanity into awareness of non-terrestrial law, politics, and
society.

You can freely pursue some of this exopolitical thought at:

http://www.exopolitics.com/exoone.html

Alfred Webre
EXOPOLITICS
http://www.exopolitics.com
Vancouver, BC









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:53:21 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:09:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Stacy


 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:35:43 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:22:45 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

<snip>

 >>Extrapolate the example of Joseph Smith and Mormonism back into
 >>time and it is just a hop, skip, and a jump, to the accounts of
 >>all the strange phenomena surrounding the founders of other
 >>major religions. Jesus in particular. The Jesus story is _rife_
 >>with 'UFO' and 'abduction' related references. Beginning with
 >>the glowing "Angel" that visited Mary in the middle of the night
 >>(whose visit resulted in her "virgin" impregnation) to the
 >>"star" that the Oriental Wise men followed to Jesus' birth
 >>place. To anyone familiar with ufology circa 2001, it all reads
 >>like a pretty much run of the mill "UFO" and "alien
 >>contact/abduction" report.

 >Agreed, though even here it's much more on the contact side, I'd
 >say, than the abduction side. We don't know how Mary was
 >impregnated; it may even have been through some high tech alien
 >means (immaculate), and the pregnancy was allowed to go to full
 >term, quite purposely, evidently, unlike most alien-abduction
 >impregnations we know about. Also, there's no indication that
 >Mary was ever abducted later, though she did have the later
 >contact at the tomb. It seems to me that Mary and Joseph were
 >mainly short-term contactees, along with the magi, with Jesus
 >himself later being a long-term contactee.


Whew! Glad to see you guys have all this complicated stuff
neatly wrapped up and tied off with a red ribbon bow!

Imagine eliminating myth and allegory from human culture in one
swell foop -- all in favor of equally elusive aliens!

An excellent biography of Joseph Smith, btw, is the one by Fawn
Brodie. The title is on the tip of my tongue, but just won't
come, and I'm too lazy to go downstairs and look it up. The
interested can do the Amazon dot com search shuffle, as I
suspect it's still in print in some form. No one's getting my
first edition hardback, though.

But why go to the trouble and expense, when it's so much easier
(and cheaper) to just believe in ubiquitous (and apparently
eternal) alien intervention in human affairs? (So they're the
ones responsible for this mess!)

Incidentally, if you like Brodie's bio of Smith, you might try
her bio of Sir (not the actor) Richard Burton, too. The woman
could write, even if she couldn't see the aliens' obvious [sic]
tentacles everywhere.

OK, I peeped. The title of the Brodie book is No Man Knows My
History: The Life of Joseph Smith. Highly recommended.


Dennis Stacy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                         Re: Idaho MUFON? - Lillian

From: Janesse Lillian <janesse@icehouse.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 11:21:07 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:52:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Idaho MUFON? - Lillian


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Idaho MUFON?
 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:07:47 -0500

 >Errol & List,

 >I'm looking for a contact number for Ike Bishop, the Idaho State
 >Director for MUFON as a favour for an acquaintance.  Can anyone
 >help?


Good morning,

Ike's email is ibishop@micron.net

It has been a year since I heard from him.

Hope this helps you...


Jan

Idaho







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 27

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 11:52:34 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:55:42 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman


 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 06:50:18 -0600
 >From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Ed replied:

 >>I doubt whether you've looked at it at all, at least not the
 >>Santilli video or the debris. And I know you haven't looked at
 >>it very closely.

 >Well! _That's_ a very scientific argument! Anyone that doesn't
 >agree with you automatically hasn't looked at AA "close enough"
 >or hasn't done enough research? Pretty presumptuous of you, Ed.

No, not one bit presumptuous, but the truth. I can tell by the
way you write about the AA , especially the debris portion, that
you haven't spent much time viewing it. I'm trying to give you a
chance to do so. I can tell that other AA critics haven't spent
much time viewing the AA, as well. They've simply accepted the
word of others that it's a piece of "crap".

 >You have no idea how many times those that disagree with you
 >have looked at AA. But then, I guess that doesn't matter.
 >However many times the opposition has looked at it, you've
 >looked at it more, right?

No you've missed my point. I want _you_ to look at the AA more
closely and perhaps see what we see (our evidence) or something
more. To not do so is just like commenting on a book you haven't
read or reviewing a movie you haven't seen.

 >Let me _try_ and explain the problem with the way you are
 >approaching this, Ed. Let's say that you stumble across an old
 >film of a magician doing tricks. Now, you feel that they look
 >like real magic, as opposed to clever illusions designed to fool
 >an unsuspecting audience. However, others have looked at the
 >same footage and see the suspect signs of fakery by the
 >magician. But you say, "Wait! Look at it again!" or "Wait! I got
 >some more footage of the same guy doing the same kind of
 >tricks!"

Theresa Carlson and Dennis Murphy, did look closely at the
footage. Theresa found "signs of fakery" and we intend to answer
her criticisms. Dennis found no "signs of fakery". Both Theresa
and Dennis did what we all should have done from the beginning:
spend time with the actual footage and see if there are
anomalies or suspicious activity. Once we present our case for
the AA, the only way to refute our findings will be for critics
to have the AA CDs and the Ft. Worth photos.

 >Unless you are comparing AA to other military documentary
 >footage from that time period, then you are simply using one bad
 >trick to validate another bad trick. If you like bad magic
 >tricks, that's fine. But comparing them to real magic is like
 >comparing Star Trek to real science. Watching the episodes over
 >and over again won't make them real.

Roger, I agree! The AA doesn't look like regular Armed Forces
documentary footage (except we don't see the shaky cam effect
you go on about). Our argument is that there's no evidence to
suspect that it would, for all the reasons Neil has outlined.
You can analogize all you want, but it seems to me that you're
acting similar to the those wise and skeptical fellows who
refused to look into Galileo's telescope.

They just knew he couldn't be seeing what he was seeing,
theoretically that is, and therefore didn't even need to view
his evidence.

Ed









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 28

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 23:43:23 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:07:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Gates


 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:22:45 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:15:52 -0800 (PST)
 >>From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Joseph Smith [was: More Pre-1947 Cases]
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:20:51 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: More Pre-1947 Cases

 >><snip>

 >>>I have often wondered why the written testimony of Joseph
 >>>Smith (the founder of the Mormon religion/church) is never
 >>>considered to be a 'contact' report by modern ufologists.

 >>Hi John,

 >>Actually, I have always found the Joseph Smith story to be a
 >>very interesting encounter case. A few years ago I wrote the
 >>following, which I always mean to update with the results of my
 >>recent research into UFO incidents of the same period. For many
 >>ufologists this may be very common ground already, but for the
 >>record here it is:

 >>1820: Joseph Smith

 ><snip>

 >>Chris Aubeck


 >Hi Chris, Edoardo, All,

 >Thanx for posting that piece from the intro to the Book of
 >Mormon Chris. It is this following paragraph that'll grab
 >you right by the ya-ya's if you are at all familiar with the
 >details (events and sequence of events) of many modern
 >abduction reports.

 >>I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to
 >>increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when
 >>immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in
 >>the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.

 >It is a "classic" abduction related report in every detail. I
 >myself could have written that report. I can't begin to tell you
 >how many letters I've gotten over the years that relate
 >-identical- kinds of experiences from people scattered all over
 >the globe. (And in the same 'sequence.')

 >There is _no_difference_ between the content of Joseph Smith's
 >'report' and that of many modern abductees. For the sake of
 >discussion (leaving all arguments for or agin the reality of
 >alien abduction behind for a moment) the clear implication is;
 >that "abductions" (as they are being reported by so many people
 >today) have been going on for a very_long_time.

Based upon what has been said thus far, the big difference
appears to be that Joseph Smith was not "abducted" and was able
to remember in the present tense so  to speak what happened to
him.

 >Extrapolate the example of Joseph Smith and Mormonism back into
 >time and it is just a hop, skip, and a jump, to the accounts of
 >all the strange phenomena surrounding the founders of other
 >major religions. Jesus in particular. The Jesus story is _rife_
 >with 'UFO' and 'abduction' related references. Beginning with
 >the glowing "Angel" that visited Mary in the middle of the night
 >(whose visit resulted in her "virgin" impregnation) to the
 >"star" that the Oriental Wise men followed to Jesus' birth
 >place. To anyone familiar with ufology circa 2001, it all reads
 >like a pretty much run of the mill "UFO" and "alien
 >contact/abduction" report.

 >The Smith report, when stripped of religious interpretation,
 >could have been written by any number of modern 'abductees.'
 >Myself included. We may need to perform some serious revisions
 >on our collective World History textbooks someday.

It sounds like we are putting the "UFO interpretation" on
biblical events, much like skeptics put the "skeptical
interpretation" on all UFO events.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 28

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 23:51:02 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:09:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Gates


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Stacy
 >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:53:21 -0600

 >>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:35:43 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >>>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:22:45 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 ><snip>

 >>>Extrapolate the example of Joseph Smith and Mormonism back into
 >>>time and it is just a hop, skip, and a jump, to the accounts of
 >>>all the strange phenomena surrounding the founders of other
 >>>major religions. Jesus in particular. The Jesus story is _rife_
 >>>with 'UFO' and 'abduction' related references. Beginning with
 >>>the glowing "Angel" that visited Mary in the middle of the night
 >>>(whose visit resulted in her "virgin" impregnation) to the
 >>>"star" that the Oriental Wise men followed to Jesus' birth
 >>>place. To anyone familiar with ufology circa 2001, it all reads
 >>>like a pretty much run of the mill "UFO" and "alien
 >>>contact/abduction" report.

 >>Agreed, though even here it's much more on the contact side, I'd
 >>say, than the abduction side. We don't know how Mary was
 >>impregnated; it may even have been through some high tech alien
 >>means (immaculate), and the pregnancy was allowed to go to full
 >>term, quite purposely, evidently, unlike most alien-abduction
 >>impregnations we know about. Also, there's no indication that
 >>Mary was ever abducted later, though she did have the later
 >>contact at the tomb. It seems to me that Mary and Joseph were
 >>mainly short-term contactees, along with the magi, with Jesus
 >>himself later being a long-term contactee.

 >Whew! Glad to see you guys have all this complicated stuff
 >neatly wrapped up and tied off with a red ribbon bow!

 >Imagine eliminating myth and allegory from human culture in one
 >swell foop -- all in favor of equally elusive aliens!

 >An excellent biography of Joseph Smith, btw, is the one by Fawn
 >Brodie. The title is on the tip of my tongue, but just won't
 >come, and I'm too lazy to go downstairs and look it up. The
 >interested can do the Amazon dot com search shuffle, as I
 >suspect it's still in print in some form. No one's getting my
 >first edition hardback, though.

 >But why go to the trouble and expense, when it's so much easier
 >(and cheaper) to just believe in ubiquitous (and apparently
 >eternal) alien intervention in human affairs? (So they're the
 >ones responsible for this mess!)

Agreed. "The aliens did it...." From the colonization of
America, to the landing on the moon, and the upcoming
re entry of MIR...."  Yup, lets put the alien interpretation
on everything...  :)

 >Incidentally, if you like Brodie's bio of Smith, you might try
 >her bio of Sir (not the actor) Richard Burton, too. The woman
 >could write, even if she couldn't see the aliens' obvious [sic]
 >tentacles everywhere.

 >OK, I peeped. The title of the Brodie book is No Man Knows My
 >History: The Life of Joseph Smith. Highly recommended.

Read that one years ago and the history of the LDS church.
If Fawn Brodie is to be considered an expert in LDS church history,
then one presumes that Phil Klass is to be considered the leading
expert and historian of UFO history. :)


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 28

                                  UFO Pics

From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:57:12 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:16:28 -0500
Subject: UFO Pics


 >From: eb363@home.com (erik)

 >>From: ron <ron@cropcircles.org>

 >>Wow! Look at these pics of a UFO:

http://www.filersfiles.com/features/bethune.htm

 >>Midwest Research
 >>Ron Russell
 >>Box 460760
 >>Aurora, CO 80046 USA
 >>303-400-1322
 >>www.cropcircles.org



Researcher Steven L. Wilson, Sr
To submit paranormal activity email Ndunlks@aol.com


[Where have I been that I missed _these_? --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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 28

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:21:52 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:46:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Gates


 >From: Michael Haggard <mikeh@cybertrails.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:10:03 -0800

 >>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:20:51 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: More Pre-1947 Cases

 >><snip>

 >>I have often wondered why the written testimony of Joseph
 >>Smith (the founder of the Mormon religion/church) is never
 >>considered to be a 'contact' report by modern ufologists.

 >The problem is that he is an unreliable witness. On (I believe)
 >three occasions (perhaps more) the state of New York tried and
 >convicted him of confidence fraud for creating false religion
 >using Masonic ritual and "divined" information. In each case he
 >plead guilty or was found guilty of milking money from the
 >masses.

If we are using strictly legal requirements to frame a person,
then naturally Jesus Christ goes right out the door to because
he was convicted (and didn't utter a word in his defense) and
put to death. He must have been terribly unreliable..... :)

 >The possibility that the Mormon faith started from another of
 >these stories and that this one just somehow "took" is too great
 >a likelihood. The success of the Mormon church depends less on
 >Smith's work as it does on the 1700 years of history before it.

Having studied many religions over the years, in the case of the
Mormon church" success relies upon a boy who stated that he met
God the Father and Jesus Christ and setup a restored church and
authority restored upon the earth.

 >The "real" Mormon church centered in Missouri (the Supreme Court
 >of the United States ruled years ago that the Salt Lake City
 >branch of Mormonism is a faction or a cult splinter) decided
 >years ago to de-emphasize the Book of Mormon and Smith's role
 >and to re-emphasize the Bible. All because of the of Smith's
 >dubious criminal record as it relates to his story.

This is incorrect information. The Supreme Court of the US
did no such thing.  The Supreme court did not rule that any
major religion in the US were factions or cult splinters.

The so called Missouri branch does not even lay claim to being
the "Mormon church" or the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints". They claim to be the Reorganized church and operated
under the theory that church succession was passed down through
family members and so on.

Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith, decided to stay in the midwest
and not go to Salt Lake after Joseph Smith was martyred.

The upshot of the story is that some believed that the mantle,
so to speak, fell to one of the sons that stayed with mom. "In
theory" kind of like saying that the mantle of leadership in the
bible did not fall from Moses to Aaron, but should have gone to
a son of Moses. Better yet that the directorship of MUFON should
have gone to Walt Andrus's son or daughter and or the
directorship of CUFOS should have gone to Allen Hynek's son or
daughter. Same principle all in all.

Awhile back there was a big controversy in the Reorganized
Church when no more "men descendants" were available
and the family member next in line to be President of the
Reorganized Church was female. Last I heard the "descendent"
theory changed at that point.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 28

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 01:16:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:50:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Velez


 >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:42:09 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:22:45 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >>Thanx for posting that piece from the intro to the Book of
 >>Mormon Chris. It is this following paragraph that'll grab
 >>you right by the ya-ya's if you are at all familiar with the
 >>details (events and sequence of events) of many modern
 >>abduction reports.

 >>>I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to
 >>>increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when
 >>>immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in
 >>>the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.

 >>It is a "classic" abduction related report in every detail. I
 >>myself could have written that report. I can't begin to tell you
 >>how many letters I've gotten over the years that relate
 >>-identical- kinds of experiences from people scattered all over
 >>the globe. (And in the same 'sequence.')

 >>The Smith report, when stripped of religious interpretation,
 >>could have been written by any number of modern 'abductees.'
 >>Myself included. We may need to perform some serious revisions
 >>on our collective World History textbooks someday.

 >>Joseph Smith, ... interesting stuff.

 >>Nasty implications.

 >Like maybe there's something in the psychosocial stuff after all?

Hi John, hi All,

Bullard and Sitchin have pretty convincingly presented an
arguement for the idea that our own folklore and history is
filled with examples just like the one being discussed.

How the material itself is interpreted depends on what the
'observer' brings to the task. Expectations and beliefs,
(whether based on first hand experience or theory) along with
any predispositions will all play a major role in how a
particular thing or piece of information will be interpreted.

I _know_ from in-your-face first hand experience that UFOs are
real. I approach the material accordingly, and make
interpretations based on that knowledge/point of view. Like
everyone else, it all gets sifted through 'personal filters' of
one kind or another.

As someone who has had a frightening and close-up contact with a
UFO, I approach information/material from a viewpoint that is
well past the, 'is it all real or not' stage. The UFO did not
have to actually land on me to convince me that it was there,
and that it was real. I wish you and several others had been
standing next to me. You'd be whistling those 'psychosocial'
theories/explanations from the other side of your mouths.

It's all point of view John. Those who are convinced that there
is no substance to the UFO/ET reports will interpret available
information accordingly. And based on the belief that UFOs don't
exist and aren't built and operated by ETs, all the available
material is sifted through _that_ filter.

I can only speak for myself and tell you why I approach things
the way that I do. Information/material can be interpreted as
many ways as there are people who take the time to study it and
form an opinion.

Actually I agree with you. I think there is a ton of material
that indicates this is not a 'new' phenomenon. I just don't
"interpret" that to mean that it validates the 'psychosocial'
explanation for UFO/abduction reports.

John, I only hope to live long enough to see this troubling
UFO/ET question settled one way or the other. Until then, I say
tom-A-toe and you say tom-ah-toe. ;)


Regards,

John Velez
Witness/abductee




******************************************************
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
           www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 28

               The Cydonian Imperative: 1-28-01 - Opinion Poll

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:28:57 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:52:56 -0500
Subject: The Cydonian Imperative: 1-28-01 - Opinion Poll



THE CYDONIAN IMPERATIVE

For Immediate Release

1-28-01

Results from First TCI Poll

Here are the results from the first TCI Mars opinion poll. This
was not a scientific survey; nevertheless it shows an
overwhelmingly negative attitude towards NASA's openness with
the public. The poll assessed the opinions of 194 participants.

When asked, "Is NASA's Mars exploration timetable
satisfactory in terms of planetary SETI?"

47% responded that NASA would hide evidence of artificiality.

26% responded that NASA would "downgrade the issue" of potential
artifacts.

13% responded that "future probes will tell us more."

6% were undecided.

4% responded that "NASA would like to find artifacts."


3% responded that we would send people to Mars soon.


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
"He runs after facts like a beginner learning to skate, who,
furthermore, practices somewhere where it is forbidden." --Franz
Kafka








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 28

              Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 01:39:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:57:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - Velez


 >From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway
 >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 20:56:08 +0100

 >>From: BobYoung <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:45:46 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:23:26 -0500
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - Young

 >>>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway
 >>>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:52:14 +0100

 ><snip>

 >>Hi, Asgeir, List readers:

 >>Were the hemispheres vertically above and below
 >>each other or horizontally aranged?

<snip>

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:55:11 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:26:29 -0500
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway
 >>- Velez
 >>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >
 >>Subject: Sighting in Namdalen, Norway
 >>Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:51:41 +0100
 >>Hi Asgier,

 >>Would it be too much of an imposition to ask you to
 >>'translate' one or two of the shorter pieces for us?
 >>I for one would be very grateful for any English
 >>versions you can provide.Interesting sighting.

 >Hi Bob, John, Listers:

 >Referring to the following URL:

 >http://www3.nrk.no/kanal/nrk1/redaksjon_21/728878.html

 >with the following excerpt:

 >"Av totalt 20 innrapporterte ufo-observasjoner til UFO-Norge i
 >fjor, kom 13 fra Namdalen i Nord-Trndelag. Et uforklarlig
 >lysfenomen har ftt mange til  lure p om dette er en ufo.

 >_My_ rapid translation is:

 >"Out of 20 reported UFO observations to UFO Norge last year, 13
 >originated from Namdalen in North Trondelag. An unexplainable
 >luminous phenomenon has caused many people to wonder whether
 >this is a UFO.

<snip>

 >I - hereby - ask him to kindly answer some of the questions
 >raised in this topic, and, about his personal feelings on this
 >particular case, and the credibility of the
 >observer/photographer - and, also on similar sightings in
 >Namdalen, Norway.

 >I hope that he'll return with a response here, at UpDates, on
 >this case.


Hi Asgier, All,

First, thank you for taking the time to post that translation
for us. It's much appreciated. :)

Along with you I hope that he posts some further information
about this sighting/recording. Just to play "Devils advocate"
for a moment, how 'seismically active' is the Namdalen region?


Regards,

John Velez

******************************************************
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                    www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 28

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 01:57:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:33:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Velez


 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:35:43 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:22:45 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >>>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:15:52 -0800 (PST)
 >>>From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >>>Subject: Joseph Smith [was: More Pre-1947 Cases]
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:20:51 -0500
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: More Pre-1947 Cases

 >>>>I have often wondered why the written testimony of Joseph
 >>>>Smith (the founder of the Mormon religion/church) is never
 >>>>considered to be a 'contact' report by modern ufologists.

 >>>Actually, I have always found the Joseph Smith story to be a
 >>>very interesting encounter case. A few years ago I wrote the
 >>>following, which I always mean to update with the results of my
 >>>recent research into UFO incidents of the same period. For many
 >>>ufologists this may be very common ground already, but for the
 >>>record here it is:

<snip>

 >>Thanx for posting that piece from the intro to the Book of
 >>Mormon Chris. It is this following paragraph that'll grab
 >>you right by the ya-ya's if you are at all familiar with the
 >>details (events and sequence of events) of many modern
 >>abduction reports.

 >>>I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to
 >>>increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when
 >>>immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in
 >>>the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.

 >>It is a "classic" abduction related report in every detail. I
 >>myself could have written that report. I can't begin to tell you
 >>how many letters I've gotten over the years that relate
 >>-identical- kinds of experiences from people scattered all over
 >>the globe. (And in the same 'sequence.')

 >>There is _no_difference_ between the content of Joseph Smith's
 >>'report' and that of many modern abductees. For the sake of
 >>discussion (leaving all arguments for or agin the reality of
 >>alien abduction behind for a moment) the clear implication is;
 >>that "abductions" (as they are being reported by so many people
 >>today) have been going on for a very_long_time.

 >Hi John,

 >I'd place this one more in the contactee camp than the abduction
 >camp. Smith wasn't abducted, I take it, and didn't have to
 >undergo any "medical" exam. He was wowed by the aliens, and
 >pestered repeatedly to do what they wanted, but not actually
 >coerced, as I read it.

I was just curious why the Smith case wasn't mentioned much in
regard to similarity with UFO/ET reports. I wasn't trying to
"catagorize" it one way or the other. Just pointing out the
similarities between it, and modern abduction reports.

 >>Extrapolate the example of Joseph Smith and Mormonism back into
 >>time and it is just a hop, skip, and a jump, to the accounts of
 >>all the strange phenomena surrounding the founders of other
 >>major religions. Jesus in particular. The Jesus story is _rife_
 >>with 'UFO' and 'abduction' related references. Beginning with
 >>the glowing "Angel" that visited Mary in the middle of the night
 >>(whose visit resulted in her "virgin" impregnation) to the
 >>"star" that the Oriental Wise men followed to Jesus' birth
 >>place. To anyone familiar with ufology circa 2001, it all reads
 >>like a pretty much run of the mill "UFO" and "alien
 >>contact/abduction" report.

 >Agreed, though even here it's much more on the contact side, I'd
 >say, than the abduction side. We don't know how Mary was
 >impregnated; it may even have been through some high tech alien
 >means (immaculate), and the pregnancy was allowed to go to full
 >term, quite purposely, evidently, unlike most alien-abduction
 >impregnations we know about. Also, there's no indication that
 >Mary was ever abducted later, though she did have the later
 >contact at the tomb. It seems to me that Mary and Joseph were
 >mainly short-term contactees, along with the magi, with Jesus
 >himself later being a long-term contactee.

