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

                          UFO UpDates Mailing List
                                  Apr 2001

  Apr 1:

   Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Ledger - Don Ledger [37]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Evans - Roger Evans [87]
   Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [81]
   UFOs, Social Intelligence & Condon Committee - Tim Haley [13]
   Re: Serious Research - Easton - James Easton [68]
   Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Evans - Roger Evans [69]
   Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Easton - James Easton [21]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [30]
   Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [26]
   Cydonian Imperative: 4-1-01 - Vegetation on Mars? - Mac Tonnies [58]
   Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Gates - Robert Gates [49]
   Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth - Rimmer - John Rimmer [41]
   Re: The Moon Landing Hoax - Liddle - Sean Liddle [15]

  Apr 2:

   Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Hall - Richard Hall [30]
   Re: Serious Research - Hall - Richard Hall [62]
   Re: Serious Research - Bowden - Dave Bowden [58]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [26]
   Re: Serious Research - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [47]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [82]
   Re: Shedding Secrets - Friedman - Stan Friedman [27]
   Re: Magonia Supplement 35 - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [59]
   Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Clark - Jerome Clark [38]
   Re: Aurorae As IFOs - Young - Bob Young [23]
   Re: Filer's Files #13 -- 2001 - Young - Bob Young [25]
   Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Young - Bob Young [12]
   Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [42]
   Re: Serious Research - Young - Bob Young [16]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [34]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [69]
   Re: The Moon Landing Hoax - Murray - Marty Murray [29]
   Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Velez - John Velez [54]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Gates - Robert Gates [61]
   Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Ledger - dledger@ns.sympatico.ca> [55]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Ledger - Don Ledger [46]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Leger - Don Ledger [47]
   Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Velez - John Velez [48]
   Eras News: 04-02-01 - Paul Anderson [63]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Sparks - Brad Sparks [99]

  Apr 3:

   Re: AA Time Warp - Easton - James Easton [77]
   The Shag Harbour UFO Incident - Re-run - UFO UpDates - Toronto [12]
   Chilean Chupacabras Encounter Ends in Shootout - Scott Corrales [33]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [14]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Felder - Bobbie Felder [45]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Auchettl - John W. Auchettl [42]
   'Captain Edward J. Ruppelt: Summer of the Saucers - Wendy Connors [11]
   [lunascan] Meta Research Press Release - UFO UpDates - Toronto [102]
   Re: Serious Research - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [44]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [31]
   Re: Serious Research - Young - Bob Young [43]
   Donald Keyhoe Book? - John Hayes [23]
   Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Ledger - Don Ledger [46]
   Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth - Checchini - Ron Cecchini [50]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer - John Rimmer [44]
   Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Rimmer - John Rimmer [23]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps [40]
   Secrecy News -- 04/02/01 - Steven Aftergood [165]
   Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Richard Hall [10]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [23]
   Mikhail Gershtein - Paul Stonehill [25]
   Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Easton - James Easton [151]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [12]
   Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Ledger - Don Ledger [12]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps [32]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Gates - Robert Gates [85]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Hatch - Larry Hatch [24]
   Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Hatch - Larry Hatch [77]
   Re: Serious Research - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [21]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [93]
   CCCRN News: April 3, 2001 - Paul Anderson [35]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Morris - Neil Morris [36]
   'FBI-Unknowns' - Daniel Guenther [10]
   Condon's Anecdote - Daniel Guenther [34]
   Re: Serious Research - Ledger - Don Ledger [42]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Young - Bob Young [24]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Kenny Young - Kenny Young [36]
   Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth - Sandow - Greg Sandow [22]
   Re: Serious Research - Hall - Richard Hall [57]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Young - Bob Young [22]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Rimmer - John Rimmer [30]
   Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Young - Bob Young [16]
   Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Clark - Jerome Clark [55]

  Apr 4:

   Filer's Files #14 -- 2000 - George A. Filer [391]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Cecchini - Ron Cecchini [31]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [39]
   Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth - Clark - Jerome Clark [35]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Velez - John Velez [40]
   Re: Body Marks - Velez - John Velez [67]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Evans - Roger Evans [45]
   Re: Mikhail Gershtein - Gershtein - Michail Gershtein [27]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Evans - Roger Evans [39]
   Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Velez - John Velez [35]
   THE WATCHDOG - 04-03-01 - Royce J. Myers III [21]
   Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Hall - "Richard Hall [35]
   Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [80]
   Re: AA Time Warp - AA Time Warp - Ed Gehrman [48]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [31]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [24]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [20]
   'Yeti's Hair' Defies DNA Analysis - Brad Sparks [32]
   Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Hale - Roy J Hale [53]
   Re: Brilliant Light - Evans - Evans [71]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Gates - Robert Gates [15]
   Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Gates - Robert Gates [79]
   Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [18]
   Re: 'FBI-Unknowns' - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [16]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young - Bob Young [22]
   Re: Serious Research - Young - Bob Young [88]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Sparks - Brad Sparks [166]
   Re: Body Marks - McCartney - Pat McCartney [42]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [32]
   PRG Update - April 4, 2001 - Steven G. Bassett [93]
   Brazil: Winner Declared in Varginha UFO Alien - Scott Corrales [27]
   Chile: Tocopila Cameraman Films UFO Over Arica - Scott Corrales [37]
   Chile: Oval-Shaped UFO Over Calama - Scott Corrales [36]
   Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Evans - Roger Evans [41]
   Firmage & Druyan's 'One Cosmos Network' Gone - Nick Balaskas [30]
   Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Hall - Richard Hall [26]
   Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Staithes - Alan Staithes [22]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [27]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Young - Bob Young [25]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [18]
   Secrecy News -- 04/04/01 - Steven Aftergood [95]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [22]
   Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Rimmer - John Rimmer [92]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer - John Rimmer [46]
   Re: 'Yeti's Hair' Defies DNA Analysis - - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo
   [52]

  Apr 5:

   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans - Roger Evans [34]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Cecchini - Ron Cecchini [41]
   Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Sparks - Brad Sparks [291]
   Re: Body Marks - Kelly - Kelly [62]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [117]
   Re: Serious Research - Hall - Richard Hall [196]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Sawers - William Sawers [43]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - "Jerome Clark" [48]
   Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation - Stephen MILES Lewis
   [64]
   Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation - Stephen MILES Lewis
   [64]

  Apr 6:

   Eras News: 04-04-01 - Paul Anderson [121]
   Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Clark - Jerome Clark [84]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [22]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps [59]
   Re: 'Yeti's Hair' Defies DNA Analysis - Chalker - Bill Chalker [62]
   Nellis UFO [was: Gauntlet to the Psychosocials] - David Rudiak [27]
   Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Rudiak - David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com< [97]
   Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - McCoy - GT McCoy [39]
   Re: Serious Research - Young - Bob Young [137]
   Re: Body Marks - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [80]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Velez - John Velez [125]
   Re: Serious Research - Dennis Stacy [90]
   Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Velez - John Velez [52]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Gaates - Robert Gates [80]
   Re: Body Marks - Velez - John Velez [91]
   Help Needed In Australia - Diane Harrison Director AUFORN [38]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Morris - Neil Morris [33]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Evans - Roger Evans [30]
   Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Hall - Richard Hall [70]
   Listen, I'm Important, Really - Roy J Hale [35]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [33]
   Re: Body Marks - Gonzlez Manso - Luis R. Gonzlez Manso [17]
   Re: Real Debunkings, Phony Debunkings - Jerome Clark [54]
   Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Young - Bob Young [22]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Evans - Roger Evans [28]
   Cydonian Imperative: 04-05-01 - Mac Tonnies [70]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [135]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [77]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 14 - John Hayes [514]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer - John Rimmer [22]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [69]
   Dogs barked, Birds Squawked & Frightened Horse - Diane Harrison [51]
   Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Ledger - Don Ledger [95]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Gates - Neil Morris [78]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Morris - Neil Morris [24]

  Apr 7:

   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles - Jenny Randles [186]
   CE-5 Contact And Skepticism - Bill Hamilton [72]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Evans - Roger Evans [122]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [34]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [46]
   Re: Serious Research - Young - Bob Young [28]
   Re: Serious Research - Hall - Richard Hall [142]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [167]

  Apr 8:

   CCCRN News: 04-06-01 - Ice Circle - Banff - Paul Anderson [47]
   Re: Nellis UFO - Fritch - Jess Fritch [43]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Staithes - Alan Staithes [48]
   Secrecy News -- 04/06/01 - Steven Aftergood [144]
   Re: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic - Bruce Maccabee [86]
   Re: Serious Research - Clark - Jerome Clark [20]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Evans - Mac Tonnies [34]
   Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Evans - Roger Evans [85]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Cecchini - Ron Cecchini [61]
   NIDS: Low Flying Triangular Objects - A Safety - Colm Kelleher [39]
   THE WATCHDOG - 04-06-01 - "ufowatchdog@earthlink.net" [10]
   Re: Serious Research - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [43]
   Mars Online Gazette - The Monolith Graveyard - Kurt Jonach [110]
   Re: ebunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [32]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [35]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [38]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall - Richard Hall [54]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall - Richard Hall [40]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [238]

  Apr 9:

   Re: AA Time Warp - Sawer - William Sawer [45]
   Cydonian Imperative: 04-07-01 - Martian - Mac Tonnies [32]
   Re: The 2001 Mission to Mars That Must Not Fail - GT McCoy [5]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Gates - Robert Gates [70]
   Re: Serious Research - Gonzlez Manso - Luis R. Gonzlez Manso [23]
   Re: THE WATCHDOG 04-08-01 - Royce J. Myers III [31]
   Evaluation Of Ohio Y2K UFO Sightings - Kenny Young [29]
   Chile: UFOs over Arica Pique Scientific Curiosity - Scott Corrales [82]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Skavhaug - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [74]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Robert Young [20]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [49]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [44]
   Re: Serious Research - Clark - Richard Hall [29]
   Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Hall - Richard Hall [76]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Morris - Neil Morris [178]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Gates - Robert Gates [49]
   Re: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic - Jim Mortellaro [159]
   Re: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic - Jim Mortellaro [159]
   UFO/Conspiracy Publisher Passes Away - Scott Corrales [15]
   Budd Hopkins' IF Seminar Announcement 4-21-01 (NYC) - IFConfer@aol.com
   [63]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [137]
   CCCRN News: 04-08-01 First Canadian Circles of 2001 - Paul Anderson
   [44]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [252]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Sawer - William Sawer [43]
   Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Hale - Roy J Hale [61]
   The Lost Haven - Stats - Roy J Hale [18]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Young - Bob Young [48]
   Re: Serious Research - Young - Bob Young [24]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [26]
   Re: Mars Online Gazette - The Monolith Graveyard - - Asgeir W. Skavhaug
   [65]
   Re: Body Marks - Velez - John Velez [68]
   Re: Nellis UFO - Velez - John Velez [72]
   PRA - Rat Fink Is Dead - John W. Auchettl [88]
   Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Kelly - Christopher Kelly [127]
   Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Kelly - Christopher Kelly [128]
   Re: Serious Research - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [23]

  Apr 10:

   Re: AA Time Warp - Evans - Evans [124]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [62]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [1409]
   Re: PRA - Rat Fink Is Dead - McCoy - GT McCoy [27]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young - Bob Young [36]
   Re: Serious Research - Young - Bob Young [34]
   Re: Chile: UFOs over Arica Pique Scientific - Bob Young [24]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Morris - Neil Morris [69]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [37]
   Re: Serious Research - Clark - Jerome Clark [31]
   Re: CE-5 Contact And Skepticism - Young - Bob Young [47]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young - Bob Young [52]
   Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Hale - Roy J Hale [46]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Bolton - David Bolton [13]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [33]
   Re: Nellis UFO - Fritch - Jess Fritch [37]
   Housekeeping - Excessive Quoting - UFO UpDates - Toronto [6]
   Re: Serious Research - Hatch - Larry Hatch [45]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young - Bob Young [54]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Keith - Rebecca Keith [15]
   Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [141]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [73]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans - Roger Evans [85]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [47]
   Yet Another Un-Authenticated Autopsy! - Wendy Christensen [1]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [36]
   Re: Serious Research - Hall - Richard Hall [42]
   Re: Nellis UFO - Velez - John Velez [45]

  Apr 11:

   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [31]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clarke - Dave Clarke [34]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [40]
   NOVA/UFOs & The Media - John Velez [248]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [22]
   Online Competition at Ufology U.K. - Gary Anthony [66]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [80]
   Filer's Files #15 -- 2000 - [Truncated] - George A. Filer [269]
   Re: CE-5 Contact And Skepticism - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [47]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [28]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [30]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [45]
   Filer's Files #15 -- 2000 - [Complete] - George A. Filer [478]
   Re: Nellis UFO - Rudiak - David Rudiak [82]
   Re: Nellis UFO - Evans - Roger Evans [39]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Cecchini - Ron Cecchini [9]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [64]
   Re: Yet Another Un-Authenticated Autopsy! - McCoy - GT McCoy [14]
   Re: Yet Another Un-Authenticated Autopsy! - Velez - John Velez [24]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Ledger - Donald Ledger [30]
   Re: CE-5 Contact And Skepticism - Ledger - Donald Ledger [21]
   Cydonian Imperative: 4-11-01 - The Cliff's - Mac Tonnies [26]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger - Donald Ledger [25]
   Re: Nellis UFO - Ledger - Donald Ledger [34]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Gates - Robert Gates [61]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Sparks - Brad Sparks [53]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Jones - Sean Jones [25]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Jones - Sean Jones [69]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [30]
   Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses - Brad Sparks [161]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Morris - Neil Morris [37]
   Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Philip Mantle [29]
   Re: Yet Another Un-Authenticated Autopsy! - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [14]
   Re: NOVA/UFOs & The Media - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [57]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [29]
   The Truth May Finally Be Out There - Kelly [84]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall - Richard Hall [37]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [57]
   Re: Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses - - Richard Hall [26]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans - Roger Evans [79]
   Data Exchange - Richard Hall [28]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [43]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [63]
   Dick Cheney Questioned On UFOs - 04-11-01 - Grant Cameron [27]

  Apr 12:

   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [24]
   Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Gates - Robert Gates [56]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [54]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [22]
   Re: Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses - - Bob Young [27]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randle - Kevin Randle [45]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Jones - Sean Jones [34]
   Re: Data Exchange - Jones - Sean Jones [41]
   Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Bowden - Dave Bowden [18]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [43]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Skavhaug - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [75]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch - Larry Hatch [73]
   Eras News: 04-11-01 - The Polar Mysteries of Mars - Paul Anderson [67]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [64]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Sparks - Brad Sparks [151]
   Re: The Truth May Finally Be Out There - Easton - James Easton [57]
   Re: NOVA/UFOs & The Media - Robert Gates [59]
   Re: NOVA/UFOs & The Media - NOVA/UFOs & The Media - John Velez [84]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [45]
   Re: Data Exchange - Jones - Sean Jones [41]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [20]
   Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [17]
   Re: NOVA/UFOs & The Media - Hall - Richard Hall [28]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [18]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [44]
   Re: Eras News: 04-11-01 - The Polar Mysteries of - Asgeir W. Skavhaug
   [37]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [51]
   Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille
   [29]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young - Bob Young [16]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [35]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [28]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [14]
   Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Bowden - Roy J Hale [18]
   Re: AA Time Warp - Morris - Neil Morris [50]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young - Bob Young [39]
   'Spots' On Mars From Meta Research - Bob Young [23]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Rudiak - David Rudiak [63]
   Re: Data Exchange - Hall - Richard Hall [28]

  Apr 13:

   Re: 'Spots' On Mars From Meta Research - Anderson - Paul Anderson [75]
   Re: Dick Cheney Questioned On UFOs - 04-11-01 - - David Rudiak [56]
   Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Morris - Neil Morris [41]
   NASA Cuts-Off Live Raw Space Station A/V Feed - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [155]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Skavhaug - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [41]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall - Richard Hall [38]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [46]
   Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Friedman - Stan Friedman [36]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Friedman - Stan Friedman [34]
   Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Jones - Sean Jones [39]
   Re: Dick Cheney Questioned On UFOs - 04-11-01 - - Grant Cameron [33]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks - Brad Sparks [142]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Sparks - Brad Sparks [60]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - McCoy - GT McCoy [99]
   Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Bowden - Dave Bowden [33]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans - Evans [38]
   Re: Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses - - Brad Sparks [57]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 15 - John Hayes [526]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [46]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [81]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Hatch - Larry Hatch [86]
   Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Mantle - Philip Mantle [66]
   Re: Dick Cheney Questioned On UFOs - 04-11-01 - - Jim Mortellaro [76]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall - Richard Hall [100]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [35]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [42]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger - Don Ledger [30]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [24]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger - Don Ledger [29]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [86]
   Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais
   [15]

  Apr 14:

   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Rudiak - David Rudiak [82]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [41]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [11]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [170]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer - John Rimmer [8]
   Re: Data Exchange - Rimmer - John Rimmer [20]
   Secrecy News -- 04/13/01 - Steven Aftergood [97]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [29]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans - Roger Evans [109]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Jones - Sean Jones [42]
   'Military' UFOs - John Velez [76]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch - Larry Hatch [101]
   Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Connors - Wendy Connors [22]
   Strange Case Of NSA & Lake Vostok - UFO UpDates - Toronto [210]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall - Richard Hall [65]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [40]
   Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Ledger - Don Ledger [24]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [27]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [24]
   Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [33]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Evans - Roger Evans [61]
   Alfred's Odd Ode #344 - Alfred Lehmberg [182]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Jones - Sean Jones [40]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [73]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [32]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [67]
   A Non-UFO Saturday Greeting - UFO UpDates - Toronto [12]
   A Non-UFO Saturday Greeting - Jim Mortellaro [12]

  Apr 16:

   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans - Evans [64]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks - Brad Sparks [17]
   Cydonian Imperative: 4-14-01 - Questionable - Mac Tonnies [56]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [27]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [20]
   Bettman Archive - Bob Young [7]
   Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Gates - Robert Gates [60]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clarke - Dave Clarke [56]
   The Watchdog - 04-15-01 - "ufowatchdog@earthlink.net" [22]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [55]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer - John Rimmer [63]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer - John Rimmer [56]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [52]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [15]
   Brazil: UFO Sect Suspected of Murder - Scott Corrales [70]
   High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Jan Aldrich [128]
   The Watchdog - Eaaster Greetings - Royce J. Myers III [7]
   CCCRN News: Radio Interview: 21st Century Radio - Paul Anderson [44]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [27]
   Belief - Dave Bowden [13]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [159]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [60]
   'The Mystery Club' - Philip Mantle [25]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall - Richard Hall [200]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [28]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [97]
   Re: Belief - Clark - Jerome Clark [38]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Felder - Bobbie Felder [31]
   Re: Belief - Ledger - Donald Ledger [19]
   Re: Belief - Hale - Roy J Hale [24]
   Re: Belief - Clark [re-send] - Jerome Clark [43]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [42]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Velez - John Velez [76]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [33]

  Apr 17:

   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [33]
   Re: Belief - Velez - John Velez [56]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger - Don Ledger [23]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Jones - Sean Jones [34]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Jones - Sean Jones [23]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [81]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans - Roger Evans [112]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall - Richard Hall [67]

  Apr 16:

   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Velez - John Velez [39]

  Apr 17:

   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [44]
   Re: Data Exchange - Hall - "Richard Hall" [22]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Clark - Jerome Clark [47]
   Re: Belief - Bowden - Dave Bowden [32]
   Re: Belief - Bowden - Dave Bowden [32]
   Re: Belief - Bowden - Dave Bowden [28]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks - Brad Sparks [132]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks - Brad Sparks [146]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Gates - Robert Gates RGates8254@aol.com [37]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Murray - Marty Murray [84]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Hatch - Larry Hatch [40]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [79]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [75]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Rutkowski - Chris Rutkowski [28]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles - Jenny Randles [78]
   Secrecy News -- 04/17/01 - Steven Aftergood [92]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [51]
   Re: Belief - Clark - Jerome Clark [41]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Velez - John Velez [94]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [24]
   Re: Belief - McCoy - GT McCoy [52]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [23]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [20]
   Filer's Files #16 -- 2000 [Truncated] - George A. Filer [274]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Hall - Richard Hall [71]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [57]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - - Roger Evans [67]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [41]
   Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [68]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [45]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [40]

  Apr 18:

   Re: Belief - Bowden - Dave Bowden [22]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [50]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans - Roger Evans [56]
   Re: Belief - Easton - James Easton [125]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [75]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [63]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [113]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors - Wendy Connors [69]
   Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71 - Gates - Robert Gates [72]
   Cydonian Imperative: 4-18-01 - Fine-Scale Linear - Mac Tonnies [59]
   UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Jim Klotz [24]

  Apr 19:

   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [64]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [48]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [37]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [52]
   Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - Velez - John [39]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [31]
   Midlothian, VA 02/02/90 Case - Larry Hatch [51]
   Conference in P.R. Presents Abduction Breakthrough - Scott Corrales
   [52]
   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [248]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [51]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [72]
   Brazil - Thousands Mistake MIR Balloon For UFO - Scott Corrales [52]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans - Roger Evans [31]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clarke - Dave Clarke [70]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [42]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans - Roger Evans [124]
   Re: Serious Research - Young - Bob Young [111]
   Re: 'Military' UFOs - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [114]
   Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Velez - John Velez [41]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Young - Bob Young [34]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Evans - Rogers Evans [79]
   Re: Belief - Jones - Sean Jones [23]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Jones - Sean Jones [39]
   Re: Belief - Hall - Richard Hall [57]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall - Richard Hall [48]
   Filer's Files #16 -- 2000 [Complete] - George A. Filer [434]
   Re: Belief - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [41]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [110]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates - Robert Gates [46]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger - Don Ledger [46]
   Eras News: 04-17-01 Image Study #1: More Cydonia - Paul Anderson [99]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles - Jenny Randles [86]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Evans - Roger Evans [49]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall - Richard Hall [89]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger - Don Ledger [52]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger - Don Ledger [27]
   Re: Serious Research - Hall - Richard Hall [180]
   Formosa, Argentina Shaken By UFOs (or MIR - Scott Corrales [50]
   Mexico: Alleged Chupacabras Attack in Tizimn, - Scott Corrales [62]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [41]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [27]
   NASA Unveils Futuristic Aircraft - GT McCoy [6]
   Re: Serious Research - Sandow - Greg Sandow [32]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors - Wendy Connors [177]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [41]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans - Roger Evans [131]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [28]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [37]
   Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Young - Bob Young [43]
   Eras News: 04-19-01 - Enhancement of New Cydonia - Paul Anderson [69]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clarke - Dave Clarke [102]
   Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [62]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [104]
   The Watchdog - 04-19-01 - Royce J. Myers III [18]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [173]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans - Roger Evans [44]
   NOVA, UFOs And The Media On SDI - John Velez [35]
   Re: Belief - Evans - Roger Evans [37]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Velez - John Velez [66]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Hall - Richard Hall [58]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall - Richard Hall [35]

  Apr 20:

   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans - Roger Evans [57]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [137]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger - Don Ledger [37]
   Re: Belief - Ledger - From: Don Ledger [24]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Evans - Roger Evans [136]
   Re: NASA Unveils Futuristic Aircraft - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [47]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Evans - Roger Evans [52]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Evans - Roger Evans [51]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks - Brad Sparks [199]
   Updated New 'Cydonia Mound' Graphics - Paul Anderson [21]
   Re: Midlothian, VA 02/02/90 Case - Connelly - Dwight Connelly [25]
   Bell Draws Fire For Guest-Bashing - UFO UpDates - Toronto [142]

  Apr 21:

   Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Felder - Bobbie Felder [92]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Robert Gates [46]
   Dr. Vladimir V. Rubtsov's FATE Article - Paul Stonehill [31]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates - Robert Gates [197]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles - Jenny Randles [34]
   Cydonian Imperative: 4-20-01 - Mars Gets Weird - Mac Tonnies [95]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles - Jenny Randles [97]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Cuthbertson - Brian Cuthbertson [28]
   Have Sceptics Seen One? - Roy J Hale [22]
   Re: Belief - Hale - Roy J Hale [14]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors - Wendy Connors [27]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Gonzlez Manso - Luis R. Gonzlez Manso
   [17]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Jones - Sean Jones [57]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Young - Bob Young [40]
   Dog Falls Victim To Unknown Predator - Scott Corrales [49]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [38]
   Re: Serious Research - Young - Bob Young [35]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [17]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Hall - Richard Hall [67]
   Re: Bell Draws Fire For Guest-Bashing - Felder - Bobbie Felder [37]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Cecchini - Ron Cecchini [18]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [93]
   Bizarro TV - Ron Cecchini [17]
   Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Velez - John Velez [84]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Velez - John Velez [71]
   Polygraph Tests - John Rimmer [16]
   Re: Midlothian, VA 02/02/90 Case - Hatch - Larry Hatch [37]
   Re: Bell Draws Fire For Guest-Bashing - Mercieca - JJ Mercieca [22]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Hatch - Larry Hatch [71]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [64]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Connors - Wendy Connors [73]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch - Larry Hatch [44]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Hatch - Larry Hatch [32]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans - Roger Evans [134]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch - Don Ledger [61]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Evans - Roger Evans [64]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Connors - Wendy Connors [92]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Ledger - Dona Ledger [49]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Connors - Wendy Connors [39]
   Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Ledger - Don Ledger [16]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Evans - Roger Evans [102]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Evans - Roger Evans [25]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [56]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Evans - Roger Evans [51]
   'News From Whitley Strieber' - UFO UpDates - Toronto [33]
   UFO ROUNDUP Volume 6 Number 16 - UFO UpDates - Toronto [265]

  Apr 22:

   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [58]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Evans - Evans [31]
   Re: Belief - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [14]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [81]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [55]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Felder - Bobbie Felder [50]

  Apr 23:

   Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors - Wendy Connors [72]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Evans [59]
   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Hatch - Larry Hatch [29]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Jones - Sean Jones [21]
   To Readers At The UFO UpDates Archive - UFO UpDates - Toronto [5]
   Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71 - Jones - Sean Jones [16]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Felder - Bobbie Felder [62]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Felder - Bobbie Felder [74]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Young - Bob Young [41]
   Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Rimmer - John Rimmer [67]
   Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Young - Bob Young [42]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks - Brad Sparks [39]
   Re: Ft. Monmouth Revisited - Borraz - Manuel Borraz [86]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [84]
   Re: rnold's Fleet - A Question - Sparks - Brad Sparks [124]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - McCoy - GT McCoy [118]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [147]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [45]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [65]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Gates - Robert Gates [29]
   Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Gates - Robert Gates [45]
   Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Gates - Robert Gates [17]
   Re: Cydonian Imperative: 4-23-01 - Oddity in 'City - Mac Tonnies [45]
   Views On The Martian Polar Spring - Kurt Jonach [485]

  Apr 24:

   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Randles - Jenny Randles [90]
   Cydonian Imperative: 4-23-01 - Oddity in 'City - Mac Tonnies [45]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Jenny Randles [33]
   Jerry Black - Columbus, Ohio Article - Kenny Young [336]
   Chupacabra Attacks Continue In Chile - Scott Corrales [50]
   Chile: Shock In Angol Over UFO Sightings - Scott Corrales [48]
   Re: Serious Research - Young - Bob Young [118]
   University Degree In Ufology? - Bobbie Felder [56]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Evans - Roger Evans [138]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [45]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Richard Hall [34]
   Recent Reads [was: High Silliness.....] - Bruce Maccabee [57]
   Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Young - Bob Young [12]
   British UFO Bureau Shuts Down - "Lack Of Flying - Bob Young [30]
   CCCRN News - 04-23-01 Comparison Crop Study - Paul Anderson [33]
   CCCRN News - 04-23-01 'Ice Pictogram?' in - Paul Anderson [39]
   Meteorite Crashes Near Mourning Jordanian Village - Brad Sparks [20]
   Re: Serious Research - Young - Bob Young [11]
   The Watchdog - 04-23-01 - Royce J. Myers III [30]
   Re: Belief - Hale - Roy J Hale [17]
   Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Hale - royjhale [13]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [51]
   Re: Serious Research - Sandow - Greg Sandow [33]
   Secrecy News -- 04/23/01 - Steven Aftergood [163]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [124]

  Apr 25:

   UFO Sightings OZ Files - 04-23-01 - Diane Harrison [322]
   UFOs "In Decline"? - I Don't Think So - Bill Chalker [53]
   PRG Update - 04-24-01 - Stephen G. Bassett [75]
   UFO Research News In German Newspaper - Werner Walter [8]
   Jordanian 'Meteorite' - Bob Young [8]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [48]
   2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Luis R. Gonzlez Manso [24]
   Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Thiago L. Ticchetti [7]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall - Richard Hall [171]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall - Richard Hall [46]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [55]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger - Don Ledger [66]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [20]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger - Don Ledger [39]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [96]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Cecchini - Ron Cecchini [34]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [47]
   Project 1947 Website - Jan Aldrich [15]
   Filer's Files #17 -- 2000 [Truncated] - George A. Filer [275]
   Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Young - Bob Young [30]
   Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Velez - John Velez [96]
   CSETI's Disclosure Project Briefing - Steven [13]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles - Jenny Randles [101]
   Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Ledger - Don Ledger [126]
   Memory And Eyewitness Testimony - Kelly [119]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [100]
   Voyager Newsletter No. 17 [1/2] - James Easton [396]
   Voyager Newsletter No. 17 [2/2] - James Easton [306]
   Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Velez - John Velez [52]

  Apr 26:

   Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71 - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [33]
   Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Blanton - Terry Blanton [20]
   Re: CSETI's Disclosure Project Briefing - Young - Bob Young [17]
   Johnson Sighting [was: Arnold's Fleet...] - - Bruce Maccabee [352]
   Re: Serious Research - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [105]
   Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ledger - Don Ledger [10]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Velez - John Velez [77]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks - Brad Sparks [157]
   The Watchdog - 04-25-02 - Royce J. Myers III [13]
   Re: Serious Research - Hall - Richard Hall [166]
   Correction & Clarification - Jan Aldrich [18]
   Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [27]
   Website Profiles Martian 'Trees' Discovery - Kurt Jonach [76]
   UFO Over Bogota, Colombia - Scott Corrales [30]
   Re: Ft. Monmouth Revisited - Sparks - Brad Sparks [276]
   Chile: Men-in-Black Appear In Wake of Chupacabras - Scott Corrales [91]
   Chile: Chupacabras Researcher in the Crosshairs of - Scott Corrales
   [45]
   Re: Jerry Black - Columbus, Ohio Article - - Chris Rutkowski [63]
   Re: Johnson Sighting - Young - Bob Young [12]
   More On Jordanian Alleged Meteorite Fireball - Brad Sparks [72]
   Re: "In Decline"? - I Don't Think So - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [22]
   Idea For Tv Program On UFO Abduction - John Velez [68]
   Secrecy News -- 04/26/01 - Steven Aftergood [65]
   Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [37]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 17 - John Hayes [378]
   C.E.: Letter From The Editor Of UFO Magazine UK - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [172]
   Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray - Lewis - SMiles Lewis [26]
   Eras News: Petri Dishes on Mars? - Paul Anderson [108]
   Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Young - Bob Young [18]
   Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ticchetti - Thiago L. Ticchetti
   [17]
   Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ticchetti - Thiago L. Ticchetti
   [32]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young - Bob Young [29]
   Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Blanton - Terry Blanton [13]
   Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Hale - Roy J Hale [10]
   Re: UFO Over Bogota, Colombia - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [37]
   Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71 - Auchettl - John W. Auchettl [85]
   Re: More On Jordanian Alleged Meteorite Fireball - - Terry Blanton [19]
   Guido Valentich Passes - John Velez [45]
   Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ticchetti - Thiago L. Ticchetti
   [18]
   Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Velez - John Velez [75]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Dave Clarke [196]
   Re: Subject: Re: Website Profiles Martian 'Trees' - Asgeir W. Skavhaug
   [40]
   British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - Chris Rutkowski [27]
   Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ledger - Don Ledger [27]

  Apr 27:

   Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ledger - Donald Ledger [24]
   Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Young - Bob Young [35]
   Obituary - Dave Kelly, BUFOSC - Carolyn Buckley [29]
   Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [33]
   Upgraded UFO Book Review Site - Mac Tonnies [5]
   Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - Bott - Murray Bott [34]
   Re: - UFO UpDates - Toronto [58]
   Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [71]
   Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [71]
   Re: Serious Research - Easton - James Easton [448]
   Looking For Kitchener, ON, Canada Ufologist - Michel M. Deschamps [6]
   Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - Hatch - Larry Hatch [78]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gonzlez Manso - Luis R. Gonzlez Manso [46]
   Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray - Gonzlez Manso - Luis R. Gonzlez
   Manso [64]
   Mars-Style 'Tubes' On Earth? - Mac Tonnies [27]
   TLC - BFSB Is "Legendary"! - UFO UpDates - Toronto [30]

  Apr 28:

   Alfred's Odd Ode #347 - Alfred Lehmberg [74]
   Re: TLC - BFSB Is "Legendary"! - Hatch - Larry Hatch [60]
   Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Young - Bob Young [25]
   Re: Cydonian Imperative - 4-27-01: Mars-Style - GT McCoy [44]
   Snaefell, Isle Of Man Update - Chris Rolfe [32]
   Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Cuthbertson - Brian Cuthbertson [18]
   Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Gonzlez Manso - UFO UpDates -
   Toronto [58]
   Re: Monmouth Revisited - Ledger - Donald Ledger [45]
   Filer's Files #17 -- 2000 [Complete] - George A. Filer [454]

  Apr 29:

   Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ledger - Don Ledger [30]
   Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - McCoy - GT McCoy [51]
   Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - Young - Bob Young [35]
   Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Young - Bob Young [23]
   Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray - Aubeck - Chris Aubeck [54]
   Re: Cydonian Imperative - 4-27-01: Mars-Style - Mac Tonnies [34]
   Re: Cydonian Imperative: 4-28-01 - Did Ancient - Mac Tonnies [36]
   EW UFO & ETI News Update - 04-28-01 - Kurt Jonach [66]
   Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71 - Jones - Sean Jones [17]
   Re: Monmouth Revisited - Sparks - Brad Sparks [68]
   Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Sandow - Greg Sandow [45]
   Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray - Sandow - Greg Sandow [62]

  Apr 30:

   Re: Have you ever heard of this UFO case? - Errol [93]
   UFO Sightings OZ File 04-29-01 - Diane Harrison [349]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow - Greg Sandow [92]
   Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Hale - Roy J Hale [21]
   'The UFOs That Never Were' - Greg Sandow [130]
   Re: Obituary - Dave Kelly, BUFOSC - Hayes - John Hayes [29]
   Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - - Gildas Bourdais [67]
   Lights In The Sky: Satan's Great Modern Deception - Kelly [152]
   The Politics Of Monmouth - Jan Aldrich [102]
   Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - Young - Larry Hatch [46]
   Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Ledger - Don Ledger [35]
   Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Young - Bob Young [23]
   Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [43]
   Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Gates - Robert Gates [32]
   Re: 2001 A Space Odessey - In Gray - Ledger - Don Ledger [16]
   Re: Have You Ever Heard Of This UFO Case? - John Velez [33]
   Re: Monmouth Revisited - Ledger - Don Ledger [41]
   Re: Have You Ever Heard Of This UFO Case? - - Serge Salvaille [50]
   'X-Files' Creator Talks About Aliens - Steve Wilson Snr. [20]
   Re: Have You Ever Heard Of This UFO Case? - Chalker - Bill Chalker [13]
   Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [54]
   Abductions, The Brain And Genetics? - UFO UpDates - Toronto [424]
   UFO Polls & Surveys [was: British Flying Saucer... - Larry Hatch [26]
   Re: Lights In The Sky: Satan's Great Modern - Larry Hatch [28]
   UFO CE-II in Granada, Spain - Scott Corrales [90]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clarke - Dave Clarke [80]





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

                    Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 20:41:33 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 11:52:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:01:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:06:28 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>Source: The Los Angeles Times

 >>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20010327/t000026482.html
 >>>>Tuesday, March 27, 2001

 >>>>Brilliant Light Plunging Into Pacific
 >>>>May Have Been Meteor

 >>>>A bright red and green light that appeared to plunge into the
 >>>>Pacific Ocean on Monday night may have been a meteor, an
 >>>>astronomer said.

 >>You're a pisser Jerry. But it's funny because it's true. I can't
 >>believe that any rational person would entertain balderdash like
 >>that unless it was motivated by a burning need to sublimate deep
 >>(primal) fear.

 >>The louder and more irrational they are, the deeper the fear.

 >>They are _driven_ to irrationality by fear.


 >Paranoia and irrationality aside, can either of you guys tell me
 >in 30 or 40 words how this report differs from the report of a
 >meteor fireball?

 >Please be specific.


Hi Bob,

Butting in. There isn't is there. I wouldn't argue this one. If
it weren't for meteors and fireballs the NRC here in Canada
wouldn't have set up a committee manned by astronomers across
the country to filter out those from UFOs. In the process they
catalogued thousands of UFO sightings which remain today. Of
course it sucked some of them in along the way just like Hynek,
and Tombaugh.

I might have happened across the List late on this one. Is someone
arguing this is a good UFO sighting?

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 >
   Apr > Apr 1

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:37:44 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 11:54:51 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:50:33 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gehrman

 >>>>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:12:41 -0600
 >>>>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: AA Time Warp

Previously, I wrote:

 >>As usual, Ed, you seem to miss the point. There was an entire
 >>thread dedicated to the issues of why the footage seen in AA
 >>looked so bad.

Ed replied:

 >As you may recall I never agreed with that assessment. You were
 >the only person saying that the AA "looked so bad".

Not true, Ed. In fact, after reviewing the archives, it appears
that you are the only one that thinks AA looks "good". Please
point out all the posts from that thread that supports your
claims that I was the only one that questioned AA's quality. If
what you say is true, then there should be plenty of quotes in
that thread from other people that agree with your assessment
that AA looks real.

 >I think the
 >AA, once it's viewed with the clarity that the AA CDs bring, has
 >excellent quality and what you'd expect for the conditions and
 >the period.

No, only what _you'd_ accept as the reality for that time
period, Ed. And what "conditions" are you referring to? Are you
saying that things weren't as good as they could have been?
Isn't that the entire point? They had three weeks, according to
the claims of the alleged cameraman. Why would you have to
qualify your statement about "what you'd expect for the
conditions" if they had three weeks to prepare?

Again, it would appear that nothing will dissuade you from your
belief system. Also, I find it odd that you want other people to
spend $35 apiece to help prove your case. Yet, you won't spend
the same amount to make a BetaSP copy for me on a tape I'll
provide which would have even _greater_ detail than the CDs.

Continuing, I had written:

 >>No, I do not believe that the cameraman is telling the truth. I
 >>believe that this was a mistake in his make-believe story.

Ed replied:

 >This makes no sense at all. If the cameraman is telling the
 >truth, then everything happened as he says...end of story. He
 >was there and he should know! If he's not telling the truth,
 >then how can you use his testimony to determine that there were
 >three weeks between the crash and the autopsy?

This is just plain stupid, Ed. Someone claiming to be a
cameraman that also claimed to shoot archival footage of a
claimed alien autopsy made statements that are suspect. What
makes them suspect is the discrepancy between how the footage
looks and the three weeks he also claims lapsed between the
crash he claims to have seen and the autopsy he also claims to
have shot.

In my world, all I see are "claims"; some of which contradict
other "claims". In your world, these aren't "claims" but gospel
until proven otherwise. Worse, your circular logic mandates
that, because someone claiming to be a cameraman said he shot
AA, then AA is real because this person was interviewed and is,
therefore, also real. Likewise, because the AA footage exists,
then this person claiming to be the cameraman must be telling
the truth which, in turn, validates the AA footage itself which,
in turn, validates the cameramans story!

 >I never agreed with the "hurried state" discussions. You created
 >the strawman that the AA was somehow of poor quality but when
 >I've asked you to show us what you meant by these poor "quality
 >problems", you've refused to do so. Now you have a perfect
 >opportunity to give the list examples of these "problems" and
 >you still refuse. What's that all about?

Ed, what discussion group are you reading, anyway? There is an
entire thread that dealt with these issues. This is so typical
of you. Someone hits you in the head with a stick and you stand
there bleeding and say, "What stick? I don't see a stick,
therefore, I am not bleeding."

What's funny is, in all this smoke, you have yet to ever give a
list of reasons why AA is real. You demand that others toe the
line and prove it false. Yet, for all your bellyaching about
non-believers, and how EBK won't ever let you talk about AA on
this list, you have never given any list of reasons beyond your
typical circular logic as described above. Considering that your
"on air" time is so precious, I'm surprised you don't take
advantage of it. I'm sure everyone would like to know why AA is
real. After all, you are on record as saying that AA is real.
What's _your_ proof? Or does everyone have to send you $35.00 to
find out? I can see why you think so much of Santilli's value
system.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 1

                  Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 21:03:22 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 11:57:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Mortellaro


 >Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:18:42 +0100 >To: UFO UpDates -
Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca> >From: John Rimmer
<jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk> >Subject: Re: Brilliant Light
Plunging

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net> >>To: UFO UpDates
- Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca> >>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light
Plunging >>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:30:23 -0600

 >>>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:46:21 -0500 >>>From: Kelly
<kellymcg@attcanada.ca> >>>Subject: Brilliant Light Plunging
Into Pacific May Be Meteor >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
<updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>Troy Powers, a museum guide at Griffith Observatory, said
that >>>judging from the descriptions, "it could have been a
meteor."

 >>Poor man. He clearly isn't up on his pelican science.
 >>Consequently, he fails to understand that eyewitness testimony
 >>has no value whatever and can be discarded without a second
 >>thought.