Again, for the sake of discussion, I was pointing out some
strong correspondences between the Jesus story and modern
abduction reports. Mary's "impregnation" which was the result of
the "angelic" visit, is not unlike the reports of female
abductees that they are being impregnated by ETs. The Wise men
followed a moving/travelling "star" or "nightlight" to Jesus'
birthplace, "glowing angelic beings" appearing to shepards and
announcing the birth, etc etc etc. All of it, (if it is a
"historical" report) just sounds a lot like what we hear from
the experiencers is going on today.

I have no idea whether Jesus was, or was not, an abductee. I was
just bringing up some of the more striking similarities to
modern reports. The same/sames are compelling and shouldn't be
dismissed from consideration out of hand.

Warm regards,

John Velez


******************************************************
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                    www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 28

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 02:46:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:39:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Velez


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:38:08 EST
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:42:58 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:15:52 -0800 (PST)
 >>>From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >>>Subject: Joseph Smith [was: More Pre-1947 Cases]
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Snip

 >>>>I have often wondered why the written testimony of Joseph
 >>>>Smith (the founder of the Mormon religion/church) is never
 >>>>considered to be a 'contact' report by modern ufologists.

 >>>Actually, I have always found the Joseph Smith story to be a
 >>>very interesting encounter case.

 >><snip>

 >>>1820: Joseph Smith

 >><snip>

 >>>Moments later,

 >>>...a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness
 >>>of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

 >>Hi, Chris and John:

 >>This vision was probably of a superior Sun pillar, reflection of
 >>sunlight from ice crystals in cirrus clouds, just like those I
 >>can see out of my window right now.

<snip>

 >>Of course not, it's religion, not science. Are you suggesting
 >>that these claims are secretly supported by any archeologist who
 >>does not mock them?

 >>With all due respect, Chris, are you a member of the Church of
 >>Latter Day Saints?


The "Docca" writes:

 >Messing around with "revelation," no matter whose it may be, is
 >like messing around with the Pope's Momma. It brings down the
 >wrath of Kahn and all his kin. Big Time!

There are precedents for this discussion in the work of Eddie
Bullard, Zachariah Sitchin, and others. I don't think anybody so
far has been "messing with revelation" or been disrespectful to
any religions or religious beliefs. As in many other historical
examples, there _are_ similarities to modern UFO/ET/abduction
reports and contrary to your 'interpretation' of the current
dialog, it's worth discussing.

 >Suffice to say that there are in most miraculous events, a
 >component or components which resemble UFO events. Uh, maybe
 >that's by design. Maybe not. One thing is certain ... attempting
 >to associate religion with this phenom (or vice versa) is as
 >counterproductive as including pelicans, swamp gas or the planet
 >Venial in the panoply of UFO "facts!"

Jimbo, why do you always have to put a "negative"
interpretation/slant on everything?

When you make assertions like: "attempting to associate religion
with this phenom" you make it sound as if somebody were actually
trying to do that.

Discussing the similarity of details from historical reports,
(whether those sources are 'religious' in nature or not) and
modern UFO/abduction/contact reports is a valid and I think
useful endeavor. You are free to disagree. It is unfair of you
to paint the discussion as an "attempt to associate religion
with ufology."  Poor choice of words, or just a bad
interpretation of the discussion on your part.

 >Hey, associate away guys. But don't expect much. What with all
 >that rear end cleavage showing.

If I may 'wax religious' for a moment... in one of the "good
books" it says:

"Check the pencil in thine own crack before pointing out the
pencil holder of another!"

Unless you're a contortionist, you may want to use a mirror!
<LOL>


Regards,

John Velez


******************************************************
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                    www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 28

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:11:43 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:42:37 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:59:22 -0600
 >From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:30:37 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >When magicians do tricks on stage, there is always someone in
 >the audience that he picks "at random" that is really there on
 >his behalf. This person will always maintain, like the magician,
 >that they've never met before. The cameraman serves the same
 >function, here.

 >Essentially, the cameraman has now returned from the stage with
 >the most amazing tale of how he was part of a "real" magical
 >experience, all the time swearing that he was never a part of
 >the set up for the trick you've just witnessed from the
 >audience.

 >Now, the question before you is, "Admitting that the guy's story
 >may be "hogwash" and knowing the magician's reputation for
 >shenanigans, how can you use the cameraman's story of his
 >"experience" to validate the magician's trick?"

 >You can't and this is the real issue, here, Neil. Like Ed, you
 >maintain that, because the cameraman's story matches what is
 >seen in AA, then that validates the "trick". Then, you turn
 >around and maintain that, because the "trick" has now been
 >validated, then the cameraman's story must be correct!

 >In the best of circumstances, you can't use two suspect elements
 >to validate each other. What makes this particular situation
 >even more impossible is that one of the suspect elements, the
 >cameraman, isn't even known to exist. It would be like watching
 >a magician on stage, by himself, and having someone call you
 >later, claiming to have been on-stage with the magician, and
 >swearing that no fakery was involved.

 >How can you reconcile that, Neil? Not only do you not know if
 >the statement of the cameraman is true, you don't even know if
 >the guy exists since you never saw him "on stage"!

 >Therefore, when you write:

 >>The cameraman claims he had no idea what he was to film other
 >>than the comment it was "an aircrash", he was also deployed at a
 >>few hours notice, only taking his camera, film would be
 >>available at his destination.

 >You have no way of knowing if his "claims" are true. The fact
 >that his claims match what is seen on the screen means nothing.
 >If AA is a fake, then that are _supposed_ to match; I'd expect
 >nothing less.


Roger,

I expected you to eventually pick up on the fact there is no way
to tie either the film or the cameraman's story down, it was
obvious even back in 95/96 this was a major stumbling block in
any research into the AA, you just didn't have a firm historical
point to latch onto and work from.

 >Therefore, since the match means nothing, you have to find
 >something else to compare AA to. In this respect, I've been
 >approaching this from a different standpoint.

 >1) Does the footage match other documentation of that vintage? I
 >say it does not.

 >2) Are the conditions presented on screen appropriate for
 >something so important?

 >Hardly.

 >3) Given that the AA took place in the United States where
 >better resources were available, does it seem likely that it
 >would have been handled so poorly? Not when compared to topics
 >of even lesser importance.

 >4) Could they have waited until better preparations were in
 >place? Nothing would have prevented them from waiting.

Correct, though film and story came as a package you needed that
little extra to tie down one or the other to the historical
record.

I believe I can do just that, at least for the footage.

And when the shortly to be completed Voice Stress Analysis of
the cameraman's interview arranged by Ed is in, we will be
nearer knowing if "the story" is genuine or "hogwash".

If the footage _can_ be tied down in the historical timeline as
I believe it can, and the uncertainty of the cameraman and his
story resolved.

_Then_ we have a whole new ball-game.

 >Continuing, Neil writes:

 >>If you disagree Roger please explain how you would have shot the
 >>footage given one camera, the _same_ materials _and_ conditions,

 >Well, this is a lot like asking me if I've stopped beating my
 >wife. ;)

 >You know that the issue here is whether or not the conditions
 >and materials in question were valid, not how I would shot given
 >the same materials and conditions. Come on, Neil, you're really
 >ducking the issue, here.

Far from it Roger, here you had and still have, an open
invitation to put _your_ film industry background and inside
experience to the test in detailing just how _you_ would have
coped with the alleged situation faced by the "lone cameraman".
It's all very well opinionating on a subject but unless you can
credibly argue an alternative using the _same_ parameters, those
opinions are just that, opinions without support.

 >In closing, Neil wrote:

 >>We are both arguing on shaky ground here, I see clearly your
 >>point of view and accept it, but do not think it applies to the
 >>AA if taken as a whole along with the associated testimony of
 >>the cameraman BUT that's where my premis gets shaky, for how
 >>much do we trust the cameraman's story?.

 >>As for more "formaly" documenting these alleged visitors, if the
 >>cameraman is to be believed, they also had a live walking
 >>(talking?) subject to film as much as they liked, in color and
 >>under controlled conditions for the following 2 years.

 >>Niether you nor I could ever claim victory in this argument
 >>unless an outside element linking the AA footage to a known
 >>historical document presented itself, thats just what might now
 >>have happened, take up Ed's free offer and get that copy of
 >>Flatlands #17.

 >I'll tell you what, I'll look at your stuff if you check into
 >some of the military documentaries from that time period and do
 >an honest comparison of not only the quality of the footage, but
 >the conditions it was shot under. I think you'll be very
 >surprised.

Maybe I can start with "The Memphis Belle", I have it on the
shelf here by me as I type. I note much of this is handheld,
_all_ shot on 16mm and with "fly on the wall" technique, though
I grant you it _was_ shot in color. But as it was _pre-planned_
as a "flag waver" to be screened coast to coast back in the US
_if_  the old B17 came back, that's not really a surprise.

By coincidence too, we've all an opportunity here in the UK to
check out just what military documentary footage was like in
those times, as one of our TV channels here is to rerun shortly
I believe, all 26+ hours of "The World at War", a series made
back in the 80's almost exclusively from military documentary
footage from the WWII period and the aftermath.

I caught it the first time round but I'll watch it with added
interest this time.

 >Until then, adios, amigos...

Sithee agen ow'd tatter.


Neil.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 28

                            Re: UFO Pics - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:26:19 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:45:32 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Pics - Hatch


 >From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:57:12 EST
 >Subject: UFO Pics
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: eb363@home.com (erik)

 >>>From: ron <ron@cropcircles.org>

 >>>Wow! Look at these pics of a UFO:

 >http://www.filersfiles.com/features/bethune.htm

 >>>Midwest Research
 >>>Ron Russell
 >>>Box 460760
 >>>Aurora, CO 80046 USA
 >>>303-400-1322
 >>>www.cropcircles.org

 >Researcher Steven L. Wilson, Sr
 >To submit paranormal activity email Ndunlks@aol.com

 >[Where have I been that I missed _these_? --ebk]

I must say that the still images presented are magazine quality,
much better than anything in the AA films for example.

One might even call them made-to-order, a really slick
presentation.


Best wishes and good morning!


- Larry Hatch  (burp!)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 28

                           Re: FO Pics - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:33:05 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:47:23 -0500
Subject: Re: FO Pics - Lehmberg


 >From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:57:12 EST
 >Subject: UFO Pics
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: eb363@home.com (erik)

 >>>From: ron <ron@cropcircles.org>

 >>>Wow! Look at these pics of a UFO:

 >http://www.filersfiles.com/features/bethune.htm

 >>>Midwest Research
 >>>Ron Russell
 >>>Box 460760
 >>>Aurora, CO 80046 USA
 >>>303-400-1322
 >>>www.cropcircles.org

 >Researcher Steven L. Wilson, Sr
 >To submit paranormal activity email Ndunlks@aol.com

 >[Where have I been that I missed _these_? --ebk]

These look to me like pictures similar to what Stanton Friedman
identified as a hoax during a Gulf Breeze "Project Awareness"
conference several years ago. Frankly, if I took pictures of a
UFO that looked like these, I'd see the handwriting on the wall
and just toss them away.


Lehmberg@snowhill.com

~~~~
EXPLORE Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.
http://www.alienview.net
                  **Updated All the TIME**
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/witches/237/lehmberg.html

JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually.
He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put
one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention
he gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail.
$350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected!

"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see
from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, scourged by
the scurrilous skepti-feebroids.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 28

                            Re: UFO Pics - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:34:15 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:49:34 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Pics - Young


 >From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:57:12 EST
 >Subject: UFO Pics
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: eb363@home.com (erik)

 >>>From: ron <ron@cropcircles.org>

 >>>Wow! Look at these pics of a UFO:

 >http://www.filersfiles.com/features/bethune.htm


Steve, Erik, Ron, Commander Bethune, EBK, anyone:

Who was the photographer?



If you put an incadescent light on a reostate and vary the
voltage, the color changes, from the red shorter end of the
spectrum. What scientific tests were conducted to determine that
these lights were different than normal lights? How can one
determine that this was happening at all when you have
individual frames snapped by a still camera?

Has anyone actually examined the negatives?


Clear skies,

Bob Young









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 28

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:05:49 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:52:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Hatch


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:21:52 EST
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Michael Haggard <mikeh@cybertrails.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:10:03 -0800

 >>>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:20:51 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: More Pre-1947 Cases

 >>><snip>

 >>>I have often wondered why the written testimony of Joseph
 >>>Smith (the founder of the Mormon religion/church) is never
 >>>considered to be a 'contact' report by modern ufologists.

<snip>

 >>.. In each case he plead (sp) guilty or was found guilty of
 >>milking money from the masses.

<snip>

 >>The "real" Mormon church centered in Missouri (the Supreme Court
 >>of the United States ruled years ago that the Salt Lake City
 >>branch of Mormonism is a faction or a cult splinter) decided
 >>years ago to de-emphasize the Book of Mormon and Smith's role
 >>and to re-emphasize the Bible. All because of the of Smith's
 >>dubious criminal record as it relates to his story.

<snip>

 >Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith, decided to stay in the midwest
 >and not go to Salt Lake after Joseph Smith was martyred.

<snip>

 >Awhile back there was a big controversy in the Reorganized
 >Church when no more "men descendants" were available
 >and the family member next in line to be President of the
 >Reorganized Church was female. Last I heard the "descendent"
 >theory changed at that point.


Dear Sirs, Mmes etc.

Why are we discussing religious nut-cases?

Of all the more or less Christian belief systems in existence,
unlikely as they are, the LDS or Mormonism is possibly the
goofiest one to gain any large following over the last 150 years
or so.

If I decided to take my brains out and play with them, I would
choose some church with more booze and better salads and
spaghetti sauce - not to mention those Catholic school girls -
but I digress.

None of this has to do with UFOs unless you and the next guy
believe that contactees and religious prophets have something to
do with UFOs. I think otherwise, rather strongly.

If you want to play make-believe that's fine.

If you want to - hopefully, eventually - learn something solid
about the " true nature of UFOs", you had best study the nuts
and bolts of the matter, what few and what little we can find or
hypothesize.

As for the ' book of Moroni', well, it almost sounds like the
angels of Heaven are Celtic!


Have fun!

- Larry Hatch








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 28

               Re: The Cydonian Imperative: 1-28-01 - Opinion

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:26:59 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:55:16 -0500
Subject: Re: The Cydonian Imperative: 1-28-01 - Opinion


 >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:28:57 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: The Cydonian Imperative: 1-28-01 - Opinion Poll Results
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>,

 >THE CYDONIAN IMPERATIVE

 >For Immediate Release

 >1-28-01

 >Results from First TCI Poll

 >Here are the results from the first TCI Mars opinion poll. This
 >was not a scientific survey; nevertheless it shows an
 >overwhelmingly negative attitude towards NASA's openness with
 >the public. The poll assessed the opinions of 194 participants.

 >When asked, "Is NASA's Mars exploration timetable
 >satisfactory in terms of planetary SETI?"

 >47% responded that NASA would hide evidence of artificiality.

 >26% responded that NASA would "downgrade the issue" of potential
 >artifacts.

 >13% responded that "future probes will tell us more."

 >6% were undecided.

 >4% responded that "NASA would like to find artifacts."

 >3% responded that we would send people to Mars soon.


Dear Mac:

Could you please provide the raw numbers of votes, as opposed to
just percentages, so we can independently confirm the results of
your First TCI poll?


Thank you

- Larry Hatch









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:59:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:00:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Velez


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 23:43:23 EST
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:22:45 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >>>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:15:52 -0800 (PST)
 >>>From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >>>Subject: Joseph Smith [was: More Pre-1947 Cases]
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

Hello Robert,

You wrote:

 >It sounds like we are putting the "UFO interpretation" on
 >biblical events, much like skeptics put the "skeptical
 >interpretation" on all UFO events.

No, we're not. At least I'm not anyway. I was drawing attention
to some specific references/alleged testimony in an 1830 report
that bear a striking similarity/sameness to modern abduction
accounts both in the wording of it and the sequence of events
that are presented.

If you wish to characterise that as "slapping a UFO
interpretation on Biblical events" you are taking a rather
slanted/limited view of the discussion. Like it or not, there
_are_ similarities that shouldn't be ignored solely because the
material appears in a religious context. It's all 'fair game' as
far as I'm concerned.

It never fails to amuse me how some folks will go out of their
way to look for the lowest common denominator in a given
area/subject and then simply make accusations/assignations based
on their interpretation. I guess it serves their purposes to do
so.

For the sake of anybody else who may be laboring under the
delusion that a religion or somebody's religious beliefs are
either being attacked or used as "proof" of UFOs or abductions
rest assurred that no such thing is intended or implied. I'm
simply asking questions about _specific testimony_ that just
'happens to be' a part of a "religious" text.

I think that everybody that has participated in the thread so
far has been mindful and respectful not to cross any invisible
lines and offend anyones beliefs or religion. The discussion
itself is a valid one however, and relates directly to the
subject matter of this List.

Any other misinterpretations that you'd like cleared up?


Regards,

John

******************************************************
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                    www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                    Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update

From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:41:21 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:03:50 -0500
Subject: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update


A Response, Review, and Update Concerning the Kecksburg Incident
from Stan Gordon


To Bob Young, Brad Sparks, and all interested parties:

The following information concerns the December 9, 1965, UFO
incident near Kecksburg, PA. I hope this will help clarify some
accounts pertaining to this event, as well as make you aware of
some of the details that my associates and I have learned from
those involved.

At around 4:47 P.M., a brillant fiery object passed over the
Pittsburgh area. The object continued on its path into
Westmoreland County, where it passed over Greensburg and moved
over Route 30, east of the city. The object soon made a turn to
the south, passing over the villages of Margurite and Norvelt,
and continued towards Laurelville. At Laurelville, the object
again turned, and tracked towards the northeast in the direction
of Kecksburg. This object, observed by various witnesses,
dropped into a wooded area outside of Kecksburg. Witnesses
stated the object appeared to fall slowly, as if it were
controlled. Shortly after impact, blue smoke rose from the woods
and dissipated quickly.

Residents were alarmed by the flaming object and the
accompanying loud boom, which had also been reported in some
local areas. Phone lines at law enforcement and news agencies
were jammed. According to eyewitness accounts, the object
appeared to decelerate several miles before falling.

Randy Overly was playing outside that afternoon near the
community of Norvelt. Overly heard an odd hissing noise, and
then looked in the distance to observe an object in the sky
moving slowly in his direction. The object, which was not
moving any faster than a small aircraft, passed roughly 200
feet overhead, and continued moving south towards Laurelville.

Due to it's slow speed, the object was observed in detail,
passing low overhead, and continuing off in the distance. The
object was described as somewhat acorn shaped, brownish-grayish
in color, with a raised area on the back, and a rounded
protuberance on the front. There were flames of fire emitting
from the rear which were multicolored. A distinct vapor
surrounded the object, and a hissing sound was quite apparent as
it passed overhead. Overly said, "It certainly seemed to be a
constructed thing. It had smooth edges and smooth lines."

Bill Bulebush was working on a CB radio in his car at his home
near Mammoth that day. He watched the object move from Norvelt
towards Laurelville. Bulebush ran to the road to get a better
look, and watched as the fiery object moved towards a mountain,
then it seemed to hesitate, made a turn and moved towards
Kecksburg where it descended.

Other witnesses near Laurelville also viewed the object moving
towards the Kecksburg area. Bulebush quickly drove to what was
then Kuhn's Lane (now called Meteor road as a result of this
local event) to the highest point which overlooked the area
surrounding the community. Bulebush observed bright blue flashes
of light emitting from the woods below. He knew these
particular woods well since he hunted there. It was nearly dark,
so he grabbed a flashlight and proceeded down to investigate.


Bulebush was likely the first person to view the large metallic
acorn shaped object which now rested semi-buried in the ground.
Bright blue arching light, akin to a welders torch, emanated
from the object. Strange markings were also seen on the back of
the object. Bulebush noticed trees were bent downwards in the
same direction, apparently caused by the landing of the object.
He left the area and returned home to tell his family about his
experience. Bulebush later returned with his young son to the
area to find the military was now at the scene. His son clearly
remembers the soldiers with their guns that day in 1965.

As the object passed over Westmoreland County, phone lines at
WHJB radio in Greensburg, PA, were jammed with calls from area
residents, many concerned the object was an aircraft on fire.
Mable Mazza, the office manager at the radio station, stayed
over to help handle the calls. During the evening she received
phone calls from military sources, including from the Air Force
and the Pentagon. Mazza stated, "The military was asking
directions to the site, and what I knew from the calls about
it." It was after the 6:30pm news broadcast when a woman
reported to the station that her young son had earlier seen the
object fall into a nearby wooded area near Kecksburg. The late
John Murphy, who was the news director at WHJB radio, took this
report, and contacted Troop A Pennsylvania State Police
headquarters in Greensburg, PA, providing them with this
information.

Murphy drove to the area and remained there for quite a while
before Carl Metz, the State Police fire marshall, and another
investigator arrived with the young boy who saw the object and
his mother, as well as several others. Metz and the other
investigator went down into the woods with a yellow geiger
counter. According to Murphy, they were in the woods about
sixteen minutes. When they came back up the hill, Metz was
approached by Murphy about what might have been found; Murphy
waited until Metz and the other investigator were away from the
crowd. At this time Murphy asked Metz directly, "Did you find
anything down there?" According to Murphy, Metz looked puzzled
and remarked, "I'm not sure." When Murphy pressed Metz again, he
stated, "You better get your information from the Army."

Murphy viewed this statement to be highly unusual and deduced
that there was something in the woods of significant military
value. Metz and the other investigator left the area, but not
before a uniformed trooper was posted at that location. Murphy,
uncertain as to what was to occur next, contacted the state
police barracks in Greensburg and talked with Captain Dussia.
Dussia suggested Murphy might want to come to the barracks as he
understood that members of the 662nd Radar Squadron would be
arriving.


As Bob Young pointed out, the only official record of military
involvement is from the Air Force Project Blue Book report which
confirms that three Air Force personnel from the 662nd Radar
Squadron were involved with the search. The actual log entry
from that report states, "A further call was made to the Oakdale
radar site in Pennsylvania. A three man team has been
dispatched to Acme (Kecksburg area) to investigate and pick up
an object that started a fire." The report also stated that the
search of the area ended around 2 A.M. and that nothing was
found.


John Murphy, the WHJB news director, with the help of other
radio station personnel, created a radio documentary on this
local event which was broadcast days after the incident and was
called "Object in The Woods." On that broadcast, Murphy
describes what he saw after he left Kecksburg for the first time
to go to the state police barracks. "When I arrived at the
State Police Troop A barracks in Greensburg, not only were there
members of the United States Army there, but I also saw two men
in Air Force uniform."

Here we have a first hand account from a newsman who began
documenting this information as the story was unfolding. His
statement confirms that more than three military personnel were
investigating the Kecksburg event, and that both the Army and
Air Force were involved. Many people, publicly and
confidentially, have described the surprising arrival of
military personnel and vehicles that they saw around the
Kecksburg area that day. Witnesses at various locations around
the community say they saw marked military cars, jeeps, 6x6
trucks, personnel carriers, and one or more flat bed
tractor-trailer trucks. Linda Foschia said she saw a military
convoy moving along the Greensburg-Mount Pleasant road towards
Kecksburg on that evening in 1965.

The late James Mayes was the 1st Assistant Fire Chief of
Kecksburg at the time of the incident. I had the opportunity to
converse with this gentleman many times over the years. Mayes
was one of the first involved in the search effort that day for
what was thought to have been a possible downed aircraft. At
one point, a state trooper drove Mayes and another fireman to
the top of Kuhn's Lane where they looked down into the woods and
saw "flashing blue lights." The trooper would not allow them to
enter further into the woods. The trooper later took the firemen
back to the Kecksburg Fire Station. When they arrived at the
fire station, Mayes stated that the military had shown up.
Mayes stated, "There was quite a few military men at the station
which they used as a command post." He estimated that there was
around 25 personnel that he saw along with military vehicles
that were parked around the back of the two bay truck garage.

Jim Romansky, not from the Kecksburg area, states that he was a
member of another fire company which had been called out to
assist in the search for a possible downed aircraft that day.
The search teams had been combing the woods when a call came in
over a walkie-talkie that another team had found the crash site.
Jim's team hurried over to the location and were puzzled by
what they saw. Jim stood on a bank about five feet from the
partially buried off-gold colored acorn-shaped object. Jim, who
has been a machinist much of his life, said it gave him the
impression that someone had taken liquid metal and poured it
into an acorn shaped mold. There were no rivets, seams, wings,
or fuselage apparent, and the object appeared as one solid piece
of metal, unlike a conventional aircraft.

Jim, can only estimate the size of the object since it wasn't
entirely visible. He said that it was 10 to 12 feet or more in
length, and about 8 to 10 feet in diameter. He believes that a
grown man could have easily stood up inside of the device. On
the rear of the object was a ringed area about 8 to 10 inches
wide, but less in height. It was on this area that strange
markings similar to ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics were seen.
Jim has stated, "It looked like someone took a welding rod and
just welded a bead for the different designs."

Jim and the other firemen speculated over the object. Two men
dressed in overcoats appeared on the scene and told the
searchers that the area was now under quarantine and they had to
leave. Behind these two men were a group of military personnel.
Jim said they passed within 5 feet of each other. When he and
the others returned to the Kecksburg fire station, Jim says it
was occupied by the military.

One of many witnesses that has described the military response
to Kecksburg has been Robert L. Bitner. Bob Young is correct.
Bitner was not the Kecksburg fire chief in 1965. Bitner had
gotten his service years mixed up. He later realized that he had
gone out as chief in 1964. He was an active Kecksburg volunteer
fireman in 1965. Bitner was truck driver, and after finishing
up his route, drove into Kecksburg after hearing a news report
about the fallen object.

I am sure that we all realize that news reporters are sometimes
limited to space and can't always give a complete account of an
event. Bitner did not arrive in the area until late in the
evening. He located a Kecksburg fire truck parked near an old
farmhouse with several firemen standing around. They told
Bitner that something had fallen from the sky into the ravine
below. Bitner was present later that night (not earlier in the
evening) when a small group of military vehicles came into that
area. Among the vehicles was a personnel carrier and a 6x6
military truck. ( Bitner never viewed the flatbed
tractor-trailer truck which other witnesses said carried the
object away from the area.) The military proceeded down into the
wooded hollow. Bitner and the other firemen were not permitted
to go along. When the military came back up from the woods, the
firemen were told they could leave, and Bitner went directly
home.

Robert Blystone Jr. walked into Kecksburg that evening. He said
there was military everywhere- on the street corners, and on the
roads. At one point he went to an area where he could see down
to the fire station where he saw military vehicles parked there.
He said the military were armed with rifles and sidearms.

Larry Snyder and some teenage friends tried to sneak down into
the woods to see what had reportedly fallen. Snyder said they
went to two different locations that evening. At each location,
there was an armed military man who prevented them from entering
towards the impact site. When Snyder asked what fell, a soldier
answered saying that a meteor had landed.

James Mayes and other Kecksburg firemen drove some military
"brass" on their 1961 four wheel drive pumper towards the impact
site. They drove through the fields toward the woods near a
farmhouse that was being rented by the Hays family. When they
started to descend into a hollow, the military said that this
was as far as the firemen could go. The fire truck was turned
back and the military officers proceeded on foot. Mayes
estimated that there were four or five of the officers that were
holding onto the running boards and tail board of the pumper
truck.

Lillian Hays and her son, John, confirm that military personnel
and men in suits frequented their rented farmhouse that night in
1965. The visitors made many phone calls from the house, located
not far from the impact site in the woods. John overhead a
conversation and learned that NASA was also on the way to that
location. Later that evening, he saw a man wearing a NASA
patch. A NASA representative reportedly interviewed some
eyewitnesses of the Kecksburg incident at the time.

During the evening, radio and tv stations began breaking news
that an Unidentified Flying Object had reportedly fallen in the
Kecksburg area and that the military was arriving. Hundreds of
people, after hearing the news, rushed to this quiet rural
community, trying to see what had fallen, as did the news media.
Brad Sparks asked for the names of reporters who were on the
scene at Kecksburg that day. I don't recall ever saying that
reporters saw the object being recovered at the site. The
reporters and the public were prevented from going down into the
woods and approaching the impact site, which had reportedly been
cordoned off.

Most of the crowds of people that evening, including reporters,
were located on the narrow country road (Meteor Road) that
bordered the large wooded area where the object reportedly fell,
and was the best overlook of the area. The object, however,
apparently fell on the opposite side of the woods. From that
road location where most of the people were standing, observers
could not see what was happening on the other side, which was in
the distance and blocked by woods. According to a number of
people who were in the other area, we have learned that military
activity was occurring on a farm lane, in various field
locations, and down near the woods by the impact location.

John Murphy, the WHJB radio news director who was the first
reporter on the scene, confirmed, via radio broadcast, that he
had seen both members of the Army and Air Force at the state
police barracks who would take part in the search for the
object. Murphy took detailed notes during his investigation of
the Kecksburg incident and produced a radio documentary called
"Object In The Woods," that had been scheduled to be broadcast
just days after the event.

Prior to the broadcast, Murphy began to receive calls from
witnesses he had interviewed that no longer wanted their
statements aired. Murphy included the following statement in his
radio report: "We received other calls early tonight from some
other people who had said they had changed their mind now at
the last minute and did not want the statements they had made
over this past weekend used on this radio program tonight. One
person said that they were afraid of the state police, and
another person said they did not want to get in trouble with the
Army. We will present a cut and edited version of the radio
program, "Object In The Woods." We regret that part of this
program had to be censored and other parts of the program had to
be cut out entirely."

Robert Gatty was a reporter for the Greensburg, PA
Tribune-Review. Gatty wanted to go down into the woods that day
but was prevented from doing so by the authorities. The December
10, 1965, headlines of the County edition of the Tribune-Review
read, "Army Ropes Off Area, Unidentified Flying Object Falls
Near Kecksburg." In the story it states, "Tribune Review staff
writer Robert Gatty reported from the scene that �no one is
being allowed near the object.' State police officials there, he
said, ordered the area roped off to await the expected arrival
of both U.S. Army Engineers and, possibly, civilian scientists."

Gatty wrote another story on this incident for the City Edition
of the same paper which appeared also on December 10, 1965.
Those headlines read, "Resident Tells of Mysterious Encounter,
Unidentified Flying Object Report Touches Off Probe Near
Kecksburg." On that same page another story also ran about the
UFO incident, which read, "Searchers Fail To Find Object."
Officially nothing was found during the search of the woods. The
speculation was that observers had only seen a bright meteor in
the sky, and nothing had fallen to the ground.

Ernie Hoffman was also a reporter for the Greensburg, PA
Tribune-Review in 1965. He replaced Robert Gatty in Kecksburg
that night, so that Gatty could return to the newspaper office
and work on the story. Hoffman said that he had pulled off on
the shoulder of the narrow country road, and about 100 yards
away saw a military flatbed tractor-trailer truck near a tree
line. He said that there was something on the back of the truck
under a tarpaulin which, at that distance, appeared about the
size of two suitcases. The possibility remains that Hoffman did
not see the object in question and/or the vehicle which was
carrying other equipment. There are accounts of more than one
flatbed tractor-trailer accompanying the other military
equipment which had arrived that day. Hoffman verifies, as so
many other people have, that military vehicles were around
Kecksburg and down in the woods that evening. Another reporter,
Adam Lynch, with WIIC-TV at the time, also confirmed seeing a
military truck.

John Hays has never forgotten the night the military came to
the farmhouse his parents had rented. The military asked to send
the children upstairs. John decided instead to produce
continuous excuses to be able to go up and down the stairs.
While doing so, he saw military men in his home who were
talking and making phone calls. He also watched out the bedroom
window, excited over the presence of the military trucks. At one
point he saw a flatbed tractor trailer going down towards the
hollow in the woods where the object reportedly fell. Later he
noted a truck of the same description exiting the same area
with a large object carried aboard.

John and his brother played in those woods on almost a daily
basis. The next day when they went out, they had to repair their
fence line, which they found cut from the night before to allow
the military trucks to get down to the hollow. When John and his
brother went down through the woods to look around, they saw
trees had been damaged and knocked over. The day before these
trees were in their normal state. The boys also came across a
man with an instrument similar to a metal detector. The man told
the boys that they should leave the woods, that there was the
possibility of radiation. The boys ran home to ask their parents
what radiation meant.

Well known Pittsburgh Jazz musician Jerry Betters has gone
public stating that he was driven to Kecksburg by some friends
that December night in 1965. They were curious after hearing the
news reports of the alleged UFO landing. They didn't know the
area, but apparently found themselves on the farm lane where
others saw military action taking place that night. There,
Betters saw numerous military vehicles, but more interestingly,
a military flatbed tractor-trailer truck was making it's way up
from the field. On the back of the trailer he saw an
acorn-shaped object and the strange hieroglyphic markings were
easily visible. For whatever reason, at that point the object
was not covered. Betters will never forget the tone of voice of
a military officer ordering servicemen to get him and his
friends out of there. Jerry became quite upset when the
soldiers aimed their guns at them.

Bob Koveleskie, a former state trooper, has now gone public
with an important detail. Koveleskie was a trooper who in 1965
was working in the eastern part of Pennsylvania. He had heard
about the Kecksburg incident on the news and was curious about
it. Just a short time after the event occurred, Koveleskie was
back in the Greensburg area where he saw Carl Metz and asked
him about the incident. Metz told him that he was at the scene
the night that it happened. He had been sworn to secrecy by an
Army officer who was on the scene that evening, and could not
discuss it any further.

The late Carl Metz was the State Police fire marshall who had
gone into the Kecksburg woods to investigate in 1965. For many
years after that happening, friends of his asked him about what
he saw in the woods that day but he would generally answer that
he couldn't discuss the matter.

In the early 1980's, Carl Metz did briefly speak concerning his
involvement with the Kecksburg case. Howard Burns, who was a
radio dispatcher for the City of Greensburg police department at
that time, recalls a conversation between several police
officers and Metz one day at Greensburg City Hall. Somehow they
got on the subject of Kecksburg, and Metz confirmed that he was
one of the first troopers on the scene. He had gone down into
the woods, and when he came upon the impact location, his first
impression was that it was an aircraft crash site due to the
trees that were knocked over. As he went over to examine the
partially buried object in the ground, it was unlike anything
he had ever seen. While he was there, several military personnel
arrived, and ordered everyone out of the area, including him.
They also ordered him never to discuss what he saw that night.
Burns indicated that Metz would still not reveal many details
about what he learned that night, including what the object was.
He was still maintaining a degree of secrecy about what he knew.
Another police officer who was at City Hall at that time, has
confidentially confirmed the story to me.

I am convinced that a constructed object did fall from the sky
near Kecksburg, PA. Whether this object was man-made or of
extra-terrestrial origin is undetermined. There are some aspects
of the Kecksburg event of which there are no clear answers. The
information which has been obtained locally indicates that this
was not a meteor. Today, the mockup of the acorn shaped object
which was made for the Unsolved Mysteries episode on the case,
sits upon a new lighted display platform behind the Kecksburg
Fire Station. Many local people support this UFO event since
many had friends, relatives, and neighbors who were directly
involved in 1965.

There is no doubt in my mind that something of military value
did drop from the sky, and caused the government to quickly
respond to rural Pennsylvania. Why were there armed military
personnel reportedly preventing civilians from entering fields
and woods that day in 1965? And what would military trucks be
doing on a farmers private property?

Bob Young is correct there was a camera strobe hoax. There was
a group of teenage boys who later admitted to flashing off a
camera strobe in that area. According to my information,
however, they didn't arrive until later that evening after the
news broke that something had reportedly fallen near Kecksburg.
Bulebush reported seeing the blue flashes soon after the object
fell and long before the event was reported on radio or tv. I
do mention the camera strobe hoax in my Kecksburg video
documentary. Other people had also reported viewing odd blue
lights during the Kecksburg event. Some observations could be
attributed to that teenaged hoax.


The controversy over the Kecksburg incident has created much
tension between the many who support the story and those few who
claim that the story is a hoax. Even today emotional levels run
high around this community. Some who still reside in this area
and were involved with the incident will speak with me about it,
but refuse to be identified publicly. I have talked with many
Kecksburg area residents who have provided detailed accounts
about what they saw and experienced in 1965.

I have also been contacted by former local residents as well as
other folks who came to Kecksburg that night from outside areas
after hearing the news accounts. Some witnesses have gone
public. Others ask to remain anonymous. Many have provided
written or taped testimony about their involvement or knowledge
of the Kecksburg case. Some of these statements can not publicly
be made available, since release of certain details could lead
to the identity of those involved.

Bob Young is surely aware that I have provided his name when I
have been approached by various media who are interested in
doing features on the Kecksburg case, so that they can include
his opinions on this event.

For those of you who may want some additional information on
this event, you can view my article "33 Years Ago Today: The
Kecksburg, PA UFO Crash Incident" (posted on 12-09-98) as well
as other links which can be found at my website at:
http://www.westol.com/~paufo

In the video documentary, "Kecksburg The Untold Story," which I
produced, witnesses had the opportunity to tell their account in
an expanded format, instead of just a few seconds. Many little
known details, as well as new information on the Kecksburg case
are included in this video. Additional information about this
video documentary is also on my website.

Stan 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:09:45 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:07:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Gates


 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:05:49 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:21:52 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Michael Haggard <mikeh@cybertrails.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >>>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:10:03 -0800

 >>>>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:20:51 -0500
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: More Pre-1947 Cases

<snip>

 >None of this has to do with UFOs unless you and the next guy
 >believe that contactees and religious prophets have something to
 >do with UFOs. I think otherwise, rather strongly.

Hi Larry,

Somebody was trying to make the comparison between CE/abductions
and religion related events.

One of the members of the MUFON board, Rev Barry somebody had a
book out doing essentially the same thing, comparing various
events and descriptions in the bible to UFOS.

One could make the case from a religious perspective that God
created life on this planet, dinos, plants, humans and so on,
and that God created life on other planets as well and perhaps
we are getting visited by such life. This notion does not sit
well with those that belive that God only created life on this
planet, and this planet only. Nor does the notion sit well with
so called scientists who think this planet is it and no life can
be found elsewhere.

Kind of goes hand in hand with the dark ages theory about the
sun revolving around the earth and or how we are the center of
the universe and there is no other. Always thought that view
point was rather arrogant myself.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                            Re: UFO Pics - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:12:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:09:44 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Pics - Velez


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:34:15 EST
 >Subject: Re: UFO Pics
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:57:12 EST
 >>Subject: UFO Pics
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: eb363@home.com (erik)

 >>>>From: ron <ron@cropcircles.org>

 >>>>Wow! Look at these pics of a UFO:

 >>http://www.filersfiles.com/features/bethune.htm

 >Steve, Erik, Ron, Commander Bethune, EBK, anyone:

 >Who was the photographer?

 >If you put an incadescent light on a reostate and vary the
 >voltage, the color changes, from the red shorter end of the
 >spectrum. What scientific tests were conducted to determine that
 >these lights were different than normal lights? How can one
 >determine that this was happening at all when you have
 >individual frames snapped by a still camera?

 >Has anyone actually examined the negatives?


Hi Bob, hi All,

Someone sent me copies of these pix about a year-and-a-half ago.
They wanted to know what I thought of them. After a 'cursory'
inspection in Photoshop I determined that the pix were (badly
made) fakes. The size of the pixels in the UFO part of the image
and those in the flames and smoke were two diffrent sizes! (At
the time) Apparently, the 'artist' has remedied that earlier
discrepency and now the pixels are all (uniformly) blown up to
the same resolution.

Same pix, just "improved" slightly. But fakes nonetheless.

Don't lose any sleep over em. Stuff like this pisses me off
because some folks have nothing better to do with their time
than create hoaxes and distractions to the real work at hand.


Regards,

John Velez

Graphic Artist

******************************************************
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                    www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                            Re: UFO Pics - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:51:10 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:37:21 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Pics - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:34:15 EST
 >Subject: Re: UFO Pics
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:57:12 EST
 >>Subject: UFO Pics
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: eb363@home.com (erik)

 >>>>From: ron <ron@cropcircles.org>

 >>>>Wow! Look at these pics of a UFO:

 >>http://www.filersfiles.com/features/bethune.htm

 >Who was the photographer?

 >If you put an incadescent light on a reostate and vary the
 >voltage, the color changes, from the red shorter end of the
 >spectrum. What scientific tests were conducted to determine that
 >these lights were different than normal lights? How can one
 >determine that this was happening at all when you have
 >individual frames snapped by a still camera?

 >Has anyone actually examined the negatives?


These look something like the publicity posters for the Fire In
the Sky movie about Travis Walton's abduction. My suspicion
hairs [they're in an odd place] start creeping up as soon as I
see the the photographer wants to remain anonymous. Why?

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

             Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:18:46 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:39:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Gates



 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 15:06:31 EST
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:03:54 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Ever heard of "rounding error" and "significant digits"? They
 >>didn't have decimals back in Old Testament times and the number
 >>of significant digits in a measurement was often just 1 digit.

 >>Even today if we had a rounded off diameter of say 10 inches,
 >>that means the actual value is anywhere between 9.5 and 10.5
 >>inches. If it was 9.549 inches then to 4 significant digits the
 >>circumference is exactly 30.00 inches and it is exactly
 >>correctly Pi times the Diameter. At 1 Significant Digit there is
 >>no error at all given this example.

 >Brad,

 >Good point. Most believers would undoubtedly say that there is
 >"rounding off" in the Bible, but the message is still there. The
 >real Fundies, though, usually have none of it. Creation was in 7
 >days, not 10, or rounded to 7 billion, or whatever. And they
 >want everybody else's children to be brainwashed in the public
 >schools with the notion that their "7 days" is equal,
 >scientifically, to any other set of scientific finding. Just
 >'cause they say so.

 >Of course, they never discuss (probably don't even know about)
 >the two Genesis stories,. the one in the First Chapter (where
 >The Flood lasts 40 days) and the one in the Second Chapter
 >(where it lasts a year).


Hi Bob,

As I recollect the Flood is 40 days, but then it takes a full
year for the waters to subside. Kind of like a California flash
flood.  The flood wave blows through quickly, but the water is
still in puddles around.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                        Re: Joseph Smith - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:11:45 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:03:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Mortellaro


 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:05:49 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

<snip >

 >Dear Sirs, Mmes etc.

 >Why are we discussing religious nut-cases?

Dear Wilbur... I mean Larry;

Wilbur's on my mind because I just opened a box of sheet music
which had been packed away for months, since long before we
moved. Out popped Wibur Hatch and a piece he wrote for my uncle,
who knew him well. May they both rest peacefully.

Anyway, what with the snootful of Gripple and all, I am
a little inebriatated, in my cups, full of the grappa and
well, not thinking properly. Which brings me to your post.

Why are we talking "nut cases"? God man, where the hell have you
been all these years? It's what we do here, bubba. Discuss nut
cases. Think about it. What non-nut case has not been ripped up
one side and neatly down the other right here in beautifull,
downtown UpDates? Cheeses man, I can't think of a one. But then,
my thinking is somewhat obscured what with all this Grappa and
mood alterning drugs in me.

 >Of all the more or less Christian belief systems in existence,
 >unlikely as they are, the LDS or Mormonism is possibly the
 >goofiest one to gain any large following over the last 150
years >or so.

Oh, no, Mo. There are many more. The right reverned doctor Billy
Saul Hargus (of Imus fame) worked the First Church of the Gooey,
Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship for many years and got
rich on it. Now that was goofy! He tried to sell us a franchise
in the Holy Font Baptismal Car Wash. I can remember the chant
now, "Put your hands on the radio, and feel the power of HIM!"
Remember that?

 >If I decided to take my brains out and play with them, I would
 >choose some church with more booze and better salads and
 >spaghetti sauce - not to mention those Catholic school girls -
 >but I digress.

Cripes Wilby, Larry, I mean... this also is what is done often
here. People like to listen to themselves. Here we have non
portfolio'd and portfolio'd alike, running amuck writing all
kind and manner of paranoic as well as insensitive non sense,
and believing it to be _sense!_ As for the booz and salads, the
Great Old Seriously Tuff Wine Co, (GOD STuff Wines) which is
what I shall call my new business (high end wines aged more than
one day) will offer booz, salads _and_ school girls. Of course
they will not be Catholic. Them girls won't do what the GOD
STuff Wines want them to do... heh heh.

 >None of this has to do with UFOs unless you and the next guy
 >believe that contactees and religious prophets have something
to >do with UFOs. I think otherwise, rather strongly.

Oh my gosh, you mean they don't?

 >If you want to play make-believe that's fine.

 >If you want to - hopefully, eventually - learn something solid
 >about the " true nature of UFOs", you had best study the nuts
 >and bolts of the matter, what few and what little we can find or
 >hypothesize.

 >As for the ' book of Moroni', well, it almost sounds like the
 >angels of Heaven are Celtic!

Moroni. Good word. Sorry I didn't use it.

Long live UFOs, Abductees and every single King, Queen and
Prince in this List. Please. Cause I got my portfolio right here
on UpDates. Living proof that a man's word is his... uh, his
word.

And here is the straight poop.

Smith was abducted by aliens from Mongo. During his experience,
he was told by them dudes to tell the world about his
experiences, only tell it their way. He was also told that Jesus
was not only a Jew, but Mary, never having fooled around with
Joe, was impregnated by the Mongolian Alien prince, Santa Maria.
Mongo, Santa Maria. Get it?

Then, Mohammed never went to the mountain, the mountain came to
him. On the holodeck of the starship Mongo II out of Mongo
airport, spaceport. All of the prophets were either on Rye
fungus, mushrooms or were abducted. Had Budd Hopkins been around
then, he would have exposed these illegal prophets for the
dimbulbs they all were. Or maybe Jacobs.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, these two dudes are the
only ones I would ever have regress me if indeed I were to be
regressed. Alas, a man such as me, only recently with port
folio, (say that's a good name for a wine) I must be carefull
who it is I boink.

Now that I settled this argument, let us not discuss it further.

I am, the great Doctor J. Jaime Mortellaro

PS: Gesundt is banned from this venue.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

              Re: Editor Wanted For UFO + PSI Magazine - Hayes

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:59:15 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:13:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Editor Wanted For UFO + PSI Magazine - Hayes


 >From: Joe McGonagle <joe@mcgonaglenet.freeserve.co.uk>
 >Date: 27 Jan 2001 20:59:15 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Editor Wanted For UFO + PSI Magazine

 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:45:27 +000
  >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >Subject: Editor Wanted For UFO + PSI Magazine

 >Hello, John/Chris/List,

 >I do hope that someone can step into the breach, because I think
 >that the magazine is an excellent publication. I don't know if
 >Chris would consider producing say 3 issues a year? As he
 >pointed out in his post, the quality is more important than the
 >quantity.


Hello Joe,

Chris did say that he might be able to carry on with the
magazine in about 5-6 months time but nothing is certain at the
moment.I know of one offer to help Chris, but at the moment his
e-mail is down, hopefully we will be able to contact him soon.

Will pass your comments on as soon as I can.

Regards,
John Hayes

webmaster@ufoinfo.com

UFOINFO:- http://ufoinfo.com

Official Archives for UFO Roundup, UK UFO Network Bulletin,
AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences, UFO + PSI
Magazine plus archives of Filer's Files and Oz Files.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:29:12 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:15:17 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:11:43 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

 >>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:59:22 -0600
 >>From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Neil has written:

 >I expected you to eventually pick up on the fact there is no way
 >to tie either the film or the cameraman's story down, it was
 >obvious even back in 95/96 this was a major stumbling block in
 >any research into the AA, you just didn't have a firm historical
 >point to latch onto and work from.

Hi, Neil!

Well, then I really don't understand what you hope to gain from looking
at the footage over and over, again. Nothing has changed since 95. The
cameraman is still a no-show and the footage still looks the same.
Comparing it to other military documentary footage might tell you
something, but that's not really what you are doing in your research, as
I understand it. What you _have_ maintained is the importance that the
cameraman's story and the footage "match" or support each other. Not
much research is needed to verify that, to be sure.

Neil wrote:

 >And when the shortly to be completed Voice Stress Analysis of
 >the cameraman's interview arranged by Ed is in, we will be
 >nearer knowing if "the story" is genuine or "hogwash".

 >If the footage _can_ be tied down in the historical timeline as
 >I believe it can, and the uncertainty of the cameraman and his
 >story resolved.

 >_Then_ we have a whole new ball-game.

Perhaps, but I put very little faith in voice stress analysis.
If it was anywhere close to accurate, then authorities would use
it over lie detectors which, themselves, are highly suspect
where facts are crucial. Beyond that, I don't see how you can
tie AA to the historical timeline when there is no basis for
reference using only the AA footage. It simply makes no sense to
me.

Finally, Neil had previously written:

 >>>If you disagree Roger please explain how you would have shot the
 >>>footage given one camera, the _same_ materials _and_ conditions,

I replied:

 >>You know that the issue here is whether or not the conditions
 >>and materials in question were valid, not how I would shot given
 >>the same materials and conditions. Come on, Neil, you're really
 >>ducking the issue, here.

Neil responded:

 >Far from it Roger, here you had and still have, an open
 >invitation to put _your_ film industry background and inside
 >experience to the test in detailing just how _you_ would have
 >coped with the alleged situation faced by the "lone cameraman".
 >It's all very well opinionating on a subject but unless you can
 >credibly argue an alternative using the _same_ parameters, those
 >opinions are just that, opinions without support.

I am truly mystified, Neil.

You admit that the cameraman's story can't be verified at this
point. You admit that the conditions seen in AA can't be
verified at this point. Yet, you seem to feel the sum of the two
is greater than the whole. You seem to merge the two together
into an assumed truth of some kind because the two support each
other. None of this makes any sense.

I do not question that the conditions seen in the video match
the cameraman's claims. I do not question that the conditions
seen in the video are what was present when the AA footage was
produced. I do not question the end results of the difficulties
shooting with the format chosen, the amount of light present,
the speed of the film stock, the problem with the suits, the
cramped space, etc. What I _do_ question is whether _that_ is
how something as important as the documentation of a creature
from outer space would have been handled!

Look at it like this: Let's say that a man claims to have hit a
bullseye with a pistol from a distance of 300 yards at night
while wearing a radiation suit as a part of his military
training in a secret elite sniper group. At this point we have a
photo copy of the bullseye but no flesh and blood sniper; only
his claim.

Now, since it's a secret group, we have no way of verifying its
existence nor does the bullseye really tell us anything other
than it was shot with a pistol. However, the lack of a flesh and
blood sniper aside, I take the position that he is lying
because:

A) There is no record of pistols being used for long range shots

B) I do not believe that the military would put him in such a
situation to begin with

C) I see no military record of anyone else ever hitting the
bullseye with a pistol at 300 yards

When confronted with this logic, you ask me how I would do any
better using a pistol at 300 yards under the same conditions!
You seem to think that my lack of an alternative method for
dealing with make-believe conditions somehow validates those
conditions.

Likewise, why should I prove how I would shoot 16mm in low light
with crappy black and white film in a cramped room when I feel
that the room would have been bigger, the format would have been
35mm color and there would have been more light? I have no
opinion on how I would have shot in the conditions seen in AA or
as described by the cameraman because I do not believe the
conditions are _real_ based on other military footage of that
time period. What is it about this concept that you do not seem
to grasp?

At this point, we seem to be going in circles.

I will send you my address and you can mail me the stuff and I
will look at it, for what it's worth. Until then, I got nothin'
else to offer and EBK has been very patient, to say the least,
about all this AA nonsense.

Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                          Re: UFO Pics - St. Pierre

From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:34:49 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:31:24 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Pics - St. Pierre


 >From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:57:12 EST
 >Subject: UFO Pics
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >>From: ron <ron@cropcircles.org>

  >>Wow! Look at these pics of a UFO:

 >http://www.filersfiles.com/features/bethune.htm


Great looking pics, but yet another unverifiable story.

Anyway, they look like one of Neff's drawings on Jeff Rense's
Sightings page. I know it isn't, but it might as well be.

If it's a model, it's great work, and I'm sure Roger could find
the hoaxer(s) some employment.


Greg









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                           History Channel Jan 29

From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:00:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:32:44 -0500
Subject: History Channel Jan 29


Greetings List,

I don't know who has this channel available to them and who
doesn't, but the History Channel will be running what appear to
be two new shows on Jan 29th (Monday)

The first is at 8:00 PM EST and concerns crop circles, and is
followed at 9:00 PM by a UFO program. Both look like they'll be
good, so catch 'em if you can.


Greg








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                            Re: UFO Pics - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:01:08 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:35:41 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Pics - McCoy


Hello, all, Alfred.

 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Pics
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:33:05 -0600

 >>From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:57:12 EST
 >>Subject: UFO Pics
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: eb363@home.com (erik)

 >>>>From: ron <ron@cropcircles.org>

 >>>>Wow! Look at these pics of a UFO:

 >>http://www.filersfiles.com/features/bethune.htm

 >>>>Midwest Research
 >>>>Ron Russell
 >>>>Box 460760
 >>>>Aurora, CO 80046 USA
 >>>>303-400-1322
 >>>>www.cropcircles.org

 >>Researcher Steven L. Wilson, Sr
 >>To submit paranormal activity email Ndunlks@aol.com
 >
 >>[Where have I been that I missed _these_? --ebk]

 >These look to me like pictures similar to what Stanton Friedman
 >identified as a hoax during a Gulf Breeze "Project Awareness"
 >conference several years ago. Frankly, if I took pictures of a
 >UFO that looked like these, I'd see the handwriting on the wall
 >and just toss them away.

Who'd believe you, even if you had negatives. These suckers
would be shot down quicker than a clear photograph of say, a
flock of flying Pigs, (fall harder too, I might add).

Even if these are real, one witness, one camera, does not an
event make, heck given the cynical Media, even Mulitiple
Witness/Camera events are dismissed.

Even a landing on the Mall in DC would be questioned I think
apathy rather than fright would happen, the whole thing  didn't
occur just some parlor tricks by someone, or a big
misunderstanding of what is being spooned fed by the Media.


Cynically yours,

GT McCoy









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                         Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:49:10 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:42:14 -0500
Subject: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige


I am looking for information about three items. Can anyone help?

Firstly, I have been reading a book called 'U.F.O.s and
Extraterrestrials in History'. The author is Yves Naud and the
book was originally published in French. I have an English
translation published by 'Ferni', printed in Spain and
distributed by 'Friends of History'. In my edition there are no
bibliographical references, which is unfortunate as the book is
full of early UFO cases (some highly dubious). Does anyone have
a different edition with a bibliography or notes? Who is Yves
Naud?

Secondly, I have come across a reference to a very unusual
'folkloric abduction' dated November 15th 1792. Apparently, one
Hans Bouchmann, a 50 year old Swiss peasant, disappeared
suddenly in the village of Romerswill-Sempach. He reappeared two
weeks later in Milan. Bouchmann said that he had been taken up
into the air and transported to Fairyland. When he returned he
found he had been thoroughly shaved and had not one hair left on
his body! Does anyone recognise this tale? Is there any known
modern parallel?

Thirdly, according to articles published in specialist magazines
in 1975, a Belgian priest, Gustavo le Paige, was convinced that
alien beings had been living on earth in the remote past. Le
Paige was a missionary in Chile whose archaeological research
had led him to the discovery  of hundreds of tombs. He told a
Chilean reporter at one point that the tombs were used to bury
both extraterrestrials and humans, and that some of the mummies
and other remains he found bore highly unusual features that are
not found naturally on earth. Father le Paige created a museum
in San  Pedro de  Atacama, a village at the foot of the Andes,
which contained a great wealth of skeletons which he had
personally excavated in the region, along with countless other
artefacts.

It is not known what allegedly extraterrestrial skeletons were
found by le Paige - if any, of course - because, unfortunately,
he fell ill and died in 1980, shortly before his findings could
be made public, and the ultimate resting place of the collection
is unknown. As far as I know, the last person to have attempted
to shed light on le Paige�s sensational claims was Swiss author
Erich von Dniken, who had been trying to arrange a televised
interview with the priest just before he became terminally ill.
Von Dniken wrote about Le Paige in his book Pathways of the
Gods. Does anyone know anything else? I am unable to find any
other mention of Le Paige's claims, if indeed he ever actually
claimed any of this.


Chris Aubeck









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                         Re: Joseph Smith - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:00:35 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:55:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Lehmberg


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:09:45 EST
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:05:49 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

<snip>

 >>None of this has to do with UFOs unless you and the next guy
 >>believe that contactees and religious prophets have something to
 >>do with UFOs. I think otherwise, rather strongly.

 >Hi Larry,

 >Somebody was trying to make the comparison between CE/abductions
 >and religion related events.

I don't think anybody has to try to make a ufological comparison
with something as obvious as the rich tapestry of recorded
historical evidence that has come to light in the last several
years, scriptural or NOT. Individually these historical
occurrences can be too airily poo-pooed with equally obvious
prejudice, but taken together their significance is stark and
more evidence of obtuse, complacent, and (I'll bet) contrived --
academic, spiritual, and institutional ignorance (cowardice).

 >One of the members of the MUFON board, Rev Barry somebody had a
 >book out doing essentially the same thing, comparing various
 >events and descriptions in the bible to UFOS.

 >One could make the case from a religious perspective that God
 >created life on this planet, dinos, plants, humans and so on,
 >and that God created life on other planets as well and perhaps
 >we are getting visited by such life. This notion does not sit
 >well with those that belive that God only created life on this
 >planet, and this planet only.

You know -- I can appreciate that this information does not sit
well with the complacent individual that shall not cop to the
obvious, but in as much as that same individual is otherwise
comfortable sitting on my chest and cutting off my air, that
individual should not be surprised by by the sharp sting of my
literary bodkin as it slices up the flaccid expanse of that
aforementioned and metaphorical sitting equipment. I'll take
that same literary instrument and shove it into their sweating
faces as I point up their shallow sociopathic logic, their
dearth of intellectual courage, and their obstinate, determined,
and convenient ignorance. I sneer openly at their featureless,
two color, shallowly drawn, and pathetic sense of cosmic
superiority! <snap!>

 >Nor does the notion sit well with
 >so called scientists who think this planet is it and no life can
 >be found elsewhere.

Please re-read the preceding paragraph.

 >Kind of goes hand in hand with the dark ages theory about the
 >sun revolving around the earth and or how we are the center of
 >the universe and there is no other. Always thought that view
 >point was rather arrogant myself.

Just another debt we owe Aristotle, a person whose revered
existence proves the need for a philosophical line item veto! If
it occures to the reader to question my attitude, apparent
arrogance, or lack of respect for our traditions and
institutions he should do as Bill Hicks once advised, and "take
a long, hard look around the world in which we live, and -- oh,
I don't know... shut their f__king mouths"! <g>.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com
  ~~~~
EXPLORE Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.
http://www.alienview.net
                  **Updated All the TIME**
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/witches/237/lehmberg.html

JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually.
He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put
one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention
he gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail.
$350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected!

"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see
from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, scourged by
the scurrilous skepti-feebroids.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -

From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:52:07 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:56:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:18:46 EST
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hi Bob,

 >As I recollect the Flood is 40 days, but then it takes a full
 >year for the waters to subside. Kind of like a California flash
 >flood.  The flood wave blows through quickly, but the water is
 >still in puddles around.

Just a note of possible interest. A book, 'Uriel's Machine',
makes the claim that the flood was caused by a multi-part comet
hit back around 9,000 years ago. The book of Enoch, which is a
Dead Sea Scrolls find, describes something that sounds just like
a cometary impact in several bodies of water. The pieces were
allegedly large enough to cause several, massive tsunamies (sp?)
that flooded the Earth and cooled down the planet for a bit. Is
this what caused the flood?

Interesting book. I'm only through a couple of chapters.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Keith

From: Rebecca  Keith<xiannekei@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:07:44 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:59:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Keith


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:09:45 EST
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Somebody was trying to make the comparison between
 >CE/abductions and religion related events.

 >One of the members of the MUFON board, Rev Barry somebody had
 >a book out doing essentially the same thing, comparing various
 >events and descriptions in the bible to UFOS.

Dr. Barry Downing - a Methodist minister who holds a degree in
physics, if I'm not mistaken.

I've heard Dr. Downing speak several times and he has never
failed to make me look at this field we call ufology in a
different light.

The Bible and UFOs is an early book of his, which has been
reprinted many times.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                  Paranormal Aspects of Chilean Chupacabras

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:58:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:13:05 -0500
Subject: Paranormal Aspects of Chilean Chupacabras


Dear Friends,

This will probably not be of interest to most members of this
List, but others (you know who you are!) will clearly understand
what it's about.

Jaime Ferrer, a Chilean businessman who directs the Calama UFO
Research Center, was recently discussing the chupacabras attacks
with a 91 year old man from the inland town of Peine. The man
said that "his grandfather's grandfather's" knew about these
animal attacks very well and considered them to be "deities".

So far, nothing new. All primitive societies ascribe godhood to
what they can't understand. The Chilean natives apparently
believed that these entities also bore messages of great
importance.

However, the old man told Ferrer that while these messages had
always been verbal, they were now expressed numerically,
explaining it thus: "Seven Lowered by One, Thirteen Lowered by
Seven, Four Raised by Two " -- in other words, 666.

Ferrer says the following about this curious observation: "It is
very strange to hear these native mention such a thing, much
less in such a phrase, which appears to be worded with great
care. In the ancient Cunza dialect (which preceded the current
Aymara dialect) these entities were known as "Achaches", which
means "demon-slaves", the name by which they are still
identified in the ritual dances held in the area.

A local woman told Ferrer that 16 years ago, 10 pregnant llamas
died of acute anemia following the appearance of puncture marks
around their necks. The day preceding the attacks, the woman and
her sister saw something they described as a "snake with legs"
which they saw running down the middle of a stream at
considerable speed, and reminded her of the "Roadrunner" TV
cartoon. She also recalled that carrion birds would beat their
breasts with their wings and regurgitate the remains of these
animals after having consumed them (an unpleasant image this
early in the morning, but hey...).


Scott Corrales



"You must do what you feel is right, of course.."
---Obi-Wan Kenobi to Luke Skywalker, SW:ANH (1977)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:31:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:18:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Velez


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:11:45 EST
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:05:49 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

Hi All,

 ><snip>

 >>Dear Sirs, Mmes etc.

 >>Why are we discussing religious nut-cases?

 >Dear Wilbur... I mean Larry;

<snip>

 >And here is the straight poop.

"Poop" excellent choice of a description for your words!

You verbally pooped the following:

 >Smith was abducted by aliens from Mongo. During his experience,
 >he was told by them dudes to tell the world about his
 >experiences, only tell it their way. He was also told that Jesus
 >was not only a Jew, but Mary, never having fooled around with
 >Joe, was impregnated by the Mongolian Alien prince, Santa Maria.
 >Mongo, Santa Maria. Get it?

 >Then, Mohammed never went to the mountain, the mountain came to
 >him. On the holodeck of the starship Mongo II out of Mongo
 >airport, spaceport. All of the prophets were either on Rye
 >fungus, mushrooms or were abducted. Had Budd Hopkins been around
 >then, he would have exposed these illegal prophets for the
 >dimbulbs they all were. Or maybe Jacobs.
I gotta hand it to you Mortellaro, at least you're consistent!

What a purely _mean_spirited_ (and almost unintelligible)
response/contribution to the thread.

It is 'typical' though of the kind of contributions that you
make to the List so I'm not _that_ surprised to read something
like this coming from you.

 >I must be carefull who it is I boink.

Yes please, do be careful, I too am growing more and more
concerned about you 'reproducing' with every new day that
passes.

 >Now that I settled this argument, let us not discuss it further.

'God' has spoken!

I'm just going to quote from a previous post and save the wear
and tear on my fingers.

In the J. Smith thread, I was drawing attention to some specific
references/alleged testimony in an 1830 report that bear a
striking similarity/sameness to modern abduction accounts both
in the wording of it, and the sequence of events that are
presented. You seem to have a -major- problem with that for some
reason. You have deemed it a 'waste of time' and so you sit at
home composing these noxious and unfunny postings. Why does it
bother you so much that a few of us find this topic interesting
or worthy of discussion? To the point where the kind of sarcasm
and condescension you display above comes oozing out of your
every pore. (Rhetorical)

 >I am, the great Doctor J. Jaime Mortellaro

Doctor of what? Sarcasm? Painfully _bad_ humor?
Misinterpretation? I would grant you a degree in any of those in
a New York minute. You've earned em!

 >PS: Gesundt is banned from this venue.

And you wonder why?

If this thread or its topic is really such a rub to you, simply
delete them as they arrive. Frankly I can do without the kind of
contribution you made above. It adds nothing of any value at all
to the discussion, and it's not cute or funny.

In fact, it is a purely mean-spirited response and one that is;
quite revealing of you as a person, and one that is insulting to
anybody who is genuinely interested in discussing the subject of
'possible' historical references to UFOs or aliens.

Which, for reasons I cannot fathom, has you _spewing_ sarcasm
and insults everywhere.

Learn to _sit_out_ the dances that you don't know the steps to.


Regards,

John Velez, tired of swatting annoying flies that only
  come to dine on dung.

.................................................................
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                            www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
.................................................................









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:20:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:21:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Velez


 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:05:49 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:21:52 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Michael Haggard <mikeh@cybertrails.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >>>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:10:03 -0800

 >>>>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:20:51 -0500
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: More Pre-1947 Cases

 >>>><snip>

 >>>>I have often wondered why the written testimony of Joseph
 >>>>Smith (the founder of the Mormon religion/church) is never
 >>>>considered to be a 'contact' report by modern ufologists.

 ><snip>

 >>>.. In each case he plead (sp) guilty or was found guilty of
 >>>milking money from the masses.

 ><snip>

 >>>The "real" Mormon church centered in Missouri (the Supreme Court
 >>>of the United States ruled years ago that the Salt Lake City
 >>>branch of Mormonism is a faction or a cult splinter) decided
 >>>years ago to de-emphasize the Book of Mormon and Smith's role
 >>>and to re-emphasize the Bible. All because of the of Smith's
 >>>dubious criminal record as it relates to his story.

 ><snip>

 >>Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith, decided to stay in the midwest
 >>and not go to Salt Lake after Joseph Smith was martyred.

 ><snip>

 >>Awhile back there was a big controversy in the Reorganized
 >>Church when no more "men descendants" were available
 >>and the family member next in line to be President of the
 >>Reorganized Church was female. Last I heard the "descendent"
 >>theory changed at that point.

 >Dear Sirs, Mmes etc.

 >Why are we discussing religious nut-cases?

Hi Larry,

The short answer to your question is; we're not.

This thread began because a question was asked regarding old
(historically old) UFO/sighting/contact reports. In response, I
asked if any modern ufologists considered (seriously) the
testimony that Jos. Smith gives in the Intro to the book of
Mormon as being similar/same as modern reports. I quoted the
parts of Smith's testimony that I felt were relevant and
represented good examples of 'what' I was referring to, and I
asked what folks thought of the similarities that I had pointed
out.

Some folks provided information regarding Smith himself and his
'character' that I wasn't aware of. Some one else started
discussing the value or relevance of Smith's testimony. To me,
all interesting and new ways of looking at it. I also introduced
some of the 'similarities' between the biblical account of
Jesus' life and modern UFO/ abduction reports. A separate
discussion on that ensued.

It just seems to be a 'couple' of people that are 'bothered' by
the discussion. We have the 'Docca" on one side accusing the
thread participants of 'intentionally mixing religion with
ufology' and you complaining about having to read a thread
- that_you_do_not_have_to_read!

Just trash em as they come in if they are rubbing you the wrong
way Larry. That's what I do. Don't let it 'bother' you man. If a
few of us find the subject interesting or simply wish to learn a
little more about it, it shouldn't represent something that
"pisses you off". If it's not your 'cup of tea/ beer' just pass
on it. But please... don't piss on it. I don't know much about
this stuff and so far, I've learned some thing new from just
about every posting. 'Some' of us are genuinely interested in
learning more about these historical accounts that bear such a
striking resemblance to modern reports.

Sorry if that 'bothers' some of you so much. I'm here to learn
and hopefully to contribute what little I can along the way, not
to 'annoy' people.

Regards,

John Velez

..................................................................
   "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                             www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
..................................................................









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                     Re: X-PPAC Press Release - 1/30/01

From: Stephen Bassett <ExPPAC@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:24:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:53:12 -0500
Subject: Re: X-PPAC Press Release - 1/30/01


X-PPAC

Press Release - January 30, 2001
Re: H.R. 19 - Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001

Washington,DC -  While the principal focus of X-PPAC is ending
via open Congressional hearings the government embargo of the
truth of an ongoing extraterrestrial presence, it also has great
interest in certain closely related areas: 1) secrecy reform, 2)
intelligence agency reform, 3) military/intelligence abuse of
power, 4) reform of NASA, and 5) sequestration of advanced
technologies.

In that broader context X-PPAC announces its opposition
to a bill filed in the House of Representatives on January 3,
2001 - H.R. 19 titled 'Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001"
introduced by Representative Bob Barr and now in the
House Committee on International Relations.

This bill has no other purpose than to repeal certain sections
of three previous Executive orders prohibiting assassinations
by any element of the United States government.

It is the role of Congress to foster policies which build trust
with the American people, it is the role of the State
Department to foster policies which build trust with the
world's people, and it is the role of the military services and
intelligence agencies to anticipate, thwart and prosecute the
evils of terrorism - not to emulate them.

This bill will be an embarrassment to the nation if it is even
voted out of committee to the House floor.

X-PPAC will be urging all House and Senate members to
lobby the House Committee on International Relations to
reject H.R. 19 without compromise and to reject any effort
by the President to effect the same result via a new
Executive order.

Contact:

Stephen Bassett

301-564-1820
ExPPAC@aol.com

_______________________________________________

   Extraterrestrial Phenomena Political Action Committee
                       URL: www.x-ppac.org
                     E-mail: exppac@aol.com
                       Phone: 301-564-1820
                         Fax: 301-564-4066
                     4938 Hampden Lane, #161
                     Bethesda, Maryland 20814

*****************************************************************









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 29

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Aubeck

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:45:37 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:49:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Aubeck


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:23:20 EST
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:15:52 -0800 (PST)
 >>From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Joseph Smith
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


<snip>

 >Apparently the "plurality of worlds" (life
 >elsewhere) notion was quite popular in the 16th
 >through 19th centuries and was considered orthodox
 >Christian doctrine. Kepler apparently believed in
 >lunar inhabitants. One of the earliest popular
 >treatments was Fontenelle's Conversations on the
 >Plurality of Worlds, 1686 (Engl. transl. A Discovery of
 >New Worlds, 1688).There have been scholarly books
 >written that document the history of this thought, such
 >as those by Michael Crowe and Steven Dick.