 >>We may rest assured that the stimulus for this mass
 >>perception/hysteria was either

 >>(a) a flaming pelican possibly ignited by a meteorite, a
flare, >>or an aircraft, or

 >>(b) a psychosocial phenomenon triggered by hysteria from a
 >>culture/political/psychic crisis yet to be determined, but
 >>addressing the deep-seated psychic needs of the witnesses.

 >A while ago I suggested that Jerome Clark should go into a
quiet >room and have a lie down. From his reply I think he
suspected >that 'a lie down' was some sort of obscure British
 >double-entendre, but I would strongly suggest he does so again,
 >perhaps with a cold flannel on his forehead, for he is clearly
 >suffering from the strains of a Minnesota winter spent in a
town >with no decent beer.

 >Perhaps while he's lying there he could think back and try to
 >remember where I, or any of my pelicanist colleages ever made
 >such comments as "eyewitness testimony has no value whatever
and >can be discarded without a single thought". Perhaps he
could >then think of reasons why sceptical ufologists such as
Andy >Roberts, David Clarke, Hilary Evans, His Grace the Duke of
 >Mendoza, and even in a small way myself, have spent so much
time >talking to eyewitnesses and listening carefully to what
they >have to tell us?

 >Or is he suggesting, yet again, that reports of eyewitnesses
are >invariably unfailingly accurate, that everything happened
 >exactly as they initially reported it, and that no UFO witness
 >has ever, ever, ever (especially if they are a pilot or (US)
 >policeman) ever, made a mistake in perception, estimated a
 >distance wrongly, or misjudged an angle?

Dear People, Listers, the Evil CAUSes, the evil Woodworkers and
EBK,

I have been righteously accused in the past, of interfering
where I don't belong. Of butting in where my own particular
brand of beeswax and wine is unwelcome. Guilty as charged. So,
in keeping with my rep, let me comment. I have this to say about
that... Uh, make that "these to say about those..."

Dear John ... you are absolutely correct. How did you get it so
right? Oh OK. There I go exaggerating again. You are not all
right after all. I was inflating your comments, like a falsi
inflates the female bosomie.

But in your statements above are the roots of complacency, the
proof of the ideological stupidity and culpable ignorance in the
field of Ufology. What makes it UFO Illogical.

Your attitude? Jerome's attitude?

Hell no. Not attitude, but inflexibility. Unreasoning and pig
headed inability (or unwillingness) to consider the possibility
that someone else may have a kernel of truth in his pair of
dimes. You won't budge an inch. Jerry won't budge an inch. Only
Randle, in his wisdom and logic (to the base twelve I think) is
able to coexist with the rest of us.

At one time or another. This week, he is agin us I think. Really
not certain. But he was with us at one time. I can recall that.
But you and Jerry, at odd ends. As I understand from High School
Psych, opposites are supposed to attract. So how come you two
guys ain't married?

Huh?

I remain, inflexible and condemned to a life of sin as a man
insignificant and mortified by truth. Truth which I have not
heard in a while. Domage.


Jacques V. Mortellaro,

President and Pretender to the Thrown,
Throan ... that seat in the bathroom... That thrown ....
throan....Oh wait, I got it>>THRONE!





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

                UFOs, Social Intelligence & Condon Committee

From: Tim Haley <TimHaley@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 21:21:59 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 11:59:39 -0400
Subject: UFOs, Social Intelligence & Condon Committee


Readers of the List may be interested in downloading and reading
a copy of Diana Palmer Hoyt's Master's thesis entitled "UFOs,
Social Intelligence and the Condon Committee" authored in April
2000. The link to Hoyt's thesis was recently posted on the NIDS
website - see:

http://www.nidsci.org/whatsnew.html

Hoyts 129 page thesis encapsulates much of the history of UFOs
leading up to and including the closing of Project Blue Book by
the Air Force in 1969 as a result of the recommendations made by
the Condon Committee.

This document certainly would be beneficial to anyone who wants
further insight into the circumstances surrounding the
abolishment of Project Blue Book.








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

                        Re: Serious Research - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 03:36:36 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 12:02:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Easton

Cross-posted [in summary] -

Regarding:

 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO Skeptics <debunk@listbot.com>
 >Subject: ETH Council
 >Date: 31 March 2001 23:10

Jenny wrote:

 >But I put out this idea like a fishing line to serve a second
 >purpose other than the one that most seem to have anticipated.

 >And I am pleased to say it has left me with much to mull over.

Jenny,

What has been demonstrated is the _extent_ to which it's now
recognised, even within 'ufology' itself, how the ETH is founded
on evidence frequently shown to have _mundane_, terrestrial
origins.

Furthermore, it's long been obvious that ETH proponents are not
bestowed with scientific acumen which sets them above the rest
of science, or the scientists they berate.

Time and again, it's proven why the former are exceedingly more
gullible than they believe and deficient in that superior grasp
of UFO related evidence which it's insisted only they
understand.

Any 'panel' of ETH proponents would presumably feature those who
popularly maintain ET is here en masse and engaged in activities
which leaves evidence of same - medical examinations and
experimentation on humans, 'crop circles', or profuse
photographic proof of an alien presence, e.g., the Meier, Trent,
Walters etc. photographs which are considered the best amongst
'flying saucer' pictures.

Off-hand, a suitable panel would include, say, Boylan, Hesemann,
Bruni, Pope, Gersten, Deardorff, Maccabee, Colin Andrews, etc.

Any one of the above could be replaced by alternative
suggestions and without any appreciable, overall difference.

However, not only is there no pre-existing, scientific
_foundation_ for the ETH, there is a fundamental, scientific
recognition why it's extremely unlikely. Additionally, the
proclaimed evidence otherwise essentially comes from those who
hold religious ETH convictions and over many years have been
responsible for citing critical evidence which _has_ been shown
to be either perfectly explicable and often absolute nonsense in
the first place. Hoaxes feature prominently.

Is it only from this exercise that you realise what many
ufologists are expressing they have learned about the subject?

As I previously noted, "Fifty years onwards, not all of us are
still 'totally confounded' by the 'UFO mystery'."

We have actually clarified and resolved a great deal of our
'UFO' evidence and nothing therein suggests what remains
unresolved is indicative that ET is here. Quite the contrary.

Your proposal fell at the first hurdle - there's a
comprehensive, inherent awareness that ufology's scientific
credibility is non- existent.

We never have to look far for historical or current examples.

As you are a foremost, objective, ufologist who has dedicated
many years to the subject, plus someone perhaps not
unsympathetic to the ETH, the inclusive feedback received,
particularly on 'UFO Skeptics', should certainly have provided a
number of issues to solemnly think about.

When you've had time to do so, perhaps you can summarise what
has been revealed and your conclusions about where 'scientific
ufology', as such, goes from here. Or how far it has come since
24 June, 1947.

I've known more accomplished Squadrons of Pelicans.


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk

Join UFO Skeptics or read the list archives at:

http://debunk.listbot.com

UFO Skeptics - You know it makes sense.









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

                    Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 21:06:59 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 12:07:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Evans


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 11:29:36 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Clark


 >>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:18:42 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging

Previously, John asked of Jerry:

 >>Perhaps while he's lying there he could think back and try to
 >>remember where I, or any of my pelicanist colleages ever made
 >>such comments as "eyewitness testimony has no value whatever and
 >>can be discarded without a single thought".

Jerry replied, but did not answer:

 >Of course it is characteristic of the pelicanist to want to have
 >it both ways: to deny the validity of eyewitness testimony and
 >to howl in outrage when that fact is pointed out.

<snip>

 >It is also characteristic of the pelicanist, when losing the
 >argument (as frequently happens), to resort to the sort of
 >crude, witless caricature expressed above.

Jerry,

Is it physically impossible for you to ever answer a simple,
single question with a single, simple answer? I have noticed
that you do two things with regular frequency.

First, you proclaim that skeptics (or basically persons you take
exception to) are guilty of taking the position that "eyewitness
testimony has no value whatever and can be discarded without a
single thought". I have seen you make this statement over and
over again. It ranks right up there with your second favorite
response, "Whatever." and your third favorite response
questioning the person's grammar, spelling, etc. Anything to
avoid answering a question directly, eh?

I think John's question is valid since I have absolutely no
recollection of anyone on this List ever claiming that
"eyewitness testimony has no value whatever and can be discarded
without a single thought". I second his question. Please point
out where someone has ever said that or even inferred it.

What has been stressed is that eyewitness testimony needs to be
verified. It would seem that it is an "either/or" situation with
you. If someone doesn't agree with your view about the value of
unproved testimony then, in your mind, they automatically feel
that "eyewitness testimony has no value whatever and can be
discarded without a single thought". Does seeking verification
of testimony really define "discarding it without a single
thought"?

How about if I said that you felt "unproved eyewitness testimony
has intrinsic scientific value and should be believed in
totality without a single thought". Would that be a fair
characterization of you? How you can make such a baseless
blanket statement about others and also claim to be unbiased
regarding the validity of UFOs is amazing. It is more than
amazing. It is hypocrisy defined.

And finally, you are incredibly over-fond of jumping the gun and
proclaiming that someone else has lost an argument when, in
fact, they haven't. What I find most humorous is your tendency
to do this when backed into a corner about a position you can't
defend or simply don't want to talk about anymore. Instead, you
get smug and claim victory over a debate that hasn't really even
started since you refuse to answer simple questions or deal with
the issues at hand as evidenced above. Oh, the thread gets
longer and longer, but nothing of substance ever gets discussed
because the topic gets bogged down in your typical, elitist,
overly complicated, answer-dodging rhetoric about the problems
with skeptics and how they feel that "eyewitness testimony has
no value", have already lost the argument within your first
response, can't spell someone's name correctly or... oh.
Whatever.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 1

                       Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 04:07:42 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 12:11:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Easton


Regarding:

 >Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 10:55:41 -0400
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Socorro 'Balloon' [was: Council Proposal]

Don wrote:

 >The winds were out of the southwest and are prevailing from that
 >direction in that area but secondly and most importantly the
 >description of the object being the size of a car positively
 >precludes it being a balloon able to lift anything real weight-
 >maybe 25 pounds-off the ground.

Don,

You might want to be aware of the little-known evidence revealed
in the following:

http://debunk.listbot.com/cgi-bin/subscriber?Act=view_message&list_id=debunk&msg
_num=484&start_num=495

[This will wrap-around].


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk

Join UFO Skeptics or read the list archives at:

http://debunk.listbot.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 >
   Apr > Apr 1

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:27:11 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 12:14:05 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies


 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:14:16 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

<snip>

 >Dear Mac, Ed and all:

 >I suggest we put this to a vote; if for no other reason than to
 >preserve bandwidth.

 >Resolved: The AA Film, as presented by Ray Santilli is:

 >a)  A shameless fake for monetary gain.

 >b)  A poorly made fake which nevertheless turned a tidy profit
 >    for Ray Santilli.

 >c)  A hastily made fake with many loose ends.

 >d)  A complete waste of bandwidth.

 >e)  A real tape of a real event proving that aliens are
 >     not only among us, but allow their fallen comrades to be cut
 >     up by humans, on film, much to the pecuniary benefit of the
 >     same R. Santilli.

<snip>

I think another option should be made available, personally:

f) a chance to explore the UFO inquiry insofar as it preys on
our never-ending fascination and belief strcutures re. the
subject of aliens and crashed saucers, keeping in mind that the
aforementioned subjects may be quite real (though it's doubtful
the AA is proof of this)


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 1

                   Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 31 Mar 2001 20:56:41 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 12:16:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth - Hamilton


 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:45:47 -0400
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Mass Hysteria as a Myth

 >Several months ago I read an article in a newspaper that
 >reported on a study done about panic and mass hysteria. It
 >concluded that both were a myth.The study included war,
 >earthquakes, other natural disasters, boat sinkings, fires in
 >hotels and theaters, terrorist attacks, and airline crashes or
 >incidents. Apparently people don't panic and don't suffer from
 >mass hysteria.

 >Since the myth of mass hysteria has been a staple of the
 >sceptical community and debunkers for many years now, I'd like
 >to see some proof that there is such a thing as mass hysteria.
 >First of all examples then proof that this was proven mass
 >hysteria.

 >Maybe we can shoot down this silly excuse for explaining away
 >UFO sightings once and for all.I for one have never given mass
 >hysteria any credibility since I first came across it many years
 >ago.

 >It's a convient scapegoat and buzzword with little or no value.


Don,

There was a cousin to mass hysteria called mass hallucination
that was also used to explain a UFO sighting not otherwise
explainable - some philosophies consider that to be "reality".


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 >
   Apr > Apr 1

              Cydonian Imperative: 4-1-01 - Vegetation on Mars?

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 21:03:01 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 12:18:06 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 4-1-01 - Vegetation on Mars?


4-1-01
The Cydonian Imperative

Bushes on Mars?
by Mac Tonnies


For images, see:

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html


Arthur C. Clarke's provocative statements about probable
vegetation on Mars have inspired a rash on online speculation.
Most of this has taken the form of analysis of the alleged
"tubes." Consequently, the equally bizarre Martian "bushes" have
been all-but-overshadowed.

In the image below, Clarke's "bushes" appear in relative
isolation. Note shadowing, indicating that these formations are
elevated.

IMAGE

True to terrestrial forests, these leafy-looking formations
procede to "clump" together:

IMAGE

Eventually, the field covered by the MGS camera reveals a
uniform landscape of what appears to be dense foilage:

IMAGE

To my mind, Clarke's proposed "bushes" are strong candidates for
relatively simple extant organisms thriving on the Martian
surface. Challengers of the organic hypothesis note that these
mysterious formations are located near the Martian south
pole--in fact, not far from where the silenced Mars Polar Lander
apparently came to rest, maddeningly intact on its landing gear.

Why would Martian plantlife thrive in a polar region instead of
the equatorial belt, where, as Efrain Palermo and Jill England
have demonstrated, liquid subsurface water appears in surprising
abundance in the form of short-lived "stains"?

IMAGE

Two "stains" intersect in this rare image located by Efrain
Palermo.

As with the prospect of a former Martian civilization, we are
faced with how humblingly little we know about our celestial
neighbor. Perhaps the abundance of potential Martian bushes
thrive by extracting water from icy deposits beneath the
unassuming polar terrain. Their low albedo would give them an
advantage by helping to concentrate precious sunlight in order
to melt much-needed permafrost.

As mentioned previously on this site, there are other, perhaps
equally provocative candidate lifeforms visible in photos taken
by the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft. For example, the dark
spots below may represent hardy funal colonies.

IMAGE

Mounting evidence indicates that Mars is a more hospitable
planet than previously accepted by the planetary science
community. As our perception of the "Red Planet" evolves, it is
hoped that these first tantalizing glimpses of possible life may
help sway our bias toward an image of an unexpectedly green
planet.

Almost needless to say, the detection of macroscopic lifeforms
on Mars would necessitate a manned mission. Perhaps NASA's
disturbing silence regarding features such as the ones shown
above indicates the current political bias against crewed
spaceflight.

-end-








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

                    Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 01:46:37 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 12:38:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Gates



 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:30:23 -0600

 >>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:46:21 -0500
 >>From: Kelly <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>Subject: Brilliant Light Plunging Into Pacific May Be Meteor
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Source: The Los Angeles Times

 >>http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20010327/t000026482.html
 >>Tuesday, March 27, 2001

 >>Brilliant Light Plunging Into Pacific
 >>May Have Been Meteor

 >>A bright red and green light that appeared to plunge into the
 >>Pacific Ocean on Monday night may have been a meteor, an
 >>astronomer said.

 >>About 30 people from Santa Barbara to Marina del Rey called U.S.
 >>Coast Guard and law enforcement officials about 8:20 p.m. to
 >>report what they thought was a meteorite, a flare or a downed
 >>aircraft, authorities said.

 >>Troy Powers, a museum guide at Griffith Observatory, said that
 >>judging from the descriptions, "it could have been a meteor."

 >Poor man. He clearly isn't up on his pelican science.
 >Consequently, he fails to understand that eyewitness testimony
 >has no value whatever and can be discarded without a second
 >thought.

Pelican or debunker science summed up perfectly. One presumes
that we will hear nothing from the pelicanists, because to
defend their position only re enforces your point.

 >We may rest assured that the stimulus for this mass
 >perception/hysteria was either

 >(a) a flaming pelican possibly ignited by a meteorite, a flare,
 >or an aircraft, or

<ROFL>

You did forget the possibility of pelican methane being ignited
by the friction of the flight through the atmosphere. :) Better
yet an off course Canadian goose.

 >(b) a psychosocial phenomenon triggered by hysteria from a
 >culture/political/psychic crisis yet to be determined, but
 >addressing the deep-seated psychic needs of the witnesses.

Of course the pelicanists would next proclaim it was some
kind of devious/cunning or simpleton hoax dreamed up
by the witnesses in some effort to pull something over the
masses.

Still ROFL on the mental picture of a flaming pelican traveling
through the sky.

Thanks for a great laugh, you hit the point right on the head.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 1

                    Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:28:52 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 12:39:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth - Rimmer


 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:45:47 -0400
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Mass Hysteria as a Myth

 >Several months ago I read an article in a newspaper that
 >reported on a study done about panic and mass hysteria. It
 >concluded that both were a myth.The study included war,
 >earthquakes, other natural disasters, boat sinkings, fires in
 >hotels and theaters, terrorist attacks, and airline crashes or
 >incidents. Apparently people don't panic

Don't panic? Really?

 >and don't suffer from
 >mass hysteria.

 >Since the myth of mass hysteria has been a staple of the
 >sceptical community and debunkers for many years now, I'd like
 >to see some proof that there is such a thing as mass hysteria.
 >First of all examples then proof that this was proven mass
 >hysteria.

Hmmm. I'd always thought that the myth of mass hysteria was a
staple of the believing community and bunkers, as in "The Air
Force doesn't release the truth about UFOs as it would cause
panic and mass-hysteria.

 >Maybe we can shoot down this silly excuse for explaining away
 >UFO sightings once and for all.I for one have never given mass
 >hysteria any credibility since I first came across it many years
 >ago.

Perhaps you could give an exaple of a wicked debunker giving
mass hysteria as an excuse for a UFO sighting? Off hand I can't
think of one. As there are so few (if any) 'mass' sightings of
UFOs anyway I doubt it would matter if anyone was hysterical or
not!

 >It's a convient scapegoat and buzzword with little or no value.

In fact it's a quite precisely defined phenomenon, recognised by
doctors, sociologists and psychologists, and refers to a sudden
outbreak of psychosomatic symptoms amongst a small and
self-contained group. Examples include episodes of fainting or
vague illness in schools, reports of 'noxious gases' which
cannot be traced, etc.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 1

                     Re: The Moon Landing Hoax - Liddle

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 09:36:34 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 12:41:07 -0400
Subject: Re: The Moon Landing Hoax - Liddle


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:31:45 EST
 >Subject: The Moon Landing Hoax
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Everybody:

 >Please note this excellent site for teachers debunking the
 >recent nonsense on the Fox network claiming that NASA faked the
 >Apollo program:

 >www.thursdaysclassroom.com


Thanks Bob. I was shocked the other day when my 11 year old, who
does not read my email, asked me if the "Americans faked the
moon landing".


I will put your link to use!


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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                       Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 13:54:53 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 08:12:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Hall


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:09:10 EST
 >Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:40:23 -0000

 >>Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>(First Draft)

 >>How to debunk UFOs and Discredit UFO Proponents:

 ><snip>

 >Hi Dick:

 >Here's Young's ETH Corellary to Halls Debunkers' Guidebook:

 >No matter what the believers say about statistics, generalities,
 >theories or whatever, _always_ ask for one proven example of a
 >spaceship from another world; where you can go to see it, or the
 >evidence that it was here.

Bob,

Yes, that is a good suggestion... adding "as if any comparable
issue in science is ever required to have that degree of
concrete proof." Bring me a comet, a black hole, or a wormhole,
or even Columbus's ship into the laboratory, otherwise why
should I pay attention to such claims?

Corollary to your statement: A lways insist that if you can't
produce a spaceship, you shouldn't pay any attention to the
craftlike objects that have been reported so consistently by
credible people all over the world.

Clear thinking,

Dick









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

                         Re: Serious Research - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 14:15:05 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 08:14:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com
 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:11:07 EST
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 21:58:16 -0000

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:07:57 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Okay, so you choose to cite very early Hynek figures when he was
 >>point man for the Air Force rather than his later figures, and
 >>Hendry's sample which "took on all comers."

Bob,

Well, looks like I placed a burr under your saddle. Good!

 >Dick,

 >Well, what is your breakdown for IFOs vs UFOs, and how many are
 >astronomical in nature?

Such statistics are utterly meaningless, so I don't bother to
look at them anymore. Astronomical IFOs are easily weeded out
for any serious attempt to try to determine whether hardcore,
unexplained cases are soemthing significant. The point is Hynek
clearly disowned the view that astronomy IFOs could explain many
if any strong UFOs cases, only trivial sightings by people not
familiar with the sky.

 >>As is so typical of "debunkers," you then equate the most
 >>ignorant UFO proponents with the best case that UFO advocates
 >>can advance.

 >Holy Cow.  Errol, clear the airwaves.  Get a cup of coffee, or a
 >brew, folks.

 >Dick, please sit down, take a deep breath and tell us:

 >What is the best case that UFO advocates can advance?

You obviously haven't been listening, or studying the serious
literature. For openers, you might read the Jacobs university
press book UFOs & Abductions and my The UFO Evidence, Vol. II.

 >>>Of course, historically, astronomers have been among the most
 >>>critical of the entire subject. I wonder if this is the real
 >>>reason you dismiss their expertise as "essentially irrelevant to
 >>>the argument."  It's gonna be hard squeezing any science in here
 >>>if you rule out scientists as essentially irrelevant.

 >>Let's face it, most astronomers don't know diddley-shit about
 >>fireball meteors or much of anything else that occurs within the
 >>Earth's atmosphere,

 >Probably one of the most silly-assed statements I've ever read,
 >and final proof that this notion of serious ufology in the form
 >of some kind of self-appointed "Council" coming up with anything
 >that will ever get the attention of the wider world of science
 >is a pipedream.

Are you claiming that astronomers, in the large majority of
cases, bother with meteors or know anything about meteorology or
atmospheric physics? Their focus clearly is on planetary and
stellar phenomena. Try doing a little polling. And by the way,
planetarium lecturers--though they may be very knowledgable
about astronomy--are not typical practicing astronomers.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to, or
comprehending, the Council notion either. Nothing
"self-appointed" about it. Would you be so naive as to populate
it with astronomers?


Clear thinking,

Dick









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

                        Re: Serious Research - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 15:47:16 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 08:18:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Bowden


 >From: Karoline Louise <KarolineLouise@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:22:58 EST
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:20:24 +0100
 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:51:03 +0100

 >Jenny Randles wrote:

 >>>You can jump to whatever dubious conclusions you like, if they
 >>>help.

 >Roy Hale wrote:

 >>Please forgive me, but I simply asked you a question. I was not
 >>jumping to any conclusions. My question is based upon your
 >>stance throughout your research years, which to me is one of a
 >>sceptic. We can dance around the maypole all day with words, but
 >>I think from where I stand you seem unable to accept, that most
 >>of the books you have written on this subject are leaning
 >>towards the sceptical side of the alien visiting earth question,
 >>or as some prefer the ETH.

 >The strange thing is that all the 'sceptics' think Jenny is a
 >'believer'.

 >The poor lady must feel terribly picked on.

 >But you know what I think she really is?

 >I think she's that extraordinarily rare and undervalued thing -
 >an open-minded observer with no a priori belief-system and no
 >agenda beyond trying to find the truth.

 >I have just been chatting with John Velez about the careful
 >selection of evidence that goes into creating the  case for
 >'alien abduction', and it  reminded me of this very wise
saying:

 >    "the human wish to believe in  any given thing always
 >    increases in inverse proportion to the amount of evidence
 >    there is to support it"

 >I think the biggest puzzle we all have to face is why does
 >_believing_  in  something (aliens or pelicans, or anything), so
 >often  matter more to us than finding out whether or not it's
 >true?

 >Does anyone have any ideas?


Hello Karoline,

I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I agree, to ask if somebody is a believer or a skeptic seems
irrelevant to me, surely the findings of research would be of
more importance.

Here we have a prime example of blind faith verses proven data.

If someone asks 'do you believe in the ETH?' it would be wise to
remember what the 'H' in ETH actually stands for.

Hypothesis.

According to the Collins English Dictionary hypothesis means:
Suggested but unproved explanation of something or based on
assumption rather than fact or reality.


All the best,

Dave.

http://www.grafikfx.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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 07:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 08:22:06 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:09:06 -0800

<snip>

 >>First of all, I think the AA is almost certainly a fake, but I
 >>_still_ haven't dismissed it.

 >Mac,

 >I've asked you this before but what makes you think that the AA
 >"is almost certainly a fake"? What is your evidence?

A bogus origin would explain Santilli's reluctance to provide
film stock for analysis. I understand some of the complications
he presumably faced when he had access to the footage, but, if I
had to make a bet, I'd bet that the AA is a clever hoax designed
to milk the Roswell case. That said, I am somewhat surprised
that the hoaxers haven't stepped forward. My "evidence" is
basically my _opinion_. At least I'm honest about it.

 >I think you'll change your mind once you view the AA CDs. Email
 >your address off line and I'll send you a set and a Flatland. I
 >value your opinion.

I value yours as well and will email you as requested.


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                       Re: Serious Research - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:04:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 08:51:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Maccabee


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:27:39 EST
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:07:57 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:01:06 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research - Young

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 22:10:04 -0000

<snip>

 >>UFO reports are not generated by you or me, or ufologists. They
 >>are generated by those who make the reports. What the witnesses
 >>report is what defines UFO phenomena.

<snip>

 >As Hynek pointed out many times, the proper definition of a UFO
 >is a sighting that has passed a competent scientific
 >investigation, and is not "defined" by the witness.

Because of the general misuse of the term UFO I use the term
TRUFO (TRue UFO) for an _investigated_ case for which no
conventional explanation has been found, or, more basically, for
which no explanation is convincing. (Note: it may not be
possible to prove that a particular explanation is correct, but
it is possible to make a decision as to whether or not a
particular explanation is convincing.

 >The witness
 >should not have to be the scientist on his/her own case. A UFO
 >could very well be one that the witness claims is an IFO -- what
 >counts most is the observational details not the opinions or
 >conclusions of the witness. Witnesses often draw the wrong
 >conclusions about what they have seen but are more accurate
 >about factual observational details that are not stretched
 >beyond their abilities. It is the job of the UFO investigator to
 >coax out the most accurate details and to not put witnesses in
 >the awkward position of having to guess or speculate about
 >things they cannot possibly perceive, e.g., pressing the witness
 >to guess the size or distance to a distant object for which
 >there are no visual cues to establish such. It is especially
 >perverse for an investigator to then turn around and accuse the
 >witness of incompetence for making such guesses as if the
 >witness is expected to have the knowledge of a Ph.D. astronomer
 >or atmospheric physicist or percetual psychologist.

It is the job of the investigator to separate _Observation_ from
_Interpretation,_ since the witnesses generally describes the
unknown in terms of the known.









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

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:56:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 08:54:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:40:23 -0000

 >Debunkers' Guidebook

 >(First Draft)

 >How to debunk UFOs and Discredit UFO Proponents:

 >1. Point out that very large percentages of things reported as
 >UFOs turn out to have conventional explanations (but don't talk
 >about individual observers' varying abilities or how believers
 >screen and investigate cases).

 >2. Always refer to them as UFO believers or ETH believers,
 >implying that their position is faith-based.

 >3. Argue that any given case could have been something
 >conventional and we will never know because we never have all
 >the facts (but don't acknowledge that well-qualified observers
 >have reported unexplained craft-like objects displaying
 >extraordinary performance totalling in the hundreds or
 >thousands).

 >4. (Corollary to 3): Avoid any mention of the patterns of
 >appearance and behavior in unexplained cases worldwide for many
 >decades.

 >5. Focus on the well-known problems and limitations of human
 >perception (but never mention that people are incarcerated on
 >the basis of eye-witness testimony, that our court systems could
 >not function without it, and that if human perception were as
inadequate as claimed, nobody would dare to cross a busy street
 >or fly an airplane).

 >6. Comment regularly on human credulity and wishful thinking, in
 >a desire for saviours from space (just don't mention that it
 >applies only to cultists on the fringes of ufology, nor that
 >close encounter cases typically scare the pants off of the
 >witnesses rather than inspire them).>

 >7. Always act as if no one before you has really conducted a
 >thorough investigation in classic UFO cases so that it's only a
 >matter of time and diligence before the answers will be found
 >(but avoid mentioning that the suggested answers you propose
 >either have already been found wanting or fail to account for
 >the salient features of the case).

I appreciate seeing Richard's "Debunking Handbook." However,
with all due respect for his efforts, I would like to point out
that he alluded to but did not mention directly Maccabee's First
Rule for Debunkers, which I have posted numerous times in
various contexts over the years:

RULE 1: Any explanation is better than none.

In other words, the 11th commandment for skeptics is "Thou Shalt
Leave No UFO Sighting Unexplained." Even "insufficient
information" is an "explanation."

Naturally there is RULE 2:

If the first explanation is not effective because it is
unconvincing or is, in fact, just plain wrong, then create
another.

For example, in the Japan Airlines Case over Alaska in 1986
(investigated by the FAA in 1987) the first "preferred
explanation" was indeed extraterrestrial: Mars and Jupiter.
When, however, it became apparent that Mars and Jupiter (a)
could not explain the initial appearances of the UFOs and (b)
were inconsitent with the direction, the "preferred explanation"
became moonlight reflected from clouds (see http://brumac.8k.com
and look for the JAL case)

There is a corollary to rule 2:

COROLLARY: if the second explanation doesn't work try a
third.

And the corollary to the corollary is.... well, you guessed it.

Debunker/scoffers/whatever apparently accept as true
(I hesitate to say "believe in" ) the following theorem:

THEOREM FOR DEBUNKING:
The more explanations are proposed,. the greater the probability
that a sighting has been explained.

And, of course, debunkers obey the same rule of etiquette that
the early contactees did (and some politicians)

Thou Shalt Not Speak ill of Another Debunker/Scoffer (or
contactee or politician).

This means even if you, as a debunker, thinks another guy's
explanation is totally "off the wall," just be quiet about it and
politely propose your own as a "possible" (probable?) alternative,.

Just remember, when it comes to explanations .
There is Strength in Numbers.


(My own opinion is that the more explanations there are, the
LESS likely it is that a sighting has been explained.)

Hahahahahahaha
(They're coming to take me away.....)









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

                       Re: Shedding Secrets - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:05:45 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 10:11:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Shedding Secrets - Friedman


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Shedding Secrets
 >Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 17:03:26 -0600

 >The following is from the editorial pages of today's NY Times:

 >"The answer was delivered the other day by Federal Express. It
 >came in the form of two red CD-ROM's adorned with a hammer and
 >sickle. They contain nearly 20,000 pages of what were once some
 >of Washington's most secret documents, the CIA's assessment of
 >the Soviet Union from 1947 to 1991. The reports were recently
 >declassified by the CIA and were the subject of a conference
 >earlier this month at Princeton University attended by many
 >former agency analysts. Here, at my fingertips, was the best
 >intelligence that hundreds of billions of dollars in spy
 >hardware and manpower had bought for the United States."


Coming back to 1050 emails wasn't fun. The delete finger is
getting a workout. But the obvious question is how many CIA
documents about the Soviets are still classified?. Certainly
plenty of old stuff is eventually declassified.. Plenty is not
the same as all.

As an analogy, years ago I managed to get a clearance to see
General Lemay's papers at the Library of Congress Manuscript
Division... up through SECRET. Then I found in them an 80 page
list of TOP SECRET Documents to which I did not have access.
Some had classified titles.

Secrets can be kept if it is desired to do so.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                      Re: Magonia Supplement 35 - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 17:32:32 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:31:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 35 - Bruni


 >Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:34:35 +0100
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Magonia Supplement 35

 >MAGONIA Supplement
 >No. 35 21 March 2001

 >In our previous issue Kevin McClure remarked that Georgina Bruni
 >had confused him with someone called Bob Easton concerning early
 >investigations of the Rendlesham affair. Bruni, on reading this
 >article, seems to have got the impression that "Bob Easton" was
 >a pseudonym for Kevin McClure. However, Jenny Randles has
 >pointed out that both Bob Easton and Kevin McClure are mentioned
 >in her book Sky Crash, so Bruni cannot have read it very
 >carefully. It should be noted that Bob Easton is not to be
 >confused with James Easton, who has conducted extensive
 >investigations into the Rendlesham stories and documentation,
 >but whose name is conspicuously and curiously absent from
 >Bruni's book. I hope you can make some sense of this; the
 >Rendlesham business is far to complicated for your poor old
 >Editor . . .

John

Nice try but I did not confuse McClure with Bob Easton in my
book. It was McClure who was confused when he wrote his article.
He just assumed I had confused him with Easton (Bob) so he did
not read my book correctly. And yes, I did read Sky Crash
carefully, but as Brenda Butler and Dot Street pointed out, and
I believe Jenny has also stated as such, their book had several
errors. Having said that, I think it was a very good book
considering it was written so soon after the events.

Regarding your ongoing support for debunker James Easton. As I
have continually pointed out, I do not take his so-called
research seriously. If you had read my book you would see that I
cover Ian Ridpath's lighthouse theory. Easton just selectively
cuts and pastes these and adds his own speculative comments.
There is nothing remotely new here. However, I have consulted
somebody who has truly taken the time and trouble to investigate
the lighthouse theory and to satisfy all those who support this
I intend to feature this in my paperback. Now, are you all happy
bunnies?

With regard to Easton's other "extensive investigations" (your
quote my dear) I should add that he was not the only one to be
in possession of the so-called witness statements. The
difference is, he just added his theories were as I took the
time and trouble to actually investigate them. If Easton had
such a good story, why didn't he try to get his own book deal?
Why, he could not even get the press interested because he had
nothing to support his claims.

For somebody who has been around so long in this subject, I find
it odd that you pin credibility on somebody who spends endless
hours cutting and pasting material that is available on the web
for all to see. Much less of this and more getting into positive
research and I might take the guy seriously. In the meantime I
consider him just another wannabe.

You might want to have the courtesy to apologise to me in your
next editorial letter. Mr Rimmer, take off your sceptical hat
for a moment and re-read your editorial piece. Does that sound
like somebody who knows his stuff?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                    Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:37:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:33:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Clark


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:01:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:06:28 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >>>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:30:23 -0600

 >>>>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:46:21 -0500
 >>>>From: Kelly <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Brilliant Light Plunging Into Pacific May Be Meteor
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>Source: The Los Angeles Times

 >>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20010327/t000026482.html
 >>>>Tuesday, March 27, 2001

 >>>>Brilliant Light Plunging Into Pacific
 >>>>May Have Been Meteor

 >>>>A bright red and green light that appeared to plunge into the
 >>>>Pacific Ocean on Monday night may have been a meteor, an
 >>>>astronomer said.

 >>You're a pisser Jerry. But it's funny because it's true. I can't
 >>believe that any rational person would entertain balderdash like
 >>that unless it was motivated by a burning need to sublimate deep
 >>(primal) fear.

 >>The louder and more irrational they are, the deeper the fear.

 >>They are _driven_ to irrationality by fear.

  Bob,

 >Paranoia and irrationality aside, can either of you guys tell me
 >in 30 or 40 words how this report differs from the report of a
 >meteor fireball?

 >Please be specific.


Congratulations. You've managed both to miss the point of my
posting and to make my point.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                         Re: Aurorae As IFOs - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 12:39:06 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:35:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Aurorae As IFOs - Young


 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 20:22:53 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Aurorae As IFOs

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 09:07:07 EST
 >>Subject: Aurorae As IFOs
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Ladies & Gents:

 >>Perhaps you've seen the news about the aurorae and solar storms.
 >>Here's a picture from the POES satellite about 2 A.M. this
 >>morning. Notice how the auroral oval is shifted south over the
 >>States:

 >>http://sec.noaa.gov/pmap/UserPass.cgi

 >For those who have not visited the above URL it looks like you
 >need to go to:

 >http://sec.noaa.gov/pmap/Pmap1.cgi

 >first, select a date and time then click on the submit button.

Hi, John, List:

You're right. When I wrote that It was the current image.
Thanks.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                    Re: Filer's Files #13 -- 2001 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 12:47:52 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:36:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #13 -- 2001 - Young


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:10:01 EST
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #13 -- 2001
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Whilst en route to a military communincations center on the
 >continent, we were approached by and followed by a triangular
 >UFO. We were up front and personal with the flight deck in this
 >aircraft, and watched with amazement as the flight crew was
 >notified by us (three passengers, me, one military person of
 >unknown association and one of our own military) that we were
 >being shadowed by what seemed to be a huge object of unknown
 >origin. Triangular, lit up like a freaking pin ball machine with
 >solids and strobes and God knows what all else. Each member in
 >turn, of the flight crew, looked outside the plane (to port) and
 >saw the aircraft, blinked not even once, turned back to what
 >they were doing, and proceeded for the rest of the flight, to
 >operate their airplane with the flight deck doors closed and
 >locked. Not a word. Nuttin. Each of us sat there with mouths
 >wide open, asking questions of each other like, "Whatdaf*ck
 >izzat?!??" and "Why the crap don't them up-front dudes wanna
 >talk to us!??!

I believe you. Just one of Dick Hall's "machines", Jimmy.


Crowded 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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                    Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:13:36 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:37:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Young


 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 20:41:33 -0400
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging

<snip>

 >I might have happened across the List late on this one. Is someone
 >arguing this is a good UFO sighting?

Hi, Don,

Don't know, except that it was posted here. Thought I'd stick up
for the guy.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                      Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:33:16 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:39:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Young


 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:34:37 -0400
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Debunker's Guidebook
 >>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:40:23 -0000

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 20:03:14 EST
 >>>Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 13:06:43 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young

 >>>>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>>>Date: 22 Mar 2001 08:32:45 -0800
 >>>>o: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question

<snip>

 >Over simplification is the mainstay of the debunker's thrust.
 >Pick one point to the exclusion of all others and try to make it
 >work. Make a snap judgement on the basis of some existing
 >evidence that might or might not have value

<snip>

 >Recently on this List Bill Hamilton mentioned an old piece of
 >film he had viewed some years ago with a very good object
 >captured in it. Without any hesitation whatsoever one of our
 >skeptics stated it was probably a lens flare??? That is so
 >obviously a blunting ploy that it is laughable. He knows who he
 >is and is a likable fellow to boot.. very forgiving.

Hi Don, Bill, List:

Actually, I didn't say, "probably", what I wrote was,

 >>>Sounds like lens flare from the Sun in the camera lens. Of
 >>>course, there is the matter of the witness saying that he saw
 >>>the thing before he filmed it.

 >>>I wonder if the jumping rabbit happened as the camera was moved
 >>>to follow the aircraft.

 >>>This would be a neat piece of film for somebody to have a look
 >>>at. Even a still might throw evidence on the lens flare notion.

Bill looked it up and gave us an URL to look at a very poor
repro of a couple frames. I can't tell much from these pics, so
lens flare is just speculative, at this point.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                        Re: Serious Research - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:39:52 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:41:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Young


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:12:35 EST
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Everyone,

 >This all stems from a misunderstanding.


Brad, List:

You are right. We're all going round and round on this. It's
obvious that different people have different results from their
investigations, or review of somebody else's. That a significant
fraction of initial UFO reports are things seen in the sky which
are astronomical ought to be pretty obvious.

Agreement even on this isn't very easy.

I think it's time to move on.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:44:11 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:43:25 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Bourdais


 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:14:16 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

 >>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:36:04 -0800 (PST)
 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gehrman
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:47:32 -0800

 >><snip>


 >Dear Mac, Ed and all:

 >I suggest we put this to a vote; if for no other reason than to
 >preserve bandwidth.

 >Resolved: The AA Film, as presented by Ray Santilli is:

 >a)  A shameless fake for monetary gain.

 >b)  A poorly made fake which nevertheless turned a tidy profit
 >    for Ray Santilli.

 >c)  A hastily made fake with many loose ends.

 >d)  A complete waste of bandwidth.

 >e)  A real tape of a real event proving that aliens are
 >    not only among us, but allow their fallen comrades to be cut
 >    up by humans, on film, much to the pecuniary benefit of the
 >    same R. Santilli.

 >Please send your votes to Ed Gehrmann. I'm much too busy to keep
 >count.


Sorry, but in my modest opinion, you missed the main option :

f) the film, wether it is a fake (probable but not proven yet) or not,
originates from secret services (I gave several times arguments for that).
That's the really interesting question, which does not seem to be
very popular on this List!

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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:37:31 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:45:51 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gehrman


 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:37:44 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

 >Not true, Ed. In fact, after reviewing the archives, it appears
 >that you are the only one that thinks AA looks "good". Please
 >point out all the posts from that thread that supports your
 >claims that I was the only one that questioned AA's quality. If
 >what you say is true, then there should be plenty of quotes in
 >that thread from other people that agree with your assessment
 >that AA looks real.

Yes, others questioned the quality of the AA but you were the
person who used your authority and expertise in film to declare
that there were problems. Neither Neil nor I or William were
able to find the problems to which you were referring. You still
refuse to point them out

 >No, only what _you'd_ accept as the reality for that time
 >period, Ed. And what "conditions" are you referring to? Are you
 >saying that things weren't as good as they could have been?

The conditions were not optimal for filming. Remember they were
all wearing the decontamination suits. And we have to rememer
the secrecy involved. That certainly put limits on what might be
allowed.

 >Isn't that the entire point? They had three weeks, according to
 >the claims of the alleged cameraman. Why would you have to
 >qualify your statement about "what you'd expect for the
 >conditions" if they had three weeks to prepare?