 >Joseph Smith's ideas were not as "astonishingly"
 >advanced as they might seem, because he believed there
 >were human inhabitants _on_ the Sun and other stars, _on_
 >the alleged star Kolob, not near it, as well as
 >Quaker-style men and women living on the Moon. Very
 >quaint. Recent Mormon doctrine considers the Earth itself
 >a "living thing."

Hello Brad,

I�m glad you have made the point about the Christian point of
view on extraterrestrial life, and I appreciate the useful
quotes from Mormon publications.

I have been planning to research the history of the Christian
faith as regards life beyond planet Earth. This is not for
personal reasons (I am not Christian)but because I consider it
important to look at the social and religious environment
surrounding the UFO debate, both historically and as a current
issue. I wasn�t aware that Church so readily embraced the
concept of a plurality of worlds in the early 19th century,
although I know of some specific cases. I would be grateful if
you could post a list of books which you regard as helpful and
reliable sources for me to read up on this.

Belief that the sun was inhabited is not limited to Brigham
Young�s claims. The last time it was proposed in ufology, I
believe, was in W. Raymond Drake�s first UFO book �Gods And
Spacemen,� published by Amherst Press in the late 1960s (I no
longer have a copy so I can�t check the exact date). In a
telephone call shortly before his death he told me he didn�t
really believe it was true but that he was fascinated by the
idea all the same. Not surprisingly, I haven�t seen this theory
proposed since.

The idea that the moon is inhabited is very old, as you no doubt
know. But not everyone accepted the idea that it was even solid
enough to set foot on. One of the least-remembered but most
interesting proponents of the idea that the moon was a world
comparable to Earth was Diego de Torres Villaroel, Professor of
Mathematics at the University of Salamanca. Torres wrote a short
book called Juicio i Prognostico del Globo about a strange
phenomenon seen in Spain on November 2nd 1730. The book was
published in the same year, in Madrid. Apart from being probably
Europe�s first scientifically-minded �ufologist� (no doubt
somebody will want to argue about that in future postings), he
was adamant that the moon had suitable conditions for harbouring
life.

One of his many critics wrote that �Torres wanted to persuade us
that the Moon was solid; the truth of the matter is that the
Moon is gaseous and it can�t have the Mountains and Valleys that
he says�[plus other] Things I have not spoken of which deserve
not only censorship, but also excommunion.�

So you see not everyone was ready to accept this
sort of speculation.

More amusing by far was the debate that went on in 1835 when
journalist Richard Adams Locke (1800-1871) hoaxed the New York
Sun into believing that life had been seen on the moon through a
telescope. One missionary society in Springfield, Massachusetts,
opened a special fund and resolved to send missionaries to the
moon to civilize the humanoids!

Regards,

Chris Aubeck


PS. I don't know if everyone will agree with me but I don't
think the central question here is whether Smith or anyone else
really experienced encounters of any kind. It is simply
necessary to trace the history of the enigma back to its roots,
and then to contrast similar beliefs that may have existed prior
to or simultaneously with it. We cannot measure the mystery
unless we know all its dimensions, including time and extension
across cultures.

I would sleep perfectly well at night if we suddenly knew for
certain that all these years of research and exploration had
only proved the inexistence of the supernatural and the
verification of psychosocial theories. In fact it would relieve
the sense of urgency and frustration some researchers feel. I
would not stop collecting and reflecting on encounter cases just
because I discovered it all to be 'unreal.'

The only risk in this intellectual pursuit hits you in the face
when you realise that the final conclusion MAY not be as
emotionally rewarding as the search itself. But once you get
past puberty you find it's not really a problem.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 30

                           Re: UFO Pics - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 30 Jan 2001 06:09:56 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:21:20 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Pics - Hamilton


 >From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Pics
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:34:49 -0800


 >>From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:57:12 EST
 >>Subject: UFO Pics
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: ron <ron@cropcircles.org>

 >>>Wow! Look at these pics of a UFO:

 >>http://www.filersfiles.com/features/bethune.htm

 >Great looking pics, but yet another unverifiable story.

 >Anyway, they look like one of Neff's drawings on Jeff Rense's
 >Sightings page. I know it isn't, but it might as well be.

 >If it's a model, it's great work, and I'm sure Roger could find
 >the hoaxer(s) some employment.

I believe that this object was once found to resemble a lighting
apparatus used at a rock concert. At one time there was a
posting on the web showing comparisons. That's the clue to track
down.


Bill 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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 30

                            UFO*BC's New Website

From: Gavin McLeod <gavin_mcleod@telus.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:42:02 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:50:07 -0500
Subject: UFO*BC's New Website


UFO*BC has been reborn with a new website and a new URL.

Please point your browsers at:

http://www.ufobc.ca


Gavin McLeod
for UFO*BC






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 30

                    Re: UFOs & Village Violence - Dittman

From: Geoff Dittman <gdittman@autobahn.mb.ca>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 07:50:24 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:44:14 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs & Village Violence - Dittman


 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:51:36 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: UFOs & Village Violence
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >I have come across 3 cases in which UFOs allegedly acted
 >violently towards whole villages. As I have yet to see a
 >complete report on these incidents, and there are few details to
 >go by, maybe someone out there knows something they can share.
 >Briefly, then, here they are (date, victims, event and source):
 ><snip>

 >I am also sure there are more cases like these doing the rounds.
 >Perhaps someone could add others to the list to help create a
 >catalogue.


A catalogue has already been created, and can be found at

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/2653/sixthkind.html

So far, it contains 31 cases involving death, 272 cases
involving temporary injury, and 10 involving permanent injury.
Like the above cases, most of the deaths have little details.


Geoff Dittman








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 30

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:21:27 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:52:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Hatch


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:09:45 EST
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:05:49 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 ><snip>

 >>None of this has to do with UFOs unless you and the next guy
 >>believe that contactees and religious prophets have something to
 >>do with UFOs. I think otherwise, rather strongly.

 >Hi Larry,

 >Somebody was trying to make the comparison between CE/abductions
 >and religion related events.

 >One of the members of the MUFON board, Rev Barry somebody had a
 >book out doing essentially the same thing, comparing various
 >events and descriptions in the bible to UFOS.

 >One could make the case from a religious perspective that God
 >created life on this planet, dinos, plants, humans and so on,
 >and that God created life on other planets as well and perhaps
 >we are getting visited by such life. This notion does not sit
 >well with those that belive that God only created life on this
 >planet, and this planet only. Nor does the notion sit well with
 >so called scientists who think this planet is it and no life can
 >be found elsewhere.

 >Kind of goes hand in hand with the dark ages theory about the
 >sun revolving around the earth and or how we are the center of
 >the universe and there is no other. Always thought that view
 >point was rather arrogant myself.


Hello Robert:

I agree that nothing in UFO studies seems to necessitate nor
exclude religious beliefs, religion seems if not irrelevant, at
least pretty much off to one side.

If a group of people see a UFO on their way to church, the
sighting is really no better or worse than if they were on their
way to some other social function.

It gets real messy however when we discuss the religious
contactees, those given supernatural revelation from angels or
deities.

I'm personally inclined to dismiss such accounts just like the
space-brothers contactees, for many of the same reasons. Yes,
the two types of contactees do seem to have much in common, as
John pointed out originally.

This is just my personal opinion of course, but the more a
space-alien contactee resembles a religious contactee, the more
my BS buzzer sounds!

I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but that's probably asking
too much.


Best wishes,

Larry Hatch









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 30

                    Filer's Files #5 -- 2001 [Truncated]

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:52:23 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:42:15 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #5 -- 2001 [Truncated]


Filer's Files #5 -- 2001, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
January 29, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren <A HREF="www.filersfiles.com">
http://www.filersfiles.com,</A>

INCREASED UFO SIGHTINGS ARE BEING REPORTED FROM ALL OVER THE
WORLD. In Siberia, Russian pilots refused to take off because of
a hovering UFO, while UFOs were spotted in North Carolina,
Illinois, Texas, Malaysia, the Isle of Man, UK, and Chile. Sky
booms in North Carolina and Ohio,

RED DWARFS MAY HARBOR ALIEN LIFE

NEW SCIENTIST reports, IF YOU WANT to find extraterrestrial
intelligence, you're going to have to look in the right place.
In our Galaxy alone there are more than 100 billion stars, so
you might expect to find a profusion of alien abodes. But which
suns do you point your telescope at? Bright, yellow stars like
our own Sun have always seemed the obvious place to start. In
the past few years, though, researchers have begun to wonder if
they've been neglecting a whole class of likely targets: red
dwarfs. Smaller, cooler and fainter than the Sun, red dwarfs
give out just a feeble red glow. More than a dozen of these puny
stars reside within as many light years of Earth, yet they're so
faint that not a single one is visible to the unaided eye. It
was always thought that any planet orbiting a red dwarf would be
an extremely unlikely place to find life. But it now looks as
though these dim red suns could harbor most of the Galaxy's
life-bearing worlds. This is great news for anyone hoping to
find hospitable planets outside the Solar System. While stars
like the Sun are relatively rare, four out of five stars in our
Galaxy are red dwarfs. "We all want to find habitable planets
out there," says Laurance Doyle, an astronomer at the SETI
Institute in Mountain View, California. "The fact that we can
now rule in 80 per cent of the stars is a positive note." Thanks
to Ken Croswell

Editor's Note: If those reports of aliens wearing dark colored
inserts over their eyes are true, an alien explorer from a Red
Dwarf would need to shield his eyes from our bright sun. This
might also explain the reports of alien craft entering and
leaving the water for darkness.

NORTH CAROLINA AND OHIO JOLTED BY MYSTERIOUS BOOMS

WILMINGTON -- Gerry @ Far Shores reports mysterious booming
noises that have shaken the Cape Fear coast from time to time
returned last week, prompting calls to meteorologists and
earthquake specialists from worried residents. The National
Earthquake Information Center in Boulder, Colo., detected no
major earth movement in the area. Modern theories include that
the booms are caused by jets breaking the sound barrier, the
shifting of the continental shelf, or a volume of air suddenly
becoming hotter than the air surrounding it and exploding like a
balloon.

ASHTABULA, Ohio. Sky booms accompanied by quivering of the
ground was reported Friday, January 19, 2001, at 9:13 PM in this
community on the shore of Lake Erie. The booms sounded similar
to explosions but no source was found. Police and fire
dispatchers fielded several calls from folks in Saybrook and
Ashtabula Townships and in Ashtabula who felt the unexplainable
tremor. 'The seismographic site did report some kind of blip,'
Ed Semppi, director of the Ashtabula County Emergency Management
Agency said, 'But there's no reason as to what happened yet.'
Officials from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Geologic Survey in Columbus had noticed a tremor-like vibration
at their Jefferson-based seismographic site."  Thanks to the
Ashtabula Star-Beacon for January 21, 2001"

Editor's Note: These loud booms often signal UFO activity in an
area. They are often reported near bodies of water where UFOs
are reported entering and leaving. We will continue top watch
these areas for continued sightings.

SOUTH CAROLINA CIGAR SHAPED UFO

ANDERSON -- On January 4, 2001, the witness observed a white
large object without wings moving very slowly toward the
northwest or about 340 degrees. The object was white, not a
light, nor silver, nor reflecting sunlight. It stopped in it's
slow movement for about ten seconds or more when it was about
ten degrees off my 12 O'clock position. The sky was clear with
only some cirrus clouds in the West. I watched the object then
went for my wife to verify what I was seeing. She came out and
watched it for a few minutes. I went back inside for my
binoculars but had misplaced them, this taking about five
minutes. When I went back outside the object was still in view
and moving very slowly. Eventually it went behind the view to
the cirrus clouds. As a pilot I am familiar with judging
altitude, etc., and this was above 30,000 feet. As mentioned
before, it was white in color not reflecting the sun. The object
was over an inch as measured with my hand in front of my eyes.
This was very unusual to me as it was moving toward the jet
stream for today. I did not say to my wife what I thought it
was, nor color, etc., but I did ask her to explain what she saw.
She said the same thing I was thinking, color, shape etc. The
shape as we could make it out was long with no wings. It
certainly was NOT a weather balloon. It was in our view at least
twelve to twenty minutes from the 11 o'clock position that I
first observed it until it was about 3 o'clock in the NW sky. My
location is: Lat. 34 32 20N Long. 82 43 35W Thanks to Peter
Davenport Director NUFORC <A
HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC</A> www.ufocenter.com

GEORGIA ABDUCTIONS MAY NOT BE ET

MUFONGA State Director Tom Sheets says, I feel that some further
discussion is in order regarding the non-extraterrestrial
theory(s) and the UFO phenomena. I mentioned that my personal
views now lean more toward the non-ET theory of UFOs and the
several probably related areas, abduction, entities, et al. I
pursued an intense study of the phenom due to a personal
experience. During my career as police chief, I continued this
and was fortunate enough to find a few peers doing the same.
Eventually my becoming sort of a 'clearing house' in the South
Atlanta Metro area led to various citizens bringing their
experiences to me for cursory investigation, or perhaps it just
allowed them to vent to someone in authority who would listen
and understand. While most of the UFO literature available to me
was pretty set on the theory that UFOs were interplanetary
craft, upon reading Vallee and Dr. Jung, a big question mark was
thrown into the other sources I was studying. Retirement gave me
the opportunity to join MUFON with the proper time to devote to
this endeavor. As I became embroiled in all of that from 1996
onward, these questions continued to pop up, constantly
screaming that the UFO phenom WAS NOT WHAT IT SEEMED. I met the
then MUFON State Director and founding ISUR Board member John
Thompson in 1996, and was indeed fortunate that he became my
mentor. Discussions with John further deepened the mystery. John
always said that he just followed where the UFO evidence took
him. John Thompson was right! THE PHENOMENA WAS DEFINITELY NOT
WHAT IT SEEMED TO BE! It's almost like some of the 'other' well
known big name UFO investigators and researchers have
brainwashed (exploited?) the public into the ET hypothesis above
all others, thereby more or less closing the minds of smart and
clever folks like you that otherwise could help find the
solution we've been seeking.

Last week John Thompson reviewed the book 'Grand Illusions'
written by Dr. Gregory Little in Filer's Files #3. Please go to
George Filer's website ( <A
HREF="www.filersfiles.com">www.filersfiles.com<;/A> ) and read
Dr. Little's theory on the origin of UFOs and related events
that closely parallel my own, and those of John Thompson. Having
read Vallee and Jung through the 70's and 80's, and Keel in the
90's, then Dr. Little in the past few months, plus my own
findings from case investigation, I've been led to lean further
away from the theories of an extraterrestrial origin for UFOs.
Yes, UFOs are a reality, yes some abductions experiencers are
reporting truthfully, yes some entity manifestations are for
real. I'm just leaning further and further away from the
theories that scream that they're ALL ET in origin. In fact, if
they were ALL just ET paying good old earth a visit, it would be
much simpler for us to comprehend (and ascertain same). The
phenom as we know it is so bizarre, so variable, so outright
weird, only an explanation like that proposed by Dr. Little, et
al really makes sense in my opinion. I'm not totally discarding
the possibility of extraterrestrial life and visitation -- only
a fool would do so -- because those boogers are definitely out
there. I just don't feel they are behind ALL of this high
strangeness Ufologists have been encountering for some 50+
years.  Read the 'Mothman Prophecies' by John Keel (Arcturus can
send it, 561-398-0796). 'Grand Illusions' is available from Book
Clearing House  at 1-800-356-9315 Also go to the ISUR
(International Society for UFO Research) website and read John
Thompson's articles 'Abductions: The Truth', and 'The Enigmatic
Troup-Heard Corridor'. There are also excellent articles there
by C. Leigh Culver, the Georgia UFO community's abduction
specialist. The case database also contains complete field
investigator's reports for MANY Georgia cases by Thompson, and
the other ISUR Board Members and investigators. (Most of these
were joint MUFON/ISUR cases, as a lot of us carry credentials
from both organizations). <A HREF="www.isur.com">ISUR</A>
www.isur.com.

ILLINOIS SIGHTING REPORTS

ROCKFORD -- WREX Channel 13 Television and other news media
reported that they had received some 600 reports of UFOs over
this city in Northern Illinois around 9:00 PM on January 11,
2001. As many as twelve lights or UFOs were reported conducting
maneuvers over the city. Some reports of computer and electrical
shutdowns coincided with the reports. Later that night on all
three of the news stations in Rockford reported the sightings.
Some people reported seeing six lights while others reported
seeing a dozen yellow orange lights hovering in the sky. The
light sightings were made from 8:50 to 9:00 PM. Sightings have
been fairly regular in recent months over the city.

MISSOURI CHEMTRAILS

KANSAS CITY -- Richard Buchli D.V.M., Ph.D., "We started with a
clear sky this morning. Midmorning I counted 8 planes laying
down tracks east to west. As these tracks expanded to a mile or
more in width, they joined. I quit watching shortly after noon.
Now at 4:00 PM we are so completely overcast that I can look
directly at the sun and see a spot of light. At the same time as
the chemtrails were being laid down, I spotted several normal
CONTRAILS which evaporated a short distance behind the planes.
The normal contrails were at approximately the same height as
the Chemtrails. If any of my photos come out, I will share some
of them with you. Thanks to DORI PRESENTATIONS, LTD. Richard
Buchli D.V.M. Ph.D. docrib@kc.rr.com

TEXAS CIGAR SHAPED UFO

HOUSTON -- Cliff Rowe reports that on January 5, 2001, I was
driving my car at 5:40 PM to pick up my granddaughter at the
library as the sun was just setting below the horizon. The sky
was still blue with a high cloud or two reflecting orange color
on the clouds. I observed a bright (cloud like) oblong
unidentified object moving from east to west. At first I thought
it was a meteorite with a tail on it moving through the
atmosphere. I pulled my car into a parking lot to watch it for
about ten minutes or so. The object was moving about the speed
of an airplane at 30,000 feet altitude. As I watched it, there
were airplanes moving around with landing lights on and I
compared the object to the airplanes. The airplanes looked dark
even with their landing lights on against the blue sky. I saw no
wings on the object. The object was about the size of my small
fingernail at arm's length. I could also describe it as a moving
small bright white cloud. The object was flying much higher than
the airplanes and was totally covered with a bright white light,
nothing like the airplanes I observed. The object moved
completely across the sky in about 7 or 8 minutes, from over
Baytown to Houston, and then seemed to slow down or stop and
then start moving again. The object flying as high as it was
seemed twice as large compared to the airplanes flying at a
lower altitude. It also seemed to me that the sun might have
been reflecting on the object because the object maintained it's
brightness with a slight orange color the entire time I observed
it. The object did not leave any vapor trail like a high flying
plane might do. The object flew into a small orange cloud and
emerged a minute later and then seemed to change direction to
the south. ' I live 30 miles east of Houston and this object
would have been over Houston the last time I observed it. The
object stood out because of it's brightness. I do not believe it
was an airplane after comparing the planes to it. It looked
entirely different from the planes. Thanks to Cliff Rowe
husa@ev1.net

TEXAS NOCTURNAL VISITATION

KINGSVILLE - I experienced something very very strange sometime
before 4:00 AM on December 31, 2000. Frankly, I have the feeling
I was visited. For the past five years, I have dreamed that my
two story house is tilting and crashing into the street. This
morning, I awoke and suddenly heard a low frequency buzz or
vibration. I'm not sure what it was, but I sensed my house was
tilting again to the west. I tried to brace myself because I
though I was in another earthquake like when I lived in Japan. I
expected to hear furniture hitting the west wall. I mean the
angle was about 45 degrees now. But, I neither heard furniture
slamming into anything and to my amazement, my ceiling fan was
turning as normal and not at an angle. That clued me into
something weird. While I was trying to brace myself, I realized
I was fully immobilized, could not move any limb or my head. The
only thing that would move were my eyes and they were open. At
this time, I looked to my right toward my skylight and saw a
beam of blue light that I sensed was searching and it found me.
To my left (west side) I also saw light coming from the window.
I realized something was not right, I could not move. I now felt
semi unconscious yet fully awake and I was being examined in
bed. I looked around and could only make out a small dark figure
to my left, above my head and to my right. To my astonishment,
directly in front of me about ten feet away, I saw what appeared
to be a holographic figure, or perhaps that was the beam of
light that found me. I asked these things what they wanted, but
got no response and sensed they were intent on examining me. I
definitely experienced fear! But there was nothing I could do.
Then suddenly it stopped, and they left at least it felt that
way, and I look quickly at the clock and it was 0402 hours. The
blue light then gradually went away (maybe 30 seconds after the
events stopped) from both my sky light and window. I have been
awake since.

CHILE UFOs SIGHTED AND FILMED

SANTIAGO DE CHILE AND ROMERAL -- Cristian Riffo reports film and
photo evidence is coming in on various UFO sightings that will
be analyzed by researchers. With a record number of visitors and
the presence of UFOs in the skies, the Second UFO Alert (Segunda
Alerta Ovni) organized by OVNIVISION CHILE ended after 26,000
people contacted the site equipped to follow the event's
transmission live on the Internet. (www.ovnivision.cl ) The
broadcast started at 21:00 hours from the studios of Radio
Romance in Santiago and was heard worldwide through Radio Ovni,
the first Chilean means of communication which transmits 24 hour
programming related to UFO phenomena. Due to the considerable
amount of people on-line past midnight, the time set to bring
the UFO Skywatch to an end was extended to continue the
broadcast until four o'clock in the morning. Visits and ph

[Truncated here - George Filer e-mailed --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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 30

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Liddle

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:50:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:31:09 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Liddle


 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:29:12 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Well, then I really don't understand what you hope to gain from looking
 >at the footage over and over, again. Nothing has changed since 95. The
 >cameraman is still a no-show and the footage still looks the same.
 >Comparing it to other military documentary footage might tell you
 >something, but that's not really what you are doing in your research, as
 >I understand it. What you _have_ maintained is the importance that the
 >cameraman's story and the footage "match" or support each other. Not
 >much research is needed to verify that, to be sure.


I have a question. Has anyone ever had a pathologist compare
techniques used in the video to real autopsy methodology? I have
heard through the grapevine that a doctor viewing the video
laughed and said that it looked like a bunch of kids playing
with road-kill the way they cut up the "being" but I know of no
quotes or names. Mayhap someone could send a copy of the tape to
a local medical university for peer review? HEY! I live in a
city that has a world renowned medical university!! (But I'm not
forking out the cash for the tape, sorry to say :) ).

Also, have any third party historians not connected to any
established or non-established UFO group ever commented on the
video?

Just wondering.


Sean Liddle

KAPRA








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 30

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:51:51 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:28:15 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman


 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:29:12 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>_Then_ we have a whole new ball-game.

 >Perhaps, but I put very little faith in voice stress analysis.
 >If it was anywhere close to accurate, then authorities would use
 >it over lie detectors which, themselves, are highly suspect
 >where facts are crucial.

Roger,

Law enforcement does use VSA along with polygraphs which are not
"themselves... highly suspect where facts are crucial".

Do you have evidence to support that statement?

I'm not interested in a long argument about polygraphs or VSA.
The police, FBI all Feds, DEA employ both methods and have faith
in their validity. Of course they're not 100%, but they are not
a joke.