I believe the cameraman is telling the truth and they had three
weeks between the event and autopsy. I don't know what
preparations were made and neither do you. I think they did what
they needed to do in the time they had. We have no idea of what
was going through their minds. That's what makes secret
operations secret.

 >Again, it would appear that nothing will dissuade you from your
 >belief system. Also, I find it odd that you want other people to
 >spend $35 apiece to help prove your case. Yet, you won't spend
 >the same amount to make a BetaSP copy for me on a tape I'll
 >provide which would have even _greater_ detail than the CDs.

We realize that the $35 price may be too expensive and we're
trying to figure out how to offer the AA CDs for less. As we
have pointed out to you on numerous occasions, we do not have a
beta SP to copy. You have the CDs and that should be enough.
Just open the CDs, take a look and tell us what you see.

 >Yet, for all your bellyaching about
 >non-believers, and how EBK won't ever let you talk about AA on
 >this list,

I thank EBK for allowing the discussion to continue.

 >you have never given any list of reasons beyond your
 >typical circular logic as described above.

Here are a few: I find no inconsistency between the cameraman's
version of events and the footage. There are no historical
anomalies or mistakes;the footage is clear and not out of focus
in most places. The creature does not seem to be an FX creation
and there is absolutely no proof that she is.

The debris portion would be prohibitively expensive to create.
There are no witnesses to confirm that the AA was hoaxed. There
is no evidence that Ray would create a hoax nor that he had the
talent or resources to do so. No one has been able to
satisfactorily explain how the AA was hoaxed or filmed. There
are direct connections between the AA debris and the Roswell
debris shown in Ft. Worth photos.

 >What's _your_ proof? Or does everyone have to send you $35.00 to
 >find out

For those who are interested, the only way to understand what we
are talking about is to view the AA Cds. We'll try to bring the
price down and determine an easier way to open them so more
folks can get involved and see for themselves whether Roger's
claim of poor quality is valid.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                     Re: The Moon Landing Hoax - Murray

From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 15:07:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:47:22 -0400
Subject: Re: The Moon Landing Hoax - Murray


 >Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 09:36:34 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >Subject: Re: The Moon Landing Hoax


 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:31:45 EST
 >>Subject: The Moon Landing Hoax
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Everybody:

 >>Please note this excellent site for teachers debunking the
 >>recent nonsense on the Fox network claiming that NASA faked the
 >>Apollo program:

 >>www.thursdaysclassroom.com


 >Thanks Bob. I was shocked the other day when my 11 year old, who
 >does not read my email, asked me if the "Americans faked the
 >moon landing".


 >I will put your link to use!


 >Sean Liddle
 >KAPRA

  Howdy Sean, Bob & All!

Yes, thanks Bob, for posting that site. The program was
ridiculous and covered conspiracy theories that have been going
on for years. It's disturbing to see one of mankind's greatest
achievements undermined by such a misleading collection of silly
conjectures. Hopefully some of the information given on this
site will make people, especially young people, think twice
about what they are told on television.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                    Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 15:50:42 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:49:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Velez


 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 20:41:33 -0400
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:01:32 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:06:28 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>>Source: The Los Angeles Times

 >>>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20010327/t000026482.html
 >>>>>Tuesday, March 27, 2001

 >>>>>Brilliant Light Plunging Into Pacific
 >>>>>May Have Been Meteor

 >>>>>A bright red and green light that appeared to plunge into the
 >>>>>Pacific Ocean on Monday night may have been a meteor, an
 >>>>>astronomer said.

 >>>You're a pisser Jerry. But it's funny because it's true. I can't
 >>>believe that any rational person would entertain balderdash like
 >>>that unless it was motivated by a burning need to sublimate deep
 >>>(primal) fear.

 >>>The louder and more irrational they are, the deeper the fear.

 >>>They are _driven_ to irrationality by fear.

 >>Paranoia and irrationality aside, can either of you guys tell me
 >>in 30 or 40 words how this report differs from the report of a
 >>meteor fireball?

 >>Please be specific.

 >Butting in. There isn't is there. I wouldn't argue this one. If
 >it weren't for meteors and fireballs the NRC here in Canada
 >wouldn't have set up a committee manned by astronomers across
 >the country to filter out those from UFOs. In the process they
 >catalogued thousands of UFO sightings which remain today. Of
 >course it sucked some of them in along the way just like Hynek,
 >and Tombaugh.

 >I might have happened across the List late on this one. Is someone
 >arguing this is a good UFO sighting?


Hi Don, hi All,

Sorry for delay in response. I've been off-line for three days
with major computer problems.

In answer to Don's question; not from my end Don. My response to
Jerry's post was in regard to the 'vehemence' of some debunkers
and where that intensity comes from. I was not commenting on the
'meteor' case at all. After I reread it I realized that it
'could have been' interpreted as 'support for a UFO theory'
which is not what I meant at all. I was laughing at, and
commenting on, Jerry's humorous synopsis of some of the theories
put forward by 'some' debunkers.

Not supporting a UFO explanation for the case in question.

Thanx for allowing me the opportunity to clarify that.


Regards,

John Velez









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

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 16:06:07 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:53:06 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gates


 >Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:12:41 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: AA Time Warp

 >Hello, all....

 >An astute reader sent me this info. The following can be found
 >in the interview with the alleged AA cameraman at:

 >http://www.soc.org/opcam/a_autopsy/alienautopsy.html

 >Here's the Q&A of interest:

 >Question #10: How did you keep the film after shooting and who

 >Answer: I kept all the film with me, went back to the base and I
 >processed it.

So he is saying he went "back to the base" so the AA may not
have even been filmed at a military hospital on a military base
but perhaps at some civilian hospital or a lab somewhere.

 >Question #11: What happened to the remains of the UFO after
 >delivery?

 >Answer: Where did it go? Give me the question again.

 >Now the freaks were taken by the medical team to a lab that had
 >been set up at Fort Worth; the debris and craft were taken to
 >Wright Field.

Ok, the lab was apparently off base because he took the film back
to the base.

 >Question #12: When was (the) spaceman cut up after the crash?

 >Answer: The first autopsy took place about three weeks later. I
 >filmed some at a small lab in Fort Worth.

 >So here's the rub:

 >AA proponents claim that the conditions seen in AA are the
 >result of spontaneous decisions. The lack of adequate
 >preparations and documentation being the by-product of something
 >that was all very hurried and unplanned.

Been listening to that for years.  The "event of the century" and
all that anybody can find was one camerman because it was so
hurried blah blah blah.  Then he squanders film on a doctor writing
on a clipboard.

 >Yet, as my astute reader pointed out, the cameraman clearly
 >indicates that the first autopsy wasn't filmed until three weeks
 >after the crash! Man, they had enough time to get all the best
 >equipment they needed!

 >35mm! Lights! A bigger room! Catering! Beer!

They had time to get an entire hollywood production team and
cameras together to film this event.

 >As far as I'm concerned, this is the last straw in a very weak
 >camel's back. Again, I look at the AA footage and wonder why
 >something so important was given such poor handling. Now that I
 >know they had three weeks to prepare - to get the finest
 >surgeons, the finest pathologists, the finest cameraman, the
 >best equipment - three weeks and what we see in AA is the best
 >they could come up with?

 >Hell, entire low budget movies are made in three weeks!

The AA supporters and defenders will then say something stupid
like "Well that may be true for today, but that was not true in
1947 when this was filmed...blah blah."

 >AA is a fraud.

 >King Roger

Don't worry the next comment will be something along the lines
of 'Well if you would just watch the video and or gape at the
CD's for endless hours, you would see that its accurate, and
truthful'


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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                       Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Ledger

From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:41:36 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:00:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Ledger

 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'
 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 04:07:42 +0100

 >Regarding:

 >>Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 10:55:41 -0400
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Socorro 'Balloon' [was: Council Proposal]

 >Don wrote:

 >>The winds were out of the southwest and are prevailing from that
 >>direction in that area but secondly and most importantly the
 >>description of the object being the size of a car positively
 >>precludes it being a balloon able to lift anything real weight-
 >>maybe 25 pounds-off the ground.

 >Don,

 >You might want to be aware of the little-known evidence revealed
 >in the following:

 >http://debunk.listbot.com/cgi-bin/subscriber?Act=view_message&list_id=debunk&m
sg_num=484&start_num=495

 >[This will wrap-around].

 >James Easton.

Hi James,

Unless Zamora was blind, he could not have missed an 80-100 foot
high balloon with a circumference of some 120 feet at the
balloon's equator. When he arrived on the scene he stated that
he thought it was an overturned car. Tall could have meant
twenty or thirty feet but that's still not going to get two
people,fuel, ballast a thermos of hot coffee and the gondola off
the ground.

If you want some science-here's your science. I've been around a
ballons a few times and these are very big with tens of
thousands of cubic feet of lifting capacity. In a recent Notice
to Airmen release advising of a scientific package of 1.4
kilograms, about 4 pounds, Transport Canada advised that the
balloon would be 141,000 cu.ft or 4,000 cubic meters in volume.
If that was a cube it would be 54 feet on a side, just to lift a
4 pound payload. I suspect that it could probably lift 20 pounds
if need be, but they wanted a margin of lift higher than usual
since this thing was to go to 138,000 feet. But even so there is
no way you could stretch the rubber band to lift a payload of
say 400 pounds at that size.

A 54x54x54 sized structure would make a pretty good sized
apartment building. You can't tell me that Zamora couldn't tell
the difference in size between a car body and an apartment
building.

You know they move with the wind, are slow to rise and very slow
to inflate. Doing anything in a hurry around a balloon is
inviting disaster.

James tell me this was a '55 Hillman-Minx with JATO bottles on
it and I might be inclined to agree-but a balloon no.

By the way a balloon capable of carrying your two little AF guys
eould likely have had a capacity of about 14 million cubic feet.
That is one big balloon.

Lonnie's eyes weren't that bad.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                    Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:58:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:02:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Ledger


 >Date: 31 Mar 2001 20:56:41 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth

 >>Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:45:47 -0400
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Mass Hysteria as a Myth

 >>Several months ago I read an article in a newspaper that
 >>reported on a study done about panic and mass hysteria. It
 >>concluded that both were a myth.The study included war,
 >>earthquakes, other natural disasters, boat sinkings, fires in
 >>hotels and theaters, terrorist attacks, and airline crashes or
 >>incidents. Apparently people don't panic and don't suffer from
 >>mass hysteria.

 >>Since the myth of mass hysteria has been a staple of the
 >>sceptical community and debunkers for many years now, I'd like
 >>to see some proof that there is such a thing as mass hysteria.
 >>First of all examples then proof that this was proven mass
 >>hysteria.

 >>Maybe we can shoot down this silly excuse for explaining away
 >>UFO sightings once and for all.I for one have never given mass
 >>hysteria any credibility since I first came across it many years
 >>ago.

 >>It's a convient scapegoat and buzzword with little or no value.

 >Don,

 >There was a cousin to mass hysteria called mass hallucination
 >that was also used to explain a UFO sighting not otherwise
 >explainable - some philosophies consider that to be "reality".


Hi Bill,

Somebody must have been staying up nights back in the late
forties and to dream up these names, though I suspect that the
mass hallucination term had been around earlier than that. You
just have to think about how stupid and insulting a term that
is. Someone in a white coat makes up these silly terms to
impress a bunch of suits [politicians] and uniforms [brass]
about just how stupid we masses are and we fall all over
ourselves to accept it.

The first time I heard of it when I was a kid, I felt insulted
and I guessed then it was a ploy, being foisted on us by an
in-exact science that probably has another 2-3 hundred years to
get their act sorted out. Have you ever seen any evidence of
mass hallucination or mass hysteria? It's a too convient
scapegoat term with no validity.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                     Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Leger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 19:05:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:04:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Leger


 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:28:52 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth

 >>Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:45:47 -0400
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Mass Hysteria as a Myth

 >>Several months ago I read an article in a newspaper that
 >>reported on a study done about panic and mass hysteria. It
 >>concluded that both were a myth.The study included war,
 >>earthquakes, other natural disasters, boat sinkings, fires in
 >>hotels and theaters, terrorist attacks, and airline crashes or
 >>incidents. Apparently people don't panic

 >Don't panic? Really?

 >>and don't suffer from
 >>mass hysteria.

 >>Since the myth of mass hysteria has been a staple of the
 >>sceptical community and debunkers for many years now, I'd like
 >>to see some proof that there is such a thing as mass hysteria.
 >>First of all examples then proof that this was proven mass
 >>hysteria.

 >Hmmm. I'd always thought that the myth of mass hysteria was a
 >staple of the believing community and bunkers, as in "The Air
 >Force doesn't release the truth about UFOs as it would cause
 >panic and mass-hysteria.

 >>Maybe we can shoot down this silly excuse for explaining away
 >>UFO sightings once and for all.I for one have never given mass
 >>hysteria any credibility since I first came across it many years
 >>ago.

 >Perhaps you could give an exaple of a wicked debunker giving
 >mass hysteria as an excuse for a UFO sighting? Off hand I can't
 >think of one. As there are so few (if any) 'mass' sightings of
 >UFOs anyway I doubt it would matter if anyone was hysterical or
 >not!

 >>It's a convient scapegoat and buzzword with little or no value.

 >In fact it's a quite precisely defined phenomenon, recognised by
 >doctors, sociologists and psychologists, and refers to a sudden
 >outbreak of psychosomatic symptoms amongst a small and
 >self-contained group. Examples include episodes of fainting or
 >vague illness in schools, reports of 'noxious gases' which
 >cannot be traced, etc.


Hi John,

So you agree then that we can now put mass hysteria aside as a
reason for UFO sightings-unless of course there are noxious
gasses and a schoolroom present.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                    Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:07:27 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:50:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Velez


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:01:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:06:28 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >>>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:30:23 -0600

 >>>>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:46:21 -0500
 >>>>From: Kelly <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Brilliant Light Plunging Into Pacific May Be Meteor
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>Source: The Los Angeles Times

 >>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20010327/t000026482.html
 >>>>Tuesday, March 27, 2001

 >>>>Brilliant Light Plunging Into Pacific
 >>>>May Have Been Meteor

 >>>>A bright red and green light that appeared to plunge into the
 >>>>Pacific Ocean on Monday night may have been a meteor, an
 >>>>astronomer said.

 >>You're a pisser Jerry. But it's funny because it's true. I can't
 >>believe that any rational person would entertain balderdash like
 >>that unless it was motivated by a burning need to sublimate deep
 >>(primal) fear.

 >>The louder and more irrational they are, the deeper the fear.

 >>They are _driven_ to irrationality by fear.

 >Hi, John, Jerry:

 >Paranoia and irrationality aside, can either of you guys tell me
 >in 30 or 40 words how this report differs from the report of a
 >meteor fireball?

 >Please be specific.


Hiya Young Bob,

In answer to your question; it doesn't!

I wasn't 'supporting' a UFO explanation for the report in
question. I was commenting on Jerry's humorous portrayal of
'typical belief systems' that some debunkers would have us
entertain. My post had nothing to do with the fireball report
per se. Sorry if my remarks were misleading. It wasn't my
intention to confuse anyone.

After I reread my own post, I can see how it 'could be' taken
that way (as my supporting a UFO explanation) but I'm here to
tell you that it wasn't. ;)


Regards,

John Velez









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

                             Eras News: 04-02-01

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 20:16:21 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:57:16 -0400
Subject: Eras News: 04-02-01


ERAS NEWS
The E-News Service of The Eras Project

http://www.geocities.com/erasproject

April 1, 2001

____________________________


WELCOME TO THE ERAS PROJECT (FORMERLY THE MILLENNIUM PROJECT)


As of April 1, 2001, The Millennium Project has become The Eras
Project, a non-profit future studies project which chronicles
the news, events, ideas and discoveries that will shape the
future of humanity as we enter the 21st Century and a new Era.
TEP will focus on future studies/science and technology related
issues, from both mainstream and alternative perspectives. Areas
of special study and advocacy will include the search for
extraterrestrial life (in whatever form, with a focus on Mars
and Europa as prime examples), and space science/exploration in
general. TEP supports and develops initiatives to increase
public awareness of these issues and their possible near and
long-term implications.


NEW WEB SITE FOR TEP

The former TMP web site is now at a new address:

http://www.geocities.com/erasproject

Please update your links and bookmarks accordingly. The web site
itself is also in the process of being revamped.


THE MARS INITIATIVE

The Mars Initiative, the first 'specialized project' of TEP,
advocates the continued exploration of Mars, including a manned
mission and eventual settlement as part of mankind's next steps
outward into the solar system and beyond; a major focus of TMI
is the search for and examination of evidence for life, past or
present, on this the most earthlike of the nearby worlds.


ERAS NEWS (FORMERLY TMP NEWS) NOW WITH LISTBOT

As part of these changes, the former TMP News is now Eras News.
The mailing list service has also been changed, from Yahoo!
Groups to ListBot, after having some technical problems with
Yahoo! Groups. You can subscribe either with the e-mail address
or on the TEP web site, using the convenient subscription box
(see end of this update).


ERAS

Eras will be the quarterly 'flagship' print journal of TEP,
later in 2001.

____________________________


Eras News is the free e-news service of The Eras Project,
providing the latest news and reports relating to the
leading-edge issues of our time in science and technology and
their possible present and future implications as we enter the
21st Century and a new Era, as well as other periodic
information and updates on TEP news, projects and events.

To subscribe to Eras News, send your e-mail address to:
erasnews-subscribe@listbot.com

To unsubscribe from Eras News, send your e-mail address to:
erasnews-unsubscribe@listbot.com

You can also subscribe or unsubscribe from the TEP web site:
http://www.geocities.com/erasproject/erasnews.html

Eras News Archive:
http://www.listbot.com/archive/erasnews


THE ERAS PROJECT

Suite 202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5T 2M9 Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/erasproject


� The Eras Project, 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 >
   Apr > Apr 2

                    Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 03:38:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:59:58 -0400
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Sparks


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:40:27 EST
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:09:31 -0500
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:49:40 EST
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:35:53 -0600

 ><snip>

 >>A full scientific study of UFO's since Arnold should have had
 >>something on the order of 5,400 scientist man-years of effort.
 >>Instead we've had maybe 50 man-years of scientists on it,
 >>possibly 100. And the results are consistent with the level of
 >>scientific effort applied: Barely scratching the surface.

 >Brad, Dennis, List:

 >This assumes that there is some sort of currently insurmountable
 >problem, such as building an atomic bomb.

You mean that 54 years hasn't told us the UFO problem is a
difficult one? If it was an easy one then the Air Force would
have had a 99% Certain IFO rate, with Possible and Probable
explanations only in a tiny 1% or less margin (excluding
"numbers game" tricks). Same with the Condon Committee.

See my original post so we don't lose the original point of
all this:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/mar/m29-008.shtml


 >The claims of UFOlogy
 >are that there are, what, dozens, hundrends, or tens of
 >thousands of _events_ happening all the time, or at some time in
 >the recent past.

The claims of anti-ufology are that all these events are
explainable in conventional terms. Again, as I said above, if
these were easily explained then the Possible and Probable
categories would account for less than 1% (excluding "numbers
game" tricks).


 >It shouldn't take 5,400 scientist/years to find proof of events
 >_currently taking place_, should it?

Is that all that scientists do, "find proof of events"? That
seems to be a very superficial view of what scientific work
entails, that they don't have to find out anything, set up and
test hypotheses, investigate new ideas. It takes a tremendous
amount of work to define a problem (and to continue to refine
it), do an exhaustive literature search, set up a comprehensive
database, recruit and establish reporting networks, develop
investigative protocols, train assistants and technicians,
formulate funding proposals, create communication networks with
other investigators, set up peer-review journals to report
findings, conduct field surveys and investigations, conduct
scientific conferences to discuss ongoing research with
colleagues, develop and build lab equipment, etc.

It also seems to prejudge what they should do and what they
should find. By the same token I could say it shouldn't take
5,400 scientist-years to find proof of water on Mars, should it?
It shouldn't take 5,400 scientist-years to find out how dolphins
communicate should it? What I simply did was make a rough
order-of-magnitude estimate of how much scientist time normally
gets allocated to significant scientific issues, and it's
something like 10^2 (100) scientists full-time.

My point remains and that is that we have had less than 1 year
of full scientific study of UFO's in the past 54 years, based on
a rough order-of-magnitude 100 scientist-year resource
allocation, and this lack of effort shows.


 ><snip>

 >>In the philosophy and methodology of science, it is understood
 >>that data are only "relevant" to a particular theory or
 >>hypothesis being tested. For example, in meteorological optics,
 >>the most "relevant" piece of data is the size of the grazing
 >>elevation angle to a possible inversion layer or supra-lapsed
 >>layer, something that is often not obtained by UFO
 >>investigators. You can have all the inversion you want but if
 >>the angle is greater than about 1/2 degree you won't have a
 >>mirage image to pose as a UFO.

 >This 1/2 degree was obtained by observation in the 19th Century.

This 1/2 degree comes straight out of the Condon Committee's
atmospheric physics research of 1968:

Condon Report p. 625:

   "For all practical purposes, 0.5� can be considered as the
   near-maximum angle of illumination that will allow for
   formation of a mirage."


This was italicized in the Condon Report as an important
conclusion to call attention to, and was preceded and followed
by in-depth physics analysis of refractive indices, etc.

You've changed the subject from my point which was that
"relevance" of data is relative to a theoretical framework. My
example was intended to show that a UFO elevation angle near 0�
is relevant to a mirage theory if within 1/2� but not if it was,
say, at 45� above the horizon.

The point is that Dennis claimed that he will never be able to
acquire all the "relevant data" about his unexplained UFO
sighting. My point is that "relevant" is relative to theories.
We have all the IFO theories right now by definition, and almost
all are well developed, so we already know what are the relevant
data for almost all IFO's -- maybe he didn't collect it but we
know what's relevant. But if he means relevant data for an
inadequately developed ETH then that may be true.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:57:14 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:04:59 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Easton


It may not be realised that the 'alien autopsy' footage has been
available on CD since circa 1997 - I bought a copy several years
ago.

The full 'autopsy' film is contained on the UK Channel 4
'Incident at Roswell' documentary, which was sold in two formats
- 'QuickTime' and an enhanced version for those with - if I
recall - 'mpeg video memory', or whatever it was termed back
then.

Although you would have to check which version, I see the CD is
still apparently on sale and for only six dollars -:

http://www.cdromhouse.com/more/incidentatroswell.html

For those who haven't seen the program, it's by no means the
worst 'Roswell' documentary undertaken and features some
interesting material.

Come to think of it, this contains the interview with Frank
Kaufmann which includes a copy of what is claimed to be his
'official report' on the 'Roswell' crash and recovered bodies.

I'm not aware this is available elsewhere.

The reasons why this 'report' was evidently ridiculous were
outlined in the following:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/mar/m05-023.shtml
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/jun/m07-030.shtml


The URLs therein are obsolete and for those who might be
interested, I've uploaded copies of the referenced documents to:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/kaufman1.jpg
http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/kaufman2.jpg


I was subsequently able to confirm that the stunningly similar,
'artist's impression' of the 'TR-3A' originated from:

'America's New Secret Aircraft'
by Gregory Pope
'Popular Mechanics', December 1991
Page 34.

At the time, I asked:

The initial question is whether this pre-dates the first known
appearance of Kaufmann's sketch.

I would have to expect Kaufmann's similar three-profile drawing
didn't appear until some time after the 'Popular Mechanics'
publication.
[END]


That was never confirmed, plus so far as I know, no-one who was
more readily able to contact Kaufmann ever followed this up.

Obviously, it's not an issue though; alas yet again we clearly
have ludicrous evidence claimed to be profound proof why
'Roswell' involved the crash of an alien spaceship/recovered
bodies and that this knowledge has been suppressed in some
untenable, real-world subterfuge.


That aside, 'alien autopsy' ETH proponents should perhaps note
the revelations on 'UFO Skeptics' concerning an accomplished,
London based 'creature effects' artist, also a renowned 'crop
circle' creator - some might charge, 'hoaxer'.

I've set out the documented proof he was closely acquainted with
the son of Ray Santilli's business partner.

Although this may, or conceivably may not, be an astounding
coincidence... seasoned, rational ufologists - which ETH
advocators now distinguish as 'debunkers' and 'skeptics' - have
uncovered the logical probabilities and are acutely aware of
them.

We wouldn't want to be fooled into thinking a latex model was
even more convincing evidence of the great western ET cover-up
than a cluster of balloons!

I'm actually aware of much more which I can't disclose at
present. You must form your own conclusions.


As I emphasised some years ago was so evident, the 'Roswell
alien autopsy' footage was more than a competent, clever
'creature effects' undertaking - it was always intended to be a
*hoax*.

That's the *big* difference and few candidates, especially in
London, or indeed elsewhere, would have both relevant expertise
and the *motivation*.


When Mac Brazel walked into the local weather bureau with his
little bundle of debris, he couldn't conceivably have imagined
what it would be the genesis of.


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk

Join UFO Skeptics or read the list archives at:

http://debunk.listbot.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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                   The Shag Harbour UFO Incident - Re-run

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:10:38 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:10:38 -0400
Subject: The Shag Harbour UFO Incident - Re-run



From: UFO UpDates - Toronto


For Canadian readers:


To: canufo@yahoogroups.com
From: Don Vanden Hoorn <ufo@lakesweb.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:05:03 -0700
Subject: [canufo] One More Time


Greetings list,

For those who missed the last showing of the Shag Harbour UFO
Incident, the Space channel is repeating it next weekend. April
8th at 11 pm Eastern


Regards,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

               Chilean Chupacabras Encounter Ends in Shootout

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:52:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:13:25 -0400
Subject: Chilean Chupacabras Encounter Ends in Shootout


SOURCE: TERRA.com DATE: April 1, 2001 19:56:55

Chupacabras Encounter Ends in Shootout

***Alerted to the presence of a strange animal, smallholders in
Lampa, on the outskirts of Santiago de Chile, engaged in a
certifiable nocturnal gunfight. Over 26 shots were fired and the
complaint reached the attention of the Carabineros ***

March 30, 2001 (TERRA) - The Lo Castro de Lampa sector outside
fo Santiago de Chile became a target shooting range following
the appearance of an animal which made strange, howling sounds.

According to the version given by one of the protagonists, it
all began after 01:15 hrs. when a chilling howl led him to see
an animal similar to the "Tasmanian Devil" (translator's note:
reference made to the Warner Brothers character) only a few
meters away. Startled, the creature issued a scream which was
described as a mixture of cow and pig sounds."The animal jumped
some two meters in the air and started to run from zero to 100
kilometers an hour," he noted. Strangest of all is that none of
the seven dogs living on the affected parcel of land barked even
once. "The dogs always warn us of any abnormal situation or
animal which could be on the property, but last night they did
nothing at all," added one of the witnesses.

After the event, accompanied by other local residents, they went
out to find traces of the creature's presence. They lit the area
with flashlights but were unable to find a single trace. Over 26
shots from shotguns and pistols were  fired into the air to
scare off the mysterious vistor. A mysterious drop in voltage
also occured during the early morning, keeping the entire sector
in the dark for a number of hours.

All the information was given to the Ovnivision Chile group for
its analysis, and a report was filed with the local Carabineros
(state police) barracks.

############ Translation (C) 2001. S.Corrales, 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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:43:07 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:15:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:56:51 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >I appreciate seeing Richard's "Debunking Handbook." However,
 >with all due respect for his efforts, I would like to point out
 >that he alluded to but did not mention directly Maccabee's First
 >Rule for Debunkers, which I have posted numerous times in
 >various contexts over the years:

 >RULE 1: Any explanation is better than none.>>

Bruce, Dick,

This is the most important one, Bruce.  I use it all the time.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 09:51:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:18:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Felder


 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:56:51 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

<snip>

 >(My own opinion is that the more explanations there are, the
 >LESS likely it is that a sighting has been explained.)

This reminds me of the Roswell case... how many _official_
explanations do we have for that one? Let's see... first, it was
an alien spacecraft... then it was a weather balloon... then it
was another kind of weather balloon than we were told the first
time... then we got the best one of all... crash test dummies...

Methinks they doth protest too much. :)

Seriously, though, I do have to agree with Bruce on this one.
Any person can explain away or justify _anything_ if you give
them enough time. But doing so doesn't transform an explanation
into a _fact_. And merely presenting something as a _fact_ doesn't
make it so... something I personally really would like to see a lot
of people learn in the internet chapter of the UFO community.

Debunkers/scoffers/skeptics... whatever you want to call them...
can keep coming back and offering explanation after explanation
for those nagging few sightings that just won't go away. But
when the explanation doesn't fit the facts of the case, then
we're no better off than when we started.

Debunkers/scoffers/skeptics can explain away that nagging little
5% of unexplained sighthings until they are all blue in the
face... but doing so won't make that square peg fit in that
round hole...

Same goes for the Believer side... when a mundane explanation _does_
fit all the facts of the case, no amount of protesting or preaching
will get that same square peg in to that round hole.....

My thoughts from the backwoods.....


Bobbie

==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.com
Point of View Webcast
www.dragoncrest.net
Online publishing
==========



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.241 / Virus Database: 117 - Release Date: 3/27/2001








   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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Auchettl

From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:50:38 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:24:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Auchettl



 >Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:40:23 -0000
 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Debunkers' Guidebook


 >Debunkers' Guidebook

 >(First Draft)


Hi Dick, EBK & List,

Forgive me, as I have no idea how I got these, so I have no web
reference (an apology to the originator), however, they are in
my files as listed:


                          ***

            "Debunker Principles of Logic"
                By Stanton Friedmen

1.  What the public doesn't know, don't tell them.

2.  Don't bother me with all the facts.

3.  Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

4.  Select the data that matches your conclusions.

5.  If at first a scenario supporting your theory
     crumbles under the weight of the facts, try, try
     again to prop up your theory with another scenario,
     then another, then another.

6.  Hearsay testimony is acceptable if it supports you,
     but unacceptable if it supports the other guy.

7.  It is important to be right.

8.  Loudly proclaim the strength of your testimony.

9.  Pepper your publications with references to as many
     personal (i.e. unverifiable) interviews as possible.

10. Don't mention references that don't support your
     theory. The public won't know the difference.

11. And when all else fails, shoot the messenger. Lay
     charges of 'charade', 'lies' and 'deceit' at their
     door.

                          ***

Also thanks to Stanton Friedman.


Regards,

John

Director - PRA
Phenomena Research Australia

HOME:
http://hometown.aol.com/praufo/PRA1/Pra1.htm

Phenomena Research Australia [PRA]
P.O. Box 523, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia, 3170
Australian & Asia UFO
1961-2001 - 40 YEARS OF RESEARCH SERVICE
---------------------------------------------------------------








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

              'Captain Edward J. Ruppelt: Summer of the Saucers

From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:03:52 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:27:31 -0400
Subject: 'Captain Edward J. Ruppelt: Summer of the Saucers


Greetings to the List Members:

Just a reminder that the book "Captain Edward J. Ruppelt: Summer
of the Saucers - 1952" is still available, but supplies are
beginning to run low.

Mike and I have no immediate plans for doing a second printing
immediately, so if you have been wanting the book you might want
to get your order in soon.

The book is available from Bob Girard at Arcturus Books or
on-line from Amazon.com


Thank you,

Wendy Connors and 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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                   [lunascan] Meta Research Press Release

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:35:24 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:35:24 -0400
Subject: [lunascan] Meta Research Press Release





From: Tim Edwards <tedwards@tcia.net>
To: lunascan@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 05:54:35 -0400
Subject: [lunascan] Meta Research Press Release


Meta Research
PO Box 15186
Chevy Chase, MD 20825-5186


Press Release
                             Date: April 3, 2001
Re: Artificial Structures on Mars

Washington, DC � On Thursday, April 5, 2001 at 9 a.m., Meta
Research

http://metaresearch.org

will release new findings that provide compelling evidence for
the presence of artificial structures on the planet Mars. The
press conference will be held at the National Press Club, 529
14th Street, NW, Washington, DC, in the main room on the 13th
floor.

Widely published astronomer, Dr. Thomas Van Flandern will take
Q&A and present findings representing contributions by dozens of
researchers, including physicists, geologists, engineers, and
image processing specialists from several organizations.

The presentation materials will include photographic evidence
from the NASA�s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, as well as
independent photographic analysis. Several of these images have
not previously been made public. The main room of the National
Press Club was chosen to utilize its excellent video projection
equipment.

Other topics to be discussed include the following:

 the posture of NASA and its contractor, JPL, toward evidence
of anomalous features

 difficulties in obtaining proper consideration from primary
peer review journals

 the urgent need for retargeting of the Mars Global Surveyor towards
specific areas of high interest in connection with potential artifacts
before the spacecraft runs out of maneuvering fuel later this year

Contact: Meta Research 202/362-9176 metares@mindspring.com

Press packets will be available on April 5 at the National Press
Club.

The press conference will be simulcast on the Internet worldwide at

http://ConnectLive.com/events/metaresearch



OPEN LETTER TO NASA's Dan Goldin

Meta Research
PO Box 15186
Chevy Chase, MD 20825-5186

March 31, 2001

NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin
NASA Headquarters
300 E Street, SW
Washington, DC 20546-0001

Dear Dr. Goldin:

This letter is to advise that Meta Research will be holding a
press conference in the main room of the National Press Club,
529 14th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 13th floor, at 9:00 a.m. on
2001 April 5, of likely interest to NASA. The title of the
conference is �Artificial structures on Mars�. Most of the
evidence presented (in six different categories) will be based
on NASA/JPL/MSSS high-resolution imagery from the Mars Global
Surveyor spacecraft. You are cordially invited to attend, either
in person or via our live webcast, or to send a representative.

About 18 months ago, some of our team of research scientists
communicated that we had results of likely interest to the Head
of the Solar System Exploration program, Dr. Carl Pilcher. He
indicated that it was time for peer review. Our technical paper
has now been reviewed by dozens of experts in a variety of
fields without any significant flaw being detected. However,
when we took this to Nature, and later to Science, the paper was
rejected without review based on subject matter alone. In large
measure, that happened because this subject matter (artifacts on
Mars) was inappropriately undermined by JPL�s premature release
of a filtered image of the Cydonia Face mesa that seriously
misrepresents what the spacecraft saw on Mars. The use of a
detail-suppressing high-pass filter on an image where details
are crucial is documented at JPL�s web site at:

http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/index.html

The properly processed image of the Face mesa may be viewed at:

http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/face443x443_6.2.00.mo
v

which animates the corrections for lighting and viewing angle.
Our unpublished technical paper will be included in the press
kit.

We expect this press conference to be of interest to NASA
because even a disproof of artificiality would be a
scientifically interesting and revealing exercise; from which we
are sure to learn things about enigmatic geology that will play
a vital role in understanding the formation of Earth-like
planetary bodies such as Mars. On the other hand, a confirmation
of artifacts would surely lead to increased public support for
NASA and immediate impetus for a manned mission to Mars.
Sincerely yours,


Tom Van Flandern, Ph.D.
Research Astronomer: 202/362-9176

_____

--
*So much to learn and so little time, will we ever find the truth?*

DreamScape

http://tedwards.users.50megs.com/dreamscape.htm



THE LUNASCAN PROJECT (TLP): An Earth-Based Telescopic Imaging (EBTI)
program using live and recorded CCD technology to document and record
Lunar Transient Phenomena (LTPs).

The Lunascan Project HomePage
http://www.evansville.net/~slk/lshomepage.html

The Project's Mission Statement:
http://www.evansville.net/~slk/miss.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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                       Re: Serious Research - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:00:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:56:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Maccabee


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 03:36:36 +0100

 >Cross-posted [in summary] -

 >Regarding:

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO Skeptics <debunk@listbot.com>
 >>Subject: ETH Council
 >>Date: 31 March 2001 23:10

 >Jenny wrote:

 >>But I put out this idea like a fishing line to serve a second
 >>purpose other than the one that most seem to have anticipated.

 >>And I am pleased to say it has left me with much to mull over.

 >Jenny,

 >What has been demonstrated is the _extent_ to which it's now
 >recognised, even within 'ufology' itself, how the ETH is founded
 >on evidence frequently shown to have _mundane_, terrestrial
 >origins.


That is probably an accurate statement. However, Easton has left
himself some "wiggle room" that the casual reader would probably
(I left myself some wiggle room!) not notice.

Easton says the ETH is founded on evidence _frequently_ shown to
be explainable. This suggests he admits that there is evidence
which has no mundane terrestrial (or astronomical) origins. In
other words, he allows for the possibility/probability that
there are cases which remain unexplained after investigation.

These are the interesting cases, not the ones with mundane origin.

The question then becomes. can these unexplained cases point
toward the ETH, or are there alternative non-mundane
explanations. Daytime, multiple witness observations of well
observed (large angular size, say larger than the angular size
of the moon) long duration (many seconds to minutes) phenomena
which appear to be structured, manufactured objects which do not
resemble any known aircraft, military, secret military or other,
point toward "flying craft from elsewhere" of Alien Flying Craft
(AFC). Where do they come from? The classic ETH answers "other
planets in other solar systems." There might, of course, be
alternate hypotheses such as time travel. Wormhole travel is
another version of the ETH (they CAN get here from there by
"alternative means" of space travel).

Perhaps Jim Easton would rather remove the "frequently" from his
statement and replace it with "always". Then he would be correct
that the ETH has no basis in UFO sightings.









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

                   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:17:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:57:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Maccabee


 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:28:52 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth


 >>Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:45:47 -0400
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Mass Hysteria as a Myth

 >>Several months ago I read an article in a newspaper that
 >>reported on a study done about panic and mass hysteria. It
 >>concluded that both were a myth.The study included war,
 >>earthquakes, other natural disasters, boat sinkings, fires in
 >>hotels and theaters, terrorist attacks, and airline crashes or
 >>incidents. Apparently people don't panic

 >Don't panic? Really?

 >>and don't suffer from
 >>mass hysteria.

 >>Since the myth of mass hysteria has been a staple of the
 >>sceptical community and debunkers for many years now, I'd like
 >>to see some proof that there is such a thing as mass hysteria.
 >>First of all examples then proof that this was proven mass
 >>hysteria.

 >Hmmm. I'd always thought that the myth of mass hysteria was a
 >staple of the believing community and bunkers, as in "The Air
 >Force doesn't release the truth about UFOs as it would cause
 >panic and mass-hysteria.

It isn't the community of believers and bunkers that argue that
mass hysteria could be an actual affect of the release of
information by the Air Force. It was the Air Force itself that
worried, in the late 40's and early 50's (and perhaps in later
years) that a release of information might cause a panic.









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

                        Re: Serious Research - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:21:28 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:59:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Young


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 14:15:05 -0000

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com
 >>Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:11:07 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 21:58:16 -0000

 >>>Okay, so you choose to cite very early Hynek figures when he was
 >>>point man for the Air Force rather than his later figures, and
 >>>Hendry's sample which "took on all comers."

 >Well, looks like I placed a burr under your saddle. Good!

Huh? That was your horse.

 >>Well, what is your breakdown for IFOs vs UFOs, and how many are
 >>astronomical in nature?

 >Such statistics are utterly meaningless, so I don't bother to
 >look at them anymore. Astronomical IFOs are easily weeded out
 >for any serious attempt to try to determine whether hardcore,
 >unexplained cases are soemthing significant. The point is Hynek
 >clearly disowned the view that astronomy IFOs could explain many
 >if any strong UFOs cases, only trivial sightings by people not
 >familiar with the sky.

 >>What is the best case that UFO advocates can advance?

 >You obviously haven't been listening, or studying the serious
 >literature. For openers, you might read the Jacobs university
 >press book UFOs & Abductions and my The UFO Evidence, Vol. II. >>

Dick,

Well, I thought a straight, simple question might get a
straight, simple answer.

I'm reluctant to spring for the $75 you want for your book, if
you no longer pay attention to statistics. I thought that maybe
as a teaser you just might want to give us one tidbit from your
list of thousands of sightings of mystery machines flying about,
instead of just plugging you latest saucer book, like so many
other UFO investigators.

Come on, Dick, throw us out a piece of red meat.

We're dying to shred it to pieces.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                             Donald Keyhoe Book?

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 19:55:19 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:00:44 -0400
Subject: Donald Keyhoe Book?


Dear Errol,

Could you put the following message out to the list please? Any
replies can be sent direct to Daigower at the address provided,
or if via the list I will pass the replies on.

___________________________

From: dg@swansea-wales.net
To: <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Subject: donald keyhoe
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 02:07:11 +0100


I wonder if you could help, I have a 1955 book, 'The Flying
Saucer Conspiracy signed inside by the author, Donald Keyhoe. It
has quite a few newspaper clippings of UFO sightings of the
time, do you think it is worth anything?


Best wishes
Daigower


___________________________

Thanks in advance,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                    Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 13:57:59 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:04:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Ledger


 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 15:50:42 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging

 >>Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 20:41:33 -0400
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging

<snip>


 >>Butting in. There isn't is there. I wouldn't argue this one. If
 >>it weren't for meteors and fireballs the NRC here in Canada
 >>wouldn't have set up a committee manned by astronomers across
 >>the country to filter out those from UFOs. In the process they
 >>catalogued thousands of UFO sightings which remain today. Of
 >>course it sucked some of them in along the way just like Hynek,
 >>and Tombaugh.

 >>I might have happened across the List late on this one. Is someone
 >>arguing this is a good UFO sighting?

 >Hi Don, hi All,

 >Sorry for delay in response. I've been off-line for three days
 >with major computer problems.

 >In answer to Don's question; not from my end Don. My response to
 >Jerry's post was in regard to the 'vehemence' of some debunkers
 >and where that intensity comes from. I was not commenting on the
 >'meteor' case at all. After I reread it I realized that it
 >'could have been' interpreted as 'support for a UFO theory'
 >which is not what I meant at all. I was laughing at, and
 >commenting on, Jerry's humorous synopsis of some of the theories
 >put forward by 'some' debunkers.

 >Not supporting a UFO explanation for the case in question.

 >Thanx for allowing me the opportunity to clarify that.


Hi John and Bob,

Two for the price of one.

There are so many reported UFO sightings that it's a relief when
an obvious - at least at first blush - and prosaic event occurs
and can be deleted with confidence.

I don't think anyone's arguing this one.

I find myself rushing by sightings that years ago would have
been very arresting. Now I want to have them close enough to
read the model numbers and see the rivits or welded seams. I
want to see broken branches and nicked chimneys. Or better yet
something asking for directions.

If that ever happens to anyone on the List, put them off, ask
for a phone number and address and then tell you'll get back to
them. Get the tag number too... if there is one.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                   Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth - Checchini

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:17:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:06:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth - Checchini


 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:45:47 -0400
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Mass Hysteria as a Myth

 >Since the myth of mass hysteria has been a staple of the
 >sceptical community and debunkers for many years now, I'd
 >like to see some proof that there is such a thing as mass
 >hysteria.  First of all examples then proof that this was
 >proven mass hysteria.

I'm surprised no one has yet stated the obvious example, Orson
Wells' "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast.

Granted, I wasn't alive at the time of that broadcast, so I
don't know how much "poetic license" they took with the movie
(the movie of the radio broadcast incident, not the actual "War
of the Worlds" movie), but I thought it was a given that Wells
did cause quite a bit of panic in NYC at that time.

Off the top of my head, there's always examples involving
political scapegoats; the most obvious one (to me, anyway) being
Hitler & the Nazis basically blaming the Jews for all of their
problems.  One might think how could a nation of people accept
such an explanation as Hitler's, but when you take into
consideration that the German people, being half- starved to
death, were primed to accept anything that sounded even remotely
plausible, it's not all that surprising.

Hell, when humans are starving, just about anything they do will
be "hysterical" (by which I mean a form of "hysteria", not
something comical).

Hmmm, once again there's a "connection" between those fiendishly
clever Nazis and UFOs...

(I'm kidding.)

By the way, I really hope that, being that this is a forum full
of "conspiracy theorist"-minded people, we don't have to
seriously address the issue of whether or not there even was a
Holocaust, as I find that little conspiracy theory even more
"out there" than the accusation that we never landed on the
Moon.

 >It's a convient scapegoat and buzzword with little or no value.

For what it's worth, I also wanted to go on record as saying
that I, personally, am not making a statement about the veracity
of the Mass Hysteria Hypothesis (MHH), as it applies to alleged
UFO sightings, as I, personally, don't see how it applies when,
say, 2, 3 or 4 people report "Yeah, we saw this weird light in
the sky, and it did this, that and the other thing..."

My only point in this post was making the (what I think is
completely obvious) point that humans can and often do act in a
"hysterical" manner.  One only needed be near my home last night
when I realized that I hadn't changed the time on my VCR and had
therefore taped the news instead of the "Mulder returns" X-Files
and heard me scream, rant and curse everyone and everything ...
to know that this is true.












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

                    Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 21:57:11 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:07:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer


 >Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 19:05:18 -0400
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth

 >>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:28:52 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth

 >>Hmmm. I'd always thought that the myth of mass hysteria was a
 >>staple of the believing community and bunkers, as in "The Air
 >>Force doesn't release the truth about UFOs as it would cause
 >>panic and mass-hysteria.

 >>>Maybe we can shoot down this silly excuse for explaining away
 >>>UFO sightings once and for all.I for one have never given mass
 >>>hysteria any credibility since I first came across it many years
 >>>ago.

 >>Perhaps you could give an exaple of a wicked debunker giving
 >>mass hysteria as an excuse for a UFO sighting? Off hand I can't
 >>think of one. As there are so few (if any) 'mass' sightings of
 >>UFOs anyway I doubt it would matter if anyone was hysterical or
 >>not!

 >>>It's a convient scapegoat and buzzword with little or no value.

 >>In fact it's a quite precisely defined phenomenon, recognised by
 >>doctors, sociologists and psychologists, and refers to a sudden
 >>outbreak of psychosomatic symptoms amongst a small and
 >>self-contained group. Examples include episodes of fainting or
 >>vague illness in schools, reports of 'noxious gases' which
 >>cannot be traced, etc.

 >So you agree then that we can now put mass hysteria aside as a
 >reason for UFO sightings-unless of course there are noxious
 >gasses and a schoolroom present.

Well, as I said in my original posting, I don't know that "mass
hysteria" is used as an explanation by sceptical ufologists. Can
you tell me which cases you had in mind? The only one I have
since been able to think of is the infamous Michigan Swamp Gas
case, which brought Hynek to public prominence. And I seem to
recall that was set around a dormitory in a girls' college. So
there's schools and noxious gases in the one case! So where are
the other debunkers claiming "mass hysteria".

By the way, I hope you are carefully distinguishing between "mass
hysteria" and a social panic.

--
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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                    Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:06:40 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:09:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:37:25 -0500

 >Congratulations. You've managed both to miss the point of my
 >posting and to make my point.

This is pretty obscure even for you, Jerry. Perhaps we could
skip the wordplay and get back to my original question, which
was:

 >>Perhaps while he's lying there he could think back and try to
 >>remember where I, or any of my pelicanist colleages ever made
 >>such comments as "eyewitness testimony has no value whatever and
 >>can be discarded without a single thought".

Just read it carefully, it's quite a sweeping statement. Have
you got the slightest evidence to back it up, or are we just
going to get more vague waffle? You are beginning to disappoint
me; the Jerry Clark who writes incredibly well researched and
meticulously referenced books seems to have little in common
with the Jerome Clark who throws around unattributed
pseudo-quotes and bizarre rants on UpDates.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                        Re: AA Time Warp - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:02:32 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:13:51 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Deschamps


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans
 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:37:31 -0700

 >>Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:37:44 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

<snip>

 >Here are a few: I find no inconsistency between the cameraman's
 >version of events and the footage. There are no historical
 >anomalies or mistakes;the footage is clear and not out of focus
 >in most places. The creature does not seem to be an FX creation
 >and there is absolutely no proof that she is.

 >The debris portion would be prohibitively expensive to create.
 >There are no witnesses to confirm that the AA was hoaxed. There
 >is no evidence that Ray would create a hoax nor that he had the
 >talent or resources to do so. No one has been able to
 >satisfactorily explain how the AA was hoaxed or filmed. There
 >are direct connections between the AA debris and the Roswell
 >debris shown in Ft. Worth photos.

 >>What's _your_ proof? Or does everyone have to send you $35.00 to
 >>find out

 >For those who are interested, the only way to understand what we
 >are talking about is to view the AA Cds. We'll try to bring the
 >price down and determine an easier way to open them so more
 >folks can get involved and see for themselves whether Roger's
 >claim of poor quality is valid.


Ed,

Where does the _she_ come from in regards to the 'Alien Autopsy'
creature?

Don't you guys know that some beings have been described as
sexless?

In other words, having no observable sex organs as we know it,
based on descriptions given by some abductees.

For all we know, it could be a male. Hence the term 'Alien
Physiology'.

Who says they have to look _exactly_ like us?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                          Secrecy News -- 04/02/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:28:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:16:25 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 04/02/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
April 2, 2001

**PATRIOTISM AND CIA BUDGET SECRECY
**RECALLING THE U.S.S. PUEBLO


PATRIOTISM AND CIA BUDGET SECRECY

Patriotism means loyalty to one's country. But unlike most
other countries, the United States is established upon a set of
principles that transcend ethnicity or other incidental
attributes. So no one can be an American patriot who is not
devoted to those principles, which are enshrined in the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

This is inconvenient for those in the U.S. intelligence
community who would claim the mantle of patriotism without the
burden of adhering to the precepts of American democracy.

When President Bush visited the Central Intelligence Agency on
March 20, DCI George J. Tenet told him: "Mr. President, you will
never find a more dedicated, hardworking, patriotic, decent
group of Americans than the men and women of CIA and our
Intelligence Community."

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2001/03/cia032001.html

Granting that CIA employees are dedicated, hardworking, and
decent, are they also patriotic? Not if patriotism implies
strict adherence to the Constitution.

CIA's secretive budgeting practices place the Agency outside the
clear boundaries defined by the U.S. Constitution, which
dictates in Article I that "a regular statement and account of
the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be
published from time to time."

Though the details of what is required by such a "statement and
account" are not spelled out, the Constitution nevertheless
guarantees that "all public money" shall somehow be publicly
accounted for. This is an indispensable feature of American
governance.

Remarkably, the Constitution's only other explicit "public right
to know" requirement -- which dictates that each House of
Congress publish a journal of its proceedings, i.e. the
Congressional Record -- includes an exception for portions that
"may require secrecy." In contrast, there is no comparable
exemption from publication for secret budget expenditures.

Historically, it is true, some forms of secret spending have
been accepted as a necessary compromise. Even George Washington
had a $40,000 contingency fund to use for confidential
diplomatic purposes, as Louis Fisher noted in his 1975 book
Presidential Spending Power.

The difference is that in the past such contingency funds were
openly appropriated by Congress. The American public knew how
much money was involved, though not how it was to be used. When
it comes to modern day intelligence spending, however, even this
modified form of constitutional compliance is missing.

Moving Beyond Secrecy to Deception

But it gets worse. Because CIA funds are concealed within the
appropriations for the Department of Defense, the defense budget
is artificially inflated by the hidden CIA dollars. This means
that the publicly reported defense budget is deliberately
inaccurate in its overall size and in some of its details.

Thus, CIA budgetary practices have moved beyond simple budget
secrecy to active misrepresentation, something that never
existed in U.S. government budgets prior to the cold war.
Whatever the constitutional requirement for a "regular statement
and account" means, it cannot possibly permit a false statement
and account of the defense budget.

In fairness, the CIA is not solely responsible for this policy.
In fact, CIA officials who violate the Constitution, one might
say, are simply obeying the law, especially the Central
Intelligence Agency Act of 1949.

Today, Congressional "conservatives" -- whose conservatism
apparently does not extend to a rigorous defense of the U.S.
Constitution -- oppose declassification even of the annual
aggregate total of a dozen different intelligence agency
budgets. (The independent-minded Senator Arlen Specter is
perhaps the only Republican exception to this rule.)

It was over congressional objections that the intelligence
budget total was disclosed for the first time as the result of a
Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in 1997 ($26.6. billion) and
1998 ($26.7 billion). Since 1999 it has remained classified.

"From Time to Time" Cannot Mean "Never"

Still, it is the CIA that is the most egregious violator of the
Constitutional accounting requirement. Recently, CIA officials
refused to disclose even 50 year old intelligence budget totals,
claiming that to do so "could reasonably be expected to cause
damage to national security."

This is of course national security nonsense. (As an aside, it
might be noted that some historical budget information has been
declassified, harmlessly and evidently without these officials'
knowledge or permission.)

More importantly, however, the CIA's policy of permanent budget
secrecy is in gross violation of the Constitutional requirement
to publish an account of the budget "from time to time."
Whatever "from time to time" means, it clearly does not mean
"never."

There may not be a large number of Americans who are eager to
know exactly how much money is in the budget of the CIA and
other intelligence agencies. A 1998 Pentagon survey suggested
that a slight majority of the public actually favors
intelligence budget secrecy. Nevertheless, every American ought
to be concerned at the CIA's ability to effectively erase a line
of the U.S. Constitution.

If the government is free to simply disregard the requirement to
periodically publish "a regular statement and account" of its
expenditures, then the Constitution is little more than a piece
a paper at the National Archives, "patriotism" means nothing
other than rooting for the home team, and the rights and
liberties that Americans enjoy have no firm foundation.

A recent CIA Inspector General review found that there was no
"official misconduct" involved in CIA's decision to withhold 50
year old budget data. Such information, it appears, is properly
classified, i.e. classified according to established procedures.
See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/03/cia032701.html

Therefore it seems that the only remaining way to comply with
the U.S. Constitution is through an unauthorized disclosure of
"properly classified" budget information. That would require
patriotism of an unusual order.


RECALLING THE U.S.S. PUEBLO

The current standoff between the U.S. and China over the fate of
a downed U.S. Navy EP-3 spy plane provides an occasion to recall
the 1968 capture of the U.S.S. Pueblo, an episode that has some
similarities to the present situation, though hopefully not too
many.

The Pueblo was a U.S. Navy intelligence vessel operating, the
U.S. insisted, in international waters when it was surrounded by
North Korean patrol boats and seized in January 1968. One
crewman died in the takeover.

The converted cargo ship was packed with state of the art
intelligence equipment and documentation. Although efforts were
made to burn or destroy some of this material, enormous
quantities of classified documents, radios and code machines
were captured intact by the North Koreans.

The Pueblo's crew was held captive for month after month, while
the parties argued over what had occurred, who was responsible,
and what diplomatic or other response was appropriate. The 82
members of the crew and the body of the sailor who died were
finally released eleven months later in December 1968.

The Pueblo itself was never returned. It remains on display
today in Pyongyang, North Korea.

A 1969 Naval Court of Inquiry recommended that the Pueblo
commander be charged with failing to properly train his crew to
destroy classified material, and permitting classified material
to fall into enemy hands. These and other charges were
ultimately rejected on grounds that the crew had already
suffered enough in captivity.

In April 1969, Congress passed a resolution stating that "no
manned ship or plane of the Armed Forces of the United States
should be sent into danger areas on an intelligence gathering
mission without adequate protection against attack or capture by
foreign armed forces." (House Resolution 204, April 17, 1969).

Many documents have now been declassified tracing the tense
policy deliberations over the fate of the Pueblo in 1968. More
than a hundred such documents were published last October in the
U.S. State Department's Foreign Relations of the United States,
1964-1968, volume XXIX, Part 1. See documents 212 through 331
here:

http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xxix/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]


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                        Gauntlet To The Psychosocials

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:48:00 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:18:25 -0400
Subject: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials


To James the Pretender, Andy, John, and all your psychosocial
minions: I have several times offered to debate any of you on
the issues, but have found no takers. Choose your own venue:
Fortean Times, Skeptics's lists, UFO UpDates, CSICOP journal,
other..... One on one, or team debate; formal or informal.

My position is that the psychosocial interpretation is not only
wrong, but it is totally inadequate to account for witness
reports in hardcore cases and downright silly in some aspects.

The ball is in your court.


Dick Hall (a.k.a, King Richard XIV).








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

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:20:40 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:44:11 EDT
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Sorry, but in my modest opinion, you missed the main option:

 >f) the film, wether it is a fake (probable but not proven yet)
 >or not, originates from secret services (I gave several times
 >arguments for that). That's the really interesting question,
 >which does not seem to be very popular on this List!

I remember this option being batted around in '95. I think it
could very well be a hoax sponsored by the intelligence
community. That's not to say it _is_, but why not? The timing
was great, and the general scoffing dismissal of the AA helped
the AF pass over its extremely flimsy Project Mogul theory (and
then the even flimsier "crash test dummy" theory, which even the
mainstream media made fun of--but, tellingly, without digging
deeper).


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                              Mikhail Gershtein

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 19:47:32 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:29:17 -0400
Subject: Mikhail Gershtein


Mikhail Gershtein is one of the most knowledgeable contemporary
Russian ufologists.

I will use this opportunity to thank him for his analysis of
some UFO cases I sent to him not long ago.

During a recent appearance on the Sightings radio program I
informed the listeners of Mr. Gershtein's address, but those who
want to reach him through the Internet need only look at the
website listed below, or write to his email address. Mr.
Gershtein is fluent in English.

http://www.ufonav.spb.ru/ufo_miger@chat.ru

Basically, he is a well-known researcher, journalist, and
writer. I value his opinion about The Soviet UFO Files, and am
encouraged in my further writing endeavors. He has helped me to
get an accurate picture on such controversial cases as the
Ordzhenikidze 1983, etc.

I do not always agree with him on every single case, but do
recommend his intellectual savvy and sheer and immense knowledge
and clear grasp of Russia's UFO realities to such prominent
researchers as Dr. Haines, George Knapp, and  all others who are
interested in Russian, East European, and Asian UFO
developments.

However, Mr. Gershtein is also quite up-to-date on Western UFO
research and cases.

Thanks, Mikhail. Join us at UFO UpDates!


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                       Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 04:05:18 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:31:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Easton


 >Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:41:36 -0400
 >From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: Don Ledger <updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'

Don wrote:

 >In a recent Notice to Airmen release advising of a scientific
 >package of 1.4 kilograms, about 4 pounds, Transport Canada
 >advised that the balloon would be 141,000 cu.ft or 4,000 cubic
 >meters in volume. If that was a cube it would be 54 feet on a
 >side, just to lift a 4 pound payload. I suspect that it could
 >probably lift 20 pounds if need be, but they wanted a margin of
 >lift higher than usual since this thing was to go to 138,000
 >feet. But even so there is no way you could stretch the rubber
 >band to lift a payload of say 400 pounds at that size.

Don,

One of the earliest US hot-air balloon competitions took place
on 18, January, 1964. Contemporary with the Zamora case, it's
documented that a competing balloon, for a "one-man crew" had a
volume of 30,000 cubic feet. Almost a fifth of the size you
cite, it was not so much, as a cube, 54 feet per side, as "forty
feet in diameter". See:

http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9801/0002/cat alina0002.htm


Obviously, we would expect a 'two-man' hot-air balloon to be
larger.

Don Piccard is a pioneer of hot-air ballooning and participated
in that fateful January, 1964, Catalina challenge.

There's an online biography of his landmark achievements at:

http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9707/piccard. htm

Therein, Piccard comments about the first crossing of the
English Channel (between England and France) by hot-air balloon,
in April 1963. Piccard was accompanied by Ed Yost, generally
regarded as the most accomplished balloonist (especially pre
hot-air balloons).

The hot-air balloon they flew was a 'Raven' model 'S-50' named
'Channel Champ' and had a 56,000 cubic capacity. For
confirmation, see Ed Yost's online biography, 'Father of the
Modern Hot-Air Balloon', at:

http://webpages.ainet.com/gosner/syrinxballoon/yostbio.htm

The aforementioned 'Balloon Life' article states:

"Piccard was going to do the flight in an S 45 with four tanks.
Plans changed. 'Suddenly it became a 50 foot balloon and a two
man job and the Vice-president of the company is going to come
along'."

So far as I'm aware, the 'vice-president' never accompanied Yost
and Piccard on what was a perilous flight. As I've highlighted
before, their balloon didn't have a wicker basket, instead using
an astoundingly basic 'platform', a photograph of which can also
be seen online at:

http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9512/history. htm


Bottom line; you wrote:

"Unless Zamora was blind, he could not have missed an 80-100
foot high balloon with a circumference of some 120 feet at the
balloon's equator. When he arrived on the scene he stated that
he thought it was an overturned car".

As you can see, I have thoroughly researched these basic issues
and long ago, factually established the size of a circa 1964,
two- man hot-air balloon. Evidently, it could have been much
smaller than you claim.

In the above article, it was also noted:

"Raven Industries hired Don Piccard to manage their nascent
sport balloon program. 'They had no idea of what to do with a
sport balloon,' he says emphatically. 'They had no knowledge of
what to do with it.' But, 'I had design responsibilities,' he
recalls, and after flying their Mittlestadt balloon, 'I set
about designing a version that would be closer to the balloon
Yost had built for the government.' At the helm of Raven, Yost
was being financed by the Office of Naval Research on top-secret
hush-hush projects".

[...]

"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".


When I brought Lonnie Zamora's 'UFO' report to the attention of
a Raven Industries' historian, he recognised a possible
connection.

I have never revealed all of this, publicly, before now, and was
advised:

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] flights".
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]


It *is* profoundly significant as the USAF's investigation and
subsequent conclusion that this was an 'inexplicable' UFO
incident has to be viewed in the context they were seemingly
oblivious to these local 'classified' test flights - whether
related or not.

In the CIA publication, 'Studies in Intelligence', from 1966,
Hector Quintanilla, Jr., the former head of 'Project Bluebook'
wrote:

"There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object which left
quite an impression on him. There is also no question about
Zamora's reliability. He is a serious police officer, a pillar
of his church, and a man well versed in recognizing airborne
vehicles in his area. He is puzzled by what he saw, and frankly,
so are we. This is the best-documented case on record, and still
we have been unable, in spite of thorough investigation, to find
the vehicle or other stimulus that scared Zamora to the point of
panic."

Aside from any contemporary, 'classified' New Mexico hot-air
balloon flights - which Ed Yost acknowledges being involved with
and assures were unconnected with Zamora's sighting - there are
some other possibilities currently being researched.

Meantime, where is *any* rationalisation re the ability of our,
"it looks like a balloon" [Zamora] object being able to slowly
descend and take-off again with only an occasional 'roaring
flame propulsion' and why Zamora was so perplexed that when the
object departed, its 'rocket-like' flame didn't make any impact
on the ground?

Let's not forget, this is a sighting report which is a pivotal
'can't be explained' foundation of beliefs that aliens are
visiting Earth.


You also wrote:

"If you want some science - here's your science. I've been
around a balloons a few times and these are very big with tens
of thousands of cubic feet of lifting capacity".

What leads you to arrogantly state I'm not aware of related
'science' and that you have a foundation to publicly insinuate I
do not have a comprehensive grasp of this?

I would like an answer.

At the outset of research into Zamora's reported sighting, the
'science' of hot-air ballooning, its ostensible connection with
Zamora's encounter and why a hot-air balloon was the obvious
explanation, were in fact discussed with and explained to me by
Don Piccard.

By comparison with your related experiences, surely Don
Piccard's credentials are somewhat more extensive, especially in
that 1964 era, than having been around hot-air balloons a few
times.

Wouldn't you agree?

I would have thought so, to say the least.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:42:31 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:34:21 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gehrman


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:44:11 EDT
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Sorry, but in my modest opinion, you missed the main option :

 >f) the film, wether it is a fake (probable but not proven yet) or not,
 >originates from secret services (I gave several times arguments for that).
 >That's the really interesting question, which does not seem to be
 >very popular on this List!


Gildas,

I sure would like to see your 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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                      Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 23:36:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:42:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:33:16 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Bill looked it up and gave us an URL to look at a very poor
 >repro of a couple frames. I can't tell much from these pics, so
 >lens flare is just speculative, at this point.


Hi Bob,

Some how I missed that URL or attchment. Do you still have it? Or Bill?
I'd like to have a look.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                        Re: AA Time Warp - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:37:19 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:20:02 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Deschamps


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans
 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:37:31 -0700

 >>Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:37:44 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

Ed,

I agree with most of your points, but I also agree that Santilli
is an idiot for the way he mishandled the whole AA situation in
the first place.  He knew F-all about UFOs, and much less about
who to get in touch with... i.e. the proper channels.

Even more of an idiot is the alleged cameraman who would sell
the AA to another idiot.

The reason I _believe_ the AA may be potentially real is the
minute detail which seems to elude everybody else.

Up until 1995, everyone _knew_ that alleged witnesses to the
Roswell Incident all said, in one way or another, the being(s)
had four fingers and no opposable thumbs.

So why would a hoaxer put extra digits on the creature's hands
and feet, if he produced a pretty good fake, as everyone
suggests?

That, to me, is a pretty big blunder.

An eyewitness has once described seeing, at close range, a live
six-fingered being while walking her dog.

Until I'm shown real proof of fakery, I will continue to put a
lot of credence in the possible reality of the AA.

Is everybody else blind?


Cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps
UFO Eyewitness/Researcher/Historian








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

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:40:01 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:22:47 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gates


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans
 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:37:31 -0700

 >>Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:37:44 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

<snip>

Roger Wrote:

 >>Again, it would appear that nothing will dissuade you from your
 >>belief system. Also, I find it odd that you want other people to
 >>spend $35 apiece to help prove your case. Yet, you won't spend
 >>the same amount to make a BetaSP copy for me on a tape I'll
 >>provide which would have even _greater_ detail than the CDs.

Ed replied

 >We realize that the $35 price may be too expensive and we're
 >trying to figure out how to offer the AA CDs for less. As we
 >have pointed out to you on numerous occasions, we do not have a
 >beta SP to copy. You have the CDs and that should be enough.
 >Just open the CDs, take a look and tell us what you see.

The CD's are and always will be inferior to a beta copy for
expert examination. If you were truly serious about wanting an
expert opinion, I would imagine you would be more then willing
to get a copy of the Beta and or put Roger in touch with the
person who has the copy so that he could examine it.

 >>Yet, for all your bellyaching about
 >>non-believers, and how EBK won't ever let you talk about AA on
 >>this list,

 >I thank EBK for allowing the discussion to continue.

 >>you have never given any list of reasons beyond your
 >>typical circular logic as described above.

 >Here are a few: I find no inconsistency between the cameraman's
 >version of events and the footage. There are no historical
 >anomalies or mistakes;the footage is clear and not out of focus
 >in most places. The creature does not seem to be an FX creation
 >and there is absolutely no proof that she is.

Nor does Jurassic Park dinos appear or seem to be a computer
generated FX caper but they were. Even down to the minute detail
such as the splash of water when T-Rex walks, dust and debris
flying up when dinos run etc. In essence the only "proof" we
have that Jurassic Park is computer generated is the
"confessions" if you will of the FX artists who created the
illusions.

Like I have said previously, if the films producer/director has
done the job correctly, the audience will not be able to tell
what is real and what is fake.

 >The debris portion would be prohibitively expensive to create.
 >There are no witnesses to confirm that the AA was hoaxed. There
 >is no evidence that Ray would create a hoax nor that he had the
 >talent or resources to do so. No one has been able to
 >satisfactorily explain how the AA was hoaxed or filmed. There
 >are direct connections between the AA debris and the Roswell
 >debris shown in Ft. Worth photos.

Nor is their any witnesses that independently (outside of Ray)
verify that the camerman is who he claims to be; that the film
was actually shot in 1947; that the film was actually 1947
vintage; and so on. All authenticity is based upon "Ray said" or
"I believe Ray" or something along those lines.

 From the alleged camerman's testimony (which we know is
acceptable to Ed) we find that the AA actually took place at
some "lab" in the Fort Worth area, rather then being "on base"
in a secure facility. One wonders what "lab" or "labs" were in
use in the Fort Worth area in mid 1947 that the military would
take the alleged alien carcasses to, rather then going to the
base.

 >>What's _your_ proof? Or does everyone have to send you $35.00 to
 >>find out
 >
 >For those who are interested, the only way to understand what we
 >are talking about is to view the AA Cds. We'll try to bring the
 >price down and determine an easier way to open them so more
 >folks can get involved and see for themselves whether Roger's
 >claim of poor quality is valid.

The whole CD claim to fame appears to be "well if they would
just look at the CD. Keep in mind that other people apparently
looked at the Beta copy and concluded it was a hoax. Personally
I would want the expert to render his opinion based upon the
Beta copy rather then the inferior CD quality.

Similarly would anybody want an expert opinion on the Kennedy
assination being based upon an MPG quality copy of the zapruder
film, or have the expert base his opinion from using the
original, or in lieu of that the next best available copy? We
all know the answer to that one.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 04:22:53 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:26:14 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Hatch


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:44:11 EDT
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >Sorry, but in my modest opinion, you missed the main option:

 >f) the film, wether it is a fake (probable but not proven yet) or not,
 >originates from secret services (I gave several times arguments for that).
 >That's the really interesting question, which does not seem to be
 >very popular on this List!

 >Gildas Bourdais


Hello Gildas:


The involvement of some covert agency can never be entirely
discounted.

_If_ the purpose of such an agency was to discredit and further
marginalize UFO studies; i.e. to drive mainstream scholars and
scientists furether away from UFO matters in general, then they
could hardly do better than to allow such films to fall into the
hands of hucksters.

For me however, the simplest assumption is that Santilli and
company simply whomped it up themselves, sensing a manifest
opportunity, and perhaps lacking such largesse on the part of
our cloak-and-dagger friends.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                        Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 04:37:13 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:30:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Hatch


 >Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:41:36 -0400
 >From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: Don Ledger <updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'

 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'
 >>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 04:07:42 +0100

 >>>Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 10:55:41 -0400
 >>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Socorro 'Balloon' [was: Council Proposal]

 >>Don wrote:

 >>>The winds were out of the southwest and are prevailing from that
 >>>direction in that area but secondly and most importantly the
 >>>description of the object being the size of a car positively
 >>>precludes it being a balloon able to lift anything real weight-
 >>>maybe 25 pounds-off the ground.

 >>You might want to be aware of the little-known evidence revealed
 >>in the following:

 >>http://debunk.listbot.com/cgi-bin/subscriber?Act=view_message&list_id=debunk&
msg_num=484&start_num=495

 >>[This will wrap-around].

 >Unless Zamora was blind, he could not have missed an 80-100 foot
 >high balloon with a circumference of some 120 feet at the
 >balloon's equator. When he arrived on the scene he stated that
 >he thought it was an overturned car. Tall could have meant
 >twenty or thirty feet but that's still not going to get two
 >people,fuel, ballast a thermos of hot coffee and the gondola off
 >the ground.

 >If you want some science-here's your science. I've been around a
 >ballons a few times and these are very big with tens of
 >thousands of cubic feet of lifting capacity. In a recent Notice
 >to Airmen release advising of a scientific package of 1.4
 >kilograms, about 4 pounds, Transport Canada advised that the
 >balloon would be 141,000 cu.ft or 4,000 cubic meters in volume.
 >If that was a cube it would be 54 feet on a side, just to lift a
 >4 pound payload. I suspect that it could probably lift 20 pounds
 >if need be, but they wanted a margin of lift higher than usual
 >since this thing was to go to 138,000 feet. But even so there is
 >no way you could stretch the rubber band to lift a payload of
 >say 400 pounds at that size.

 >A 54x54x54 sized structure would make a pretty good sized
 >apartment building. You can't tell me that Zamora couldn't tell
 >the difference in size between a car body and an apartment
 >building.

 >You know they move with the wind, are slow to rise and very slow
 >to inflate. Doing anything in a hurry around a balloon is
 >inviting disaster.
 >
 >James tell me this was a '55 Hillman-Minx with JATO bottles on
 >it and I might be inclined to agree-but a balloon no.
 >
 >By the way a balloon capable of carrying your two little AF guys
 >eould likely have had a capacity of about 14 million cubic feet.
 >That is one big balloon.

 >Lonnie's eyes weren't that bad.


Hello Don, James etc.


I just finished reading the 50-Years of UFOs book edited by
Evans and Stacy. (Darn good BTW!)

On page 109 is an account by Col. Hector Quintanilla, the last
commanding officer of Project Bluebook, and no UFO fan by any
stretch.

Much is made of Zamora having dropped his glasses on the ground.
On page 112 and 113, it is made clear that Zamora dropped his
_sun_ glasses... as opposed (I think) to his prescription
spectacles.

"[Running], bumped leg on car back fender area. Car
  facing southwest... fell by car and [sun]glasses fell
  off, kept running to north....."

"I ran back to my car and as I ran back, I kept an
  eye on the object. I picked up my... sunglasses,
  got into the car and radioed to Ned Lopes....."

The balloon hypothesis had some merits I agree, but nobody has
properly addressed the _size_ issue.

Two small men would need a very very large balloon, so large
that nobody could confuse it with a car, even one standing on
end, even if they did drop their sunglasses.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                       Re: Serious Research - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:47:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:31:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Maccabee


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 03:36:36 +0100

 >Cross-posted [in summary] -

 >Regarding:

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO Skeptics <debunk@listbot.com>
 >>Subject: ETH Council
 >>Date: 31 March 2001 23:10

<snip>

 >When you've had time to do so, perhaps you can summarise what
 >has been revealed and your conclusions about where 'scientific
 >ufology', as such, goes from here. Or how far it has come since
 >24 June, 1947.

 >I've known more accomplished Squadrons of Pelicans.

Squadrons of Pelicans? And you accuse ufologists of being
unscientific?

Methinks you should hop onto a mylar coated pelican and fly
away. Or else, draw a map (and prove your P-hypothesis actually
works).









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

                   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:16:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:34:36 -0400
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 03:38:12 EDT
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:40:27 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:09:31 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

 >>>In the philosophy and methodology of science, it is understood
 >>>that data are only "relevant" to a particular theory or
 >>>hypothesis being tested. For example, in meteorological optics,
 >>>the most "relevant" piece of data is the size of the grazing
 >>>elevation angle to a possible inversion layer or supra-lapsed
 >>>layer, something that is often not obtained by UFO
 >>>investigators. You can have all the inversion you want but if
 >>>the angle is greater than about 1/2 degree you won't have a
 >>>mirage image to pose as a UFO.

 >>This 1/2 degree was obtained by observation in the 19th Century.

 >This 1/2 degree comes straight out of the Condon Committee's
 >atmospheric physics research of 1968:

 >Condon Report p. 625:

 >"For all practical purposes, 0.5� can be considered as the
 >near-maximum angle of illumination that will allow for
 >formation of a mirage."


 >This was italicized in the Condon Report as an important
 >conclusion to call attention to, and was preceded and followed
 >by in-depth physics analysis of refractive indices, etc.

 >You've changed the subject from my point which was that
 >"relevance" of data is relative to a theoretical framework. My
 >example was intended to show that a UFO elevation angle near 0�
 >is relevant to a mirage theory if within 1/2� but not if it was,
 >say, at 45� above the horizon.

 >The point is that Dennis claimed that he will never be able to
 >acquire all the "relevant data" about his unexplained UFO
 >sighting. My point is that "relevant" is relative to theories.
 >We have all the IFO theories right now by definition, and almost
 >all are well developed, so we already know what are the relevant
 >data for almost all IFO's -- maybe he didn't collect it but we
 >know what's relevant. But if he means relevant data for an
 >inadequately developed ETH then that may be true.

This is a very perceptive point made by Brad: relevant depends
upon the theory. The Newtonian theory of gravity does not take
into account any effects of temperature on the weight of a mass
of material. Hence temperature is irrelevant to the theory. (In
Einsteinian gravity the weight is dependent upon the local
gravitation distortion of space but this depends upon the total
energy of a body and since "heat" is thermal energy - kinetic
energy of the microconstituents of a mass of material... the
weight could actually increase by a miniscule amount as the body
gets hotter and hotter.)

People, including scientists and skeptics and skeptical
scientists and scientific skeptics don't seem to realize the
importance of theory in UFO studies. I don't mean theory based
on hypotheses about the unknown. I mean theory based on
hypotheses about the known. If a UFO sighting can be explained
in a conventiona;l manner, then the explanation can be
considered a THEORY to be proved by "experiment", where the
experiment is to compare the sighting details with logicaly
deductions from thje theory, Pelican theory, which has gotten a
lot of play around here recently, has a logical deduction: slow
speed (perhaps up to 50 mph). This is to be compared with the
observation. If the observation is taken at face value the speed
was high (e.,g., 1700 mph), far above pelican speed. One can
"modify the data" and say the speed observation cannot be
accepted and therefore the objects could have been moving more
slowly. But then one MUST go the next step and realize that more
slowly means a lot closer and then one must compare the logical
deductions about pelican flight capabilities with that of the
known capability of the aircraft, 100 mph (unless you throw out
Arnold's claim that he was travelin about 110 mph and say that
he was wrong, he was really traveling about 50 mph and
crashed... and then covered up the crash to maintain his "UFO
sighting"). So the bottom line then becomes the question, which
the theory must answer in a convincing manner: how could there
be a flight track for the pelicans and another flight track for
Arnold such that Arnold would not fly past the pelicans or get
so close that he couldn't fail to recognize them?

Of course, the observation of bright flashes from pelicans must
also be explained based on the pelican theory. We have seen the
ornithological response to that.... but the ornithological
response of "wow pelicans can be bright " doesn't quite hack it
in myb way of thinking.

The brightnest reflections occur when the sun is low and the
pelicans are nearly in line with the sun... the opposite of the
reported situation (sun in west, objects in east).

Brad's mention of mirage is yet another "theory" for the Arnold
sighting. But when the details of this theory are applied to or
compared with the Arnold sighting information, it, too , makes
no sense.

Every UFO sighting can have a set of Candidate Explanatory
Phenomena, CEP) each of which comes with a theory of its
characteristics as seen under various circumstance, and this
theory must be worked out before the CEP can be accepted.








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

                          CCCRN News: April 3, 2001

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:38:19 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:44:00 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News: April 3, 2001


CCCRN NEWS
The E-News Service of the Canadian Crop Circle Research Network

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

April 3, 2001

_____________________________


CROP CIRCLES STILL A MYSTERY

Link to a recent article on the Canadian crop circles in 2000
and CCCRN by freelance reporter Calvin Daniels:

http://www.calmardan.com/agfea12.html

For reference, a print copy of the article ran in The Western
Producer (March 29) and Yorkton This Week (March 21) newspapers.

____________________________


CCCRN News is the e-news service of the Canadian Crop Circle
Research Network, providing the latest news and reports on the
crop circle phenomenon in Canada and other relevant updates, as
well as other information and updates on CCCRN-related news,
projects and events. CCCRN News is available free by
subscription:

To subscribe to CCCRN News, send your e-mail address to:
cccrnnews-subscribe@listbot.com


You can also subscribe from the CCCRN web site:
http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/emailupdates.html

CCCRN News Archive:
http://www.listbot.com/archive/cccrnnews


CANADIAN CROP CIRCLE RESEARCH NETWORK

Main Office:
Suite 202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC  V5T 2M9  Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

Provincial Branch Contacts:
http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/contacts.html


� Canadian Crop Circle Research Network, 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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 17:30:39 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:46:03 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Morris


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:57:14 +0100

 >It may not be realised that the 'alien autopsy' footage has been
 >available on CD since circa 1997 - I bought a copy several years
 >ago.

 >The full 'autopsy' film is contained on the UK Channel 4
 >'Incident at Roswell' documentary, which was sold in two formats
 >- 'QuickTime' and an enhanced version for those with - if I
 >recall - 'mpeg video memory', or whatever it was termed back
 >then.

 >Although you would have to check which version, I see the CD is
 >still apparently on sale and for only six dollars -:

 >http://www.cdromhouse.com/more/incidentatroswell.html

 >For those who haven't seen the program, it's by no means the
 >worst 'Roswell' documentary undertaken and features some
 >interesting material.


James, All.

The Roswell/AA CD James refers to (a copy of which I have) is
okay for entertainment use, but completely useless for research
purposes as it was produced at such a low video resolution so as
to allow both the CH4 Documentary "Incident at Roswell" and the
"edited" version of the AA film to be crammed onto a single
CDROM.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                               'FBI-Unknowns'

From: Daniel Guenther <daniel_g@t-online.dw>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:53:12 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:47:34 -0400
Subject: 'FBI-Unknowns'


A list of all UFO sightings mentioned in the FOIA papers of the
FBI was compiled by me and can be downloaded here. (1600 pages
were released in 1977 as a result of a request filed by Bruce
Maccabee and in early 1998 they were placed on the FBI Web
site).

BTW: These are not all 'unknowns'. You also find the Maury
Island/Tacoma case in it - regarded as a hoax, for example(?).

http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~thomasg/fbiunknowns.txt


--
Just the Cases - UFO sightings database
http://cs.tu-berlin.de/~thomasg/ufodb.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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                              Condon's Anecdote

From: Daniel Guenther <daniel_g@t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:52:39 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:50:48 -0400
Subject: Condon's Anecdote


handwritten on the FOIA document: 'Condon is a publicity hound.'
:-)

Jan 23 1967


UPI-133

(FLYING SAUCER)

BOULDER, COLO.--DR. EDWARD CONDON, HEAD OF A GOVERNMENT-
FINANCED SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (UFO),
SAID TODAY HE HAD RECEIVED A LETTER TELLING HIM WHEN AND WHERE A
FLYING SAUCER WOULD LAND ON EARTH.

CONDON, PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, SAID
HE WOULD WRITE TO THE MAN AND ASK HIM ON WHAT BASIS HE MADE THE
PREDICTION.

"HE GAVE ME THE EXACT DATE AND THE EXACT LOCATION THE SAUCER
WOULD LAND SAID IT WOULD BE MANNED BY PERSONS FROM ANOTHER
PLANET," CONDON SAID.

"HE SUGGESTED WE CONTACT THE SPACE TRAVELERS AND MAKE FRIENDS
WITH THEM," THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO PROFESSOR SAID.

CONDON WOULD NOT DISCLOSE THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO WROTE THE
LETTER, SAY WHERE THE PREDICTED LANDING WOULD TAKE PLACE OF THE
DATE HE DID SAY IT WOULD BE SOMETIME THIS SPRING.

"I'M GOING TO ANSWER THE LETTER TO TRY AND FIND OUT WHAT THE
BASIS IS FOR THE MAN'S PREDICTION," CONDON SAID.

CONDON ALSO DISCLOSED THAT DR. ROBERT M. LOW, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
THE CU FLYING OBJECTS INVESTIGATION PROJECT, WAS IN THE JOPLIN,
MC.-PITTSBURGH, KAN., AREA TODAY CHECKING OUT REPORTS OF UFO
SIGHTINGS.

HE SAID LOW PROBABLY WOULD RETURN TO BOULDER TONIGHT.

1/18--TS32SPES

WASHINGTON CAPITAL NEWS SERVICE

JAN 23 1967

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


***
www.fbi.gov, ufo15.pdf,  S. 42 von 77
http://foia.fbi.gov/ufo/ufo15.pdf


Daniel G.

--
Just the Cases - UFO sightings database
http://cs.tu-berlin.de/~thomasg/ufodb.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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                        Re: Serious Research - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:17:46 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:53:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:21:28 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 14:15:05 -0000


 >>Well, looks like I placed a burr under your saddle. Good!

 >Huh? That was your horse.

 >>>Well, what is your breakdown for IFOs vs UFOs, and how many are
 >>>astronomical in nature?