If you were accused of a crime you didn't commit, I would think
your first request would be to take a polygraph or a VSA.


Also, from:

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2000/aug/m16-020.shtml

Mike Kemp writes:

I suggest that you visit the web site http://Diogenesgroup.com
to see this illustrated. This company makes a commercial product
based on a 166 megahertz Pentium laptop to do real-time
analysis. Of course, this product is only available to law
enforcement and other government entities, or those holding a
government license.

Even in relatively sparsely-populated Alabama, the method (VSA)
is in common usage. The local newspaper, The Gadsden Times
(which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The New York Times) has
run feature articles discussing the use of voice stress analysis
by various law enforcement agencies, with much crowing by those
agencies attesting to its effectiveness.

http://www.garybaker.com/garyhtml/vsa.htm

And on Polygraphs:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/dod-2000.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 30

                       X-PPAC Press Release - 1/30/01

From: Stephen Bassett <ExPPAC@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:24:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:19:29 -0500
Subject: X-PPAC Press Release - 1/30/01


X-PPAC

Press Release - January 30, 2001
Re: H.R. 19 - Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001

Washington,DC -  While the principal focus of X-PPAC is ending
via open Congressional hearings the government embargo of the
truth of an ongoing extraterrestrial presence, it also has great
interest in certain closely related areas: 1) secrecy reform, 2)
intelligence agency reform, 3) military/intelligence abuse of
power, 4) reform of NASA, and 5) sequestration of advanced
technologies.

In that broader context X-PPAC announces its opposition
to a bill filed in the House of Representatives on January 3,
2001 - H.R. 19 titled 'Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001"
introduced by Representative Bob Barr and now in the
House Committee on International Relations.

This bill has no other purpose than to repeal certain sections
of three previous Executive orders prohibiting assassinations
by any element of the United States government.

It is the role of Congress to foster policies which build trust
with the American people, it is the role of the State
Department to foster policies which build trust with the
world's people, and it is the role of the military services and
intelligence agencies to anticipate, thwart and prosecute the
evils of terrorism - not to emulate them.

This bill will be an embarrassment to the nation if it is even
voted out of committee to the House floor.

X-PPAC will be urging all House and Senate members to
lobby the House Committee on International Relations to
reject H.R. 19 without compromise and to reject any effort
by the President to effect the same result via a new
Executive order.

Contact:

Stephen Bassett

301-564-1820
ExPPAC@aol.com

_______________________________________________

   Extraterrestrial Phenomena Political Action Committee
                       URL: www.x-ppac.org
                     E-mail: exppac@aol.com
                       Phone: 301-564-1820
                         Fax: 301-564-4066
                     4938 Hampden Lane, #161
                     Bethesda, Maryland 20814

*****************************************************************







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 30

                         Re: Joseph Smith - Cecchini

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:33:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:24:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Cecchini


 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 01:16:52 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >>Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:42:09 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >I _know_ from in-your-face first hand experience that UFOs are
 >real. I approach the material accordingly, and make
 >interpretations based on that knowledge/point of view. Like
 >everyone else, it all gets sifted through 'personal filters' of
 >one kind or another.

 >I can only speak for myself and tell you why I approach things
 >the way that I do. Information/material can be interpreted as
 >many ways as there are people who take the time to study it and
 >form an opinion.

Sorry for not adding much content here, Errol (but, then again,
not everyone always adds "content" to a discussion), but I just
wanted to say that I appreciated what John just said and how he
said it -- even though I don't share his experiences or beliefs.

 >John, I only hope to live long enough to see this troubling
 >UFO/ET question settled one way or the other.

That is the Hope and Dream!

 >Until then, I say tom-A-toe and you say tom-ah-toe. ;)

"tom-A-toe"?  Personally, I say "tuh-MAY-toe" ...

...

John said later on in the same thread:

 >I think that everybody that has participated in the thread so
 >far has been mindful and respectful not to cross any invisible
 >lines and offend anyones beliefs or religion. The discussion
 >itself is a valid one however, and relates directly to the
 >subject matter of this List.

I agree; it (the various religious aspects of the phenomenon)
interest me greatly; you might even say it's my primary
interest.

It seems to me that, if we ever had a definitive answer - one
way or the other! - to the UFO/ET Question, that everything
else would (or might) then fall into place.

BTW, I don't know if you caught it, but you made an appearance
recently on ... oh, _one_ of the nine bazillion "UFO shows" I've
taped in recent months. It was a show with Budd (not that that
helps clarify at all which show I'm talking about...).


Take care.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:43:12 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:01:31 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:29:12 -0600
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:15:17 -0500
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:11:43 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

 >>>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:59:22 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: AA Film Redux
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, Neil has written:

 >>I expected you to eventually pick up on the fact there is no way
 >>to tie either the film or the cameraman's story down, it was
 >>obvious even back in 95/96 this was a major stumbling block in
 >>any research into the AA, you just didn't have a firm historical
 >>point to latch onto and work from.

 >Hi, Neil!

 >Well, then I really don't understand what you hope to gain from looking
 >at the footage over and over, again.

Roger,

It seems some of us had a little more curiosity than you and
rather than closing our minds to the subject after dismissing it
to the trash can, merely placed it in our version of Stanton F's
"grey basket" awaiting more data if and when it should arrived.

 >Nothing has changed since 95.

Much _has_ changed, particularly new data within the last 2 years.

 >The
 >cameraman is still a no-show and the footage still looks the same.

Also incorrect, the _whole_ public footage can now be observed
frame by frame in good quality, at leasure, on your computer.

 >Comparing it to other military documentary footage might tell you
 >something, but that's not really what you are doing in your research, as
 >I understand it. What you _have_ maintained is the importance that the
 >cameraman's story and the footage "match" or support each other. Not
 >much research is needed to verify that, to be sure.

I sat and watched "The Memphis Bell" through again after I wrote
you about it. By coincidence the "Bell" was an 8th AAF ship, the
film _was_ completely shot on 16mm _and_ the air sequences
_were_ handheld and shot with just the light available inside
the B17. Other than it being colour footage lots of it was
similar in handheld technique to the AA. I was also struck later
that evening watching "World at War", the other period
documentary I mentioned, by a particular sequence. The
_historical_ signing of the French surrender documents. Hitler
decided to humiliate the French by having the signing take place
in the same spot, a railway coach where the German High Command
conceeded in 1918.  This huge historical and propaganda event
was filmed by 1 shaky handheld camera looking over and being
obstructed by, heads and sholders, appart from Hitler sitting
there it's technique was _very_ AA. I guess they should have got
a US Army Film Unit in to do a proper production job.

 >Neil wrote:

 >>And when the shortly to be completed Voice Stress Analysis of
 >>the cameraman's interview arranged by Ed is in, we will be
 >>nearer knowing if "the story" is genuine or "hogwash".

 >>If the footage _can_ be tied down in the historical timeline as
 >>I believe it can, and the uncertainty of the cameraman and his
 >>story resolved.

 >>_Then_ we have a whole new ball-game.

 >Perhaps, but I put very little faith in voice stress analysis.
 >If it was anywhere close to accurate, then authorities would use
 >it over lie detectors which, themselves, are highly suspect
 >where facts are crucial.

 >Beyond that, I don't see how you can
 >tie AA to the historical timeline when there is no basis for
 >reference using only the AA footage. It simply makes no sense to
 >me.

There _are_ references....and no I'm not spelling 'em out here.

But by continually branding it a "proven" hoax and ignoring it
you and many others have thrown away the very opportunity of
finding them,

 >Finally, Neil had previously written:

 >>>>If you disagree Roger please explain how you would have shot the
 >>>>footage given one camera, the _same_ materials _and_ conditions,

 >I replied:

 >>>You know that the issue here is whether or not the conditions
 >>>and materials in question were valid, not how I would shot given
 >>>the same materials and conditions. Come on, Neil, you're really
 >>>ducking the issue, here.

 >Neil responded:

 >>Far from it Roger, here you had and still have, an open
 >>invitation to put _your_ film industry background and inside
 >>experience to the test in detailing just how _you_ would have
 >>coped with the alleged situation faced by the "lone cameraman".
 >>It's all very well opinionating on a subject but unless you can
 >>credibly argue an alternative using the _same_ parameters, those
 >>opinions are just that, opinions without support.

 >I am truly mystified, Neil.

 >You admit that the cameraman's story can't be verified at this
 >point. You admit that the conditions seen in AA can't be
 >verified at this point. Yet, you seem to feel the sum of the two
 >is greater than the whole. You seem to merge the two together
 >into an assumed truth of some kind because the two support each
 >other. None of this makes any sense.

MMmm, isn't this the situation we encounter with _any_ film,
video or photographic case?, the images come with a story as a
whole?, it's highly suspicious if they _don't_ have a story even
one you may not believe.

 >I do not question that the conditions seen in the video match
 >the cameraman's claims. I do not question that the conditions
 >seen in the video are what was present when the AA footage was
 >produced. I do not question the end results of the difficulties
 >shooting with the format chosen, the amount of light present,
 >the speed of the film stock, the problem with the suits, the
 >cramped space, etc. What I _do_ question is whether _that_ is
 >how something as important as the documentation of a creature
 >from outer space would have been handled!

Roger, how do you know this _was_ the only footage shot?. There
is other footage this cameraman allegedly shot we know exists,
but we havn't seen publicly, he maintains what we _have_ seen is
only a fraction of what _he_ took. He claims they had a "walk'in
talk'in" undamaged "visitor", he wasn't involved in that side of
the operation. Who's to say other footage dosn't exist
somewhere, you don't know, I don't know. But I do know other
people have come forward to say _they_ have seen other footage
whilst in US military service that had all the hallmarks of the
AA footage.

I've never disagreed with your opinion of the _"prefered"_
methods, but only your insistance on seeing your "prefered"
method as being _the_ only way the cameraman _should_ have
filmed the AA. I think I've given good examples to illustrate
that in documenting "real life" you're not dealing with a
"production" situation that can always be controlled to the
filmakers advantage. When presented with an an ongoing real time
event you can only react _to_ it, you're not in any position to
_dictate_ the terms before or while you're filming.

The guy who shot the Hindenberg crashing in flames at Jersey
Field couldn't call for a retake because he'd got a hair in the
gate or wrong f stop.

 >Look at it like this: Let's say that a man claims to have hit a
 >bullseye with a pistol from a distance of 300 yards at night

<snip>

 >yards under the same conditions!
 >You seem to think that my lack of an alternative method for
 >dealing with make-believe conditions somehow validates those
 >conditions.

 >Likewise, why should I prove how I would shoot 16mm in low light
 >with crappy black and white film in a cramped room when I feel
 >that the room would have been bigger, the format would have been
 >35mm color and there would have been more light? I have no
 >opinion on how I would have shot in the conditions seen in AA or
 >as described by the cameraman because I do not believe the
 >conditions are _real_ based on other military footage of that
 >time period. What is it about this concept that you do not seem
 >to grasp?

Roger, I've given you a perfect example of _the_ most
acknowleged documentary footage to come out of WWII (The Memphis
Bell) which fly's (sorry) in the face of your whole concept.
_But_ supports the premis, that in real time, real life
situations the conditions as they present themselves dictate the
methods used to record them. In the case I've mentioned using
your concept, you'd have a lighting crew inside the B17 and the
director in a chase plane to get some nice external footage and
orchestrate the attacking ME109's. and AAA fire.

I'm happy to think the techniques as actually used by the US Air
Force Film Unit that produced this historic documentary were
chosen because of the conditions and subject matter they
_found_, _dictated_ that they use them.

Are we not then allowed to believe the "lone cameraman" could
not too be presented with a situation that dictated _how_ _he_
should record it, and further these same circumstances dictate
what type odf film?.

You choose the tools that suit the job, you cann't demand the
job be changed just to suit your _ideal_ toolset.

 >At this point, we seem to be going in circles.

I'm sorry you feel that way Roger, I've been trying my best not to
get caught in that trap.

 >I will send you my address and you can mail me the stuff and I
 >will look at it, for what it's worth.

So far niether myself or Ed have received your snail mail
address and as such will be unable to forward the material for
you to review until we do.

If you're reluctant to forward this in plain text over the open
Internet due to security implications, I have included the
address of the server that holds my PGP public encryption key in
my sig. Using this and the downloadable, free PGP encryption
software, only I will be able to read it.

 >Until then, I got nothin'
 >else to offer and EBK has been very patient, to say the least,
 >about all this AA nonsense.

I hope he's been as entertained as I have and those people
who've contacted me directly to say so.


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
M13.9PL. UK.       \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/

                        Radio Callsign G8KOQ
                   E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk
            Public PGP Key available at www.keyserve.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                   Chile: Eyewitness' Chupacabra Encounter

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:09:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:08:28 -0500
Subject: Chile: Eyewitness' Chupacabra Encounter


SOURCE: La Estrella del Loa (newspaper)
DATE: Tuesday, January 30, 2001

EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF CHUPACABRAS ENCOUNTER ***Family made casts
of prints left behind by Chupacabras on their property***

Patricia Valdivia, a resident of the village of La Banda de
Calama, provided a revealing account of her encounter with the
mythic Chupacabras after it appeared at her doorstep at Lincan
#1938.

The resident told this newspaper that she heard some strange
noises at approximately one o'clock in the morning, while she
engaged in housework.

"It sounded like cats fighting; after hearing an impact, I
walked toward the door, where I heard a strange howl and very
fast, heavy breathing." At that precise moment, the woman lifted
a curtain on a window and saw three cats, more paralyzed than a
photograph, spaced at at approximately a meter a meter from each
other. She then looked to the side and "there it was, sitting in
front of the door. When it saw me, it jumped immediately over
the outside wall and lost itself in the darkness."

She noted that the "strange being" measured between 60 and 70
centimeters in a seated position, while long legs protruded from
its body, which was covered in leaden-colored hair. [Casts of
its prints] were retrieved by Jaime Ferrer, who has been
researching the Chupacabras case for some months now.

The woman added that the "animal" made a strange growling sound
which caused the windowpanes to rattle--a situation that
repeated itself when the "Chupacabras" jumped to escape from the
location.

Ms. Valdivia noted that  there are several animals on her
property, including pigs, sheep, chickens and canaries, but that
these have not been attacked.


INITIAL EXPERIENCE

She pointed out that this is not the first time that the
Chupacabras has visited her premises. "Some time ago, my son
heard similar noises. When he looked through the window, he saw
the animal with a younger one next to it." She added that when
they went out to look, only prints of various sizes were left
behind, leading her to believe that the being was able to
reproduce itself.

Her account, told while she made a drawing of the creature, is
one more in the series of  Chupacabras sightings in this sector
of Calama.

##### Translation (C) 2001. S.Corrales, Institute of Hispanic
Ufology. Special Thanks to Gloria R. Coluchi.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:37:35 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:10:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Stacy


 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:21:27 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >Hello Robert:

 >I agree that nothing in UFO studies seems to necessitate nor
 >exclude religious beliefs, religion seems if not irrelevant, at
 >least pretty much off to one side.

 >If a group of people see a UFO on their way to church, the
 >sighting is really no better or worse than if they were on their
 >way to some other social function.

 >It gets real messy however when we discuss the religious
 >contactees, those given supernatural revelation from angels or
 >deities.

 >I'm personally inclined to dismiss such accounts just like the
 >space-brothers contactees, for many of the same reasons. Yes,
 >the two types of contactees do seem to have much in common, as
 >John pointed out originally.

 >This is just my personal opinion of course, but the more a
 >space-alien contactee resembles a religious contactee, the more
 >my BS buzzer sounds!

 >I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but that's probably asking
 >too much.


Larry, List,

Obviously, what ya'll need to do is to check out The Anomalist
No. 9, which just came out, particularly the article by Hilary
Evans, "Do-It-Yourself Deities and Mail-Order Messiahs,"

Seven other nice articles in the bargain.

Consider this a gratuitous plug!

http://www.anomalist.com


Dennis Stacy






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                                 Book Search

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:13:24 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:13:05 -0500
Subject: Book Search


Hi All,

Does anyone on this List know where I could get a copy of 'Life
And Bizarre Crimes Of Spring Heeled Jack', by Peter Haining?

I don't have an ISBN No. so it's been a bit of a job tracking it
down. Any help would be greatly appreciated and I am willing to
pay for a copy.

Please contact me on the above address.


Regards,

Roy..

http://www.thelosthaven.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                  Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Mancusi

From: Bruno Mancusi <swissufo@swissufo.ch>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:38:42 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:16:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Mancusi


 >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:49:10 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >I am looking for information about three items. Can anyone help?

 >Firstly, I have been reading a book called 'U.F.O.s and
 >Extraterrestrials in History'. The author is Yves Naud and the
 >book was originally published in French. I have an English
 >translation published by 'Ferni', printed in Spain and
 >distributed by 'Friends of History'. In my edition there are no
 >bibliographical references, which is unfortunate as the book is
 >full of early UFO cases (some highly dubious). Does anyone have
 >a different edition with a bibliography or notes? Who is Yves
 >Naud?

The original edition was published in Switzerland: 'Les O.V.N.I
et les extra-terrestres dans l'histoire', 4 vol., Famot, Geneva
1977. There are some references (scarce!) at bottom of the
pages, but they are French books, so it's possible that they
disappeared in the English translation.

I don't know Yves Naud and if it's his real name.

 >Secondly, I have come across a reference to a very unusual
 >'folkloric abduction' dated November 15th 1792. Apparently, one
 >Hans Bouchmann, a 50 year old Swiss peasant, disappeared
 >suddenly in the village of Romerswill-Sempach. He reappeared two
 >weeks later in Milan. Bouchmann said that he had been taken up
 >into the air and transported to Fairyland. When he returned he
 >found he had been thoroughly shaved and had not one hair left on
 >his body! Does anyone recognise this tale?

Yes, I can confirm the tale. This Hans Buchmann, or Buochmann,
lived at Romerswill and allegedly disappeared at Sempach (Luzern
canton). He reappeared two weeks later in Milan. When he went
back home the next year, his head was swelled, he had no hair,
no beard and no eyebrows.


Regards,

Bruno








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                      Lawn & Media [was: Joseph Smith]

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:54:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:22:29 -0500
Subject: Lawn & Media [was: Joseph Smith]


 >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:33:42 -0500
 >From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >To: 'UFO UpDates - Toronto' <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 01:16:52 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >>>Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:42:09 +0000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith


Hi Ron, hi All,

You wrote:

 >John said later on in the same thread:

 >>I think that everybody that has participated in the thread so
 >>far has been mindful and respectful not to cross any invisible
 >>lines and offend anyones beliefs or religion. The discussion
 >>itself is a valid one however, and relates directly to the
 >>subject matter of this List.

 >I agree; it (the various religious aspects of the phenomenon)
 >interest me greatly; you might even say it's my primary
 >interest.

 >It seems to me that, if we ever had a definitive answer - one
 >way or the other! - to the UFO/ET Question, that everything
 >else would (or might) then fall into place.

I'm afraid it's going to take a landing on the Whitehouse lawn
for some, and anal probes personally administered by a Grey
alien for some others. I meant what I said. I hope to live long
enough to see the question resolved. It would make my
Millennium!

 >BTW, I don't know if you caught it, but you made an appearance
 >recently on ... oh, _one_ of the nine bazillion "UFO shows" I've
 >taped in recent months. It was a show with Budd (not that that
 >helps clarify at all which show I'm talking about...).

I did a bunch of those. I quit being someone else's 'media
whore' a long time ago. I just got to the point where I realized
it was all just 'show biz' and that _I_ was only being used. It
took a little while for me to catch on. I soon figured out that
I really wasn't 'getting the word out' (which is why I consented
to do them) as much as 'putting asses in the seats' for the
benefit of a few self serving, and self absorbed directors,
producers, and researchers.

Warm regards,

John (*I don't 'turn tricks' for nobody) Velez

(*) With the exception of 'Strange Days,...Indeed'. I do it out of
my love, friendship, and very high personal regard for Errol. I
would walk through Hell on my knees if the Wookie asked me to.

..................................................................
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
            www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
..................................................................










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                    Re: UFOs & Village Violence - Aubeck

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:40:10 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:14:08 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs & Village Violence - Aubeck


 >From: Geoff Dittman <gdittman@autobahn.mb.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: UFOs & Village Violence
 >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 07:50:24 -0800


 >>From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:51:36 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: UFOs & Village Violence
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>I have come across 3 cases in which UFOs allegedly acted
 >>violently towards whole villages. As I have yet to see a
 >>complete report on these incidents, and there are few details
 >>to go by, maybe someone out there knows something they can
 >>share. Briefly, then, here they are (date, victims, event and
 >>source):

 >><snip>

 >>I am also sure there are more cases like these
 >>doing the rounds. Perhaps someone could add others to the
 >>list to help create a catalogue.

 >A catalogue has already been created, and can be
 >found at

 >http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/2653/sixthkind.html

 >So far, it contains 31 cases involving death, 272 cases
 >involving temporary injury, and 10 involving permanent injury.
 >Like the above cases, most of the deaths have few details.

Hello Geoff,

I am so glad you have taken the time to gather so many cases and
put them on a public website. This is exactly what I had in
mind. Perhaps you believe, as I do, that this is practically the
only way to get any thorough research done - by doing it where
everyone has access to the information and may contribute.

I shall take a long look at the cases you mention and see if I
have any in my files to match, or any different ones.

Thanks for creating such a useful tool. How long has your site
been operating? How come I never knew it was there?


Yours Sincerely,

Chris Aubeck











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                         Re: Joseph Smith - Cecchini

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:51:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:22:10 -0500
Subject: Re:  Joseph Smith - Cecchini



 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:45:37 -0000

 >I have been planning to research the history of the Christian
 >faith as regards life beyond planet Earth. This is not for
 >personal reasons (I am not Christian)but because I consider it
 >important to look at the social and religious environment
 >surrounding the UFO debate, both historically and as a current
 >issue. I wasn't aware that Church so readily embraced the
 >concept of a plurality of worlds in the early 19th century,
 >although I know of some specific cases. I would be grateful if
 >you could post a list of books which you regard as helpful and
 >reliable sources for me to read up on this.

 From the top o' me head (along with a little bit of Amazon.com
searching to remind me of some others...)

Extraterrestrial Life Debate, 1750-1900
by Michael J. Crowe (1999)

The Biological Universe : The Twentieth-Century Extraterrestrial
Life Debate and the Limits of Science
by Steven J. Dick

Life on Other Worlds : The 20Th-Century Extraterrestrial Life Debate
by Steven J. Dick

Many Worlds : The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life, and the
Theological Implications
by Steven J. Dick (Editor)

Are We Alone? : Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of
Extraterrestrial Life
by Paul Davies

Here Be Dragons: The Scientific Quest for Extraterrestrial Life
by Simon Levay, David W. Koerner

Are We Alone in the Cosmos? : The Search for Alien Contact in
the New Millennium
by Ben Bova, Byron Preiss, William R. Alschuler (Editors)










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:56:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:24:06 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman


 >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:50:24 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux


 >I have a question. Has anyone ever had a pathologist compare
 >techniques used in the video to real autopsy methodology? I have
 >heard through the grapevine that a doctor viewing the video
 >laughed and said that it looked like a bunch of kids playing
 >with road-kill the way they cut up the "being" but I know of no
 >quotes or names. Mayhap someone could send a copy of the tape to
 >a local medical university for peer review? HEY! I live in a
 >city that has a world renowned medical university!! (But I'm not
 >forking out the cash for the tape, sorry to say :) ).

 >Also, have any third party historians not connected to any
 >established or non-established UFO group ever commented on the
 >video?