 >>Such statistics are utterly meaningless, so I don't bother to
 >>look at them anymore. Astronomical IFOs are easily weeded out
 >>for any serious attempt to try to determine whether hardcore,
 >>unexplained cases are soemthing significant. The point is Hynek
 >>clearly disowned the view that astronomy IFOs could explain many
 >>if any strong UFOs cases, only trivial sightings by people not
 >>familiar with the sky.

 >>>What is the best case that UFO advocates can advance?

 >>You obviously haven't been listening, or studying the serious
 >>literature. For openers, you might read the Jacobs university
 >>press book UFOs & Abductions and my The UFO Evidence, Vol. II. >>

 >Dick,

 >Well, I thought a straight, simple question might get a
 >straight, simple answer.

 >I'm reluctant to spring for the $75 you want for your book, if
 >you no longer pay attention to statistics. I thought that maybe
 >as a teaser you just might want to give us one tidbit from your
 >list of thousands of sightings of mystery machines flying about,
 >instead of just plugging you latest saucer book, like so many
 >other UFO investigators.

 >Come on, Dick, throw us out a piece of red meat.

 >We're dying to shred it to pieces.


Hi Bob,

Let me get this straight, you don't want to read the material
and then you say that whatever he or we supply you "will" be
shredded-sight unseen. Now what kind of an attitude is that Bob?
That doesn't sound very scientific to me. You're a big hearted
guy. You can do better.


Best,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                     Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:19:41 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:54:59 -0400
Subject: Re:  Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Young


 >Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:17:59 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:28:52 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth

 >>>Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:45:47 -0400
 >>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Mass Hysteria as a Myth

 >It isn't the community of believers and bunkers that argue that
 >mass hysteria could be an actual affect of the release of
 >information by the Air Force. It was the Air Force itself that
 >worried, in the late 40's and early 50's (and perhaps in later

Bruce, John, Don, List:

It seems to me that the crucial thing is that somebody believed
that mass hysteria could occur, and took action, or inaction as
the case might be, based upon that belief.

Clear skies,
Bob Young

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When it comes to flying saucers, it is still January, 1950"
      - - Curtis Peebles
------------------------------------------------------------------------------










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

                   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Kenny Young

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:30:56 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:56:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Kenny Young


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:43:07 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:56:51 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>I appreciate seeing Richard's "Debunking Handbook." However,
 >>with all due respect for his efforts, I would like to point out
 >>that he alluded to but did not mention directly Maccabee's First
 >>Rule for Debunkers, which I have posted numerous times in
 >>various contexts over the years:

 >>RULE 1: Any explanation is better than none.>>

 >Bruce, Dick,

 >This is the most important one, Bruce.  I use it all the time.


Hi Bob;

Just for some interesting discussion material, I would wonder if
the rapid employment of just 'any' explanation might not be
something to take pride in, as it seems to suggest a certain
ideological motivation driving a person seeking to explain, or
rather, dismiss claims of anomalous phenomena.

It should be necessary to explore these questions with
investigative neutrality, and that would require the suspension
of outlandish sleaze tactics often used by the debunking
celebrities to refute the appearance of an unresolved mystery.

An outlandish explanation in effort not to let an issue stand
unresolved often causes the objective reader to wonder what
ulterior motivations are at work behind a debunking
proclamation. When even the appearance of ideology is
introduced, the findings stand compromised and should be
suspect. This should especially include the art of debunkery.


Take care,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                    Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:57:28 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:58:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth - Sandow


 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:28:52 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth

 >In fact it's a quite precisely defined phenomenon, recognised by
 >doctors, sociologists and psychologists, and refers to a sudden
 >outbreak of psychosomatic symptoms amongst a small and
 >self-contained group. Examples include episodes of fainting or
 >vague illness in schools, reports of 'noxious gases' which
 >cannot be traced, etc.


John is right.

In the serious UFO literature there's at least one study of mass
hysteria, by Robert Hall, a sociologist who's Richard Hall's
brother.

This study -- which defines mass hysteria exactly as John does
here -- appears in the proceedings of the 1992 abduction
conference at MIT.

Hall's conclusion, for whatever it's worth, is that abduction
reports can't be due to mass hysteria, because the abduction
phenomenon isn't like the mass hysteria reports accepted by
sociologists.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                         Re: Serious Research - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:21:09 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 16:03:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:21:28 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 14:15:05 -0000

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com
 >>>Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:11:07 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 21:58:16 -0000

 >>>Well, what is your breakdown for IFOs vs UFOs, and how many are
 >>>astronomical in nature?

 >>Such statistics are utterly meaningless, so I don't bother to
 >>look at them anymore. Astronomical IFOs are easily weeded out
 >>for any serious attempt to try to determine whether hardcore,
 >>unexplained cases are soemthing significant. The point is Hynek
 >>clearly disowned the view that astronomy IFOs could explain many
 >>if any strong UFOs cases, only trivial sightings by people not
 >>familiar with the sky.

 >>>What is the best case that UFO advocates can advance?

 >>You obviously haven't been listening, or studying the serious
 >>literature. For openers, you might read the Jacobs university
 >>press book UFOs & Abductions and my The UFO Evidence, Vol. II. >>

 >Dick,

 >Well, I thought a straight, simple question might get a
 >straight, simple answer.

 >I'm reluctant to spring for the $75 you want for your book, if
 >you no longer pay attention to statistics. I thought that maybe
 >as a teaser you just might want to give us one tidbit from your
 >list of thousands of sightings of mystery machines flying about,
 >instead of just plugging you latest saucer book, like so many
 >other UFO investigators.

 >Come on, Dick, throw us out a piece of red meat.

 >We're dying to shred it to pieces.

Bob,

Pretty cheap shot to try to make me sound mercenary, when I have
always pointed out free or inexpensive alternative sources. (And
UFOE-II isn't $75 either. And it does include statistics of a
more meaningful kind.) Try my article on www.isso.org.

Your simple (and hackneyed) question did get a simple answer.
You asked me "What is the best case that UFO advocates can
advance?" and I (somewhat immodestly) gave you the source of
many hundreds of "mystery flying machines" reports that I
considered make the best case. Another good source, free for the
asking, is the NICAP web site. There are links to it on the
CUFOS site, my site, etc.

Good hunting! That is, if your question was serious and you
really wanted an honest answer so you could take a look at it.
Or are you, like Phil Klass, merely seeking the title "Master
Baiter?"


Dick









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

                     Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:46:11 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 16:06:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Young


 >Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:17:18 -0400
 >From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth
 >To: 'UFO UpDates - Toronto' <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >I'm surprised no one has yet stated the obvious example, Orson
 >Wells' "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast.

 >Granted, I wasn't alive at the time of that broadcast, so I
 >don't know how much "poetic license" they took with the movie
 >(the movie of the radio broadcast incident, not the actual "War
 >of the Worlds" movie), but I thought it was a given that Wells
 >did cause quite a bit of panic in NYC at that time.

Ron, Don, List

The little town in New Jersey where the Martains supposedly
landed still has an old fashioned small water tower with bullet
holes in it, and an historical marker. I've seen it. Folks there
who had seen that tower every day of their lives apparently
thought it was a Martian "Machine" filled with martians, with
"intelligences vast and cool" coming to drink their blood.

If Mass Hysteria doesn't exist, then clearly simultaneous
hysteria by many people does. What's the difference?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:48:32 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 16:08:18 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Rimmer


 >Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:44:11 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>Sorry, but in my modest opinion, you missed the main option:

 >>f) the film, wether it is a fake (probable but not proven yet)
 >>or not, originates from secret services (I gave several times
 >>arguments for that). That's the really interesting question,
 >>which does not seem to be very popular on this List!

 >I remember this option being batted around in '95. I think it
 >could very well be a hoax sponsored by the intelligence
 >community. That's not to say it _is_, but why not? The timing
 >was great, and the general scoffing dismissal of the AA helped
 >the AF pass over its extremely flimsy Project Mogul theory (and
 >then the even flimsier "crash test dummy" theory, which even the
 >mainstream media made fun of--but, tellingly, without digging
 >deeper).

This is the 'disinformation' argument, often used by ufologists
when the evidence for a hoax becomes overwhelming. Basically it
means "I am such a clever ufologist that it takes the resources
of an entire government to produce a hoax that can fool me".

Flattering to the ego, I suppose.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                  Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:52:16 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 16:09:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Young


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials
 >Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:48:00 -0000

 >To James the Pretender, Andy, John, and all your psychosocial
 >minions: I have several times offered to debate any of you on
 >the issues, but have found no takers. Choose your own venue:
 >Fortean Times, Skeptics's lists, UFO UpDates, CSICOP journal,
 >other..... One on one, or team debate; formal or informal.

Dick,

Care to debate your favorite alien machine case?

 >The ball is in your court.

I just plunked it back, just over the left corner of the net.
You can still get it if you try.


Crowded 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 >
   Apr > Apr 3

                    Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:43:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 16:11:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Clark


 >Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:06:40 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:37:25 -0500


John,

 >>Congratulations. You've managed both to miss the point of my
 >>posting and to make my point.

 >This is pretty obscure even for you, Jerry. Perhaps we could
 >skip the wordplay and get back to my original question, which
 >was:

In fact, my friend (if you will pardon the expression; I know
how much you resent any implication that these disagreements
aren't personal), this was not in response to a question of
yours. Maybe you need to work on your reading skills.

 >>>Perhaps while he's lying there he could think back and try to
 >>>remember where I, or any of my pelicanist colleages ever made
 >>>such comments as "eyewitness testimony has no value whatever and
 >>>can be discarded without a single thought".

 >Just read it carefully, it's quite a sweeping statement. Have
 >you got the slightest evidence to back it up, or are we just
 >going to get more vague waffle? You are beginning to disappoint
 >me; the Jerry Clark who writes incredibly well researched and
 >meticulously referenced books seems to have little in common
 >with the Jerome Clark who throws around unattributed
 >pseudo-quotes and bizarre rants on UpDates.

My word. Other listfolk had no trouble grasping my point.
For you, though, I will take the trouble to explain:

Many thousands of witnesses worldwide, at a very conservative
estimate, have viewed structured craftlike phenomena under
excellent viewing conditions, sometimes at close range and as
often as not in daylight. On a number of occasions, the objects
have been multiply and even independently witnessed, once in a
while even tracked on radar as the human observers watched them.
Sometimes, according to reports from individuals generally
deemed credible, they carry nonhuman crews.

These objects often exhibit extraordinary performance
characteristics unlike those of which balloons and aircraft are
capable. Some of the cases involve technically trained
individuals. If they were reporting anything other than UFOs
which looked and acted like ostensibly unearthly vehicles, no
one would think to question much or even most of this testimony.

This whole exchange began when I poked fun at skeptic/debunkers
on this list (and of course elsewhere) for taking seriously
unsupported eyewitness testimony when it concerns something they
believe in, namely a meteorite, while rejecting it out of hand
if it concerns something they don't. Your defensiveness on this
issue speaks volumes. If you will pardon yet another expression,
it makes my point.

Yet another reason I am neither a debunker nor a psychosocial
ufologist. Assuming, of course, that there is a difference.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                          Filer's Files #14 -- 2000

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:56:49 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:04:44 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #14 -- 2000



Filer's Files #14 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
April 3, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,


MOTHER-SHIPS MAY BE BACK -- Reports of large cigar or cylinder
shaped UFOs are coming in from Georgia, Colorado, California,
Texas, and Washington. NASA reports that our sun is in the
middle of powerful coronal mass ejections that send huge
geomagnetic storms into space. The solar flare activity has been
picking up for the last several months. Sky watchers as far
south as Mexico have seen the Northern Lights (aurora borealis).
The most recent strongly magnetized storm began March 30th when
a coronal mass ejection (CME) struck our Earth's magnetosphere.
These intense storms may be tied to recent sightings of the
motherships in our atmosphere. Earth is a relatively safe port
in a solar storm. The most powerful flare of the current solar
cycle is an X17-class event that erupted near sunspot 9393 on
April 2, 2001. This CME is more powerful than the March 1989
event that led to the collapse of a power grid in Quebec. This
is the second most powerful CME in 25 years. The increased
activity may be the reason for increased mothership sightings.

Reports of large, cigar-shaped, aircraft carrier sized UFOs also
known, as 'motherships' appear to have started as early as
1896-7 with sightings throughout the Midwest United States.
During World War I hardly a night would go by without numerous
reports of German Zeppelin activity over England, but the
Germans only had one Naval Zeppelin and five Army airships in
service when war was declared. Historian Dr. David Clarke claims
that within a few months most of the Zeppelins had been
destroyed or wrecked. German records reveal Zeppelin activity
was very limited anywhere near the UK, yet pilots and other
military personnel reported thousands of sightings of airships.
Captain Stansfield of the trawler SS Ape and many of his crew on
December 15, 1914, reported sighting a black airship. After the
war airship records were read and all German airships were in
their hangars due to bad weather. On September 6, 1914, Flight
Commander C. E. Rathborne of the Felixstowe Naval Air Station,
Suffolk, returned from an early morning patrol in his seaplane
to make perhaps the first report of a UFO by a military officer.
"At 5:35 AM, whilst on patrol, I sighted an airship steering
south-southeast, with a silver-colored envelope on the horizon
while flying at 1,300 feet, 27 miles south of Orfordness."
Scottish Command Intelligence estimated the total number of
reports of "enemy signaling" to be as high as 2,000 during 1914
alone. By January 31, 1916, nine Naval Zeppelins had been built
and were ordered to bomb central England. The Zeppelin scares
and rumors generated thousands of reports of phantom airships,
that, based on their records, seldom ever flew near England. It
appears many of the reports may have been UFOs. See Strange Daze
Website at: www.strangedaze.ic.24.net.

Commander Graham Bethune just returned from the Nevada UFO
Conference where British author Nick Redfern spoke regarding
World War II documents that were just released by the Public
Records Office in the United Kingdom. The records revealed that
a fleet of flying discs -- called 'Foo Fighters' -- were
launched from huge cigar-shaped mothercraft during B-17 daylight
raids over Germany in 1943. The huge aircraft-carrier sized
mothership cut through a flight of B-17 bombers launching its
discs in front of the B-17 amazed aircrews. Another report by
two RAF fighter pilots saw a similar 'mothercraft' sitting on
the ground.

NEW YORK DISC SIGHTED

ONEIDA, MARCY COUNTY -- Five witnesses observed a disk-shaped
craft on Saturday, March 24, 2001. The craft had red and green
flashing lights with some beams of light coming from it and it
hardly moved and floated in the East. Aircraft surrounded it. We
all watched it for about two hours. The object was a white light
but you could still tell it was disk-shaped. It had red lights
and green lights on the bottom and looked as if it was tilted
and spinning. It hovered in the same spot most of the time. It
lasted from around 8:00 PM to about 10:00 PM, and when I came
back to see if it was still there, it was gone totally,
disappeared. Thanks to Larry Clark www.nymufon.org

GEORGIA CYLINDERS SIGHTED SEVERAL TIMES

State MUFON Director of Georgia and former Police Chief, Tom
Sheets writes, "On Monday morning March 26, 2001, I opened my
current batch of email and found a preliminary morning report
from John Bodin, Sr., MUFONGA's DD for South Georgia." John
indicated that he had gone out right after dawn for his normal
morning walk; the weather was crisp and clear with a crystal
blue sky. Off to the SE he noticed an aircraft's contrail
similar to those he had noticed during the past weekend. He also
observed that the aircraft appeared to be lower in altitude than
when such vapor trails are normally formed. The metallic
aircraft color was readily apparent in the sunlight, and the
contrail was white against the blue sky. Suddenly the contrail
stopped, and at this point the aircraft appeared to be about the
size of a pencil eraser head at arm's length but incredibly, the
aircraft seemed to have almost halted in the sky. John watched
as the contrail dissipated right up toward the back of the
aircraft. He also noticed that the body of the aircraft seemed a
little too long as compared to others he had observed. At that
point, he realized there were no wings attached to the fuselage.
He continued his observation for 6 to 7 minutes until, moving
very slow, it was lost from view with no change in it's
appearance.

Upon receiving the above report from John about 10:00 AM, I
noticed that the skies above Fayetteville and the Atlanta area
15 miles to the North, were full of jet aircraft making a very
obvious checkerboard pattern of vapor trails (the sky was FULL).
Inspection of these via binoculars and video zoom over the next
few hours indicated they appeared to be the normal contrail
vapor formations, slowly drifting more or less eastwards. Due to
the aerial activity, this writer alerted other MUFONGA members
in the Atlanta area. SSD/FI David Brown of Norcross (northern
Atlanta suburbs) then indicated he would be outside most of the
day and would conduct surveillance and report back later.

Later Monday afternoon John Bodin was in contact with MUFONGA
SSD/FI Michael D. Hitt of Roswell, GA, (north Atlanta suburban
area) regarding a separate long-term investigation that is
underway. Michael, a Roswell, Georgia police officer, then
indicated that he had observed something very similar to John's
event earlier in the day while on patrol duty. Officer Hitt
indicated that at about 11:45 AM, he had been called to Roswell
Police Headquarters. Enroute, he noticed an aircraft slowly
flying S to N a little lower than is normal for that area, the
aircraft being clearly visible in the bright sun. As he watched,
he noticed that it appeared to have no wings or tail structures,
and that another unusual effect was noticed. There appeared to
be a 'heat-like' emanation given off from the fuselage and then
the aircraft vanished. Michael indicated that he became
aggravated that there was no way he could have turned his
dash-mounted police videocam onto the craft. The skies over
Roswell were also clear at that time, as in the rest of Georgia,
with a mild to moderate wind from the NW.

About 3:00 AM on March 28, 2001, I received an email report from
David Brown of Norcross. He indicated in his report that due to
the alert, he too had been observing this aerial activity i.e.,
checkerboard patterns, and that an aircraft appeared not to have
wings. Further that at times, some aircraft seemed to be working
in pairs. David also described that one aircraft appeared to
have a 'haze like' sheath around it, seemingly not part of the
vapor trail, and while watching that, another craft suddenly
appeared going in the opposite direction, again with a
'haze-like' effect around it. (David had no knowledge at that
time about Michael Hitt's description of the 'heat-like'
emanations observed in the craft over Roswell.)  Later David
observed a night flight of apparent C-130 Hercules aircraft
flying in the direction of nearby Dobbins AFB. These were
followed by a number of helicopters flying in the same
direction. He contacted the PIO and ATC at Dobbins AFB to
discuss these matters, but was not given any information
relating to the flights or the other aerial activities.

David indicated he had made some video tape of this activity,
and this will be under review in the coming days. Please note
that these events are similar to that observed and reported by
MUFONGA HQs personnel on July 17, 2000, some 81 miles NW of
Chattanooga Tennessee on I-24. (See MUFON Journal Sept. 2000 and
Filer's Files). Brief recap; Sheets, Ausmus and Clifford
observing contrail formations in the KY-TN State line area, then
later observed contrail producing aircraft HALT it's vapor
trail, flying on for a few hundred meters, then completely
vanishing from the sky, instantly. This aircraft too was in
clear blue sunlit sky and blatantly obvious to the observers.
Since 2000, this writer has noticed a few other postings from
individuals across the USA describing similar observations:
Interrupted contrails and vanishing aircraft. While MUFONGA does
not rule out tricks of light and shadow or optical illusion, it
is still obvious that something is not quite 'right' about these
events, especially the recent Georgia observations. MUFONGA is
aware of the current rumors and discussions regarding our
military aviation forces possessing an active aircraft
camouflage system. If this is so and these events are examples,
perhaps the system was malfunctioning this past Monday, or some
form of experiments were possibly being conducted. We have also
discussed the possibility of 'morphing' UFOs. Thanks to Tom
Sheets, SD MUFONGA, ISUR Board COPYRIGHT 2000 BY TOM SHEETS AND
MUFON OF GEORGIA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TEXAS LIGHTS HOVER OVER CAR

CONROE -- ISUR reports a motorist on March 23, 2001, at about
12:45 A.M., was proceeding east on Highway 105 toward Beaumont
Texas. The vehicle passengers noticed a group of lights off to
the side that seemed to be about 2 miles away. Within three
seconds, the lights closed the distance to the vehicle and were
overhead and to the left about 125 feet above the ground. The
witness indicated that it appeared to be a group of purple and
green lights with some mixed white. While they watched, the
lights appeared to depart at an incredible rate of speed, in
fact it was described as being so fast, they were unable to
determine exactly what direction the formation took. The witness
turned his car around to recheck the area, but no trace was
found. Thanks to ISUR and Tom Sheets Board. The case has been
referred to MUFON of Texas further investigation.

TEXAS CYLINDER

ROSCOE AND FT. JUSTICE -- My husband and I were driving to
Lubbock, on March 5, 2001, and I had been asleep. When I woke at
3:30 PM, I noticed a very strange airplane flying low to the
ground. It would circle and then hover, circle and then hover.
It wasn't a helicopter though; it was a long aircraft with wings
far back on the tail. I said to my husband, "What is that weird
plane?" He said that he didn't know, but he'd been watching it
for some time. He told me to watch because it would seemingly
stop right in midair--which is what I had observed it doing. It
seemed to be circling the highway, but keeping up with the
traffic that was northbound. It was a clear day; few clouds. No
rain. Other motorists appeared to be watching the craft as well.
It eventually took off very rapidly southward and disappeared.
Our background--husband is a professor; I am a writer. This is
the first sighting for my husband. My 2nd -- the previous
happened 35 years ago. We think it may have been some kind of
test plane from Lubbock. We occasionally experience tremendous
sonic booms that might come from Reese Air Force Base.

COLORADO ASTONISHINGLY HUGE FAST BRIGHT CYLINDER

PUEBLO -- (70 miles south) On March 2, 2001, National Reporting
Center reports a witness saw a bright and enormous cylinder
shaped object that gave off a buzzing sound at 10:00 PM. The
witness stated, "I do mean absolutely unearthly huge in size. I
was to damned scared to take in much detail!" Thanks to <A
HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC</A>

CALIFORNIA CIGAR-SHAPED SILENT OBJECTS

Tracie Boudreaux reports seeing a huge, cigar-shaped craft while
driving on the freeway on January 29, 2001. A group of people
and I decided to chase this object at 9:00 P.M. I heard
neighborhood dogs barking outside my kitchen window and I
noticed a bright light in the western sky southeast of the
crescent moon. It was in the shape of a diamond. The light was
not blinking nor did it have any color distortion and I gauged
it next to a tree limb to verify if it was a star or if it had
actual movement and indeed it did. It moved up and down
slightly. I jumped into my car driving from Kirby and Westpark
at 35 mph and I chased it going west at Newcastle & Westpark. It
was larger. Then I noticed from the South a helicopter going
north. The light dimmed as the helicopter passed it. I pulled
into a parking lot at Rice Street and Westpark. After the
helicopter passed it, the light stayed dim and then completely
went out. This is less than 1/2 mile from my home. I tried to
observe the object through the trees at my home ten minutes
later but it had gone. Thanks to Tracie Boudreaux
Tracierb@swbell.net

DUBLIN -- On the morning of March 12, 2001, at about 7:45 AM, my
daughter and I saw a white, cigar-shaped object moving slowly,
and at low altitude, from the Southwest toward the Northeast and
then it turned slightly north, toward Mt. Diablo. At times, it
seemed to stay in one position, as if to observe something
below, then moved forward, again. The day was a bright, clear,
cloudless morning. The object was moving through the air at a
lower altitude than I have seen many single engine planes fly.
It made no noise whatsoever. It had no wings, no visible
cockpit, no rudder, wheels, propeller, no cables or anything on
or protruding from it. I am only certain of what it was NOT: it
was not a plane, not a helicopter, not a blimp, not a balloon,
not a glider, or any ordinary object I have ever seen in the
sky. It appeared to move intentionally. I did not have the
benefit of binoculars, but with the naked eye, it appeared that
it may have had narrow band of dark-colored metal very slightly
bisecting the middle of the object, which gave the hint of an
indentation or slightly "segmented" body, but I cannot be sure
because it was further away from me, at that point. It appeared
to be made of a smooth, cigar-shaped, bright white,
nonreflecting material, i.e., not a "shiny" metal. It had no
visible means of propulsion. It's length was about the width of
my thumbnail, held at arm's length. The object was still in
sight, when it was followed by a single engine plane flying in
the same direction toward the Northeast. So, I had both the
plane and the silent, cigar-shaped object in view for thirty
seconds. The strange object was moving much slower than the
single engine plane behind and below it. I went in and called
the FAA Office at the Livermore Airport, but they had no other
reports. Thanks to Peter Davenport <A
HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC</A> WASHINGTON CYLINDER

UNION/PULLMAN/WHITMAN COUNTY -- A coworker his son were driving
with his girlfriend at 6:00 P.M. on March 10, 2001. They saw a
red light in the sky and they thought it was an airplane. Then a
few seconds later, they saw a big circle of red lights that got
closer to ground. Other cars were behind them and all slowed
down to look, but due to the traffic on the highway, they
couldn't stop.

SEATTLE -- Two days later, a witness says, "My girlfriend works
nights and leaves our West Seattle home at about 11:45 P.M. each
weeknight. After she leaves, I often go out on the back porch to
write in my journal. The porch faces west, overlooking Blake and
Vashon Islands and Puget Sound. I had just stepped out on the
porch and was admiring the clear night sky when an object
traveling very, very fast crossed from the South to the North. I
realized that it was flying within earth's atmosphere. It had at
least three distinguishable bright orange lights in an oblong
formation. It was too dark for me to make out the outline of the
vessel itself. It flew at about the height on the horizon, but
was totally silent and at about ten times faster -- it took
about 10 seconds for it to cross the sky. To reconfirm my
thought that it could not possibly be a plane that had just
passed, moments later one in fact did fly by (presumably coming
from SeaTac airport as they often do), and I could make out its
shape, hear it clearly, and it was much slower than what I had
just seen. I wrote: March 13, 2001,: 3:50 AM. It's dark and I
just saw something cruise through the night sky that had orange
lights and was very, very fast and completely silent. A plane
just flew by, too, but slower -- much slower -- and I could hear
it pass. It must have been a satellite but it seemed so close
and flew south to north over Puget Sound." I talked to Peter
Davenport and he indicated the witness is an excellent source of
objective information. Very lucid, very eloquent, and a very
clear on the object that was observed. It is noteworthy that
this report strongly suggests that there were multiple,
individual lights on this object. Thanks to Peter Davenport <A
HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC</A>

UNITED KINGDOM F-15 FIGHTERS CRASH

BEN MACDUI MOUNTAIN -- Two US F-15 fighters crashed near the
summit of Ben Macdui, Scotland's second highest mountain March
26, 2001. Searchers scouring the mountains discovered wreckage
of two US F-15C fighters, three days after the single-seat
fighters and their pilots disappeared. Rescue teams have braved
heavy snow, high winds and avalanches to find two US airmen and
their aircraft. The planes were on one of their low-flying
exercises when radio contact was lost at about 1:15 p.m. Monday.
The wreckage of the tail part of the second aircraft was found
some 400 yards from the wreckage of the first," said a Royal Air
Force spokesman. The pilot was identified as Lieutenant Colonel
Kenneth John Hyvonen, 40, from the 48th Operations Support
Squadron, based at the RAF Lakenheath air base in eastern
England. British Tornado fighter-bombers used heat-seeking
infrared equipment to search for the planes' engines against a
snow-covered expanse of the Cairngorms Mountain range. Captain
Kirk Jones of the 493rd Fighter Squadron, also based at
Lakenheath was in the other aircraft. One unconfirmed story is
that the aircraft touched in midair.

A UK reader writes, "Just out of interest RAF Tornadoes have
crashed a number of times before in Britain while on training
missions and they always fly at low altitude ("it's the way the
RAF trains"). The F-15's could have crashed in a similar way??

Editor's Note: I flew for the USAF for four years out of
Sculthorpe RAF Air Base. I personally became interested in UFOs
when I chased one over England. London Control directed us to
intercept a UFO over England at 1,000 feet. I've been chasing
them ever since. Hundreds of people report UFOs each month and
many over Scotland. I get interested in crashes particularly
when aircraft such as the F-15 lose their tail. They have
terrain-avoidance radar and hopefully know what they're doing.
UFOs have exceptionally strong electronic signatures that might
cause navigation problems in our aircraft. I've got pilots
calling claiming they have strange metals on wing and tail
surfaces. I spent most of my career in intelligence. Just before
crashing we have pilot's who say things that are never announced
to public. Like, "I've been hit by a UFO, going down." All my
data is just like General Ben Chidlaw claimed, "We have stacks
of reports about flying saucers. We take them seriously when you
consider we have lost many men and planes trying to intercept
them." There are numerous sightings in Scotland, and I have a
nice photo of two UFOs over Scotland on my web site.  Filer's
files.com. My job in the Air Force was to warn people not to fly
over certain places because of enemy fire, terrorists, etc. It
is my opinion that their may be danger in our skies and it's
time to start warning pilots not to chase or attack these craft.
Further, it's time to realize they exist and it's time to look
for evidence of UFO involvement in air crashes.

THE UFO - JESUS CONNECTION

David E. Twichell writes, "The ancient astronaut and Biblical
UFO hypotheses are not new. However, no one seems to want to
take the matter to the next logical step. If Ezekiel's, "wheel
within a wheel," and Moses', "pillar of fire and cloud," were
forerunners of today's UFOs, then the Star of Bethlehem and the
brilliant cloud to which Jesus ascended must be treated in the
same vein. When Biblical descriptions of anomalous aerial
phenomena are overlaid on that of modern-day UFO reports, the
picture seems to meld as one. Once the evidence has been
presented, the reader is led to a conclusion that is at best
convincing and at least thought provoking. Are you willing to
risk having your world view shaken? Read the preface free at:
http://hometown.aol.com/fi4mufon/myhomepage/index.html To order
your copy of THE UFO - JESUS CONNECTION, go to:
http://www.buybooontheweb.com  Or Save the shipping charges and
order your autographed copy by sending a check or money order
for $13.95 (US) per copy to: David Twichell, P.O. Box 511,
Trenton MI. 48183-0511

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. 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

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 2001 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. 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. Caution, most of
these are initial reports and require further investigation.

Regards,

George Filer












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Cecchini

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 17:25:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:07:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Cecchini



 >Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:17:59 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:28:52 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth

 >>Hmmm. I'd always thought that the myth of mass hysteria was a
 >>staple of the believing community and bunkers, as in "The Air
 >>Force doesn't release the truth about UFOs as it would cause
 >>panic and mass-hysteria.

 >It isn't the community of believers and bunkers that argue that
 >mass hysteria could be an actual affect of the release of
 >information by the Air Force. It was the Air Force itself that
 >worried, in the late 40's and early 50's (and perhaps in later
 >years) that a release of information might cause a panic.

Wait a minute, that presupposes that it's a fact that the U.S.
Air Force has in its possession proof of the existence of E.T.
life which it is suppressing from the population of the world
(ok, I just sounded like Mulder there...) for the reason that
you stated.

Obviously the USAF has never publicly admitted any such thing.

So it appears that, in this case, you're both right:

- the Skeptics use mass hysteria to "explain" certain
   "sightings",

- the Believers use mass hysteria to "explain" why the
   Government (in their opinion) still hasn't admitted that it
   has proof of ET's existence.

My opinion is that both sides are probably wrong, but I admit
that I really have no clue...











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:01:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:09:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:56:51 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:40:23 -0000


Bruce and Dick,.

 >And, of course, debunkers obey the same rule of etiquette that
 >the early contactees did (and some politicians)

 >Thou Shalt Not Speak ill of Another Debunker/Scoffer (or
 >contactee or politician).

 >This means even if you, as a debunker, thinks another guy's
 >explanation is totally off the wall, just be quiet about it and
 >politely propose your own as a "possible" (probable?) alternative,.

 >Just remember, when it comes to explanations .
 >There is Strength in Numbers.

Well said. I've been underscoring the debunkers' curious silence
about each other's excesses, however dishonest or even crazy,
for years. I couldn't even get any to distance themselves from
Klass's strange equation (in 1983) of UFO cover-up proponents
with Soviet agents. Much less, of course, from dubious theories
about UFO cases or baseless slanders of innocent witnesses. Or,
for that matter, from outright lies by fellow debunkers (e.g.,
Menzel's egregious fibs about his own puzzling UFO sighting).

The moral of the story is that serious ufologists are engaged in
something like scientific inquiry, while debunkers are as often
as not involved in something like ideological posturing. That is
why, incidentally, the best _real_ debunking has always been
done by ufologists. When a ufologist debunks a case, it stays
debunked. When a debunker debunks a case, on the other hand, all
that happens is the sound of robotic head-nodding by those who
agree with him absolutely and who would never dream of breathing
a whisper of dissent. The case itself, of course, usually
remains either unexplained or, even worse, misexplained (e.g.,
as the Ruppelt-era Blue Book observed, Menzel's failure to
properly identify even known IFOs).


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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                     Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:16:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:11:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth - Clark


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:57:28 -0400


 >>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:28:52 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth

 >>In fact it's a quite precisely defined phenomenon, recognised by
 >>doctors, sociologists and psychologists, and refers to a sudden
 >>outbreak of psychosomatic symptoms amongst a small and
 >>self-contained group. Examples include episodes of fainting or
 >>vague illness in schools, reports of 'noxious gases' which
 >>cannot be traced, etc.


 >John is right.

 >In the serious UFO literature there's at least one study of mass
 >hysteria, by Robert Hall, a sociologist who's Richard Hall's
 >brother.

 >This study -- which defines mass hysteria exactly as John does
 >here -- appears in the proceedings of the 1992 abduction
 >conference at MIT.

 >Hall's conclusion, for whatever it's worth, is that abduction
 >reports can't be due to mass hysteria, because the abduction
 >phenomenon isn't like the mass hysteria reports accepted by
 >sociologists.

As it happens, I'm sitting next to a thick file of scholarly
papers on mass hysteria, many provided me by another sociologist
with some involvement in ufology, Robert Bartholomew. Bob in
fact has published some papers in the social-science literature
on the subject.

Don is certainly correct in the general point that mass hysteria
sometimes has been loosely, crudely, and/or inadequately applied
in UFO contexts, but the phenomenon does exist and is reasonably
well documented and understood.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                     Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 17:56:58 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:13:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Velez


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:46:11 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:17:18 -0400
 >>From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
 >>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth
 >>To: 'UFO UpDates - Toronto' <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>I'm surprised no one has yet stated the obvious example, Orson
 >>Wells' "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast.

 >>Granted, I wasn't alive at the time of that broadcast, so I
 >>don't know how much "poetic license" they took with the movie
 >>(the movie of the radio broadcast incident, not the actual "War
 >>of the Worlds" movie), but I thought it was a given that Wells
 >>did cause quite a bit of panic in NYC at that time.

 >Ron, Don, List

 >The little town in New Jersey where the Martains supposedly
 >landed still has an old fashioned small water tower with bullet
 >holes in it, and an historical marker. I've seen it. Folks there
 >who had seen that tower every day of their lives apparently
 >thought it was a Martian "Machine" filled with martians, with
 >"intelligences vast and cool" coming to drink their blood.

 >If Mass Hysteria doesn't exist, then clearly simultaneous
 >hysteria by many people does. What's the difference?


Hola Young Bob,

The difference is, the _whole_ town wasn't out running amok and
shooting up the water tower! I'll bet dollars to donuts that the
few yokels who blew up the water tower had been at the local
'watering hole' immediately before.  <LOL>

If there had been reports of a majority of the citizens behaving
totally irrationally as a result of the broadcast that would be
one thing, (a good arguement for "mass" hysteria) but that
wasn't the case.

There are 'good' and 'bad,' 'smart' and 'dumb' folks all over
Bob. I imagine even in a small town of a thousand people or so
there will be at least 50 wahoos capable of shooting up the
local water tower. That's enough people to make 'headlines' but
hardly "mass" hysteria.

Regards,

John Velez











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                           Re: Body Marks - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:59:42 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:17:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Body Marks - Velez


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Body Marks [was: Budd Hopkins Lectures At MUFON-LA]
 >Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:36:22 -0500

 >>Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:06:08 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins Lectures At MUFON-LA

 >>I get em on the top part of my right foot from time to time.
 >>Years apart in occurance, but repeated. I showed it to my family
 >>MD last time and asked him if it was a rash. He told me that
 >>fungus and the like do not grow in well defined triangles.

 >John, and everyone --

 >This is a very small but important point. We need to be more
 >specific about these triangles. By definition, any three marks
 >would form a triangle, so if the triangles abductees talk about
 >are significant, there has to be more going on. I suspect --
 >especially from photos I've seen -- that John means the dots
 >form an equilateral triangle, with all three sides of equal
 >length. Or at least an isoceles triangle, with two sides the
 >same length. A pattern like that seems remarkable, especially if
 >many people have it, or if it reoccurs. But a mere triangle just
 >means you have three marks.


Hi All,

Before this thread goes to the elephants graveyard I wanted to
share a few snippets from the many e-mails I have received that
mention these 'triangular' shaped marks. They are posted without
any identifying information. Only the portions of the message
that refer directly to these marks is being reproduced.

I have always thought it a shame that someone hasn't published a
book of these letters from people who suspect they are
interacting with non-humans that either arrive in, or take them
into "UFOs" for varied purposes. (Most of which are 'medical' in
nature. Involving physical examinations and the like.)

Here are just a few examples of the kinds of reports I receive.

Subject A:

"I began a terrifying two year period that rendered me with a
long bout of severe insomnia. The first incident was when my
sister walked into my room while I was apparently levitating two
to three feet above my bed. Shortly after this my sister began
finding small triangular indentations missing from her calves
and forearms."

Subject B:

"Both my wife and I have a few unusual scars we can't explain. I
have a very distinct triangular mark on my left hip, and my wife
has one on one of her hands.

Subject C:

"I have many marks and scar of unexplained origin. Three stand
out in my mind at this time. I have a triangular red mark on the
right side of my neck for 5 yrs now. It never goes away.

I have received a respectable number of reports over the last
six years that mention the same details over and over again. Odd
details like this "triangular red mark" for instance. There are
descriptions of other types of marks that are 'arranged' in a
triangular formation. All of these (physical) symptoms/ sequelae
to abductions, need to be properly addressed and investigated
before a purely "psychological" explanation can be entertained.

I have reams of these letters. If others had a chance to read
the many communiques from all ovetr the world that _all_ tell the
same story, there would be a lot less resistance to launching a
serious and formal multi-disciplinary investigation into the
reports/claims of the abductees.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 16:01:39 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:19:29 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:40:01 EDT
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gates
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans
 >>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:37:31 -0700

Previously, Ed had written:

 >>Here are a few: I find no inconsistency between the cameraman's
 >>version of events and the footage.

This proves nothing and suggests even less. A comprehensive lie
does not equate truth.

 >>There are no historical
 >>anomalies or mistakes;

Wrong, the entire handling is an anomaly compared to other military
documentaries of that time period and since. If they had three weeks to
prepare, the "off the cuff" handling of camerawork is inexcusable as is
the fact it was shot it 16mm and (unbelievably) black and white. For
crying out loud, there's color 16mm footage of how to dig military
latrines!

 >>the footage is clear and not out of focus
 >>in most places.

If this were the real McCoy, it would be razor sharp in all
places. Again, they had three weeks to prepare for the shoot,
remember?

 >>The creature does not seem to be an FX creation
 >>and there is absolutely no proof that she is.

<snip>

 >>The debris portion would be prohibitively expensive to create.
 >>There are no witnesses to confirm that the AA was hoaxed. There
 >>is no evidence that Ray would create a hoax nor that he had the
 >>talent or resources to do so.

Please explain again just _why_ would the debris be
prohibitively expensive to produce? After all, you have no proof
that it's even metal! I find it odd that you use two sets of
standards. On the one hand, you claim AA is real because no one
has proof that it isn't. On the other hand, you claim the debris
footage to be real with no proof what so ever that the stuff is
even made of metal!

Hey, Ed! I can fly through the air like Superman! I don't even
have to demonstrate my ability. Know what my proof is? The fact
that you can't prove that I can't!

Sheesh.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                      Re: Mikhail Gershtein - Gershtein

From: Michail Gershtein <ufo_miger@chat.ru>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:38:52 +0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:22:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Mikhail Gershtein - Gershtein


 >Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 19:47:32 -0700
 >From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Mikhail Gershtein

 >Mikhail Gershtein is one of the most knowledgeable contemporary
 >Russian ufologists.

Thank you for this opinion, Paul. I think that joint Russian-US
cooperation between us and other UFOlogists in our countries
will be very fruitful.

 >During a recent appearance on the Sightings radio program I
 >informed the listeners of Mr. Gershtein's address, but those who
 >want to reach him through the Internet need only look at the
 >website listed below, or write to his email address. Mr.
 >Gershtein is fluent in English.

I'm sorry, but my website and E-mail addresses were printed
together in Paul's letter. Right addresses below:

URL:  http://www.ufonav.spb.ru

(Attention! This is only first website page. Please click on
front picture with words "UFO H....".)

This website so far only on Russian, but I can write about most
interesting Russian UFO cases and UFO-related incidents directly
to UFO UpDates on English.

My E-mail:

ufo_miger@chat.ru

I'm try to answered on your questions, dear readers, as soon as
possible.


Mikhail Gershtein









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 16:21:38 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:24:37 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:37:19 -0400
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Deschamps
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans
 >>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:37:31 -0700

Previously, Michel wrote:

 >The reason I _believe_ the AA may be potentially real is the
 >minute detail which seems to elude everybody else.

 >Until I'm shown real proof of fakery, I will continue to put a
 >lot of credence in the possible reality of the AA.

 >Is everybody else blind?


Hi, Michel!

No, not everyone is blind. I remember seeing the following post
where you wrote:

 >I am 200% sure that the AA film is real.

Now you're saying that "AA may be potentially real"?