Sean,

An answer to most of your concerns can be found below. I think
others who are not too familiar with the history of the AA might
also find this site of interest.

http://hesemann.m-n-d.com/beyondroswell.html

I hope this helps.


Ed






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:40:20 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:32:19 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:51:51 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

 >>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:29:12 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I wrote:

 >>Perhaps, but I put very little faith in voice stress analysis.
 >>If it was anywhere close to accurate, then authorities would use
 >>it over lie detectors which, themselves, are highly suspect
 >>where facts are crucial.

Ed replied:

 >Law enforcement does use VSA along with polygraphs which are not
 >"themselves... highly suspect where facts are crucial".

 >Do you have evidence to support that statement?

Certainly, Ed.

In Texas, at least, even mentioning that a polygraph was
involved in an investigation _will_ cause a mistrial. My lawyer
tells me that courts put no faith in polygraph tests. A local
police officer once told me that law enforcement agencies _do_
use polygraphs as an interrogation tool, but not in the way most
people think. The test is given to a suspect and the results,
positive or negative, are kept from the suspect so that the
interrogators can "leverage" the situation, causing a suspect
that unknowingly passed the test (and many do) to give up
information or actually confess. To maintain that law
enforcement agencies use polygraph tests because of their
accuracy is not really true, Ed. The test, good or bad, is used
mainly for intimidation and not fact finding. If polygraph tests
were that reliable, then courts would make them mandatory as
they would work wonders for clearing up dockets and clearing out
prisons. According to my lawyer, VSA isn't recognized by any
court in the civilized world.

Continuing, Ed wrote:

 >I'm not interested in a long argument about polygraphs or VSA.

Okay, then you won't mind my snip of your verbiage.

 >If you were accused of a crime you didn't commit, I would think
 >your first request would be to take a polygraph or a VSA.

Nope.


Roger








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                            Re: UFO Pics - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:43:40 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:33:55 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Pics - McCoy


Hello, all

I just remembered, the Pictures of the supposed UFOs appeared in
the British UFO  magazine back in the summer of, I believe, 1993
but I threw the issue away. As I recall credit was given to a
different party that the one in the current thread.


GT McCoy







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:37:46 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:37:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Gates


 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:21:27 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

<snip>

 >This is just my personal opinion of course, but the more a
 >space-alien contactee resembles a religious contactee, the more
 >my BS buzzer sounds!

Hi Larry,

My favorite :) out of the whole bunch is when I hear some of the
"believers" advocating and telling us how the space brothers are
going to come and save the planet from:

a) nuclear war
b) nuclear winter
c) global warming
d) global cooling
e) all of the above.

In other words the grey, bug eyed, pointy ear, "messiah" has
just shown up to save earth from all of its ills and disasters.
An even better favorite a few years ago was when one of the
dudes from the Montauk project was claiming to have remote
viewed a Grey alien. The Grey preferred to guzzle draino for
nourishment. Quite a contrast from the Bill Moore TV special
in which the alleged govt insiders revealed that the Greys like
strawberry ice cream.....

 >I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but that's probably asking
 >too much.

Not to worry, my posting has probably just outraged and number
of people, so they will have promptly forgotten about your
post...:)

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

               Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:19:54 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:39:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -


 >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:54:54 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:15:43 EST
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down -

 >>>Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:04:45 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Fowl Play Made Pair Think Plane Went Down
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >><snip>

 >>>King Roger
 >>>(in the second year of the millennium!)

 >>In fact we are in the first year of the millennium, i.e. 8 days
 >>into it, not second year. This is of course explained by the
 >>time experts at the Naval observatory who have gone to great
 >>lengths to explain why the real millennium began on Jan 1 2001.

 >Hi, Robert!

 >'Time Experts'?

 >Nah. I suppose they feel that morning doesn't begin until 1:00
 >AM, either. Unless the Naval "time experts" can tell exactly
 >when Christ was born, then they are merely estimating, at best.

 >As I've pointed out before, biblical scholars from both the
 >Jewish and Christian camps have admitted that there is a 5 year
 >margin of error on Christ's birth. What on earth gives the Naval
 >observatory any more information than these guys?

The question I suppose boils down to a few things.

Was whatever year Christ was in fact born to be interpreted as
the start of that thousand years?  As you observed, I have seen
so called experts and scholars make the case from 1 BC to 5 BC.
If that is correct, the alleged and so called millennium has
already began.  There is also a biblical interpretation around
that suggests that the biblical millennium actually will begin
in or around 2033, i.e. approx 2000 years from Christ's death.

We also don't know with total certainty how/if the calander got
screwed up in the dark ages.

The bottom line is the Naval Observatory/Dept of commerce, are
world recognized as the time experts.  As I recall their
analysis does not take into account the birth of Christ, but
since their was no year zero, Jan 1, 2001 was and is the
beginning of the seventh thousand years.


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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

               'Solid Light' UFO Events - A Theoretical Basis?

From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:20:22 +1100
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:40:41 -0500
Subject: 'Solid Light' UFO Events - A Theoretical Basis?


"Solid light" cases, to me are, are among the most fascinating
categories of UFO phenomena. Here UFOs appear to use light in a
coherent and controlled way, in some cases light beams take on a
seemingly "solid" appearance, turning corners, being used to
lift things, and sometimes as a "tunnel" conveyance. Such cases
are fascinating.

Lets hear from those of you out there interested in these sorts
of cases and who might have accessible data bases on such cases.

Nature magazine has just published a paper entitled "Observation
of coherent optical information storage in an atomic medium
using halted light pulses", by Hauu et.al, 25th January, 2001.
The whole paper is available on the Nature web site in text &
PDF format:

http://www.nature.com/nature/fow/010125.html

Media reporting etc and the paper itself suggests that maybe we
have the beginnings of a theoretical basis for these
extraordinary UFO cases that feature "solid light". eg. New York
Times and Sydney Morning Herald, 19 Jan, 2001:"Researchers say
they have slowed light to a dead stop, stored it, and then
released it as if it were an ordinary material particle."

Hope you find it as fascinating as I did.


Regards,

Bill Chalker







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:10:40 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:36:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Evans


 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
 >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:45:37 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Aubeck
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


Previously, Chris wrote:

 >The only risk in this intellectual pursuit hits you in the face
 >when you realise that the final conclusion MAY not be as
 >emotionally rewarding as the search itself.

Boy, ain't that the truth.

 >But once you get past puberty you find it's not really a problem.

Ahhh. Explains the lack maturity evident in so many debates. ;)


Roger







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:09:32 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:38:12 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:43:12 +0000
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:29:12 -0600
 >>Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:15:17 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

Previously, Neil wrote:

 >I sat and watched "The Memphis Bell" through again after I wrote
 >you about it. By coincidence the "Bell" was an 8th AAF ship, the
 >film _was_ completely shot on 16mm _and_ the air sequences
 >_were_ handheld and shot with just the light available inside
 >the B17. Other than it being colour footage lots of it was
 >similar in handheld technique to the AA. I was also struck later
 >that evening watching "World at War", the other period
 >documentary I mentioned, by a particular sequence. The
 >_historical_ signing of the French surrender documents. Hitler
 >decided to humiliate the French by having the signing take place
 >in the same spot, a railway coach where the German High Command
 >conceeded in 1918.  This huge historical and propaganda event
 >was filmed by 1 shaky handheld camera looking over and being
 >obstructed by, heads and sholders, appart from Hitler sitting
 >there it's technique was _very_ AA. I guess they should have got
 >a US Army Film Unit in to do a proper production job.

Hi, Neil!

Well, perhaps they should have, at that!

Obviously, the issue isn't how Hitler's film unit normally
handled documentation of great events but, rather, how the U.S.
military would. Regarding "The Memphis Bell", you are really
comparing apples to oranges. I have never said that hand held
documentary footage shot on 16mm did not exist. Obviously, "The
Memphis Bell" was shot in field conditions, therefore, the
quality would be dictated by those conditions. I feel that
because AA was shot in the United States, with all the resources
available, and because of the importance of the event, greater
care would have been taken in its documentation and the image
quality would have been better. As a result, "field conditions"
would not have been in effect, in my opinion.

You previously used the A bomb as an example of something that
looked good because they were prepared in advance. The term
"prepared in advance" doesn't have to mean weeks and weeks or
even months, like documentation of the A bomb. It could take as
little as a few hours to properly secure the right equipment and
lighting to document something in 35mm. Even if they had to wait
a day or more, so what? I see nothing that suggests that
conditions seen in AA were insurmountable. On the contrary,
_that_ is the obvious part to me. The conditions in AA that
supposedly led to the general "look" in question were so easy to
avoid or correct that I find it highly suspicious, in light of
other military footage of better quality on topics of lesser
importance. Therefore, to use "The Memphis Bell" or any other
documentary shot in "field conditions" as an example is really
inappropriate.


Roger







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                             To Be or Not To Be

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:15:34 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:45:13 -0500
Subject: To Be or Not To Be


Natural for a man to think about not being. But for so many
perceived abductees, its a question raised nearly every day of
our existence. Especially among those who suffer real physical
pain, as so many of us do.

Lupus can be a devastatingly painful disease. And Lupus is only
one of the many illnesses which plague many abductees. Then
there is the emotional pain to go along with the physical pain.
Being in this position is painful to both body and mind. The
only thing we have left after a tough day at the office of life,
is our spirit.... Soul ... life force.

If that is in tact, that is, in a state balance with the rest of
what we are, then we can manage. I know one too many people who
are in so much pain that just being awake is a cross too
difficult to bear. Way too heavy for anyone, even the strongest
among us.

Yet, this issue of pain is one which is rarely discussed among
researchers, let alone "researched." I don't know why this is.
Granted that the phenom is tough enough for anyone to believe in
... to believe in strong enough to even address this issue and
spend the time needed to investigate just what the hell is going
on.

Pain. Intractable and too much for anyone to bear. Additive to
the pain we share, is the issue of abuse. We are abused by
ordinary people who mean no real harm. They make fun, make
jokes and generally make us feel terribly uncomfortable. In the
media, we are treated like nutcases. They make amusing cartoons
about people who have experienced the abduction phenom.

Then come the skeptibunkers. Followed by the Fill Classes and
those who cannot tolerate anything which is outside of their own
paradigm. You can tell these people from the genuine skeptic.
They are the angry ones, spewing strength of their own
convictions whilst vigorously denying ours.

Truth be known, there is no answer as yet, not in our lexicon,
which defines this unnatural curse of the UFO abduction
experience. Therefore all bets are on. Anything goes. Even the
bizarre.

"So if you see your neighbor carrying something, help him with
his load. And don't go mistaking paradise, for the home across
the road." (Dylan)

But most of all, we all must "serve someone". It helps us get
thru the day. Just as long as those with whom we associate,
don't make fun of us in the process.

Jim







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                           Re: Book Search - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:13:32 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:46:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Book Search - Stacy


 >Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:13:24 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Book Search?

 >Does anyone on this List know where I could get a copy of 'Life
 >And Bizarre Crimes Of Spring Heeled Jack', by Peter Haining?

 >I don't have an ISBN No. so it's been a bit of a job tracking it
 >down. Any help would be greatly appreciated and I am willing to
 >pay for a copy.

 >Please contact me on the above address.


No, but if you find two copies, I'll take one!

In the meantime, there's Mike Dash's 121-page article on
Spring-Heeled Jack in Fortean Studies, vol. 3. Has just about
everything, including all the original contemporary newspaper
articles.


Dennis Stacy

The Anomalist
http://www.anomalist.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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

               Re: Lawn & Media [was: Joseph Smith] - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:57:22 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:49:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Lawn & Media [was: Joseph Smith] - Lehmberg



From: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
To: <02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers :>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: Lawn & Media [was: Joseph Smith]


 >Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:54:59 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

<snip>

 >John (*I don't 'turn tricks' for nobody) Velez
 >
 >(*) With the exception of 'Strange Days,...Indeed'. I do it out of
 >my love, friendship, and very high personal regard for Errol. I
 >would walk through Hell on my knees if the Wookie asked me to.


Yeah -- but would ya wear a little Sailor suit while listening
to him croon a litany of dirty ditties? We're WAY too nice to
this guy! He's from Canada for God's sake! Canada! Think about
him beaming his seditious science fiction into the heartland of
the United Stated like Ming from the planet Mongo -- a
ufological death ray of alien apologetics and propaganda! He
must be stopped -- nipped in the bud! I'm writing Sen. Ashcroft
an angry letter! America must be kept pure and unpolluted by
this north of the border flying saucer scourge! Ashcroft'll put
the brakes on his insidious alien agenda! Be warned!