What gives? Maybe it's the change in status. After all, you used
to call yourself

 >Michel M. Deschamps
 >MUFON provincial Section Director for Sudbury, Ontario, Canada,
 >UFO Researcher/Historian & UFO eyewitness to 14 separate sightings (1974 -
 >1998).

Or was that 17 sightings?

Oh, that's right. You've seen so many, you've lost count! If
fact, I think the term was "casual", as in:

 >>Frankly, I don't care that much since I've had so many
 >>sightings; I am kind of casual about it because I know Flying
 >>saucers are real.

So which is it, Michel? Are you or aren't you sure about this
whole flying saucer/AA thing? One minute you've seen 14
sightings, the next it's 17. One minute you're 200% sure that AA
is real and the next you aren't. One minute you're claiming to
have videotape of a flying saucer but won't show it and the next
you're chastising people for being "blind"!

Such inconsistency doesn't help your case, dude.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                  Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:24:23 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:26:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Velez


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:52:16 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials
 >>Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:48:00 -0000

 >>To James the Pretender, Andy, John, and all your psychosocial
 >>minions: I have several times offered to debate any of you on
 >>the issues, but have found no takers. Choose your own venue:
 >>Fortean Times, Skeptics's lists, UFO UpDates, CSICOP journal,
 >>other..... One on one, or team debate; formal or informal.

 >Dick,

 >Care to debate your favorite alien machine case?

 >>The ball is in your court.

 >I just plunked it back, just over the left corner of the net.
 >You can still get it if you try.


Hi Bob, Dick, All,

Getting in between you and Dick Hall lately has become as
dangerous as getting between Stan Freidman and a microphone!
<LOL> (Just kidding Stan. You know I love you. ;)

Before Dick has a chance to respond, I'd like to ask you both
what you make of the "UFO" footage that was (allegedly) smuggled
out of the Nellis Test Range several years ago.I am referring to
the clear, daylight footage of a multi-lobed craft that
performed aerial acrobatics and manouvers that cannot be
duplicated by any 'conventional' aircraft (that we currently
know of.)

I have always been fascinated by that footage but little is ever
heard or mentioned about it. It would be nice if Bruce could
'chime in' on this one. Especially if he had a chance to give it
the old 'hairy eyeball.'


Regards to all,

John Velez









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                           THE WATCHDOG - 04-03-01

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 17:39:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:28:42 -0400
Subject: THE WATCHDOG - 04-03-01


Advertise with UFOWATCHDOG.COM
Contact ufowatchdog@earthlink.net

UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind"
http://www.ufowatchdog.com

***NEWS***
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/news.html

~ Evidence Of Artificial Mars Structures To Be Revealed?
~ Russian UFO Designed To Fool The West
~ Crop Circles Still A Mystery

***OF INTEREST***

How do you view the current state of Ufology?
Send comments to ufowatchdog@earthlink.net

***UFO DIRTBAG OF THE MONTH, APRIL 2001***
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/dirtbagapr.html
"The Dead Alien, The Doctor and The Deception" - Reed Hoax Exposed

***CAVEAT EMPTOR***
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/caveat.html

~ The Morton Files
~ A View To A Shill
UFOWATCHDOG.COM Investigates the claims of Ed Dames (coming soon...)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                  Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Hall

From: "Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 23:20:11 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:30:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Hall


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Young
 >Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 16:09:47 -0400

 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:52:16 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials
 >>Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:48:00 -0000

 >>To James the Pretender, Andy, John, and all your psychosocial
 >>minions: I have several times offered to debate any of you on
 >>the issues, but have found no takers. Choose your own venue:
 >>Fortean Times, Skeptics's lists, UFO UpDates, CSICOP journal,
 >>other..... One on one, or team debate; formal or informal.

 >Dick,

 >Care to debate your favorite alien machine case?

 >>The ball is in your court.

 >I just plunked it back, just over the left corner of the net.
 >You can still get it if you try.


With lots of backspin lob. Any time you want to get serious, let
me know. I have already offered to debate any number of "alien
machine" cases, from the hundreds in my UFOE-II, to the dozen or
so in my ISSO web site article, to whatever and whichever you
wish to argue. Why do you and yours keep trying to evade the
issue(s) and keep trying to insist that it is "aliens" or
nothing?

I'm [more than] ready whenever you are to discuss whther or not
the hardcore unexplained cases (not the easily screened-out IFO
astronomical and other cases) suggest an ETH interpretation. If
you want to make jokes, let's joke. If you want to seriously
discuss and debate the issues, let's do that.


Richard the Lionhearted










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                      Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:31:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:50:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Salvaille


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Easton
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 04:05:18 +0100

 >>Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:41:36 -0400
 >>From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: Don Ledger <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'

<snip>

 >Obviously, we would expect a 'two-man' hot-air balloon to be
 >larger.

 >Don Piccard is a pioneer of hot-air ballooning and participated
 >in that fateful January, 1964, Catalina challenge.

 >There's an online biography of his landmark achievements at:

 >http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9707/piccard. htm

 >Therein, Piccard comments about the first crossing of the
 >English Channel (between England and France) by hot-air balloon,
 >in April 1963. Piccard was accompanied by Ed Yost, generally
 >regarded as the most accomplished balloonist (especially pre
 >hot-air balloons).

 >The hot-air balloon they flew was a 'Raven' model 'S-50' named
 >'Channel Champ' and had a 56,000 cubic capacity. For
 >confirmation, see Ed Yost's online biography, 'Father of the
 >Modern Hot-Air Balloon', at:

<snip>


James and Don,

The balloon theory addresses no facts pertinent to the Socorro
case. There are far too many contradictions.

Among others:

1. The object - not a balloon by Zamorra's testimony - barely
cleared the top of a shack while escaping _against the wind_ at
_high_speed_. The direction of the wind at ground level was used
by Hynek to explain why a witness, a couple of thousand feet
_south_ of the event, did not ear the loud noise reported by
Zamorra.

2. Powers (Landing at Socorro) on the landing marks: "we must
assume that the force was equivalent to gentle settling of at
least a ton on each mark". 8000 pounds, at rest, with most of the
mass pulling upwards.

???:

http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9801/0002/catalina0002.htm

"N12000 was an Orange/White stripedS-40 Vulcan hot-air
balloon(Cost from$3,500to$5,000 ) manufactured by Raven
Industries, Inc., Sioux Falls, South Dakota on May 9, 1963. The
balloon, S/N 108, was registered to Balloons, Inc., Farmington
Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut. The balloon was designed for a
one-mancrew, 600 pound gross eight 80 pounds balloon weight,
using a hydrocarbon propane-heated system fed by two liquid
Benson burners. Forty feet in diameter, with a volume of 30,000
Cu. ft,the balloon had a flight duration of four hours, with an
altitude range of zero to 10,000ft."

If a balloon applies 8 000 pounds, at rest, on its "landing
gear". What is the total weight of this _small_ balloon then: 10
000 pounds? 12 000 pounds?

3. A balloon with an asymetric landing gear?

4. The 3 burns; 2 of them were applied "straight down". Since
when to hot air balloons shoot flames straight down? And if, by
some wild accident it did happen, what would be left of the
nacelle then? Would it be still suitable for the transport of 2
crew members?

According to Merriam-Webster a theory is: "the analysis of a set
of facts in their relation to one another".

Any balloon that would fit the facts reported at Socorro would be
a true UFO.

Obviously, there are no facts taken into account here, and
contradictions soon arise to dismiss the "balloon theory" which
can grow only in the rich environment of a Skeptic Forum.

One last thing. Let's just enjoy the following ride:

http://www.hotballoon.com/Rides2.html

"What's it like to fly in a hot air balloon?"

"A typical balloon flight lasts about an hour, during which time
the balloon usually travels about 5-10 miles. Sometimes we get
lucky and can stay up longer, but the average is about an hour.
When it is time to land, passengers will be instructed to hold
onto rope handles inside the balloon, bend their knees, and
above all stay in the basket! There are no seat belts and no
landing gear. On a calm day the landing will be very gentle, but
even a modest breeze can make the landing exciting!"

The facts, ladies and gentlemen, the facts!

Sorry to bother you.


Regards










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                       Re: AA Time Warp - AA Time Warp

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:42:36 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:52:49 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - AA Time Warp



 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:40:01 EDT
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >The CD's are and always will be inferior to a beta copy for
 >expert examination. If you were truly serious about wanting an
 >expert opinion, I would imagine you would be more then willing
 >to get a copy of the Beta and or put Roger in touch with the
 >person who has the copy so that he could examine it.

Robert,

For the last time, we do not have a beta copy nor do we have
access to a beta copy. If we had access to a beta copy we would
certainly try to get Roger a copy, at his expense of course.

We don't think the CDs are inferior to the beta. As I've
promised, you will be amazed by the clarity and focus. Why
haven't you ordered your CDs? See for yourself what we're
talking about. Why rely on Roger? Afraid of what you might
discover?

Ed Gehrman
PO Box 543
Quincy, CA 95971

Or just tell me that you want to buy a set, send me your
address, and pay me after your conversion.

 >Nor does Jurassic Park dinos appear or seem to be a computer
 >generated FX caper but they were. Even down to the minute detail
 >such as the splash of water when T-Rex walks, dust and debris
 >flying up when dinos run etc. In essence the only "proof" we
 >have that Jurassic Park is computer generated is the
 >"confessions" if you will of the FX artists who created the
 >illusions.

Yes I understand all that, but we can prove that this footage
was filmed with a 16mm camera. It is not a video representation
or computer generated. And yes, FX artists are brilliant as are
their creations but the AA is much more than an FX creation. The
creature seems as real as you or me. I've never said the
creature was an alien, in the sense that it was
extraterrestrial. I don't know what it is.

But this is a question I hope we can get to once the
authenticity of the AA has been established.

 >Like I have said previously, if the films producer/director has
 >done the job correctly, the audience will not be able to tell
 >what is real and what is fake.

Maybe so but when you finally view the CDs, you'll see what I'm
talking about. The creature is flesh and blood. You'll be able
to see this with your own eyes. There won't be any arguments.
You'll have your AA moment, and then your world will never be
quite the same.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:56:12 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:37:19 -0400

<snip>

 >Up until 1995, everyone _knew_ that alleged witnesses to the
 >Roswell Incident all said, in one way or another, the
 >being(s) had four fingers and no opposable thumbs.

 >So why would a hoaxer put extra digits on the >creature's
hands >and feet, if he produced a pretty good fake, as >
everyone >suggests?

 >That, to me, is a pretty big blunder.

The first thing I thought when I saw the AA was "what sort of
alien is that supposed to be?" One would have expected the
typical 40-ft. gray variety - if for no other reason than no one
knows what a "gray's" guts look like, and the hoaxers would be
able to extricate themselves from FX debunkers.

Plus it would have been more marketable and likely made more
money!

The only details consistent with the public perception of a
"gray" are the (slightly) large bald head and almond-shaped eyes
with black lenses.

I've never been totally impressed with the "it's a dummy"
argument. It looks real enough to me. But a real _alien_?

If this is by some long shot the real thing, then the aliens are
very close relatives.


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:58:30 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:02:32 -0400

<snip>

 >Where does the _she_ come from in regards to the
 >'Alien Autopsy' creature?

 >Don't you guys know that some beings have been
 >described as sexless?

 >In other words, having no observable sex organs as we know it,
 >based on descriptions given by some abductees.

I was led to think there was a previous filmed autopsy that
showed a rather grueling post-mortem gynecological exam. If Ed's
seen this, or is aware of it, maybe this accounts for the
"gender bias".

(I's still love to see that alleged first autopsy, by the
way--assuming it exists. The fact that our hypothetical hoaxers
would film something too "indecent" to even get TV coverage
actually argues in favor of authenticity.)




=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:59:47 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies


 >Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 04:22:53 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

<snip>

 >For me however, the simplest assumption is that Santilli and
 >company simply whomped it up themselves, sensing a manifest
 >opportunity, and perhaps lacking such largesse on the part of
 >our cloak-and-dagger friends.

Yes, but if the "cloak-and-dagger" contingent made the autopsy
_too_ convincing, they'd defeat the point. What would be desired
is a slightly ridiculous alien, which is what the Santilli
creature appears to be. Either that or the real thing.  Or, of
course, the work of some peculiarly uninspired hoaxers out to
make a buck ("Should have stuck with a "typical Gray!")



=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                      'Yeti's Hair' Defies DNA Analysis

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:59:41 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:08:22 -0400
Subject: 'Yeti's Hair' Defies DNA Analysis


Without comment, FYI, because similar analyses have been done in
abduction cases:

Source:  The Times of London

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-108351,00.html

'Yeti's hair' defies DNA analysis

by Mark Henderson
Science Correspondent


British scientists on the trail of the Yeti have found some of
the best evidence yet for the existence of the mythical
Himalayancreature - a sample of hair that has proved impossible
to identify. Genetic tests on the hair, which was gathered from a
tree in Bhutan, have failed to match its DNA to that of another
animal. The findings, which have surprised sceptical researchers,
raise the strong possibility that the sample belongs to an as yet
undiscovered species.

In Bhutan, an expedition team was led by an "official Yeti-hunter" to
a forest in the eastern part of the country, where he was convinced
that an animal was at large. "He told us that he had found evidence
of the Yeti in the hollow of a cedar tree," Rob McCall, a zoologist
who was part of the expedition, said. Dr McCall's team removed
strands of hair from the tree and returned to Britain to have them
analysed.


Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics at the Oxford Institute of
Molecular Medicine, one of the world's leading experts on DNA
analysis, who examined the hair, said: "We found some DNA in it, but
we don't know what it is. It's not a human, not a bear nor anything
else we have so far been able to identify. It's a mystery and I never
thought this would end in a mystery. We have never encountered DNA
that we couldn't recognise before."


The discovery was made by a team of scientists assembled by Channel 4
for a documentary in the To the Ends of the Earth series, which will
be shown tonight.












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                       Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 01:58:09 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:10:11 -0400
Subject: Re:  Debunker's Guidebook - Hale


Bob Young Wrote:

 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:09:10 EST
 >Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Here's Young's ETH Corellary to Halls Debunkers' Guidebook:

 >No matter what the believers say about statistics, generalities,
 >theories or whatever, _always_ ask for one proven example of a
 >spaceship from another world; where you can go to see it, or the
 >evidence that it was here.


Hi Bob,

I feel it should now be referred to as the ETF. Extraterrestrial
Fact.


Good day to you.

Roy..

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 01:58:09 -0700
From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook


Bob Young Wrote:

 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:09:10 EST
 >Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Here's Young's ETH Corellary to Halls Debunkers' Guidebook:

 >No matter what the believers say about statistics, generalities,
 >theories or whatever, _always_ ask for one proven example of a
 >spaceship from another world; where you can go to see it, or the
 >evidence that it was here.


Hi Bob,

I feel it should now be referred to as the ETF. Extraterrestrial
Fact.


Good day to you.

Roy..

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 01:58:09 -0700
From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook


Bob Young Wrote:

 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:09:10 EST
 >Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Here's Young's ETH Corellary to Halls Debunkers' Guidebook:

 >No matter what the believers say about statistics, generalities,
 >theories or whatever, _always_ ask for one proven example of a
 >spaceship from another world; where you can go to see it, or the
 >evidence that it was here.


Hi Bob,

I feel it should now be referred to as the ETF. Extraterrestrial
Fact.


Good day to you.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                         Re: Brilliant Light - Evans

From: Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:35:36 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:12:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Brilliant Light - Evans


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:43:55 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Clark
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:06:40 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging

Previously, John wrote:

 >>This is pretty obscure even for you, Jerry. Perhaps we could
 >>skip the wordplay and get back to my original question, which
 >>was:

 >>>>Perhaps while he's lying there he could think back and try to
 >>>>remember where I, or any of my pelicanist colleages ever made
 >>>>such comments as "eyewitness testimony has no value whatever and
 >>>>can be discarded without a single thought".

 >>Just read it carefully, it's quite a sweeping statement. Have
 >>you got the slightest evidence to back it up, or are we just
 >>going to get more vague waffle? You are beginning to disappoint
 >>me; the Jerry Clark who writes incredibly well researched and
 >>meticulously referenced books seems to have little in common
 >>with the Jerome Clark who throws around unattributed
 >>pseudo-quotes and bizarre rants on UpDates.

Again, Jerry replied but didn't answer:

 >My word. Other listfolk had no trouble grasping my point.

Really? I see no evidence of that. Do you think that because
others don't speak up and criticize your writings that they
inherently approve and agree with you? How arrogant! Did it ever
occur to you that not every one of your posts are waited for by
eager readers or that, if read, everyone really even cares? More
to the point, your above comment can not be substantiated in any
way shape or form. As such, I simply add it to the heap of other
unsubstantiated comments like:

 >Nobody denies that on occasion radical misperception occurs. But
 >it occurs less often than the pelicanists need us to believe,

and

 >There are already too many innocent people behind bars.

and the ever popular, yet still unaccounted for:

 >"eyewitness testimony has no value whatever and
 >can be discarded without a single thought".

just to name a few.

Again, what is it that you allow yourself such liberties with
proclamations that others must otherwise toe the line on? When I
first came to this list, I admired what I thought was an
unbiased, even handed view from someone experienced in UFology's
ideals and concepts. Now, with every post of yours I read, I see
someone more obsessed with winning an argument than exchanging
concepts and information about UFOs.

The depth of this obsession compels you to either avoid
answering questions directly, accounting for declarations like
those above, or simply declaring yourself the winner of a debate
yet finished and, in most cases, not even started. More to the
point, your disdain for having your own character challenged
doesn't seem to deter you from doing same to others, whether on
list or off. Your idea of debate now seems to be "last man
standing"; accuracy of information be damned.

See the thing is, Jerry, I believe in ET life and the
probability of ET visitation. To me the odds are simply in favor
of it. I'm just not self righteous enough to pretend there's a
lick of proof for it. As such, I demand some pretty concrete
answers from those that claim expertise or proof. If that makes
me a skeptic, then I wear the moniker proudly.

Now, to use your gauge for accuracy, if no one posts a
disagreement with this, then I guess they had "no trouble
grasping my point", as you put it. And, even if a handful do
disagree, they don't really represent the whole, now do they?
Kind of cuts both ways, doesn't it?

So, again, just where did anyone on this list ever claim
"eyewitness testimony has no value whatever and can be discarded
without a single thought"?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                     Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:01:53 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:16:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Gates


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:19:41 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Bruce, John, Don, List:

 >It seems to me that the crucial thing is that somebody believed
 >that mass hysteria could occur, and took action, or inaction as
 >the case might be, based upon that belief.

Bob,

Hmm, wonder if mass hysteria will occur if investors in the
stock market realize the bottom is not yet in sight, and both
the NASDAQ and DOW are going to sink considerably lower.....?
Nah, that would be mass panic.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                        Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:26:01 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:20:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Gates


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Easton
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 04:05:18 +0100

 >>Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:41:36 -0400
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: Don Ledger <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'

 >Don wrote:

 >>In a recent Notice to Airmen release advising of a scientific
 >>package of 1.4 kilograms, about 4 pounds, Transport Canada
 >>advised that the balloon would be 141,000 cu.ft or 4,000 cubic
 >>meters in volume. If that was a cube it would be 54 feet on a
 >>side, just to lift a 4 pound payload. I suspect that it could
 >>probably lift 20 pounds if need be, but they wanted a margin of
 >>lift higher than usual since this thing was to go to 138,000
 >>feet. But even so there is no way you could stretch the rubber
 >>band to lift a payload of say 400 pounds at that size.

 >Don,

 >One of the earliest US hot-air balloon competitions took place
 >on 18, January, 1964. Contemporary with the Zamora case, it's
 >documented that a competing balloon, for a "one-man crew" had a
 >volume of 30,000 cubic feet. Almost a fifth of the size you
 >cite, it was not so much, as a cube, 54 feet per side, as "forty
 >feet in diameter". See:

<snip>

 >In the above article, it was also noted:

 >"Raven Industries hired Don Piccard to manage their nascent
 >sport balloon program. 'They had no idea of what to do with a
 >sport balloon,' he says emphatically. 'They had no knowledge of
 >what to do with it.' But, 'I had design responsibilities,' he
 >recalls, and after flying their Mittlestadt balloon, 'I set
 >about designing a version that would be closer to the balloon
 >Yost had built for the government.' At the helm of Raven, Yost
 >was being financed by the Office of Naval Research on top-secret
 >hush-hush projects".

 >"Reflecting back to those days at Raven, Piccard thinks the

Key word here "thinks" i.e. he doesn't really know

 >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".

 >When I brought Lonnie Zamora's 'UFO' report to the attention of
 >a Raven Industries' historian, he recognised a possible
 >connection.

 >I have never revealed all of this, publicly, before now, and was
 >advised:

 >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] flights".
 >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.

And so the company historian was unable to pinpoint any flight
dates but "speculated" that they were probably in late 63 or 64.

Since witness speculation is now acceptable testimony skeptics
will now agree that any UFO testimony from UFO witnesses, even
if it is speculation, is now acceptable and to be considered
good material.

The real bottom line to all of this is:

1) No balloon flight can be placed on the date in question from
whatever location in New Mexico.

Pretty nice "sounding" trial balloon, that has deflated.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                      Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:57:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:25:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Maccabee


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Easton
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 04:05:18 +0100


 >>Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:41:36 -0400
 >>From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: Don Ledger <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'

<snip>

 >At the outset of research into Zamora's reported sighting, the
 >'science' of hot-air ballooning, its ostensible connection with
 >Zamora's encounter and why a hot-air balloon was the obvious
 >explanation, were in fact discussed with and explained to me by
 >Don Piccard.

The "obvious explanation?"

True, Don was wrong in suggesting that the balloon had to be 80
ft or more in size.

But even 50 ft is a bit large for a car... don't you think?










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                        Re: 'FBI-Unknowns' - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:58:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:27:52 -0400
Subject: Re: 'FBI-Unknowns' - Maccabee


 >Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:53:12 +0200
 >From: Daniel Guenther <daniel_g@t-online.dw>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: 'FBI-Unknowns'

 >A list of all UFO sightings mentioned in the FOIA papers of the
 >FBI was compiled by me and can be downloaded here. (1600 pages
 >were released in 1977 as a result of a request filed by Bruce
 >Maccabee and in early 1998 they were placed on the FBI Web
 >site).

 >BTW: These are not all 'unknowns'. You also find the Maury
I>sland/Tacoma case in it - regarded as a hoax, for example(?).

Thanks for publishing this list.

The FBi ufo cases were first published in The MUFON Journal way
back in 1977 and 1978.

Many of them are presented in my book 'The UFO-FBI Connection'
(not yet available in German).









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                     Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:07:32 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:29:27 -0400
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young


 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:16:53 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 03:38:12 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:40:27 EST
 >>>Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:09:31 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

<snip>

 >The brightnest reflections occur when the sun is low and the
 >pelicans are nearly in line with the sun... the opposite of the
 >reported situation (sun in west, objects in east).

Hi, Bruce:

I think we once discussed this point. What was the direction of
the objects and the time of the sighting. I think that it was
about noon?


Clear skies,

Bob









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                        Re: Serious Research - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:44:28 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:32:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Young


 >Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:17:46 -0400
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:21:28 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 14:15:05 -0000

Hi, Don, Dick, List:

I suggested that astronomical IFOs made up about 30% of UFO
_reports_. Dick disagreed. I cited Hynek, Hendry and Condon.
Dick said my citations were selective. I responded,

 >>>>Well, what is your breakdown for IFOs vs UFOs, and how many are
 >>>>astronomical in nature?

Dick replied,

 >>>Such statistics are utterly meaningless, so I don't bother to
 >>>look at them anymore. Astronomical IFOs are easily weeded out
 >>>for any serious attempt to try to determine whether hard-core,
 >>>unexplained cases are something significant. The point is Hynek
 >>>clearly disowned the view that astronomy IFOs could explain many
 >>>if any strong UFOs cases, only trivial sightings by people not
 >>>familiar with the sky.

In response to his mentioning "the best case that UFO advocates
can advance, I asked,

 >>>>What is the best case that UFO advocates can advance?

Dick responded, as do many others in this frustrating field, by
flogging his latest book,

 >>>You obviously haven't been listening, or studying the serious
 >>>literature. For openers, you might read the Jacobs university
 >>>press book UFOs & Abductions and my The UFO Evidence, Vol. II.

Thoughout this discussion (God only remembers when and how it
began) I have put forward numbers and published information.
Dick has just responded with brush-offs and pontificating.

Just the other day, Dick, you similarly complained in another
thread about the unfair nature of the UFO evidence demanded by
science. You wrote, "as if any comparable issue in science is
ever required to have that degree of concrete proof," and, "
Bring me a comet, a black hole, or a wormhole, or even
Columbus's ship into the laboratory, otherwise why should I pay
attention to such claims?

And then, "Corollary to [my] statement: Always insist that if
you can't produce a spaceship, you shouldn't pay any attention
to the craftlike objects that have been reported so consistently
by credible people all over the world."

Nothing so contrasts the viewpoints of science and most of
UFOlogy as your complaint. Comets are known facts, their gases
have been sampled, their particles have impacted our spacecraft,
their orbits can be predicted and the mechanics understood.
Black Holes are a theory for which evidence of their existence
can be predicted and monitored. But, Wormholes are like UFOs
(something out of science fiction). There is no evidence of
their existence. They are only speculation at this time.

This shows how much Dick is rooted in science fiction versus
science fact. Columbus' ships existed because there are records
of them and their travels at the Archives of the Indies in
Spain. Actual human beings who were aboard wrote books and were
as famous in their lifetimes as the Apollo astronauts are in
ours.

Hundreds of Indians even came back with them, like inhabitants
of the planet Clarion, to the amazement of the Old World. In
that most fascinating moment in human history, the phrase, "A
New World," really meant just that. We can now walk the sands of
that "planet Clarion." The proof is here.

But what of UFOs, Dick's mysterious "machines"? Is Dick Hall now
endorsing the claims of abductees? Does he think that any of the
contactees of the 50s heyday believable as travelers in the
saucers? After 50 years, Dick cannot produce one piece of
physical evidence or evidence that can definitely identify these
"unexplained" UFOs as alien spaceships.

I don't Dick really understands how science works. Theories need
proof of some sort. Either predictability, reproducibility or
concrete evidence. He seems to think that science facts and
science fiction are the same thing.

I'm not afraid to offer facts, and citations, for my arguments,
but instead of countering with statistics that support his view,
he dismisses the need for them and flogs his $60 book.

Others on this list aren't shy about discussing incidents,
details, etc. Why can't we get some details about just one of
the thousands of what Dick says are "Strong UFO cases"? After
all, it would only take one to prove that the ETs and saucers
are real.

Don, that doesn't seem too much to ask.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                    Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:12:32 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:36:46 -0400
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Sparks


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:16:53 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:34:36 -0400
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 03:38:12 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:40:27 EST
 >>>Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:09:31 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

 >>>>In the philosophy and methodology of science, it is understood
 >>>>that data are only "relevant" to a particular theory or
 >>>>hypothesis being tested. For example, in meteorological optics,
 >>>>the most "relevant" piece of data is the size of the grazing
 >>>>elevation angle to a possible inversion layer or supra-lapsed
 >>>>layer, something that is often not obtained by UFO
 >>>>investigators. You can have all the inversion you want but if
 >>>>the angle is greater than about 1/2 degree you won't have a
 >>>>mirage image to pose as a UFO.

 >>>This 1/2 degree was obtained by observation in the 19th Century.

 >>This 1/2 degree comes straight out of the Condon Committee's
 >>atmospheric physics research of 1968:

 >>Condon Report p. 625:

 >>"For all practical purposes, 0.5� can be considered as the
 >>near-maximum angle of illumination that will allow for
 >>formation of a mirage."


 >>This was italicized in the Condon Report as an important
 >>conclusion to call attention to, and was preceded and followed
 >>by in-depth physics analysis of refractive indices, etc.

 >>You've changed the subject from my point which was that
 >>"relevance" of data is relative to a theoretical framework. My
 >>example was intended to show that a UFO elevation angle near 0�
 >>is relevant to a mirage theory if within 1/2� but not if it was,
 >>say, at 45� above the horizon.

 >>The point is that Dennis claimed that he will never be able to
 >>acquire all the "relevant data" about his unexplained UFO
 >>sighting. My point is that "relevant" is relative to theories.
 >>We have all the IFO theories right now by definition, and almost
 >>all are well developed, so we already know what are the relevant
 >>data for almost all IFO's -- maybe he didn't collect it but we
 >>know what's relevant. But if he means relevant data for an
 >>inadequately developed ETH then that may be true.

 >This is a very perceptive point made by Brad: relevant depends
 >upon the theory. The Newtonian theory of gravity does not take
 >into account any effects of temperature on the weight of a mass
 >of material. Hence temperature is irrelevant to the theory. (In
 >Einsteinian gravity the weight is dependent upon the local
 >gravitation distortion of space but this depends upon the total
 >energy of a body and since "heat" is thermal energy - kinetic
 >energy of the microconstituents of a mass of material... the
 >weight could actually increase by a miniscule amount as the body
 >gets hotter and hotter.)

 >People, including scientists and skeptics and skeptical
 >scientists and scientific skeptics don't seem to realize the
 >importance of theory in UFO studies. I don't mean theory based
 >on hypotheses about the unknown. I mean theory based on
 >hypotheses about the known. If a UFO sighting can be explained
 >in a conventiona;l manner, then the explanation can be
 >considered a THEORY to be proved by "experiment", where the
 >experiment is to compare the sighting details with logicaly
 >deductions from thje theory, Pelican theory, which has gotten a
 >lot of play around here recently, has a logical deduction: slow
 >speed (perhaps up to 50 mph). This is to be compared with the
 >observation. If the observation is taken at face value the speed
 >was high (e.,g., 1700 mph), far above pelican speed.

Hi Bruce,

This is a point that you and I have been putting forward for
several years now, independently of each other and in different
ways, and that is this:

Ideas have consequences. Physical ideas have physical
consequences. A skeptical explanation must be testable if it is
to be scientific. Hoaxes must obey the laws of physics. IFO's
must obey the laws of physics. Hoaxes must also conform to
current technology of the day. It doesn't do any good trying to
explain away an alleged 1950 hoax by requiring that year 2000
technology was used in 1950.

 >One can >"modify the data" and say the speed observation cannot
be >accepted and therefore the objects could have been moving
more >slowly. But then one MUST go the next step and realize
that more >slowly means a lot closer and then one must compare
the logical >deductions about pelican flight capabilities with
that of the >known capability of the aircraft, 100 mph

Each modification of a hypothesis, whether of an IFO or
whatever, has implications that must be tested. If the
modification is designed merely to save the explanation from
being refuted but it offers no way of being tested, then it is
considered "ad hoc." But in your example it is more in the
nature of simply working through all of the logical implications
to their logical conclusion.


 >(unless you throw out
 >Arnold's claim that he was travelin about 110 mph and say that
 >he was wrong, he was really traveling about 50 mph and
 >crashed... and then covered up the crash to maintain his "UFO
 >sighting"). So the bottom line then becomes the question, which
 >the theory must answer in a convincing manner: how could there
 >be a flight track for the pelicans and another flight track for
 >Arnold such that Arnold would not fly past the pelicans or get
 >so close that he couldn't fail to recognize them?

What one does ideally is tally up how well one hypothesis fits
the data and how many alterations are required to make it fit,
and do the same for other hypotheses.

(BTW, the pelicans' alleged maximum speed of 50 mph is
irrelevant to Arnold's closure speed of 110-120 mph as they were
flying perpendicular to Arnold's flight path.)

 >Of course, the observation of bright flashes from pelicans must
 >also be explained based on the pelican theory. We have seen the
 >ornithological response to that.... but the ornithological
 >response of "wow pelicans can be bright " doesn't quite hack it
 >in myb way of thinking.

The bright flashes seen by Arnold can be quantitatively
described -- you and I have gone over the calculations in fine
detail and they don't match pelicans. What Arnold saw, which was
"almost blinding" and "arc like" was much too bright to be
pelicans, especially if miles away. If closer than miles then
Arnold would have overtaken them in seconds.

Speaking of flashes, I noticed a July 4, 1947, report from
Portland of 3-6 "half-moon shaped" objects -- the approximate
shape Arnold reported and the words he actually used -- which
involved such intense "flashes" that the harbor patrolmen had
difficulty counting the number of objects. This case was
previously noticed by Dave Rudiak for the similar shape but I
don't recall the flashes being brought up. I found it in The
Hynek UFO Report, p. 102. "The discs would oscillate and
sometimes we would see a full disc, then a half-moon shape, then
nothing at all," said the main witness. This sounds like Arnold
who reported a fluttering motion in which at a certain point as
the objects dipped down he would see a flash but at other times
only a thin black line. I still think Arnold may have seen
meteor fireballs but offer this parallel case for comparison.

 >The brightnest reflections occur when the sun is low and the
 >pelicans are nearly in line with the sun... the opposite of the
 >reported situation (sun in west, objects in east).

The sunlight would have to come off the birds at a grazing angle
to get a total reflection. So the birds would have to be up into
the sun.

 >Brad's mention of mirage is yet another "theory" for the Arnold
 >sighting. But when the details of this theory are applied to or
 >compared with the Arnold sighting information, it, too , makes
 >no sense.

McDonald checked the weather records and didn't find conditions
conducive for mirage -- inversion would have been required to
produce a superior mirage, but winds aloft at about 10,000 feet
were 19 knots (22 mph) from 300� (so Arnold had a strong tail
wind) and surface winds were 10 knots (11.5 mph), which tends to
break up the stratification of atmospheric inversion layers.
McDonald stressed that the objects were seen over a spread of
more than 90� in compass directions (azimuths) and climbing from
around 9,000 to 13,000 feet which would take them out of any
hypothetical unusual refractive layers.

But even if there had been refractive layers at the right
height, mirages have to image _real_ objects or light sources
located _somewhere_. At most, according to the Condon Report (p.
625) they can bend the angle by 0.5� off of the horizontal plane
of the atmospheric layer. But at Arnold's height a layer at
about his height would be about 2� above the apparent horizon.
In other words any refracting layer of air would be imaging
nothing but clear sky.

 >Every UFO sighting can have a set of Candidate Explanatory
 >Phenomena, CEP) each of which comes with a theory of its
 >characteristics as seen under various circumstance, and this
 >theory must be worked out before the CEP can be accepted.

Yes, all of the logical implications, physical consequences,
should be tested.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                         Re: Body Marks - McCartney

From: Pat McCartney <ElPatricio@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:17:13 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:26:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Body Marks - McCartney


 >Subj:   UFO UpDate: Re: Body Marks - Velez
 >Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:17:23 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Body Marks
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>

 >Would that it was so Brian. The problem is, some of us are awake
 >now and again when a 'contact' happens. You have to find a way
 >to live with that in your head. You can't tell anybody. They'll
 >think you're crazy, or if they really care about you they will
 >be concerned for your sanity and well being. It is not easy to
 >deal with this stuff on _any_ level. It's why I work so hard and
 >give so many hours to the abductees that contact me and to the
 >public via this List.


John,

Thank you for so eloquently describing your experiences as a
perceived abductee, and sharing that with UFO UpDates. For the
record, I have had no similar experience, nor with UFOs --
despite my desire to see _something_ that would settle the
matter.

But, as a journalist who has learned the hard lesson of shutting
up and listening to a good story, I know that you have something
to teach the rest of us.

One issue that I have been wrestling with is the realization
that any extraterrestial species that could visit this planet
would likely be a far _older_ civilization than us. We, of
course, are still in our technological youth. If spacefaring
cultures there be, chances are they have been around far, far
longer than we can easily grasp.

If that proves to be the case, then perhaps the abduction
experience reported by people like yourself today occurred to
many preceding generations of humans. In fact, an extrasolar
civilization might simply be tending their garden _us_ over many
of our lifetimes. The more ancient the visiting civilization,
the more likely some kind of protocol has been worked out by a
nearly infinite number of generations of bureaucrats.

Because of that possibility, I'd be interested if some of the
more scholarly listers out there could describe the mythical
incubus and succubus. Is there a specific etymology or starting
point for the description of sexual demons? Makes me want to go
read a book ...


Regards,

Pat McCartney, hard-working city editor
Auburn, Calif.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:11:17 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:28:37 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Kaeser


 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:48:32 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

<snip>

 >>I remember this option being batted around in '95. I think it
 >>could very well be a hoax sponsored by the intelligence
 >>community. That's not to say it _is_, but why not? The timing
 >>was great, and the general scoffing dismissal of the AA helped
 >>the AF pass over its extremely flimsy Project Mogul theory (and
 >>then the even flimsier "crash test dummy" theory, which even the
 >>mainstream media made fun of--but, tellingly, without digging
 >>deeper).

 >This is the 'disinformation' argument, often used by ufologists
 >when the evidence for a hoax becomes overwhelming. Basically it
 >means "I am such a clever ufologist that it takes the resources
 >of an entire government to produce a hoax that can fool me".

 >Flattering to the ego, I suppose.

I think the argument had that element behind it to some degree,
but if the AA images are truly transferred from film, as
supporters claim, then the concept of a government sponsored
disinformation campaign becomes more logical.

The current thinking is that the images were never really on film,
and had been shot on video, which would preclude this explanation.

It has been alleged that the CIA has promoted the UFO
explanation to help cover other research, and such a film could
have been created as a part of that process and then never
actually used.

This may not be the simplest explanation for the AA "film", but
it certainly is one that shouldn't be discarded completely,
unless more concrete proof is developed elsewhere.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                         PRG Update - April 4, 2001

From: Steven G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 07:11:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:35:03 -0400
Subject: PRG Update - April 4, 2001


PRG
Paradigm Research Group

April 4, 2001 - Update


PRG Moving

Paradigm Research Group is relocating its office. Due to
problems with Verizon's Info Speed ISDN subsidiary, the phone
will be down until April 11. You can contact PRG by email
(preferable) at ParadigmRG@aol.com, or by phone at this
temporary number: 301-680-3825.

When PRG completes relocation, the office will have four
networked computer stations, two ISP connections, two printers,
a scanner, a cable modem, an extensive UFO/ET research library,
and an equally extensive library of the latest science
journalism focusing on cutting edge physics, astrophysics, and
cosmology.

All of which will be helpful with respect to.....

Volunteer Support Network

During the past five years PRG has been approached by a number
of individuals offering to directly assist with the politics of
disclosure. Many of them are located in the Washington metro
area.

Soon these fine people will be contacted as to their
availability to work directly on projects at the PRG office. An
attempt will be made to determine what skills and background are
relevant to the ongoing work.

Further, supporters outside the area will be contacted regarding
assisting with projects from their home computer.

Anyone who is inclined to get down and personal with the
activist movement to end the cover-up of the UFO/ET reality,
should contact PRG, preferably by email.

Lobbying

PRG is still seeking organizations who would have it
register on their behalf as a lobbyist. Time to get on
board the truth train, truth train, truth trainnnn.....

Media Shake Out

Recently the X-Zone and Nightsearch radio programs shut down.
Nightsearch was hosted by Eddie Middleton and a team of co-hosts
including Janet Russell. X-Zone was hosted by Rob McConnell and
included the Hickman Report. Sometime back the Mike Jarmus Show
closed.

All are in the process of finding new homes.

The level of interest in UFO/ET phenomena in particular, and the
paranormal in general, along with the developing webcasting
technology, has made it possible for a great many people to
create radio programs in this genre. The market place has become
quite crowded.

All of these programs have helped to raise awareness and
provided venues and media practice for researchers and
activists. However, until formal disclosure has been achieved,
the audience will be limited and the market tight.

When the time comes, however, there will be a sizable number of
experienced hosts ready to take on a much expanded audience and
their limitless questions.

The Disclosure Project (CSETI)

The rampup to this event is going smoothly. All interested
parties should be prepared for dramatic developments in May and
June.

The Paradigm Clock

The Paradigm Clock will be reset on May 15. Expect a surprise.

Meta Research Press Conference

Astronomer Tom Van Flandern will conduct a press conference in
the main room of the National Press Club in Washington, April 5,
at 9 am. The subject is, "Artificial Structures on Mars." In
addition to the on site media, the press conference will be
simulcast worldwide.

The presentation will reflect the work of many scientists,
engineers, and image specialists. Some of the image analysis
will be made public for the first time.

Pax TV Special

The Mars work of Richard Hoagland and his team will be featured
in a one hour Pax TV special on April 27. It is to be assumed
that anyone at JPL with the impression the "Mars problem" was
under control, must be on an Advil IV drip right about now.

Media Schedule

Regular political column at: www.alienzoo.com

The Zoo is in the process of revamping its site, but back
columns are being archived.

Regular political column in UFO Magazine: www.ufomag.com  The
next column is an updated version of "The Role of the media in
the politics of disclosure."

_______________________________________________

         Paradigm Research Group
        URL: www.paradigmclock.com
        E-mail: ParadigmRG@aol.com
          Phone: 301-564-1820
          Fax: 301-564-4066
         4938 Hampden Lane, #161
         Bethesda, Maryland 20814

   *****************************************************************
    Spread the word about X-PPAC & the politics of disclosure.
    Contribute online at: www.x-ppac.org/Contribute.html
    or mail to: 4938 Hampden Lane,161 Bethesda, MD 20814

   *****************************************************************
    "There is almost no limit to what you can accomplish,
       if you are willing to give away the credit."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                Brazil: Winner Declared in Varginha UFO Alien

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:19:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:37:45 -0400
Subject: Brazil: Winner Declared in Varginha UFO Alien


SOURCE: Guillermo Gimenez, CEUFO
DATE: 04/04/01

A few weeks ago, we discussed the events which took place in the
Brazilian city of Varghina (MG) in January 1996, when several
UFO occupants were allegedly captured before the eyes of dozens
of witnesses (civilians, military, physicians, nurses). The
event gave rise to a new "Roswell Incident" but this time in
South America.

To conmemorate the anniversary of this event, city prefect Mauro
Teixeira (PT) decided, aside from giving the population all of
the details regarding the case, to conmemorate the incident by
means of a contest aimed at selecting the best ET to represent
the city. When the event concluded, the winner was Henrique de
Oliveira Matos, 20, whose design shall be used hereinafter in
promoting the city.

However, the president of the local Commercial, Agropecuary and
Industrial Association, Osmar Lucio Nunes, does not want this
image to substitute the image he crafted some time ago.

Controversy over the Varginha incident is ongoing, but has
resulted in an increase in tourism from ufologists and the
people interested in the event. Such is the interest that the
city's Cultural Center implemented a UFO-Ecological tourism
venture named "Ciudad Espacial/Ciudad Especial" (roughly Spatial
City/Special City) which has already been accepted and approved
by municipal authorities.


###################
Translation (C) 2001. S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special thanks to Guillermo Gimenez









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

               Chile: Tocopila Cameraman Films UFO Over Arica

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:50:36 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:39:59 -0400
Subject: Chile: Tocopila Cameraman Films UFO Over Arica


SOURCE: La Estrella de Arica
DATE: Wednesday, March 28, 2001

TOCOPILA CAMERAMEN FILMS UFO OVER ARICA

Luis Herrera witnessed a strange aerial phenomenon: the presence
of an unidentified flying object (UFO) in the skies over Arica.
The event, which was caught on film by the resident , occurred
at 16:00 hours last Saturday at Chinchorro Beach.

Mr. Herrera was enjoying his vacation and was touring Arica when
his son drew his attention to the presence of the unidentified
object.

"My son remarked that there was a ray of light in the sky that
moved slowly toward the southeast. The object's colors varied
from silver to read. At first I thought it was a balloon, but
the phenomenon's characteristics led me to draw other
conclusions."

He noted that the alleged UFO was seen at sunset and vanished
into the horizon after it became dark. He added that the viewed
his recording frame by frame that same evening and noticed the
silhouette of the strange object, realizing the strange
phenomenon he had just witnessed. "I didn't report the sighting
out of a fear that it wouldn't be believed, but it appeared in
La Estrella de Arica, which means that several people saw the
same craft."

He commented that his recording of the object fortunately
bolstered his eyewitness account, and is will to present the
video for scientific scrutiny.

La Estrella de Arica's Sunday edition reported that according to
personnel from the Chacalluta Airport, no weather balloons are
launched from said region. The Control Tower reported that the
object could be seen with great difficulty due to the the
distance and the intervening haze, adding that the pertinent
inquiries were made of both the Iquique and Santiago airports
and that no contacts were reported. Nor was the phenomenon seen
by the crew of a Lan Chile flight which took off from the runway
at the time the UFO staged its appearance.

###########################
Translation (C) 2001. S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special Thanks to Rodrigo Cuadra.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                     Chile: Oval-Shaped UFO Over Calama

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 08:11:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:41:50 -0400
Subject: Chile: Oval-Shaped UFO Over Calama


Source: Calama UFO Center
Date: April 4, 2001

Chile: Oval-Shaped UFO seen over Calama hills

An object, originally displaying considerable luminosity, was
seen by at least 5 witnesses over the hills of Calama (southern
side, Limon Verde sector). The sighting occured between 13:40
and 14:15 hours, had a duration of half an hour, and it is
unknown if anyone managed to take any photograps or make video
recordings of the phenomenon.

According to smallholders Freddy L.A. and his father Ren L.M.,
who were on their way back home, an intensely luminous object
drew their attention: it was so bright that it hurt their eyes
and kept them from making out any greater details. Freddy claims
this is not the first time that he has seen the light in that
location, and adds that it occurrs with a certain frequency.
During the time in which they saw the object, they claim not
having seen any displacement whatsoever--only an intense shine,
which they compared to the brightness of a mirror reflecting the
sun.

Moreover, Patricio V.T. and Jaime M.L, witnesses who were
standing at Parque El Loa (on Calama's south side), were clearly
able to see an oval, cream colored object with an intense
yellow-hued band around its central section, but that the object
was only a light. They estimated  its size at some 200 meters,
adding that the object made constant triangular maneuvers. The
object moved a high speed during these motions and from one
moment to the next, it shot straight up into the air, losing
itself amid "a sort of cloud". The two witnesses claim that a
woman passing by the location also saw the object and was
prompted to remark, "it looks like a balloon!"

Patricio V.T. claims having had the impression that this object
engaged in such triangular maneuvers while it waited for "a door
in the skies" to open. As soon as said door opened, it passed
through it.

########################
Translation (C) 2001. S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special Thanks to Jaime Ferrer, Calama UFO 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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                  Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 08:53:04 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:43:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Evans


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 23:20:11 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Hall
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Bob asked a single question:

 >>Care to debate your favorite alien machine case?

 >>>The ball is in your court.

 >>I just plunked it back, just over the left corner of the net.
 >>You can still get it if you try.

Richard replied, but didn't answer:

 >With lots of backspin lob. Any time you want to get serious, let
 >me know. I have already offered to debate any number of "alien
 >machine" cases, from the hundreds in my UFOE-II, to the dozen or
 >so in my ISSO web site article, to whatever and whichever you
 >wish to argue. Why do you and yours keep trying to evade the
 >issue(s) and keep trying to insist that it is "aliens" or
 >nothing?

 >I'm [more than] ready whenever you are to discuss whther or not
 >the hardcore unexplained cases (not the easily screened-out IFO
 >astronomical and other cases) suggest an ETH interpretation. If
 >you want to make jokes, let's joke. If you want to seriously
 >discuss and debate the issues, let's do that.

Hi, Richard!

Why all the posturing? He asked if you wanted to debate and,
despite your claim to be eager, you do everything above _except_
start the debate! Even more egregious is your claim : "Why do
you and yours keep trying to evade the issue(s) and keep trying
to insist that it is "aliens" or nothing?"

Isn't that whole point, here? _You_ pick the one that you feel
best represents an alien machine. Hell, Bob's even letting you
pick your favorite most-likely-to-prove-your-point case! Of
course, on the other hand, if you are already hedging and feel
that _none_ really represents the likelihood of being an alien
machine, then it's understandable about you own reluctance to
engage in the very debate you claim to be so eager for.

For the record, Bob and I don't exactly agree about the issues
concerning the probability of ET life. That said, however, it
would seem that it is you and yours that are evading the issues,
here, Richard. Don't talk about how eager you are to debate.
Debate! Let's see some action.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                Firmage & Druyan's 'One Cosmos Network' Gone

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:36:17 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:48:02 -0400
Subject: Firmage & Druyan's 'One Cosmos Network' Gone


Hi Errol.

Below is a NASA Watch announcement forwarded to me by Jim Oberg.
This failed venture held some added hope that our wish for an
official public disclosure of the truth about UFOs and ETI would
be soon.

Note the title "UFO believer" used for Joe Firmage in this
article by UFO debunkers and the more sympathetic title of "Carl
Sagan's widow" for Ann Druyan.

Nick

------

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 08:48:36 EDT
From: JamesOberg@aol.com
To: JamesOberg@aol.com
Subject: Firmage/Druyan "One Cosmos Network" fizzles


 From "NASA WATCH" 3 April 2001:

Online "One Cosmos Network" venture by UFO believer Joe Firmage
and Carl Sagan's widow, Ann Druyan fizzles. "Whatever the
reasons, our Internet enterprise is out of fuel, and as of
February 15, 2001 we have put it into indefinite hibernation. We
have laid off a talented and multidisciplinary team of good
friends and associates. I trust that the transformation of the
electronic media experience we've helped to envision will happen
anyway, regardless of the success or failure of One Cosmos
Network. Some things you just know will happen one way or
another. But Cosmos Studios continues on. I hope to help
facilitate the productions the Studio has underway, with the aim
of sharing with the world some extraordinary adventures being
crafted by Ann Druyan and her exceptional team of filmmakers. "

Editor's note: Darn. Despite the UFO aspects, this project did
seem to try and rekindle some of the wonder and awe that
accompanied Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" TV series.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Staithes

From: Alan Staithes <AlanStaithes@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:15:40 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:52:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Staithes


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials
 >Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 23:20:11 -000

In response to Bob's query:

 >>Care to debate your favorite alien machine case?

Richard Hall replied:

 >With lots of backspin lob. Any time you want to get serious, let
 >me know. I have already offered to debate any number of "alien
 >machine" cases, from the hundreds in my UFOE-II, to the dozen or
 >so in my ISSO web site article, to whatever and whichever you
 >wish to argue. Why do you and yours keep trying to evade the
 >issue(s) and keep trying to insist that it is "aliens" or
 >nothing?

This is rather disingenuous Richard. You offered a 'gauntlet'
and Bob picked it up slapped you with it! His response looked
'serious' to me. Perhaps you could drop the 'alien' from his
question and just answer it? Or, if you happen to believe in
'aliens' then you could just perhaps answer the question,
clearly and unambiguously.


Thanks

Alan Staithes











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:23:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:54:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:01:35 -0500

 >>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:56:51 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:40:23 -0000

<snip>

 >incidentally, the best _real_ debunking has always been
 >done by ufologists. When a ufologist debunks a case, it stays
 >debunked. When a debunker debunks a case, on the other hand, all
 >that happens is the sound of robotic head-nodding by those who
 >agree with him absolutely and who would never dream of breathing
 >a whisper of dissent

Jerry, et. al.:

Here we go again. The same characteristics attributed to
debunkers now achieve near heroic proportions when used by
ufologists.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

------------------------------------------
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are
the ones you need to concentrate on."   - -  Robert Strauss
------------------------------------------









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                     Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:05:57 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:56:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Young


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:01:53 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:19:41 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>It seems to me that the crucial thing is that somebody believed
 >>that mass hysteria could occur, and took action, or inaction as
 >>the case might be, based upon that belief.

 >Bob,

 >Hmm, wonder if mass hysteria will occur if investors in the
 >stock market realize the bottom is not yet in sight, and both
 >the NASDAQ and DOW are going to sink considerably lower.....?
 >Nah, that would be mass panic.>>

Brad,

You never know. I've had short positions for a while, now. Made
some money this week, again. Sure better than last years. The
key thing is that whether it's panic or hysteria (I don't think
it's there _yet_), folks who buy short now based upon the
believe that there is going to be continued downward movement
can make money.


Clear skies,

Bob








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:58:41 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies


 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

<snip>

Correction! I wrote the following:

 >The first thing I thought when I saw the AA was "what sort of
 >alien is that supposed to be?" One would have expected the
 >typical 40-ft. gray variety - if for no other reason than no one
 >knows what a "gray's" guts look like, and the hoaxers would be
 >able to extricate themselves from FX debunkers.

"40" should read "4."  "40 ft." 'grays'? Jeez!
Ufology's confusing enough with the little ones...


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                          Secrecy News -- 04/04/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:11:21 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:00:37 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 04/04/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
April 4, 2001

**OVERSIGHT OF THE DANIEL KING CASE
**PROTECTING INTELLIGENCE ON US AIRCRAFT
**MOYNIHAN'S ROLE IN THE MORISON PARDON


OVERSIGHT OF THE DANIEL KING CASE

Yesterday the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a
closed hearing to consider the case of Daniel M. King, a Navy
officer who was accused of espionage, held for 520 days, and
then released last month when the Navy was unable to
substantiate the charges against him.

"What happened to Petty Officer King is alien and antithetical
to our system," said Jonathan Turley, King's civilian attorney,
in a lengthy prepared statement submitted to the Committee.

Among numerous government abuses alleged by the defense team in
its testimony, the handling of King's indeterminate polygraph
examination stands out.  "A routine 'no opinion' glitch on a
polygraph was allowed to mutate into an espionage investigation
from the very first day," said Turley.

A blow by blow account of the repeated polygraph sessions was
provided in a statement by JAG attorney Lt. Matthew Sidney
Freedus, a member of King's defense. Told that he had failed the
polygraph test, "King admitted that he had occasional fantasies
about espionage over his 20-year career, but stated
unequivocally that these were just fantasies and that he would
never do anything to hurt the Navy."

"It should be noted that it is very common for individuals
working in the national security field to have fantasies of
committing espionage," according to Lt. Freedus.

"In fact, during an interview several months later, [the
polygrapher who examined King] acknowledged that fantasies of
espionage were common and even admitted that he had thoughts of
espionage."

"It is deeply troubling to me that the Navy has never issued a
formal apology to CTR1 King and his family for this colossal
miscarriage of justice and that no government officials have
been held accountable," Freedus concluded.

Rather inexplicably, "the Navy congratulated the prosecutor in
this case and awarded her the prestigious Meritorious Service
Medal."

Testimony that provides the government's view of the case is
classified.  None of the government statements from yesterday's
closed Senate Intelligence Committee hearing can be released, a
Committee spokeswoman said.

But the statements of the three defense attorneys are presented
here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/king/index.html#ssci

A press release issued yesterday by the King defense, including
a relatively concise Fact Sheet presenting its perspective on
the case, is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/04/turley.html


PROTECTING INTELLIGENCE ON US AIRCRAFT

The protection of classified intelligence information in an
airborne Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) is
governed by Director of Central Intelligence Directive 1/21,
Annex C, Part II:

"If an aircraft landing in unfriendly territory is anticipated,
all SCI [i.e., "Sensitive Compartmented Information"] material
will be immediately destroyed, with the destruction process
preferably taking place prior to landing."

See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/dcid1-21.htm#air


MOYNIHAN'S ROLE IN THE MORISON PARDON

In 1985, Samuel L. Morison became the first and only person ever
convicted of "leaking" classified information to the press.  On
January 20, 2001 President Clinton granted a pardon to Mr.
Morison, making it significantly less likely that anyone else
will ever be prosecuted for a similar crime.

One of the influential figures who intervened in support of Mr.
Morison's application for a pardon was Senator Daniel P.
Moynihan.  In 1998, Senator Moynihan wrote to the President
noting that "The selective action against Mr. Morison appears
capricious at best."

"What is remarkable is not the crime, but that he is the only
one convicted of an activity which has become a routine aspect
of government life: leaking information to the press in order to
bring pressure to bear on a policy question," Moynihan wrote.

Senator Moynihan's September 29, 1998 letter, recently released
by the Justice Department in response to a FOIA request, is
posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/04/moynihan.html

Mr. Morison's successful pardon application was also supported
by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and two others.

******************************
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]


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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:02:39 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:42:36 -0700


<snip>

I have "ordered" the CDs. I am an agnostic when it comes to the
AA. I will write a detailed report for this list based on what I
can discern from them. I have no intention of drawing any
"conclusions," as the CDs don't constitute absolute proof one
way or the other, regardless of clarity. However, I'll attempt a
sequential, objective look at what they show.

 >We don't think the CDs are inferior to the beta. As I've
 >promised, you will be amazed by the clarity and focus. Why
 >haven't you ordered your CDs? See for yourself what we're
 >talking about. Why rely on Roger? Afraid of what you might
 >discover?

<snip>

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                    Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:02:15 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:05:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:43:55 -0500

 >>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:06:40 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >>>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:37:25 -0500

 >John,

 >>>Congratulations. You've managed both to miss the point of my
 >>>posting and to make my point.

 >>This is pretty obscure even for you, Jerry. Perhaps we could
 >>skip the wordplay and get back to my original question, which
 >>was:

 >In fact, my friend (if you will pardon the expression; I know
 >how much you resent any implication that these disagreements
 >aren't personal), this was not in response to a question of
 >yours. Maybe you need to work on your reading skills.

One of the problems with UpDates, for me, is that the time
differences mean that my replies to Jerry's strange postings
come after Roger Evans's brilliantly written ripostes, to which
I can add little.

Just a couple of points: I know that Jerry was not, at that
moment, replying directly to my question, but I assumed that in
a forum like this people were allowed to make general comments,
otherwise UpDates would be a series of dialogues rather than an
open discussion. I can assure Jerry that as one of the dreaded
tribe of Librarians, my reading skills are perfectly adequate,
and I have certificates to prove it!

 >>>>Perhaps while he's lying there he could think back and try to
 >>>>remember where I, or any of my pelicanist colleages ever made
 >>>>such comments as "eyewitness testimony has no value whatever and
 >>>>can be discarded without a single thought".

 >>Just read it carefully, it's quite a sweeping statement. Have
 >>you got the slightest evidence to back it up, or are we just
 >>going to get more vague waffle? You are beginning to disappoint
 >>me; the Jerry Clark who writes incredibly well researched and
 >>meticulously referenced books seems to have little in common
 >>with the Jerome Clark who throws around unattributed
 >>pseudo-quotes and bizarre rants on UpDates.

 >My word. Other listfolk had no trouble grasping my point.
 >For you, though, I will take the trouble to explain:

And your evidence is?... as they say.
 >
 >Many thousands of witnesses worldwide, at a very conservative
 >estimate, have viewed structured craftlike phenomena under
 >excellent viewing conditions, sometimes at close range and as
 >often as not in daylight. On a number of occasions, the objects
 >have been multiply and even independently witnessed, once in a
 >while even tracked on radar as the human observers watched them.
 >Sometimes, according to reports from individuals generally
 >deemed credible, they carry nonhuman crews.

 >These objects often exhibit extraordinary performance
 >characteristics unlike those of which balloons and aircraft are
 >capable. Some of the cases involve technically trained
 >individuals. If they were reporting anything other than UFOs
 >which looked and acted like ostensibly unearthly vehicles, no
 >one would think to question much or even most of this testimony.

Strange, then, that when we ask you for examples of these cases
we are usually presented with either armwaving dismissal or a
general invocation to read the Collected Works of Jerome Clark.
Which one of these "thousands of witnesses worldwide" do you
think has produced the best and most substantial account,
independently witnessed? Which witnesses reporting "nonhuman
crews" do you find particularly credible?

 >This whole exchange began when I poked fun at skeptic/debunkers
 >on this list (and of course elsewhere) for taking seriously
 >unsupported eyewitness testimony when it concerns something they
 >believe in, namely a meteorite, while rejecting it out of hand
 >if it concerns something they don't. Your defensiveness on this
 >issue speaks volumes.

Possibly it tells me more about myself than it says about
meteorites, my friend.

 >If you will pardon yet another expression,
 >it makes my point.

Consider the case of the alleged meteorite in Yorkshire a couple
of weeks ago, which turned out to be some exploding electrical
equipment. Sceptics were quite happy to accept that "something
they belive in" (i.e. meteorites - presumably there are people
who don't believe in meteorites in the world according to Jerry)
turned out to be not what it appeared to be from the witnesses
first, quite graphic, report.

 >Yet another reason I am neither a debunker nor a psychosocial
 >ufologist. Assuming, of course, that there is a difference.

And why you are an ETHer or an "Objectively Existing"
hypothesiser. Assuming, of course, that there is a difference.

--
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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                    Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:36:08 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:06:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer


 >Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 17:56:58 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:46:11 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:17:18 -0400
 >>>From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
 >>>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth
 >>>To: 'UFO UpDates - Toronto' <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>I'm surprised no one has yet stated the obvious example, Orson
 >>>Wells' "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast.

 >>The little town in New Jersey where the Martains supposedly
 >>landed still has an old fashioned small water tower with bullet
 >>holes in it, and an historical marker. I've seen it. Folks there
 >>who had seen that tower every day of their lives apparently
 >>thought it was a Martian "Machine" filled with martians, with
 >>"intelligences vast and cool" coming to drink their blood.

 >>If Mass Hysteria doesn't exist, then clearly simultaneous
 >>hysteria by many people does. What's the difference?

 >Hola Young Bob,

 >The difference is, the _whole_ town wasn't out running amok and
 >shooting up the water tower! I'll bet dollars to donuts that the
 >few yokels who blew up the water tower had been at the local
 >'watering hole' immediately before.  <LOL>

 >If there had been reports of a majority of the citizens behaving
 >totally irrationally as a result of the broadcast that would be
 >one thing, (a good arguement for "mass" hysteria) but that
 >wasn't the case.

But I can't remember any case where sceptics have actually
claimed that an _entire_ town or community has been involved in
a single UFO case. You are setting up a "straw man", as Jerry
Clark would put it.

 >There are 'good' and 'bad,' 'smart' and 'dumb' folks all over
 >Bob. I imagine even in a small town of a thousand people or so
 >there will be at least 50 wahoos capable of shooting up the
 >local water tower. That's enough people to make 'headlines' but
 >hardly "mass" hysteria.

If 50 people came down my street shooting at Magonia Towers,
that would be mass enough for me! What would you say was the
minimum number of people needed to constitute a "mass"?

--
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 >
   Apr > Apr 4

                   Re: 'Yeti's Hair' Defies DNA Analysis -

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:18:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:09:39 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Yeti's Hair' Defies DNA Analysis -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:59:41 EDT
 >Subject: 'Yeti's Hair' Defies DNA Analysis
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Without comment, FYI, because similar analyses have been done in
 >abduction cases:

 >Source:  The Times of London

 >http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-108351,00.html

 >'Yeti's hair' defies DNA analysis

 >by Mark Henderson
 >Science Correspondent

 >British scientists on the trail of the Yeti have found some of
 >the best evidence yet for the existence of the mythical
 >Himalayancreature - a sample of hair that has proved impossible
 >to identify. Genetic tests on the hair, which was gathered from a
 >tree in Bhutan, have failed to match its DNA to that of another
 >animal. The findings, which have surprised sceptical researchers,
 >raise the strong possibility that the sample belongs to an as yet
 >undiscovered species.

 >In Bhutan, an expedition team was led by an "official Yeti-hunter" to
 >a forest in the eastern part of the country, where he was convinced
 >that an animal was at large. "He told us that he had found evidence
 >of the Yeti in the hollow of a cedar tree," Rob McCall, a zoologist
 >who was part of the expedition, said. Dr McCall's team removed
 >strands of hair from the tree and returned to Britain to have them
 >analysed.

 >Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics at the Oxford Institute of
 >Molecular Medicine, one of the world's leading experts on DNA
 >analysis, who examined the hair, said: "We found some DNA in it, but
 >we don't know what it is. It's not a human, not a bear nor anything
 >else we have so far been able to identify. It's a mystery and I never
 >thought this would end in a mystery. We have never encountered DNA
 >that we couldn't recognise before."

 >The discovery was made by a team of scientists assembled by Channel 4
 >for a documentary in the To the Ends of the Earth series, which will
 >be shown tonight.


As far as I know, there is no bank of genetic materials on
animals to compare. It took years to created a human bank.
That's why it is impossible to identify the Yeti's hair. All
they could do is to compare it to a human hair and, of course,
its not human. We had the same problem with the Chupacabras's
hair. Our samples shows, because of its characteristics, it
belong to mammals. Without an animal hair's bank, you couldn't
make a true DAN analysis.

Your comments are welcome!!!

Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo

Miami UFO Center  (Espaol)   http://ufomiami.nodos.com
Miami UFO Reporter (English)
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/1341/index.html
CHUPACABRAS(Espaol)    http://ufomiami.homestead.com/index.html
CHUPACABRAS (English)  http://bloodpredator.homestead.com/index.html
Patagrande -Bigfoot- (Espaol)   http://patagrande.homestead.com/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 >
   Apr > Apr 5

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:11:21 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 06:46:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:23:12 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:01:35 -0500

Previously, Jerry declared:

 >>incidentally, the best _real_ debunking has always been
 >>done by ufologists. When a ufologist debunks a case, it stays
 >>debunked. When a debunker debunks a case, on the other hand, all
 >>that happens is the sound of robotic head-nodding by those who
 >>agree with him absolutely and who would never dream of breathing
 >>a whisper of dissent

Hi, Jerry!

I noticed you didn't even address the issue of whether or not
the debunker was right; only that others agree. Of course,
serious UFologists are _never_ guilty of that, are they?

Bob replied:

 >Here we go again. The same characteristics attributed to
 >debunkers now achieve near heroic proportions when used by
 >ufologists.

Boy, ain't that the truth.

Of course, Jerry's comment is yet one of an ever growing pile
that, as usual, has no substantiation. More to the point, only
_other_ ufologists get to decide if something has, indeed, been
debunked!

Man, this head nodding thing is rampant!

Amusingly, what Jerry doesn't realize is such deliberate and
orchestrated actions represent the very definition of a
"conspiracy"; something that he, himself, doesn't believe
exists.


King 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 >
   Apr > Apr 5

                   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Cecchini

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 16:32:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 06:49:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Cecchini


 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:36:08 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth

 >>Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 17:56:58 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

re: the shooting of a NJ water tower during the "War of the
Worlds" radio broadcast:

 >>The difference is, the _whole_ town wasn't out running amok and
 >>shooting up the water tower! I'll bet dollars to donuts that the
 >>few yokels who blew up the water tower had been at the local
 >>'watering hole' immediately before.  <LOL>

 >>If there had been reports of a majority of the citizens behaving
 >>totally irrationally as a result of the broadcast that would be
 >>one thing, (a good arguement for "mass" hysteria) but that
 >>wasn't the case.

 >But I can't remember any case where sceptics have actually
 >claimed that an _entire_ town or community has been involved in
 >a single UFO case. You are setting up a "straw man", as Jerry
 >Clark would put it.

For what it's worth, I had more in mind the panic (as depicted by
the movie) occurring in NYC, with people going nuts-o trying to
drive out of the city, pandemonium in the tunnels, lots of yelling,
screaming and panic in the streets, etc.

But like I said before, I also have no idea how much of this was
actually true.

But I also think that a couple of "yokels" getting worked up to
the point (even if some alcohol was involved) of thinking that a
water tower -- something that they'd presumably seen many, many
times before -- was a "Martian" qualifies as some sort of "group
hysteria".

Oh, whatever.  I think I've said all I had to say on the topic.
I've already said that I think it's a fairly pathetic tactic on
the part of any "debunkert" to try to claim that all or most
multiple-witness sightings are some form of "hysteria", esp. the
ones that (allegedly) involve something clearly physical zipping
around, as opposed to the cases where maybe some people are
looking at a stationary, bright light, one person goes "UFO!", &
suddenly everyone else is "seeing" a 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 >
   Apr > Apr 5

                       Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks < RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:34:15 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 06:57:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Sparks


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:31:40 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:50:38 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Salvaille


 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Easton
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 04:05:18 +0100

 >>>Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:41:36 -0400
 >>>From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: Don Ledger <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'

 ><snip>

 >>Obviously, we would expect a 'two-man' hot-air balloon to be
 >>larger.

 >>Don Piccard is a pioneer of hot-air ballooning and participated
 >>in that fateful January, 1964, Catalina challenge.

 >>There's an online biography of his landmark achievements at:

 >>http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9707/piccard. htm

 >>Therein, Piccard comments about the first crossing of the
 >>English Channel (between England and France) by hot-air balloon,
 >>in April 1963. Piccard was accompanied by Ed Yost, generally
 >>regarded as the most accomplished balloonist (especially pre
 >>hot-air balloons).

 >>The hot-air balloon they flew was a 'Raven' model 'S-50' named
 >>'Channel Champ' and had a 56,000 cubic capacity. For
 >>confirmation, see Ed Yost's online biography, 'Father of the
 >>Modern Hot-Air Balloon', at:

 ><snip>


 >James and Don,

 >The balloon theory addresses no facts pertinent to the Socorro
 >case. There are far too many contradictions.

 >Among others:

 >1. The object - not a balloon by Zamorra's testimony - barely
 >cleared the top of a shack while escaping _against the wind_ at
 >_high_speed_. The direction of the wind at ground level was used
 >by Hynek to explain why a witness, a couple of thousand feet
 >_south_ of the event, did not ear the loud noise reported by
 >Zamorra.

 >2. Powers (Landing at Socorro) on the landing marks: "we must
 >assume that the force was equivalent to gentle settling of at
 >least a ton on each mark". 8000 pounds, at rest, with most of the
 >mass pulling upwards.

 >???:

 >http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9801/0002/catalina0002.ht
m

 >"N12000 was an Orange/White stripedS-40 Vulcan hot-air
 >balloon(Cost from$3,500to$5,000 ) manufactured by Raven
 >Industries, Inc., Sioux Falls, South Dakota on May 9, 1963. The
 >balloon, S/N 108, was registered to Balloons, Inc., Farmington
 >Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut. The balloon was designed for a
 >one-mancrew, 600 pound gross eight 80 pounds balloon weight,
 >using a hydrocarbon propane-heated system fed by two liquid
 >Benson burners. Forty feet in diameter, with a volume of 30,000
 >Cu. ft,the balloon had a flight duration of four hours, with an
 >altitude range of zero to 10,000ft."

 >If a balloon applies 8 000 pounds, at rest, on its "landing
 >gear". What is the total weight of this _small_ balloon then: 10
 >000 pounds? 12 000 pounds?

 >3. A balloon with an asymetric landing gear?

 >4. The 3 burns; 2 of them were applied "straight down". Since
 >when to hot air balloons shoot flames straight down? And if, by
 >some wild accident it did happen, what would be left of the
 >nacelle then? Would it be still suitable for the transport of 2
 >crew members?

 >According to Merriam-Webster a theory is: "the analysis of a set
 >of facts in their relation to one another".

 >Any balloon that would fit the facts reported at Socorro would be
 >a true UFO.

 >Obviously, there are no facts taken into account here, and
 >contradictions soon arise to dismiss the "balloon theory" which
 >can grow only in the rich environment of a Skeptic Forum.

 >One last thing. Let's just enjoy the following ride:

 >http://www.hotballoon.com/Rides2.html

 >"What's it like to fly in a hot air balloon?"

 >"A typical balloon flight lasts about an hour, during which time
 >the balloon usually travels about 5-10 miles. Sometimes we get
 >lucky and can stay up longer, but the average is about an hour.
 >When it is time to land, passengers will be instructed to hold
 >onto rope handles inside the balloon, bend their knees, and
 >above all stay in the basket! There are no seat belts and no
 >landing gear. On a calm day the landing will be very gentle, but
 >even a modest breeze can make the landing exciting!"

 >The facts, ladies and gentlemen, the facts!


Hi Serge,

These are good points, to which may be added:

Easton never discusses Inflation Time. How long does it take a
hot-air balloon of this size (50 feet for a 2-man crew) to be
re-inflated after it has already so deflated that the balloon
envelope has supposedly crumpled and the burner tipped over to
burn shrubs, and heavy indentation marks made in the ground?>A
guess might be 10-20 minutes.>Yet Zamora's sighting was over
with and the object disappeared in less than 5 minutes total if
I recall right.>

However I don't trust indentation force estimates. How was it
determined?


Brad From: Brad Sparks < RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:34:15 EDT
Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'
To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:31:40 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:50:38 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Salvaille


 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Easton
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 04:05:18 +0100

 >>>Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:41:36 -0400
 >>>From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: Don Ledger <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'

 ><snip>

 >>Obviously, we would expect a 'two-man' hot-air balloon to be
 >>larger.

 >>Don Piccard is a pioneer of hot-air ballooning and participated
 >>in that fateful January, 1964, Catalina challenge.

 >>There's an online biography of his landmark achievements at:

 >>http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9707/piccard. htm

 >>Therein, Piccard comments about the first crossing of the
 >>English Channel (between England and France) by hot-air balloon,
 >>in April 1963. Piccard was accompanied by Ed Yost, generally
 >>regarded as the most accomplished balloonist (especially pre
 >>hot-air balloons).

 >>The hot-air balloon they flew was a 'Raven' model 'S-50' named
 >>'Channel Champ' and had a 56,000 cubic capacity. For
 >>confirmation, see Ed Yost's online biography, 'Father of the
 >>Modern Hot-Air Balloon', at:

 ><snip>


 >James and Don,

 >The balloon theory addresses no facts pertinent to the Socorro
 >case. There are far too many contradictions.

 >Among others:

 >1. The object - not a balloon by Zamorra's testimony - barely
 >cleared the top of a shack while escaping _against the wind_ at
 >_high_speed_. The direction of the wind at ground level was used
 >by Hynek to explain why a witness, a couple of thousand feet
 >_south_ of the event, did not ear the loud noise reported by
 >Zamorra.

 >2. Powers (Landing at Socorro) on the landing marks: "we must
 >assume that the force was equivalent to gentle settling of at
 >least a ton on each mark". 8000 pounds, at rest, with most of the
 >mass pulling upwards.

 >???:

 >http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9801/0002/catalina0002.ht
m

 >"N12000 was an Orange/White stripedS-40 Vulcan hot-air
 >balloon(Cost from$3,500to$5,000 ) manufactured by Raven
 >Industries, Inc., Sioux Falls, South Dakota on May 9, 1963. The
 >balloon, S/N 108, was registered to Balloons, Inc., Farmington
 >Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut. The balloon was designed for a
 >one-mancrew, 600 pound gross eight 80 pounds balloon weight,
 >using a hydrocarbon propane-heated system fed by two liquid
 >Benson burners. Forty feet in diameter, with a volume of 30,000
 >Cu. ft,the balloon had a flight duration of four hours, with an
 >altitude range of zero to 10,000ft."

 >If a balloon applies 8 000 pounds, at rest, on its "landing
 >gear". What is the total weight of this _small_ balloon then: 10
 >000 pounds? 12 000 pounds?

 >3. A balloon with an asymetric landing gear?

 >4. The 3 burns; 2 of them were applied "straight down". Since
 >when to hot air balloons shoot flames straight down? And if, by
 >some wild accident it did happen, what would be left of the
 >nacelle then? Would it be still suitable for the transport of 2
 >crew members?

 >According to Merriam-Webster a theory is: "the analysis of a set
 >of facts in their relation to one another".

 >Any balloon that would fit the facts reported at Socorro would be
 >a true UFO.

 >Obviously, there are no facts taken into account here, and
 >contradictions soon arise to dismiss the "balloon theory" which
 >can grow only in the rich environment of a Skeptic Forum.

 >One last thing. Let's just enjoy the following ride:

 >http://www.hotballoon.com/Rides2.html

 >"What's it like to fly in a hot air balloon?"

 >"A typical balloon flight lasts about an hour, during which time
 >the balloon usually travels about 5-10 miles. Sometimes we get
 >lucky and can stay up longer, but the average is about an hour.
 >When it is time to land, passengers will be instructed to hold
 >onto rope handles inside the balloon, bend their knees, and
 >above all stay in the basket! There are no seat belts and no
 >landing gear. On a calm day the landing will be very gentle, but
 >even a modest breeze can make the landing exciting!"

 >The facts, ladies and gentlemen, the facts!


Hi Serge,

These are good points, to which may be added:

Easton never discusses Inflation Time. How long does it take a
hot-air balloon of this size (50 feet for a 2-man crew) to be
re-inflated after it has already so deflated that the balloon
envelope has supposedly crumpled and the burner tipped over to
burn shrubs, and heavy indentation marks made in the ground?>A
guess might be 10-20 minutes.>Yet Zamora's sighting was over
with and the object disappeared in less than 5 minutes total if
I recall right.>

However I don't trust indentation force estimates. How was it
determined?


Brad From: Brad Sparks < RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:34:15 EDT
Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'
To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:31:40 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:50:38 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Salvaille


 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Easton
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 04:05:18 +0100

 >>>Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:41:36 -0400
 >>>From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: Don Ledger <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'

 ><snip>

 >>Obviously, we would expect a 'two-man' hot-air balloon to be
 >>larger.

 >>Don Piccard is a pioneer of hot-air ballooning and participated
 >>in that fateful January, 1964, Catalina challenge.

 >>There's an online biography of his landmark achievements at:

 >>http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9707/piccard. htm

 >>Therein, Piccard comments about the first crossing of the
 >>English Channel (between England and France) by hot-air balloon,
 >>in April 1963. Piccard was accompanied by Ed Yost, generally
 >>regarded as the most accomplished balloonist (especially pre
 >>hot-air balloons).

 >>The hot-air balloon they flew was a 'Raven' model 'S-50' named
 >>'Channel Champ' and had a 56,000 cubic capacity. For
 >>confirmation, see Ed Yost's online biography, 'Father of the
 >>Modern Hot-Air Balloon', at:

 ><snip>


 >James and Don,

 >The balloon theory addresses no facts pertinent to the Socorro
 >case. There are far too many contradictions.

 >Among others:

 >1. The object - not a balloon by Zamorra's testimony - barely
 >cleared the top of a shack while escaping _against the wind_ at
 >_high_speed_. The direction of the wind at ground level was used
 >by Hynek to explain why a witness, a couple of thousand feet
 >_south_ of the event, did not ear the loud noise reported by
 >Zamorra.

 >2. Powers (Landing at Socorro) on the landing marks: "we must
 >assume that the force was equivalent to gentle settling of at
 >least a ton on each mark". 8000 pounds, at rest, with most of the
 >mass pulling upwards.

 >???:

 >http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9801/0002/catalina0002.ht
m

 >"N12000 was an Orange/White stripedS-40 Vulcan hot-air
 >balloon(Cost from$3,500to$5,000 ) manufactured by Raven
 >Industries, Inc., Sioux Falls, South Dakota on May 9, 1963. The
 >balloon, S/N 108, was registered to Balloons, Inc., Farmington
 >Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut. The balloon was designed for a
 >one-mancrew, 600 pound gross eight 80 pounds balloon weight,
 >using a hydrocarbon propane-heated system fed by two liquid
 >Benson burners. Forty feet in diameter, with a volume of 30,000
 >Cu. ft,the balloon had a flight duration of four hours, with an
 >altitude range of zero to 10,000ft."

 >If a balloon applies 8 000 pounds, at rest, on its "landing
 >gear". What is the total weight of this _small_ balloon then: 10
 >000 pounds? 12 000 pounds?

 >3. A balloon with an asymetric landing gear?

 >4. The 3 burns; 2 of them were applied "straight down". Since
 >when to hot air balloons shoot flames straight down? And if, by
 >some wild accident it did happen, what would be left of the
 >nacelle then? Would it be still suitable for the transport of 2
 >crew members?

 >According to Merriam-Webster a theory is: "the analysis of a set
 >of facts in their relation to one another".

 >Any balloon that would fit the facts reported at Socorro would be
 >a true UFO.

 >Obviously, there are no facts taken into account here, and
 >contradictions soon arise to dismiss the "balloon theory" which
 >can grow only in the rich environment of a Skeptic Forum.

 >One last thing. Let's just enjoy the following ride:

 >http://www.hotballoon.com/Rides2.html

 >"What's it like to fly in a hot air balloon?"

 >"A typical balloon flight lasts about an hour, during which time
 >the balloon usually travels about 5-10 miles. Sometimes we get
 >lucky and can stay up longer, but the average is about an hour.
 >When it is time to land, passengers will be instructed to hold
 >onto rope handles inside the balloon, bend their knees, and
 >above all stay in the basket! There are no seat belts and no
 >landing gear. On a calm day the landing will be very gentle, but
 >even a modest breeze can make the landing exciting!"

 >The facts, ladies and gentlemen, the facts!


Hi Serge,

These are good points, to which may be added:

Easton never discusses Inflation Time. How long does it take a
hot-air balloon of this size (50 feet for a 2-man crew) to be
re-inflated after it has already so deflated that the balloon
envelope has supposedly crumpled and the burner tipped over to
burn shrubs, and heavy indentation marks made in the ground? A
guess might be 10-20 minutes. Yet Zamora's sighting was over
with and the object disappeared in less than 5 minutes total if
I recall right.

However I don't trust indentation force estimates. How was it
determined?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 5

                           Re: Body Marks - Kelly

From: Kelly <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:52:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 06:59:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Body Marks - Kelly


 >From: Pat McCartney <ElPatricio@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:17:13 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Body Marks
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Subj:  UFO UpDate: Re: Body Marks - Velez
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:17:23 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Body Marks
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>

 >>Would that it was so Brian. The problem is, some of us are awake
 >>now and again when a 'contact' happens. You have to find a way
 >>to live with that in your head. You can't tell anybody. They'll
 >>think you're crazy, or if they really care about you they will
 >>be concerned for your sanity and well being. It is not easy to
 >>deal with this stuff on _any_ level. It's why I work so hard and
 >>give so many hours to the abductees that contact me and to the
 >>public via this List.

 >John,

 >Thank you for so eloquently describing your experiences as a
 >perceived abductee, and sharing that with UFO UpDates. For the
 >record, I have had no similar experience, nor with UFOs --
 >despite my desire to see _something_ that would settle the
 >matter.

 >But, as a journalist who has learned the hard lesson of shutting
 >up and listening to a good story, I know that you have something
 >to teach the rest of us.

 >One issue that I have been wrestling with is the realization
 >that any extraterrestial species that could visit this planet
 >would likely be a far _older_ civilization than us. We, of
 >course, are still in our technological youth. If spacefaring
 >cultures there be, chances are they have been around far, far
 >longer than we can easily grasp.

 >If that proves to be the case, then perhaps the abduction
 >experience reported by people like yourself today occurred to
 >many preceding generations of humans. In fact, an extrasolar
 >civilization might simply be tending their garden _us_ over many
 >of our lifetimes. The more ancient the visiting civilization,
 >the more likely some kind of protocol has been worked out by a
 >nearly infinite number of generations of bureaucrats.

 >Because of that possibility, I'd be interested if some of the
 >more scholarly listers out there could describe the mythical
 >incubus and succubus. Is there a specific etymology or starting
 >point for the description of sexual demons? Makes me want to go
 >read a book ...

 >Regards,

 >Pat McCartney, hard-working city editor

Wow! Well, I am certainly scholarly by some standards. Let's
see. I have a BA (Honours) in History, MA in Journalism and
Masters of Library and Information Science. Ho hum.

Now - on to the good stuff! Isn't it intriguing how lots of
people are interested in the sexual aspect of abductions? That
only makes sense since people, particularly men, seem
overwhelmingly interested in the subject. Sorry for that
unscholarly generalization! That was simply my life experience
as a woman speaking.