Lehmberg@snowhill.com

  ~~~~
EXPLORE Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.
http://www.alienview.net
          **Updated All the TIME**
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/witches/237/lehmberg.html

JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually.
He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put
one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention
he gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail.
$350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected!

"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see
from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, scourged by
the scurrilous skepti-feebroids.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                        Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:17:50 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:51:55 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:56:23 -0800

 >>Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:50:24 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux

<snip>

 >>I have a question. Has anyone ever had a pathologist compare
 >>techniques used in the video to real autopsy methodology? I have
 >>heard through the grapevine that a doctor viewing the video
 >>laughed and said that it looked like a bunch of kids playing
 >>with road-kill the way they cut up the "being" but I know of no
 >>quotes or names. Mayhap someone could send a copy of the tape to
 >>a local medical university for peer review? HEY! I live in a
 >>city that has a world renowned medical university!! (But I'm not
 >>forking out the cash for the tape, sorry to say :) ).

 >>Also, have any third party historians not connected to any
 >>established or non-established UFO group ever commented on the
 >>video?

 >Sean,

 >An answer to most of your concerns can be found below. I think
 >others who are not too familiar with the history of the AA might
 >also find this site of interest.

 >http://hesemann.m-n-d.com/beyondroswell.html

 >I hope this helps.

<snip>

Hello Sean and Ed,

About faking alien autopsies you can't miss:

http://www.trudang.com/autopsy/autopsy.html

Kiviat, Esq., produced the first AA show in history on FOX
network a couple of years ago. A few experts on special effects
and autopsies gave opinions. If I am not getting too senile and
recall correctly, Kiviat di not simply _edit_ the famous expert
opinions, he DOCTORED them.

For those who always wanted to know everything about the AA film
but were afraid to ask, just click the following link and enjoy
the ride:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Alien+authopsy%22#=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off

Others might try a pilgrimage to the archives of UFO UpDates:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/

Where one can learn that good old Ray Santilli has always
refused to provide a piece of film to have it analyzed. This
will happen some day. But Ray is still looking for 1947 vintage
film strips but has found none yet


Regards,

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 > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                            Red Dwarfs/Alien Life

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:37:02 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:54:04 -0500
Subject: Red Dwarfs/Alien Life


 >From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:52:23 EST
 >Subject: Filer's Files #5 -- 2001 [Truncated]
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Filer's Files #5 -- 2001, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
 >George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
 >January 29, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Majorstar@aol.com.
 >Webmaster Chuck Warren <A HREF="www.filersfiles.com">
 >http://www.filersfiles.com,</A>


Previously, it was posted:

 >NEW SCIENTIST reports, IF YOU WANT to find extraterrestrial
 >intelligence, you're going to have to look in the right place.

<snip>

 >It was always thought any planet orbiting a red dwarf would be
 >an extremely unlikely place to find life. But it now looks as
 >though these dim red suns could harbor most of the Galaxy's
 >life-bearing worlds. This is great news for anyone hoping to
 >find hospitable planets outside the Solar System. While stars
 >like the Sun are relatively rare, four out of five stars in our
 >Galaxy are red dwarfs.

<snip>

 >Editor's Note: If those reports of aliens wearing dark colored
 >inserts over their eyes are true, an alien explorer from a Red
 >Dwarf would need to shield his eyes from our bright sun. This
 >might also explain the reports of alien craft entering and
 >leaving the water for darkness.

Hi, all!

In addition, I would think a liberal application of grade 1000
SunBlock would be a prerequisite for these guys!

Seriously, this is very interesting info. It might also explain
why so many sightings and contacts are at night, as well. It's
too bad that the lid on Roswell and other possible encounters is
so tight. If we could examine the dark lenses that supposedly
cover the eyes of dead ETs, we might be able to measure the
density of the lens and extrapolate what Red Dwarf system that
particular ET was originally from.

Has anyone done any calculations about how much heat a Red Dwarf
puts out? I know they don't put out much light. However, there
are life forms at the bottom of the ocean that exist on heat
thermals only. Wouldn't it be interesting if life forms from
other worlds developed in this way? If they have little or no
light, then either their eyesight would be more advanced (hence
the "cat eye" shape so commonly reported) or perhaps they would
have also developed their telepathic abilities as an "assist"
for communication in a dark world.

Hmmmm.


Roger







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen - Skavhaug

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:16:17 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:56:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen - Skavhaug


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 01:39:55 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:57:45 -0500
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway


 >>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway
 >>Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 20:56:08 +0100


<snip>

 >>Hi Bob, John, Listers:

 >>Referring to the following URL:
 >>http://www3.nrk.no/kanal/nrk1/redaksjon_21/728878.html
 >>with the following excerpt:

 >>"Av totalt 20 innrapporterte ufo-observasjoner til UFO-Norge
 >>i fjor, kom 13 fra Namdalen i Nord-Trndelag. Et uforklarlig
 >>lysfenomen har ftt mange til  lure p om dette er en ufo.
 >>_My_ rapid translation is:

 >>"Out of 20 reported UFO observations to UFO Norge last year,
 >>13 originated from Namdalen in North Trondelag. An
 >>unexplainable luminous phenomenon has caused many people to
 >>wonder whether this is a UFO."

<snip>

 >First, thank you for taking the time to post that translation
 >for us. It's much appreciated. :)
 >Along with you I hope that he posts some further information
 >about this sighting/recording. Just to play "Devils advocate"
 >for a moment, how 'seismically active' is the Namdalen region?


Hi John & List readers,

First of all, after receiving a mail from Mr. A. Lken of
UFO Norge (Norway), I will make a correction to the above
text, i.e., the website info. was actually _wrong_, and the
correct text should therefore read as follows:

"Out of 47 (and not "20") reported UFO observations to UFO Norge
_in January_ (and not "last year"), 20 (and not "13") originated
from Namdalen in North Trondelag. An unexplainable luminous
phenomenon has caused many people to wonder whether this is a
UFO."

As regards seismic activities in Norway and in the Namdalen area
(Trondelag), the following URLs are referred to:

Seismicity in Scandinavia:

http://www.norsar.no/Seismology/Historical/

In Trondelag (and Namdalen area):

http://www.norsar.no/Seismology/Historical/area09.html


As you can see, the seismic activities are small/negligible in
this area, as compared to certain areas in the USA:

http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/general/seismicity/us.html

and, no earthquake took place last year, when the video footage
was taken.(Last quake in 1978; magn. 3.8.)

(And, we do know that there _might be_ a connection between the
appearances/observations of "atmospheric, luminous phenomena",
and earthquake occurrences.)

There are also _other_ "atmospheric, luminous phenomena", in
Norway, namely the "Hessdalen phenomena":

http://www.hessdalen.org/

Thus, there _might_ be "some similarities" here. The valley of
Hessdalen is, inter alia, known for its copper mines; i.e., a
globally, copper rich area. And not so far away, we do find the
area around the town of Rros, a charming town situated in the
middle of the mountain plains;

http://www.rorosinfo.com/e_index.html

known for its copper mines since the 1600 century. Today,
however, these copper mines are no longer in operation.


Best Regards,

AWS









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

              Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:19:46 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:00:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Young


 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:41:21 -0500
 >From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:37:26 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Stan Gordon Replies
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>I noted that Stan never mentioned the photographs of the
 >>Ontario meteor and the article published in a peer-reviewed
 >>scientific journal about the triangulation or the photos, the
 >>seismic record and more than 100 written eyewitness
 >>reports 34 years ago.

 >>So, the Cover-up continues of documents and photographs
 >>which demonstrate the true nature of the December 9, 1965,
 >>meteor.

Stan, Robert, List:

Here we have ufology at it's most frustrating and illuminating.
Hard data long published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal
is ignored and hidden from the public while the ufologist plugs
the sale of a $40 video which wallows in exciting tales of a
crashed spaceship, dead alien lizards, Wright-Pat, guv'mnt
coverup and a top secret armed military occupation of a peaceful
little Pennsylvania village which no one seemed to notice until
15 years later.

[Yawn.]

No sense in wasting any more of EBK's valuable bandwidth.


Clear skies,

Bob Young







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                    UFOs & Mexico/US Military Experiences

From: Antonio_Gomez-Orodea@discovery.com
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:40:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:03:42 -0500
Subject: UFOs & Mexico/US Military Experiences

[Non-Subscriber Post]

Hi Guys,

Do you know if there have ever been any documented UFOs
encounters with any kind of military forces in Mexico and/or the
US? If so, could you tell me when and how important these
encounters were?

I am collecting information about these specific UFO/Military encounters and I
would greatly appreciate your help.

Thank you very much.


Regards,

Antonio







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jan > Jan 31

                    NOVA - 'Vanished!' 'STENDEC' Solved?

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:20:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:20:40 -0500
Subject: NOVA - 'Vanished!' 'STENDEC' Solved?

  - -  - -  - -  - -  - -  - - -
Composite Input - ATI Closed Cap
Wed Jan 31 12:27:02 2001
Formatted by ebk
  - -  - -  - -  - -  - -  - - -

NOVA

Vanished!

Written & Produced
by
Jonathon Renouf

Broadcast Tuesday, January 30th, 2001

by

WNED TV, Channel 17, Buffalo New York.

David Ogden Stiers - Narrator:

In 1998, two mountaineers climbing one of the highest and most
forbidding peaks in the South American Andes - Mount Tupangato -
made a startling discovery.

On the rocky slopes of the 21,000-foot volcano amidst scattered
debris, lay an old Rolls-Royce engine.

One climber posing for a snapshot joked "how could anyone have
gotten a car up here?"

But the engine clearly belonged to a plane.

Around it were scattered clues of a grim disaster:

Twisted metal wreckage, a mummified human hand and tattered
scraps of clothing. This discovery would reignite the quest to
solve one of aviation's most enduring mysteries - how a
passenger plane that disappeared 53 years ago had vanished into
thin air.

  [Captioning sponsored by Park Foundation Northwestern Mutual
  Foundation, Sprint PCS, The Corporation For Public Broadcasting
  and viewers like you]

Stiers:
On August 2, 1947 a British Lancastrian airliner called Star
Dust took off on a routine passenger flight across South
America.

The flight was to be anything but routine.

The scheduled British South American Airways flight should have
taken under four hours to travel from Buenos Aires in Argentina
to the Chilean Capital Santiago across the Andes mountains.

At the controls was a highly experienced pilot with a navigator
and three other crew members.

Some of the six passengers on board seemed to have stepped
straight out of an Agatha Christie novel.

Among them, a Palestinian businessman with a large diamond sewn
into the lining of his jacket; a German migr returning to
Chile with the ashes of her dead husband; and a messenger from
the British King carrying confidential diplomatic
correspondence.

But no one on board was ever to reach their destination.

Early in the journey, regular radio messages confirmed the plane
was apparently on course.

( Clicking )

For the last 45 minutes Star Dust should have crossed the Andes
from Mendoza on the so-called central route close to Aconcagua
  - the highest mountain in South America  - before turning South
for Santiago.

In the post-world-war-II era almost no other plane was better
suited for the Andes crossing than a Lancastrian.

Converted from the Royal Air Force's legendary Lancaster Bomber
it could fly well above the tallest peaks in South America.

Just before Star Dust was due in Santiago the plane contacted
air traffic control confirming it was due to arrive in just four
minutes.

Star dust should have been just a few miles from touchdown in
Santiago.

Then the plane sent a mysterious morse code message - "STENDEC".

Baffled by the unintelligible word the radio operator in
Santiago asked for clarification. The same word, "STENDEC", was
repeated again twice.

After that, nothing more was heard from the plane.

Star Dust seemed to have vanished.

Its disappearance gave rise to what has become one of the great
aviation mysteries.

When the plane failed to arrive, the search began.

But there was no sign of Star Dust around Santiago even though
it had apparently been close to landing there when it
disappeared, so the search spread out to cover the Andes
mountains.

Captain Frank Taylor was one of British South American's senior
pilots at the time. He flew out from Britain to help look for
the plane.

Frank Taylor [Former BSSA Pilot]:
We did a search  - well over nine hours, actually  - and what we
did was to go to the central pass and really scan that backwards
and forth at high altitude.

( Faint beeping )

Stiers:
As reports came in of faint radio messages being picked up from
the missing plane the search intensified.

Planes crisscrossed a wider and wider area looking for any signs
of wreckage.

We went north to san juan and we went south as well and we
really had a very thorough look but we found nothing.

Stiers:
Both Argentina and Chile sent troops to hunt for the missing
plane.

When they returned empty-handed, the rumors began.

There were rumors of sabotage.

The theory was compounded when two more planes of the same
airline disappeared within months of each other.

There were also rumors about the King'S Messenger.

It was a time of tension between Britain and Argentina which led
to speculation that the plane had been blown up to stop vital
documents reaching Santiago.

So inexplicable and complete was Star Dust's disappearance that
even alien abduction was suggested.

The plane's final unexplained message, "STENDEC" eventually
inspired the name of a cult UFO magazine.

Hazel North was just a child when her uncle Star Dust's captain
Reginald Cook, disappeared.

Hazel North:
We got together as a family and wondered what had happened why
it was that the plane couldn't be found why there wasn't any
wreckage.

And there was no body and I think when you... When you can see a
body you can come to terms with it. You can begin to grasp the
reality of it but we could never do that.

We sat round and asked questions for years, basically, the same
questions that there were no answers for.

Woman:
Sadly, but... But obviously in the Andes, because...

Stiers:
Ruth, Stacy and Mary have spent a lifetime in the shadow of the
Star Dust tragedy.

Their uncle, Peter Young, was one of the missing passengers.

Stacy Marking:
We didn't know he'd died because nobody knew what happened to
the plane just that the plane had vanished.

And indeed, all these years nobody's known what happened to the
plane.

Grandmother went on believing that he was still alive until she
died, which must have been about ten years later.

She always... I think there'd been that kind of... That thing of
Shangri-La and that you could be up in the mountains and... And
never found.

Stiers:
For more than 53 years the legend of Star Dust's disappearance
continued to grow.

Frank Taylor: A mystery it remained in my mind for the last half
a century. In fact, I think I can safely say that I would have
given up hope of ever hearing that they'd found the aircraft.

Stiers:
It looked as if Star Dust had disappeared forever.

Then in 1998, a chance discovery at last reopened the case of
the plane that had vanished.

An old Rolls-Royce engine was discovered high in the Andes
mountains.

It had appeared out of nowhere and it belonged to Star Dust.

Nearby were human remains.

The sudden reappearance of a piece of Star Dust only increased
the mystery surrounding the plane.

The engine had been found on a glacier below one of the biggest
mountains in the Andes - Mount Tupangato.

It was 50 miles from Santiago where Star Dust had apparently
been close to landing before it disappeared.

This whole area had been systematically searched when Star Dust
vanished in 1947.

It had been visited since by mountaineers who'd found nothing
but now pieces of Star Dust had suddenly reappeared.

The discovery led to a storm of publicity.

( Camera shutters clicking, people talking )

Stiers:
In february, the Argentine army called a press conference.

Officials announced they were mounting an expedition into the
Andes to retrieve and analyze the newly-found wreckage.

A team of air crash investigators were called in to reopen the
Star Dust case.

Dr. Carlos Bauza was the crash investigator chosen to lead the
army's attempt to reach the accident site.

Carlos Bauza:
Cuando los restos de la avin fue encontado...

Translator:
When the wreckage of the plane was found and it was confirmed
that it was Star Dust the reaction in Argentina, and probably
all around the world was one of amazement.

I, too, was amazed.

The mere fact that it had appeared more than half a century
after it had vanished lent it a great aura of mystery.

How and why did it happen?

All those in the world of aviation were surprised that it could
have been found.

( Soldiers chanting in Spanish )
( chanting )
( chanting )

Stiers:
The Argentine army is preparing equipment and supplies for 100
soldiers to survive for ten days in the mountains.

The trucks roll out at dawn.

Their mission is to search for any clues that can shed light on
what happened to Star Dust - why a plane thought lost forever
had suddenly reappeared 53 years later.

They also plan to bring back human remains in the hope they can
be identified and returned to their families.

In the distance, the first glimpse of their destination - Mount
Tupangato, 50 miles and five days away.

They're heading toward the heart of the Andes - the second
highest range of mountains in the world.

After a day, they've left the foothills behind.

( Engines straining )

The trucks grind up high into the mountains.

There are no bridges but they still have to cross several icy
rivers.

( Man yelling in Spanish )

They've brought 100 mules which will take over from the trucks
when the road runs out.

After two days, the mules take on their burden.

They're entering a hostile world of rock and ice and the air is
getting thinner.

Eventually even the mules find the going tough and things begin
to go wrong.

( Carlos Bauza Translated ):

It's been a very hard day. Four or five mules have been hurt,
some quite seriously.

The path was very, very rough.

We had to create several new paths and the mules found it very
difficult.

Stiers:
After three days, they're in the shadow of Mount Tupangato. The
terrain has become too rough even for the mules.

The final march to the glacier will have to be on foot.

( Men talking in Spanish )

It's the fourth day.

The expedition is now above 13,000 feet - higher than most
mountains in the Alps.

Below Mount Tupangato is the Tupangato glacier. Its lower
section is covered in rock that has fallen from the surrounding
mountains.

The ice beneath is invisible.

Somewhere on this rock-strewn glacier lies the key to the Star
Dust mystery.

The wreckage that the mountaineers found is now only a few hours
away but with light fading and snow in the air the expedition
sets up camp for the night.

Because supplies are limited they only have two days to find the
wreckage and investigate the crash.

Dawn on the fifth day.

It's minus-eight degrees.

They've reached the glacier and the hunt for Star Dust can
begin.

The plan is to comb the entire area to find as many pieces of
the plane as possible.

Carlos Bauza:
This is the whole area of the wreckage  - of the airplane
wreckage  - and we're going to put two men to the left two men to
the right and one man each five meters here and then going,
climbing, all the same founding the wreckage.

Stiers:
After two hours of walking on the rock-covered glacier no one
finds any trace of the plane.

Then their luck changes.

Bauza ( translating ):

Over there, the first...

( Man speaking Spanish )

the first wreckage of the plane on that white spot over there
with a red rock. Two fingers to the right.

( Metal clanging )

Bauza:
This is probably the fuselage. What do I think? It means "Star
Dust"... Star... Dust, Star Dust - the beginning of a word.

Stiers:
So this is where Star Dust met its end.

Now the investigation into the crash can begin.

The team needs to discover why the plane disappeared so many
years ago only to suddenly reappear on a glacier 50 miles off
course.

To learn more, Carlos needs to get an impression of the pattern
of the wreckage over the whole glacier.

( Conversing in Spanish )

Analyzing the wreckage distribution is crucial because different
types of crashes leave very different signatures on the ground.

For example, a bomb would spread the wreckage over a huge area
as the plane broke up in mid-air and the wind carried debris
over many square miles.

But if the plane had lost control and dove straight into the
glacier then the wreckage would be concentrated in a very small
area.

Carlos uses GPS, the Global Positioning System, to log the
position of each piece of debris as it's found so that the
spread of the wreckage can be accurately reconstructed.

The first pieces of the plane have been found on one side of the
rock-covered section of the Tupangato Glacier.

The patrol fans out searching for more.

Five hours later they've located several more shattered pieces
of metal strewn across the glacier.

But so far they've found surprisingly little of the huge plane.

Then a dramatic breakthrough.

The Lancastrian's two massive main wheels are discovered just a
few meters apart.

( Continuing in Spanish )

After more than 50 years, one is still fully inflated.

Carlos Bauza:
The main wheels are in this normal position. The pilot don't put
in the landing position the wheels.

Stiers:
If the pilot was preparing for a crash landing - because of
engine failure for example - he might have lowered the wheels
into the landing position; but these wheels are intact.

It means they were retracted in their normal flying position at
the time of the accident.

If they had been lowered for a crash landing they would have
been damaged in the impact.

Carlos sets off to try and find more clues.

He wants to find the engine discovered earlier in the year that
triggered the expedition.

( Muttering in Spanish )

Carlos Bauza:
Can we take these pictures?

Stiers:
The Lancastrian's Rolls-Royce engine had clearly been battered
by the crash impact but Carlos wants to know if engine failure
caused the accident.

To figure this out, he needs to locate the engine's propeller.

The propeller can give vital clues about the performance of the
engine at the time of the crash. If Star Dust's engines were
working normally the propellers would have been turning at the
moment of impact and would show a particular type of damage.

This modern propeller shows the kind of damage that occurs if an
engine crashes when it's working properly.

If the propellers are rotating at high speed when they hit the
ground the tips will be scarred and bent back.

Carlos finds the propeller nearby.

It only takes him a moment to see it is extremely scarred and
bent back.

Bauza:
See the point of the propeller - this one and this one.

The propeller was in movement when the... when the plane crash.

Stiers:
It means this engine was working normally.

Yet, Star Dust had four engines and mysteriously, there's still
no sign of the other three.

But nothing discovered so far suggests that engine failure
caused the crash.

More and more fragmented pieces of the plane are found across
the glacier.

The GPS logging is revealing a crash site concentrated in an
area of about one square mile on the lower section of the
glacier.

Despite searching well outside this zone there's no sign of any
more debris.

This crash site is too small for a bomb.

But one thing is becoming obvious.

Every piece of wreckage is crushed and crumpled - the signs of a
massive, high-speed impact.

This pattern of debris is exactly what would be expected if the
plane flew straight into the glacier.

But there appears to be no reason for Star Dust to have crashed.

The picture so far is of a plane apparently flying normally
right up to the final moment - no explosion and no engine
failure. The discoveries so far have only deepened the mystery
of what happened to Star Dust.

Then the team find the first evidence of the people who lost
their lives.

Bauza:
It's a... Woman's shoe.
It's a hand... a female one, too.

Stiers:
Next to a stream lie a torso and a jawbone.

It's unclear if they are from the same person.

The soldiers gather the scattered remains of several bodies.

None is recognizable.

The picture that is emerging is one of an exceptionally violent
collision.

It seems clear that the people on board Star Dust died at the
same instant the plane crashed.

Bauza:
I suppose... By the... That speed that the airplane crashes here
nobody suffer any pain.

Stiers:
Carlos and the army team have now thoroughly searched the
glacier.

They've mapped all the wreckage there is but they are nowhere
close to solving the case.

90% of the plane is still missing.

There's still no evidence to explain why Star Dust crashed 50
miles from the airport from which it was supposedly only minutes
away.

Nor are there any clues as to why the plane disappeared only to
reappear on the glacier 53 years later.

Carlos will need help if he is to piece together the puzzle any
further.

With the work on the glacier finished there's an impromptu
service to remember the dead.

They've gathered the remains of what they believe to be four of
the 11 people on board. No one knows which of the passengers
they've found.

Padre Nuestro...

All:
  Que est*s en los cielos santificado sea tu nombre. Venga a
  nosotros tu reino. H*gase tu voluntad, as en la tierra como en
  el cielo...

Stiers:
Ahead lies the difficult task of identifying the human remains
and reuniting them with the families who have waited so long.

Marking:
I feel we owe him to do everything we can to make sure that
there's a proper burial and a proper memorial and everything.

( All continue prayer in Spanish )

Hazel North:
I think it would be wonderful if Reginald was identified.

We all want him home; he's been away for 53 years. And we want
this tragedy over.

  Uno...
  Saludo... Dos.

Stiers:
Returning the remains found on Tupangato to their surviving
relatives will not be easy.

In Buenos Aires, the forensic service begins its grim task of
trying to identify the mangled body parts.

They are quickly able to determine that two female hipbones are
from the left side of the body and come from different
individuals.

Since there were only two women on board, they must belong to
the British South American Airline stewardess, Iris Evans and
the German migr, Marta Limpert.

But that's as far as the forensic examination can go.

With no facial features or even dental records the only chance
to investigate the rest of the remains is through DNA profiling.

Relatives of all those who were lost in the crash have been
asked to give blood.

Okay?

Mm-hmm - fine.

Stiers:
The goal is to try and match their dna profiles to those created
from the Star Dust remains.

Stiers:
The problem is, that after 53 years the DNA retrieved from the
crash site has become seriously degraded.

Because only tiny fragments still exist, the dna strands will
have to be amplified millions of times.


Through this method seven distinct genetic profiles are found in
addition to the two women on board.

The tests to link these profiles to the surviving relatives are
still ongoing.

It is uncertain who, if any of those on board Star Dust will be
identified.

The crash investigators now face the task of making sense of
what has proved to be a completely baffling accident.

Several mysteries remain.

No one knows why Star Dust, apparently flying normally flew
straight into a glacier 50 miles off course and just as strange,
why it disappeared only to suddenly reappear 53 years later.

Carlos wonders whether the glacier itself could hold the key to
the Star Dust mystery.

He has met up with his colleague air crash investigator Carlos
Sorini in the city of Mendoza.

They've arranged to meet an expert on glaciers, Dr. Juan Carlos
Leiva.

( Bauza speaking Spanish )

Translator: We found wreckage of the aircraft over an area of
more than one square kilometer.

Stiers:
After reviewing the information and the geography of the
Tupangato glacier dr. Leiva confronts them with a startling
conclusion.

He tells them the wreckage isn't at the actual crash site at
all.

There's a crucial fact to consider - glaciers move.

Glaciers are enormous rivers of ice.

Once they reach a critical mass, about 18 meters thick they
become so heavy, they travel slowly downhill under the influence
of gravity.

There's an important implication.

53 years ago Star Dust crashed not where the wreckage is lying
today but higher up on the glacier.

It could well have crashed right underneath the sheer
snow-covered east face of Mount Tupangato.

This reassessment of where Star Dust crashed might hold the key
to explaining why the plane wasn't found despite the massive
search in 1947.

  Yo creo que cuando el avin...

Translator:
I think the impact of the aircraft against the Mountain produced
a vibration that caused an avalanche which covered the wreckage
in snow.

( Rumbling )

Stiers:
If Carlos is right, then within seconds the avalanche
would have buried Star Dust.

But that was just the beginning.

After the avalanche, the glacier itself would have slowly
swallowed the plane.

( Speaking Spanish )

Translator: The ice in the upper part of the glacier
incorporates the wreckage which must have been stuck in the ice
and then moved right down.

Stiers:
Year by year, layers of snowfall would have buried the wreckage
deeper and deeper.

Gradually, Star Dust would have become part of the Glacier
itself, traveling slowly downhill not on the surface of the ice,
but deep inside it.

It lay hidden inside the Glacier for another 53 years.

It's not the first time a plane has been swallowed by a Glacier.

In Greenland, this Second World War fighter was recently
discovered 250 feet beneath an ice sheet.

It had been abandoned with five other planes on the surface of
the ice in 1942.

Over the years, they were buried in snow.

The snow hardened into ice. Planes and Glacier became one.

But there's one crucial difference - the Greenland planes were
still buried deep inside the ice when they were found yet Star
Dust had reappeared on the surface of the Tupangato Glacier.

( Speaking Spanish )

Stiers:
Dr. Leiva believes hean explain why Star Dust disappeared
without a trace only to reappear half a century later.

( Leiva explaining in Spanish )
( Bauza exclaims )
Stiers:

The crucial clue comes from the lower rock-covered section of
the Tupangato Glacier.

Star dust crashed in the upper area where the plane was buried
and became part of the Glacier.

Over the years the wreckage traveled downhill inside the ice
until it reached the lower rock-covered section.

Here at the lower altitude, it's warmer and the Glacier started
to melt.

Anything trapped inside the ice - rocks or debris from the
crash - gradually melted out onto the surface.

90% of the plane is still entombed in the ice but if the theory
is right, it, too, will reappear on the surface over the next
few years.

The Glacier finally explains why Star Dust had disappeared for
so long.

But there were still pieces of the puzzle that remained
unsolved.

There was no explanation for why Star Dust had crashed when
there was apparently nothing wrong with the plane.

The investigators knew from the wreckage that the crash was a
high-energy impact.

The plane was apparently flying normally.

( Speaking Spanish )

Stiers: And they had one other clue. The plane had crashed 50
miles away from Santiago even though the crew thought they were
close to landing.

So they focused on one key factor that could have caused the
accident - navigational error.

Today, sophisticated navigation systems mean it's almost
impossible for an airline crew not to know where they are every
second they're in the air.

But 53 years ago, it was a different story.

Taylor:
You've got to realize that in those days things were pretty
primitive in certain parts of the world.

We didn't have radio navigational aids which would tell us
precisely where we were.

The fact of the matter was that you started off on a set heading
on the basis of the forecast winds and whatever height you've
selected.

And from then on, you would just hope that you might get a
visual checkpoint somewhere.

You might be able to see aconcagua sticking up; you might be
able to see Tupangato.

But if you couldn't, you couldn't guarantee that you were going
precisely where you thought you were on an estimated basis.

That was the problem.

Stiers: But even allowing for the lack of modern navigation aids
Star Dust's highly-experienced crew should not have been 50
miles off course.

There had to be a reason for such a massive navigational error.

The investigators knew from the weather reports at the time of
the crash that conditions were bad over the mountains and Star
Dust's crew had also known about the bad weather.

So to avoid the advancing snowstorms they had radioed their
intention to climb to 24,000 feet - above the clouds and the
mountains.

On its own, bad weather didn't explain the crash because the
lancastrian's ability to fly high should have guaranteed safety.

The investigators believe that once Star Dust was at 24,000 feet
the crew decided to fly in a straight line to Santiago.

Although they didn't know it by trying to fly over the tops of
the mountains they were sealing their fate.

They were about to encounter an invisible meteorological
phenomenon which they knew nothing about - the Jet Stream.

This powerful, high-altitude wind only develops above the normal
weather systems.

It can reach speeds upwards of 300 miles an hour.

But in 1947, the Jet Stream was still largely unknown -
especially in South America - because very few planes ever flew
high enough to encounter these upper-atmosphere winds.

Star dust was the exception.

It could fly this high.

The investigators realized that a head-on encounter with the
invisible wind would have dramatically slowed Star Dust down
without the crew knowing it.

This could be the key to their huge navigational error.

Carlos Sorini ( Speaking Spanish )

Translator:
Because we have the weather charts today and because of the way
the Jet Stream develops we can say that on the day of the crash
conditions were ideal for the Jet Stream to occur.

But the flight crew had absolutely no knowledge of it at all
because in those days little was known about this type of
phenomenon.

Stiers:
Analysis of the old weather charts showed that on the day of the
crash Star Dust was flying straight into the Jet Stream.

Moreover, the clouds meant that the crew was unable to see the
ground which would tell them where they were.

They had no way of knowing the Jet Stream was slowing them down
destroying all their navigational calculations.

Using their modern-day knowledge of the Jet Stream the
investigating team have now reconstructed the last 45 minutes of
Star Dust's doomed flight.

At 5:00 P.M. On August 2, 1947 Star Dust radioed its position
near to the city of Mendoza.

The crew could still see the ground but ahead, the mountains
were covered in clouds.

Star Dust told air traffic control that it intended to climb to
24,000 feet - avoiding the bad weather.

 From now onwards, the ground would be invisible.

As Star Dust climbed it began to enter the Jet Stream and slow
down dramatically but the crew had no knowledge of this.

They believed that they were making much faster progress.

At 24,000 feet Star Dust was flying almost directly into the jet
stream's winds blowing close to 100 miles an hour.

The Jet Stream's effect was devastating.

At 5:33 P.M. the crew was convinced they were crossing the
mountains into Chile but they weren't.

They radioed their time of arrival as 5:45. In fact, the plane
was still on the wrong side of the mountains.

( Carlos Sorini speaking Spanish )

Translator:
There is no doubt that according to their calculations they
clearly thought that they were on the other side of the
mountains.

Stiers: Confident the Andes were well behind them Reginald Cook
began the descent sure that when Star Dust emerged from the
clouds it would be above santiago airport.

In fact, they were descending straight towards Mount Tupangato
which was still invisible in the clouds ahead.

Disaster was seconds away.

( Doctor Carlos Bauza translated ):
I think that in the final minutes of the flight the pilot was
quite sure of what he was doing and felt quite relaxed.

The passengers would never at any moment have realized what was
happening.

I don't think it was a bad way to die because you go from
feeling relaxed to suddenly not feeling anything.

Stiers:
After the devastating crash the plane was buried within seconds.

It vanished from sight.

Over time, the wreckage was swallowed by the glacier.

For the next 53 years it traveled down towards the Glacier's
zone of melting.

Now, finally, it is beginning to re-emerge.

The mystery of what happened to Star Dust is almost solved.

But one small part of the legend still remains a final riddle
which science has been unable to solve - "STENDEC" -

Star Dust's last apparently unintelligible radio message.

What does it really mean?

To send accurate Morse Code the operator has to be able to hear
an audible signal.

Yet, as Star Dust descended into a turbulent storm the noise or
even static electricity trapped in the clouds above the
mountains may have caused audio problems.

But if the Morse Code signal had become scrambled or was the
result of a typographical error why was it transmitted and
received the same way three times?

If "STENDEC" wasn't the result of an unclear signal could the
same arrangements of dots and dashes produce a different
message?

In 1948, a wireless operator noted that by slightly changing the
spacing between the symbols for "STENDEC" one gets "E.T.A.
Late", a common message.

Only the dot is missing - an easy mistake to make.

Other morse code experts have pointed out that the letters "e-c"
have the same number of dots and dashes as the letters "a-r" -
the standard signal for "end of message."

But that still leaves the first part of the word undeciphered.

Since "STENDEC" is meaningless in almost every language could it
possibly be an abbreviation - as one historian has suggested -
indicating the plane's descent? Others argue this is not a
standard use of Morse Code.

( Doctor Carlos Bauza speaking Spanish )

Translator:
We have consulted everyone who flew these planes and even
appealed through the British press to see if any pilots who flew
these aircraft could explain whether "STENDEC" was a code word
or something to do with weather conditions or give us any
information at all.

We couldn't find the answer.

I think that in the end "STENDEC" is going to be the final
unsolved mystery in the story of Star Dust.

Stiers:
There is one legend that the discovery of Star Dust can put to
rest.

There was no alien abduction by UFOs from other worlds.

The invisible force blowing the plane off course was an earthly
phenomenon - the Jet Stream.

Unfamiliar with its strength Star Dust's crew made their tragic
error.

  - -

Want to try your hand at solving the "STENDEC" mystery?

On NOVA's web site, review the  evidence, examine morse code and
send in your theory at pbs.org or america online keyword: PBS.

[Captioned by  the caption center wgbh educational foundation]

Educators can order this or any other Nova program for $19.95
plus shipping and handling call WGBH Boston Video at
1-800-255-9424.

Nova is a production of WGBH Boston.

Major funding for NOVA is provided by the Park Foundation
dedicated to education and quality television.

This program is funded in part by the Northwestern Mutual
Foundation.

Sprint PCS is proud to support NOVA.

And by contributions to your PBS station.