For a scholarly approach to the incubus and succubus, I suggest
you read David Hufford's *The Terror That Comes in the Night*
for a start. It is generally associated with ASP (Awareness
during Sleep Paralysis). And most people who experience ASP,
such as moi, do not associate ASP with alien abduction.

So, have I experienced sexual relations with incubi?

Of friggin course.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 5

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:12:40 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 07:04:21 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Bourdais


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:42:31 -0700

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:44:11 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Sorry, but in my modest opinion, you missed the main option :

 >>f) the film, wether it is a fake (probable but not proven yet) or not,
 >>originates from secret services (I gave several times arguments for that).
 >>That's the really interesting question, which does not seem to be
 >>very popular on this List!


 >Gildas,

 >I sure would like to see your evidence.

 >Ed



Ed, and the List
If EBK does not object,
Let me repeat what I said in my last message :

-----

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:34:15 EST
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
To: updates@sympatico.ca


I confess I have been only glimpsing this thread, but now I feel
like reminding everyone of a couple of points which seem to have
been lost.

The first one is the information given by Bob Shell, that
Captain McAndrews told him he had seen the film in the US Air
Force archives before its release by Santilli.

Please re-read this answer by Bob Shell to my message of
January 29, 1999:


UFO UpDate: Re: Santilli's Film Scraps
Date: 01/02/99 03:17:23
From: updates@globalserve.net (UFO UpDates - Toronto)

Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:13:06 +0000
Subject: Re: Santilli's Film Scraps
From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:38:45 EST
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Re: Santilli's Film Scraps

 >>Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:07:05 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Santilli's Film Scraps
 >>From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>This could also account for Capt. McAndrew's comment to me
 >>that he had seen the same film in Air Force archives.

 >This is one of the most important informations that you have
 >made, it seems to me.

 >And here is a simple question:

 >Did Capt. McAndrew tell you, even rougly, when he saw that "same
 >film" in the Air Force archives?

I don't think he mentioned a specific date but I had the
impression from context that he was speaking of seeing it some
years earlier.  He also indicated having seen more of the film
than Santilli had.

 >At least, did he see it before, or after the release of the film
 >by Santilli?

Before.

 >If he saw it after, it would not be worth mentioning since, very
 >soon, thousands of copies were distributed worldwide: it could
 >be any of these copies!

 >So, I suppose he meant that he had seen it before. Then, I don't
 >see many possibilities:

 >1) The AA footage is an authentic military film,

 >or

 >2) It is a fake made by the military, or a related agency. (In
 >this case, it could well be a fake close to a real one).

 >In both cases, Santilli had only a copy of it, and was of course
 >unable to give a foot of original film for datation, but this is
 >not a key point in this context. It could have been shot any
 >time.

 >3) Here is another possibility: captain McAndrew lied to you!

Of course that is possible.

 >Then the question is: why?

 >Is he another Richard Doty??

 >If so, what about the "Roswell Report, Case Closed" authored by
 >the same?

He did a good job, apparently. He was promoted out of this job
and sent off to spook school.


(End of Shell's message to the list)


The second point came from Colin Andrews.

Colin Andrew's testimony has been cited in the book 'Beyond
Roswell' by Philip Mantle and Michael Hesemann (pages 206 and
207).

He says that, on June 26, 1995, he visited Ray Santilli with two
other researchers - the Japanese, Johsen Takano and the Chinese,
Dr Hoang-Yung Chiang from Taiwan.

Both Takano and Hoang-Yung, after screening the film, told him
that they had seen it already. Johsen, when his government had
requested UFO information from the American government. The film
was part of the documentation brought to Tokyo by a CIA courier.
Hoang-Yung, in the course of an official visit to the CIA's
headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where they had been shown
several hours of film.

Is this story an invention of Mantle and Hesemann?

I checked with Colin Andrews himself, and he confirmed it to me
entirely, in a private mail.

Now, does that mean that the film is authentic?

No, it does not. But it does give a clue about its origin.

If we suppose for a moment that the whole thing was a secret
service operation, in order to ruin the Roswell Case at a time
when the inquiries were becoming more and more embarrassing, it
has been a tremendous success.

In France, it was a complete disaster for ufology.

Remember, the long awaited film was released just before the
long awaited GAO report, and no one paid attention to it in the
press.

May I add another grain of salt?

I think we may also consider that such an operation would have a
second, long term, aim: to get the public used to such powerful
images.

In such a perspective, people like Santilli (who could not even
spell Roswell!) and Volker Spielberg, were just second hands
obeying orders.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 5

                         Re: Serious Research - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 21:43:09 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:31:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:44:28 EDT
 >Subject: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:17:46 -0400
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:21:28 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>>Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 14:15:05 -0000

 >Hi, Don, Dick, List:

 >I suggested that astronomical IFOs made up about 30% of UFO
 >_reports_. Dick disagreed. I cited Hynek, Hendry and Condon.
 >Dick said my citations were selective. I responded,

 >>>>>Well, what is your breakdown for IFOs vs UFOs, and how many are
 >>>>>astronomical in nature?

Bob,

You keep misrepresenting what I am trying to say and you keep
shifting the focus of discussion. How many UFO reports are
astronomical in nature? That depends entirely on how you define
"UFO": as everything someone reports as such, or after some kind
of routine screening and preliminary investigation.

Many not very aware or observant people are fooled by bright
planets, and by fireball meteors, and by aircraft strobe lights,
advertising aircraft message lights, etc., etc. So what? Any
scientifically oriented UFO investigator, which you deny that I
am, knows that and weeds out such trivial cases very easily.

If the questions is: Do _any_ UFO reports represent something
important and unexplained, then there is no reason (other than
calculated debunking) to focus on the weakest reports from the
least aware and least informed witnesses. Far more important is
the number (not percentages) of very detailed cases from good
observers, of sizeable, large apparent diameter, craftlike (for
shorthand) objects that remain totally unexplained after
thorough investigation.

 >Dick replied,

 >>>>Such statistics are utterly meaningless, so I don't bother to
 >>>>look at them anymore. Astronomical IFOs are easily weeded out
 >>>>for any serious attempt to try to determine whether hard-core,
 >>>>unexplained cases are something significant. The point is Hynek
 >>>>clearly disowned the view that astronomy IFOs could explain many
 >>>>if any strong UFOs cases, only trivial sightings by people not
 >>>>familiar with the sky.

Yes, and I stand by that statement.

 >In response to his mentioning "the best case that UFO advocates
 >can advance, I asked,

 >>>>>What is the best case that UFO advocates can advance?

 >Dick responded, as do many others in this frustrating field, by
 >flogging his latest book,

 >>>>You obviously haven't been listening, or studying the serious
 >>>>literature. For openers, you might read the Jacobs university
 >>>>press book UFOs & Abductions and my The UFO Evidence, Vol. II.

Here, for the second time, you accuse me of being mercenary when
I have always suggested other, alternative sources of
information that are either free or inexpensive. See my article
on the ISSO site for a prime example. Our list-meister edited
out my previous response to this, but I hope he will this time
allow me to say that your charge is unfounded and unfair. Your
"simple question" was what is the best evidence; my simple
response gave you a simple and direct answer.

 >Thoughout this discussion (God only remembers when and how it
 >began) I have put forward numbers and published information.
 >Dick has just responded with brush-offs and pontificating.

For numbers and published information, see The UFO Evidence,
Volume II; Oh, shucks; I'm not supposed to say that! "Brushoffs
and pontificating?" I guess we have an "eye of the beholder"
phenomenon.

 >Just the other day, Dick, you similarly complained in another
 >thread about the unfair nature of the UFO evidence demanded by
 >science. You wrote, "as if any comparable issue in science is
 >ever required to have that degree of concrete proof," and, "
 >Bring me a comet, a black hole, or a wormhole, or even
 >Columbus's ship into the laboratory, otherwise why should I pay
 >attention to such claims?

Yes, and I stand by that statement as a response to your statement.

 >And then, "Corollary to [my] statement: Always insist that if
 >you can't produce a spaceship, you shouldn't pay any attention
 >to the craftlike objects that have been reported so consistently
 >by credible people all over the world."

 >Nothing so contrasts the viewpoints of science and most of
 >UFOlogy as your complaint. Comets are known facts, their gases
 >have been sampled, their particles have impacted our spacecraft,
 >their orbits can be predicted and the mechanics understood.
 >Black Holes are a theory for which evidence of their existence
 >can be predicted and monitored. But, Wormholes are like UFOs
 >(something out of science fiction). There is no evidence of
 >their existence. They are only speculation at this time.

Well, well, well! In response, UFOs (hardcore unexplained cases)
are known facts. Their landing traces have been photographed,
measured, and analyzed. They are not as predictable as comets
because they are not orbiting objects, and by the way, a few
comet predictions have gone wildy astray, haven't they?

UFOs have impacted our society, clearly caused EM effects on our
vehicles, endangered the flights of our aircraft, etc. Since you
had to ask about the time of day of the Arnold sighting in a
recent posting to Bruce Maccabee, I am assuming that you have
not bothered to look at the most basic facts of highly
publicized and/or important cases. So who, exactly, is
"pontificating" here and who is talking based on knowledge of
the facts?

 >This shows how much Dick is rooted in science fiction versus
 >science fact. Columbus' ships existed because there are records
 >of them and their travels at the Archives of the Indies in
 >Spain. Actual human beings who were aboard wrote books and were
 >as famous in their lifetimes as the Apollo astronauts are in
 >ours.

Little do you know whereof you speak, because I am very little
interested in science fiction. There are also records of UFOs
and their "travels" at the U.S. National Archives and many other
places. Actual highly competent witnesses have written and
recorded on audio - and videotape their observations of UFOs.

Also, I am not quite the illiterate you try to make me out to
be. I have read Washington Irving's three-volume biography of
Columbus; have you? I have also read the various diaries, since
I have a strong interest in exploration and voyages thereof. And
certainly, I have read and know the details of the hardcore UFO
cases, which, I suppose, qualifies me to talk about them
meaningfully.

 >Hundreds of Indians even came back with them, like inhabitants
 >of the planet Clarion, to the amazement of the Old World. In
 >that most fascinating moment in human history, the phrase, "A
 >New World," really meant just that. We can now walk the sands of
 >that "planet Clarion." The proof is here.

Except at the time Columbus thought he had found the West
Indies,  right?

 >But what of UFOs, Dick's mysterious "machines"? Is Dick Hall now
 >endorsing the claims of abductees? Does he think that any of the
 >contactees of the 50s heyday believable as travelers in the
 >saucers? After 50 years, Dick cannot produce one piece of
 >physical evidence or evidence that can definitely identify these
 >"unexplained" UFOs as alien spaceships.

This is a tired old, hackneyed...well, why waste my breath! My
views on the abduction phenomenon have been published in many
places, but I don't get the impression that you bother to read
the "pro-UFO" literature. I have been outspoken in my criticisms
and rejection of "contactee" claimants, but again, you seem not
to be aware of that. The "contactees" certainly were not
credible.

And here we go again: For anyone to take UFO reports seriously
and to recognize the importance of stepping up scientific
investigation, I must first produce "one piece of physical
evidence that can definitely identify these...UFOs as alien
spaceships." Sorry, Bob, that is an asinine statement.

In that context, I repeat what I said before, and maybe you'll
get the point this time: Bring me "one piece of physical
evidence" to support black holes, wormholes, Columbus's ship,
etc., or I am equally justified in calling such claims nonsense
and not worthy of scientific study?

 >I don't Dick really understands how science works. Theories need
 >proof of some sort. Either predictability, reproducibility or
 >concrete evidence. He seems to think that science facts and
 >science fiction are the same thing.

I can say the same thing about you, in that you don't seem to
understand the hypothetico-deductive system of science.
"Theories need proof of some sort?" What kind of a meaningless
statement is that? Theories are supposed to account for facts,
not be held in reverence as the end-all and know-all of science.

As I amply demonstrate in my unmentionable book, UFOs (by the
hardcore definition) have "reproduced" endlessly for 50 years,
and have left all kinds of physical trace evidence which lends
itself to scientific study. Also, as I have pointed out in many
places, UFOs are at least as "predictable" as fireball meteors,
automobile accidents, and and natural disasters, and in fact can
be studied by many of the same techniques as these occurrences.
And the ETH remains a meaningful hypothesis, not a proven
answer.

 >I'm not afraid to offer facts, and citations, for my arguments,
 >but instead of countering with statistics that support his view,
 >he dismisses the need for them and flogs his $60 book.

Once again you demonstrate clearly that you haven't looked at
the serious UFO literature, because we all offer endless facts
and citations for our arguments. You just don't want to look at
them, apparently. As for "statistics," there is a famous quote
to the effect that "there are lies, damned lies, and
statistics." You choose to harp on highly selective IFO
statistics that have absolutely no bearing on the central
questions or issues.

 >Others on this list aren't shy about discussing incidents,
 >details, etc. Why can't we get some details about just one of
 >the thousands of what Dick says are "Strong UFO cases"? After
 >all, it would only take one to prove that the ETs and saucers
 >are real.

Why do I get the feeling that you are a mechanical robot? I have
told you repeatedly where to look, but in what increasingly
appears to be a standard behavior pattern for made-up-minds
debunkers you prefer to pretend that I have not presented
hundreds of examples of what you keep asking for. Hey, Bob; read
the serious literature. It might cure your knee-jerk problem.


Clear thinking,

Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 5

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Sawers

From: William Sawers <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:27:51 +1200
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:33:46 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Sawers


 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:02:32 -0400

 ><snip>

 >>Where does the _she_ come from in regards to the
 >>'Alien Autopsy' creature?

 >>Don't you guys know that some beings have been
 >>described as sexless?

 >>In other words, having no observable sex organs as we know it,
 >>based on descriptions given by some abductees.

 >I was led to think there was a previous filmed autopsy that
 >showed a rather grueling post-mortem gynecological exam. If Ed's
 >seen this, or is aware of it, maybe this accounts for the
 >"gender bias".

I don't know why anyone would doubt the sex of the creature,
unless you had only seen the censored version (with the
out-of-focus spot over the genitals) In the AA CDs it is
_clearly_ female. You could argue that she seems very
immature(?) in that area, but then she doesn't seem to have
nipples either. You could be forgiven for thinking the genitals
are some leftover of a race that uses gene manipulation or some
other means of reproduction.(?)

The surgeon seems slightly puzzled by this as you see him going
back to the genital and lower stomach areas numerous times. The
cameraman is also directed to the feet of the creature to shoot
what appears as a gynacological exam. He does seem to spend alot
of time around the swollen stomach. Pregnant??


 >(I's still love to see that alleged first autopsy, by the
 >way--assuming it exists. The fact that our hypothetical hoaxers
 >would film something too "indecent" to even get TV coverage
 >actually argues in favor of authenticity.)

Good point Mac.

William

====
 >Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
 >105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
 >Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
 >Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
 >Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 5

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: "Jerome Clark" <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:09:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:32:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark



 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:23:12 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:01:35 -0500

 >>>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:56:51 -0500
 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:40:23 -0000

 >>incidentally, the best _real_ debunking has always been
 >>done by ufologists. When a ufologist debunks a case, it stays
 >>debunked. When a debunker debunks a case, on the other hand, all
 >>that happens is the sound of robotic head-nodding by those who
 >>agree with him absolutely and who would never dream of breathing
 >>a whisper of dissent

 >Here we go again. The same characteristics attributed to
 >debunkers now achieve near heroic proportions when used by
 >ufologists.

Bob, with all due respect, you're making no sense.

There is a long history of internal dissent and criticism within
ufology. That's why ufologists have debunked so many UFO claims.
I'm surprised that such has miraculously missed your notice on
this list alone. But then, I guess, one sees what one wants to
see.

Whatever its problems, ufology at least understands that real
intellectual inquiry demands internal policing and debate in the
interest of truth-seeking, as opposed to ideological scoring,
where a belief has to be defended at all costs, with no
concession or quarter given. The absence of internal criticism,
one might add, is one characteristic of pseudoscience.

No such policing and debate exist with the UFO-debunking camp,
only the sort of robotic head-nodding one observes of
true-believing bedfellows who have gathered to fight a common
hated enemy. I have a long paper trail of criticism of
ufologists' shortcomings. So do Dick Hall, Brad Sparks, and
other prominent ufologists on this List and elsewhere. When you
get around to offering comparably serious criticisms of the
failings of Menzel, Klass, Condon, the psychosociologists, and
others who share your beliefs, let me know. Otherwise, the
finger you're pointing will remain extended in your direction.


Jerry Clark










                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 5

              Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation

From: Stephen MILES Lewis <smiles@elfis.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 16:46:37 z (MDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:37:54 -0400
Subject: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation


Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation

"A character in the game might ask me the name of my wife. A few
  months later I might get a call saying, "'Neil, if you don't
  stop snooping, you might find Laurie in a pool of blood'."

                            - Neil Young, Game Designer at Anim-X


Back in February I learned of a new "game" which threatens to
further blur the lines between fact and fiction within the ufo
community and its relevant parapolitical/conspiracy sub-
communities. It's called Majestic and it is being billed as "The
game that plays you." This new online interactive experience
uses the player's own mind as the gaming environment with the
world wide web and telecommunications networks as its
intravenous feed straight into that player's paranoia prone
imagination. The international software developer, Electronic
Arts, is banking on the popularity of paranoia as a sort of
mental thrill ride. Depending upon what level of interactivity a
player desires, players can be contacted by the game via web
sites, email, online instant messaging, phone, fax, and even
cellular phone messaging systems. With "reality" television
shows like Mtv's Fear and the Fox Family Channel's World's Most
Haunted Places already pushing the envelope of ethical
entertainment, the inherant dangers of such a paranoic "game"
are quite apparent.

Among the many ethical ambiguities implied by the very premise
of the game is its use of real and fake web sites to promote
real and hoax news stories. The game designers have gone so far
as to create front companies for several of these web sites.
They are actively urging fans of the game to create web sites to
act as fronts for the game.

The disinformation is already spreading... I'm already receiving
emails from experiencers and researchers who are forwarding
links to web pages which turn out to be among the growing list
of hoax sites. One experiencer sent me a link to an online image
of a supposed reptoid alien. The link was to one of the top two
Majestic related fan sites, www.abovetopsecret.com.

One of the likely hoax sites is www.chemtrail.com. If you do a
whois lookup on this site you get the name of a company called
Octopus Interactive - these web developers really know their
conspiracy theory... Anyone familiar with the majority of
conspiracy theory from the 1980s and 1990s should recognize the
Octopus conspiracy as one of the (allegedly) farthest reaching
and most convoluted. Most important is the Octopus theory's
linking of continuing news reports about software known
variously as the Inslaw and Promis programs that were designed
with "back doors" for in-the-know agencies.

But perhaps one of the most direct potential dangers to this
game's contamination of the UFO scene can be found within one of
our communities most prolific contributors: Filers Files. Since
June of last year, each issue of Filers Files has contained the
important message "Sponsored by Electronic Arts" within its
header. To date, Mr. Filer has not responded to my repeated
sincere requests for more information on the nature of this
sponsorship.

Meanwhile, high quality parapolitical sites such as
www.disinfo.com have officially announced their open
participation in this new gaming experience.

Of course, many will see this game as a part of the conspiracy
itself; ie- the Majestic game is simply a pretext for the very
type of data gathering / backdoor access to your privacy
engendered in the original claims of Octopus conspiracy
researchers and NSA Echelon devotees.

For more links to online resources and articles about Majestic





                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 5

              Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation

From: Stephen MILES Lewis <smiles@elfis.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 16:46:37 z (MDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:45:31 -0400
Subject: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation


Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation

"A character in the game might ask me the name of my wife. A few
  months later I might get a call saying, "'Neil, if you don't
  stop snooping, you might find Laurie in a pool of blood'."

                            - Neil Young, Game Designer at Anim-X


Back in February I learned of a new "game" which threatens to
further blur the lines between fact and fiction within the ufo
community and its relevant parapolitical/conspiracy sub-
communities. It's called Majestic and it is being billed as "The
game that plays you." This new online interactive experience
uses the player's own mind as the gaming environment with the
world wide web and telecommunications networks as its
intravenous feed straight into that player's paranoia prone
imagination. The international software developer, Electronic
Arts, is banking on the popularity of paranoia as a sort of
mental thrill ride. Depending upon what level of interactivity a
player desires, players can be contacted by the game via web
sites, email, online instant messaging, phone, fax, and even
cellular phone messaging systems. With "reality" television
shows like Mtv's Fear and the Fox Family Channel's World's Most
Haunted Places already pushing the envelope of ethical
entertainment, the inherant dangers of such a paranoic "game"
are quite apparent.

Among the many ethical ambiguities implied by the very premise
of the game is its use of real and fake web sites to promote
real and hoax news stories. The game designers have gone so far
as to create front companies for several of these web sites.
They are actively urging fans of the game to create web sites to
act as fronts for the game.

The disinformation is already spreading... I'm already receiving
emails from experiencers and researchers who are forwarding
links to web pages which turn out to be among the growing list
of hoax sites. One experiencer sent me a link to an online image
of a supposed reptoid alien. The link was to one of the top two
Majestic related fan sites, www.abovetopsecret.com.

One of the likely hoax sites is www.chemtrail.com. If you do a
whois lookup on this site you get the name of a company called
Octopus Interactive - these web developers really know their
conspiracy theory... Anyone familiar with the majority of
conspiracy theory from the 1980s and 1990s should recognize the
Octopus conspiracy as one of the (allegedly) farthest reaching
and most convoluted. Most important is the Octopus theory's
linking of continuing news reports about software known
variously as the Inslaw and Promis programs that were designed
with "back doors" for in-the-know agencies.

But perhaps one of the most direct potential dangers to this
game's contamination of the UFO scene can be found within one of
our communities most prolific contributors: Filers Files. Since
June of last year, each issue of Filers Files has contained the
important message "Sponsored by Electronic Arts" within its
header. To date, Mr. Filer has not responded to my repeated
sincere requests for more information on the nature of this
sponsorship.

Meanwhile, high quality parapolitical sites such as
www.disinfo.com have officially announced their open
participation in this new gaming experience.

Of course, many will see this game as a part of the conspiracy
itself; ie- the Majestic game is simply a pretext for the very
type of data gathering / backdoor access to your privacy
engendered in the original claims of Octopus conspiracy
researchers and NSA Echelon devotees.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                             Eras News: 04-04-01

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:55:07 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 01:21:59 -0400
Subject: Eras News: 04-04-01


ERAS NEWS
The E-News Service of The Eras Project

http://www.geocities.com/erasproject

April 4, 2001

____________________________


The Eras Project: The Mars Initiative

THE 'FORESTS OF MARS': BIOLOGY OR EXOTIC GEOLOGY?

by Paul Anderson

April 4, 2001


Web version of this report with correlating images:
http://www.geocities.com/erasproject/marsforest.html


The thousands of images returned by the Mars Global Surveyor and
previous probes to the Red Planet have yielded many anomalous
features over the years, some of which are possibly indicative
of abundant water and even life, either past or present.

Recently, some new images have come to light, courtesy of Graham
Orme, taken by MGS in 2000 near the Martian south pole, of more
unusual landforms which for all the world look like large-scale
vegetation of some sort or possibly ancient coral as has also
been suggested. Is this really evidence of macro life, past or
present, or just another form of unusual geology, which Mars is
becoming known for (remembering that while Mars is the closest
planetary equivalent ot Earth in our solar system, along with
Europa, it is still _not_ the Earth). If 'plant life', it would
appear to be more of a ground-covering variety, albeit
large-scale, than a 'forest of trees' per se, but the images are
provocative nonetheless. Or could we be looking at the remains
of Martian coral reefs? Shadowing in the images does reveal the
formations to apparently have some relative height. The radial
'branching' from the centre outward in each 'bush' is of
particular interest, giving these objects their distinct
plant-like appearance. Coral reefs on Earth, such as off the
coast of Australia, can show a similar transition, from isolated
"islands" of coral to a denser, continuous bed. Other
possibilities which TEP/TMI is looking into include something
akin to seagrass beds (some species of which have been found
fossilized, dating back to the late Cretaceous period) or even
Mangrove forests on Earth. One aspect of seagrass plants is the
extensive underground root / rhizome system which anchors them
to their substrate. Perhaps a similar fossilized system could
become exposed over time?

One aspect of these formations to be considered is size. The
original NASA scaled image posted on the MSSS web site is
approximately 2.83 km by 20.46 km in size, making the one large
'bush' near the top left hand corner of the picture
approximately one-third of the width, or .94 km across (.6 miles
or 3,168 feet). Single plants of this size are hard to imagine
perhaps, making the 'coral' analogy more likely, composed of
many individual plants spread out over a larger area, _if_ these
formations are biology related. On Earth, seagrass beds can
cover large areas, up to a few thousand square km, as can coral,
etc. Of course, anything akin to  fossilized remains of seagrass
or coral would imply there was a standing ocean of water at some
point in the past, of which there is other growing evidence in
recent years from the MGS and other probes. These analogies are
put out simply as possibilities, for others to follow up on.

Other examples of possible Martian vegetation have been found
before, including patches on sand dunes and in craters, etc.
which look very much like large fungal-type colonies or smaller
bushes (see Mac Tonnies' Cydonian Imperative web site below for
additional reports on these), and even greenish coloured patches
on the rocks near the Viking 1 lander in 1976 which changed
pattern and colour during each Martian year as documented by
Gilbert Levin of Biospherics.

These photographs are among those reportedly referenced by
Arthur C. Clarke in recent weeks as possible evidence of
'large-scale life on Mars' (see articles listed below). Such
features may indeed have 'normal', albeit distinctly Martian,
geological explanations as NASA insists. Only additional,
high-resolution photographs of these and similar landforms or a
landing in these areas will answer these questions (Malin, are
you listening?).

Original  NASA / MSSS images:

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M08/M0804688.html
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/nonmaps/M08/M0804688.gif


Related articles / web sites:

Clarke's Believe it or Not
http://www.space.com/peopleinterviews/clarke_believe_010227.html

How I helped to Save Star Trek: It Turned Out to Forecast our Future
http://www.times-archive.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/09/16/timopnope01001.html

Sir Arthur C. Clarke Cracks The Tip of the Mars Iceberg
http://www.yowusa.com/Archive/March2001/29MAR01a1/29mar01a1.htm

The Cydonian Imperative: Vegetation on Mars?
http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

A Geo-Biological Mars?
http://yowusa.com/Archive/March2001/09MAR01a/09mar01a.htm

Life on Mars! (Levin / Biospherics)
http://www.biospherics.com/mars/

Colour and Feature Changes at Mars Viking Lander Site  (Levin /
Biospherics)
http://www.biospherics.com/mars/color/color.htm

'Mars: The Living Planet"  (Levin / Biospherics)
http://www.biospherics.com/mars/spie2/reprint106a.htm

Dr. Gilbert V. Levin's August 1997 SPIE Paper  (Levin / Biospherics)
http://www.biospherics.com/mars/spie/spiehtml.htm

Coral Reef, Seagrass and Mangrove Forest Links:
http://www.state.gov/www/global/global_issues/coral_reefs/websites.html


____________________________


Eras News is the e-news service of The Eras Project, providing
the latest news and reports relating to the leading-edge issues
of our time in science and technology and their possible present
and future implications as we enter the 21st Century and a new
Era, as well as other periodic information and updates on
TEP-related news, projects and events. Eras News is available
free by subscription:

To subscribe to Eras News, send your e-mail address to:
erasnews-subscribe@listbot.com

To unsubscribe from Eras News, send your e-mail address to:
erasnews-unsubscribe@listbot.com

You can also subscribe or unsubscribe from the TEP web site:
http://www.geocities.com/erasproject/erasnews.html

Eras News Archive:
http://www.listbot.com/archive/erasnews


THE ERAS PROJECT

Suite 202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC  V5T 2M9  Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/erasproject


� The Eras Project, 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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                    Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:31:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 01:24:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging - Clark


 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:02:15 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:43:55 -0500

 >>>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:06:40 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Brilliant Light Plunging
 >>>>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:37:25 -0500

 >Just a couple of points: I know that Jerry was not, at that
 >moment, replying directly to my question, but I assumed that in
 >a forum like this people were allowed to make general comments,
 >otherwise UpDates would be a series of dialogues rather than an
 >open discussion. I can assure Jerry that as one of the dreaded
 >tribe of Librarians, my reading skills are perfectly adequate,
 >and I have certificates to prove it!

 >>>>>Perhaps while he's lying there he could think back and try to
 >>>>>remember where I, or any of my pelicanist colleages ever made
 >>>>>such comments as "eyewitness testimony has no value whatever and
 >>>>>can be discarded without a single thought".

 >>>Just read it carefully, it's quite a sweeping statement. Have
 >>>you got the slightest evidence to back it up, or are we just
 >>>going to get more vague waffle? You are beginning to disappoint
 >>>me; the Jerry Clark who writes incredibly well researched and
 >>>meticulously referenced books seems to have little in common
 >>>with the Jerome Clark who throws around unattributed
 >>>pseudo-quotes and bizarre rants on UpDates.

 >>My word. Other listfolk had no trouble grasping my point.
 >>For you, though, I will take the trouble to explain:

 >And your evidence is?... as they say.

 >>Many thousands of witnesses worldwide, at a very conservative
 >>estimate, have viewed structured craftlike phenomena under
 >>excellent viewing conditions, sometimes at close range and as
 >>often as not in daylight. On a number of occasions, the objects
 >>have been multiply and even independently witnessed, once in a
 >>while even tracked on radar as the human observers watched them.
 >>Sometimes, according to reports from individuals generally
 >>deemed credible, they carry nonhuman crews.

 >>These objects often exhibit extraordinary performance
 >>characteristics unlike those of which balloons and aircraft are
 >>capable. Some of the cases involve technically trained
 >>individuals. If they were reporting anything other than UFOs
 >>which looked and acted like ostensibly unearthly vehicles, no
 >>one would think to question much or even most of this testimony.

 >Strange, then, that when we ask you for examples of these cases
 >we are usually presented with either armwaving dismissal or a
 >general invocation to read the Collected Works of Jerome Clark.
 >Which one of these "thousands of witnesses worldwide" do you
 >think has produced the best and most substantial account,
 >independently witnessed? Which witnesses reporting "nonhuman
 >crews" do you find particularly credible?

This is staggeringly tiresome. Not to mention shamelessly
disingenuous. I have neither the time nor the inclination to
waste my time reminding you of well-documented UFO reports with
which we are all perfectly familiar, about which I (and others,
most recently Dick Hall, Peter Sturrock, Bruce Maccabee, and
Brad Sparks) have written at great length, and with which you
cannot seem to come to grips except through armwaving dismissal.

In the past, responding to this sort of tedious game-playing
from you, I have cited cases from my encyclopedia (apparently
the "Collected Works of Jerome Clark" above, treated as if a
work that exists solely in my imagination), which explains in
all the detail any rational observer could ask for why certain
reports remain puzzling and suggestive. This citation was all,
as I knew then, to no avail. No more.

I can only conclude that I've won the argument. At least you're
no longer maintaining the pretense that you reject out of hand
an immense quantity of human testimony addressing matters you
just don't want to hear. And you've dropped the pretense that
psychosocial ufologists and debunkers are not, in all important
respects, one and the same.

 >(i.e. meteorites - presumably there are people
 >who don't believe in meteorites in the world according to Jerry)

Say what? Further evidence, I guess, that your well is running
dry. Maybe you should find something useful to do with your
time, John. Don't you have to go shelve some books?

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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:23:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 01:26:46 -0400
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:07:32 EDT
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:16:53 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >>The brightnest reflections occur when the sun is low and the
 >>pelicans are nearly in line with the sun... the opposite of the
 >>reported situation (sun in west, objects in east).>

 >Hi, Bruce:

 >I think we once discussed this point. What was the direction of
 >the objects and the time of the sighting. I think that it was
 >about noon?

Only once?

I presukme you are talking about Arnold's sighting here: about 3
PM, June 24, 1947.  Sun at 60 elevation in the west (if I recall
orrectly) and the objects were east of Arnold... initially
northeast and at the end of the sighting south-southeast and
"about at his level" or below (so they could seem to travel
behind a mountain peak.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                        Re: AA Time Warp - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:53:01 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 01:30:15 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Deschamps


 >Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 16:21:38 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:37:19 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Deschamps
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans
 >>>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:37:31 -0700

 >Previously, Michel wrote:

 >>The reason I _believe_ the AA may be potentially real is the
 >>minute detail which seems to elude everybody else.

 >>Until I'm shown real proof of fakery, I will continue to put a
 >>lot of credence in the possible reality of the AA.

 >>Is everybody else blind?

 >Hi, Michel!

 >No, not everyone is blind. I remember seeing the following post
 >where you wrote:

 >>I am 200% sure that the AA film is real.

 >Now you're saying that "AA may be potentially real"?

 >What gives? Maybe it's the change in status. After all, you used
 >to call yourself

 >>Michel M. Deschamps
 >>MUFON provincial Section Director for Sudbury, Ontario, Canada,
 >>UFO Researcher/Historian & UFO eyewitness to 14 separate sightings
 >>(1974 1998).

 >Or was that 17 sightings?

 >Oh, that's right. You've seen so many, you've lost count! If
 >fact, I think the term was "casual", as in:

 >>>Frankly, I don't care that much since I've had so many
 >>>sightings; I am kind of casual about it because I know Flying
 >>>saucers are real.

 >So which is it, Michel? Are you or aren't you sure about this
 >whole flying saucer/AA thing? One minute you've seen 14
 >sightings, the next it's 17. One minute you're 200% sure that AA
 >is real and the next you aren't. One minute you're claiming to
 >have videotape of a flying saucer but won't show it and the next
 >you're chastising people for being "blind"!

 >Such inconsistency doesn't help your case, dude.


Roger,

You keep playing with my words...

I know now that you make films, or direct them, or do something
with them.

Now I know where your ignorance of the UFO subject matter comes
from.

You know absolutely nothing about it. You never saw anything,
therefore there is nothing to see. Every photo is a
fabrication...everything is this...everything is that.

You really like to isolate yourself, don't you.

Then be by yourself.

Leave us knowers alone.

Over and Out!

cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps

BTW, my UFO clips will be posted on the web soon... can't wait
for the debunking to begin!









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 6

               Re: 'Yeti's Hair' Defies DNA Analysis - Chalker

From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:19:24 +1000
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 01:46:23 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Yeti's Hair' Defies DNA Analysis - Chalker


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:59:41 EDT
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:08:22 -0400
 >Subject: 'Yeti's Hair' Defies DNA Analysis

 >From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:18:23 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:09:39 -0400
 >Subject: Re: 'Yeti's Hair' Defies DNA Analysis -

Yes, this is fascinating data, providing its legitimacy is
confirmed beyond an April Fool's joke. Lets wait and see if DNA
sequencing information emerges.

 >As far as I know, there is no bank of genetic materials on
 >animals to compare. It took years to created a human bank.
 >That's why it is impossible to identify the Yeti's hair. All
 >they could do is to compare it to a human hair and, of course,
 >its not human. We had the same problem with the Chupacabras's
 >hair. Our samples shows, because of its characteristics, it
 >belong to mammals. Without an animal hair's bank, you couldn't
 >make a true DAN analysis.

 >Your comments are welcome!!!

This is not the case. While I agree accessibility to human
genomic data is easier become there is a great deal more data,
animal DNA data is out there for comparison. That is why I have
been interested in securing alleged chupacabra hair biological
samples, but it seems as soon as we start asking critical
questions such as sample legitimacy or the credibility of the
chain of evidence or the credibility of the evidence, such
requests suddenly fall on deaf ears and we get a stoney silence.

Once again I will point out there is a facility here that will
look at credible samples but expect that there will be serious
questions asked about sample origin, handling (re
contamination), etc, to ensure that time, resources & money is
not wasted.

If you have secured clear DNA sequences my team would very very
interested to see it and we would like to see if it fits in with
any DNA data base information we can access.

As for animal DNA data consider the following, merely for
starters:

http://www.agr.kuleuven.ac.be/vakken/i287/bioinformatica.htm

"Bioinformatics Databases and Tools Guide" One example re
animals is:

http://www.ri.bbsrc.ac.uk/cgi-bin/arkdb/browsers/browser.sh?species=cattle

"ArkDB" which covers such things as cattle, pigs, chickens,
horses, cats, tilapia (fish species), turkey, deer, sheep &
salmon

Whoever is telling you that comparison DNA data does not exists
is similarly uninformed. Such comparison exercises can be
exhaustive and very time consuming, but worthwhile. Tools exist
to make these comparisons and searches a little faster. I would
expect that in the alleged Yeti sample, comparisons of the wide
amount of data may have been made and that discrete mutations
have made for the mystery.

That is, assuming the story is legitimate and not just April
Fool's info. Apologises to the team in advance if the data is
credible, but the proximity to April 1 begs caution.

I await more detailed data to confirm the initial reports and
flesh out any detailed DNA sequences with interest. Have any of
our UK associates seen the Channel 4 documentary in the To the
Ends of the Earth series that was apparently aired on or around
April 2nd?

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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

               Nellis UFO [was: Gauntlet to the Psychosocials]

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:27:10 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 01:48:30 -0400
Subject: Nellis UFO [was: Gauntlet to the Psychosocials]


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:24:23 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:26:31 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Velez

 >Before Dick has a chance to respond, I'd like to ask you both
 >what you make of the "UFO" footage that was (allegedly) smuggled
 >out of the Nellis Test Range several years ago.I am referring to
 >the clear, daylight footage of a multi-lobed craft that
 >performed aerial acrobatics and manouvers that cannot be
 >duplicated by any 'conventional' aircraft (that we currently
 >know of.)

 >I have always been fascinated by that footage but little is ever
 >heard or mentioned about it. It would be nice if Bruce could
 >'chime in' on this one. Especially if he had a chance to give it
 >the old 'hairy eyeball.'

I did quite a bit of analysis of this footage based on the
overlaid radar data on the video. My graphs of the UFOs
trajectory, altitude, velocity, and acceleration can be found
at:

http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/discussion/nellis.htm

(Some of the links are to sites that no longer exist.)

Other current relevant sites with video excerpts are at:

http://www.cseti.org/position/addition/nellis.htm
http://hometown.aol.com/alienrebel020
http://aliens.phatstart.com/data/research/77006008.shtml
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/videoclips/

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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                       Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com<
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:10:43 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 01:53:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Rudiak


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 04:05:18 +0100
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:31:44 -0400
 >Subject: - Easton


 >>Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:41:36 -0400
 >>From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: Don Ledger <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'

 >Don wrote:

 >>In a recent Notice to Airmen release advising of a scientific
 >>package of 1.4 kilograms, about 4 pounds, Transport Canada
 >>advised that the balloon would be 141,000 cu.ft or 4,000 cubic
 >>meters in volume. If that was a cube it would be 54 feet on a
 >>side, just to lift a 4 pound payload. I suspect that it could
 >>probably lift 20 pounds if need be, but they wanted a margin of
 >>lift higher than usual since this thing was to go to 138,000
 >>feet. But even so there is no way you could stretch the rubber
 >>band to lift a payload of say 400 pounds at that size.

 >Don,

 >One of the earliest US hot-air balloon competitions took place
 >on 18, January, 1964. Contemporary with the Zamora case, it's
 >documented that a competing balloon, for a "one-man crew" had a
 >volume of 30,000 cubic feet. Almost a fifth of the size you
 >cite, it was not so much, as a cube, 54 feet per side, as "forty
 >feet in diameter". See:

 >http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9801/0002/catalina0002.ht
m

Sooooo? Forty feet in diameter is still the size of a mansion.
Do you think Zamora could distinguish this from an object the
size of a VW bus (the actual size that he described)?

 >Obviously, we would expect a 'two-man' hot-air balloon to be larger.

Indeed. All I see here is the typical Eastonian cluelessness
about distinguishing the important from the unimportant. In
fact, it's been pointed out about 100 times that a hot air
balloon is far to large to account for the object Zemora
described, just as its been pointed out about 10,000 times that
pelicans can't outfly airplanes and can't produce a blinding
glare. But Easton marches on in his debunker fog. Nothing ever
sinks in.

 >Don Piccard is a pioneer of hot-air ballooning and participated
 >in that fateful January, 1964, Catalina challenge.

 >There's an online biography of his landmark achievements at:

 >http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9707/piccard.htm

Just more typical Eastonian padding of a thoroughly discredited
argument. Why is it that Easton _never_ directly addresses the
numerous serious holes in his debunking arguments?

Either the man can't, or he simply doesn't give a damn.

Furthermore the man has the chutzpah to attack the lack of
scientific background of many ufologists. What scientific
background does Easton have? Obviously none at all. The man
blathers on, but can't argue his way out of a paper bag.

One of the first things taught in a scientific education is to
separate the significant from the insignificant. Easton
perpetually argues the insignificant.

 >The hot-air balloon they flew was a 'Raven' model 'S-50' named
 >'Channel Champ' and had a 56,000 cubic capacity. For
 >confirmation, see Ed Yost's online biography, 'Father of the
 >Modern Hot-Air Balloon', at:

 >http://webpages.ainet.com/gosner/syrinxballoon/yostbio.htm

 >The aforementioned 'Balloon Life' article states:

Blah, blah, blah. All very interesting if the subject was the
history of hot air ballooning, but never addresses the central
issues of the Zemora case. No surprise coming from James Easton

 >"Piccard was going to do the flight in an S 45 with four tanks.
 >Plans changed. 'Suddenly it became a 50 foot balloon and a two
 >man job and the Vice-president of the company is going to come
 >along'."

50 foot, 2 man balloon. Obviously much, much bigger than what
Zemora described. Remember the man got within about 50 feet of
the thing as it was taking off. Also he somehow never saw the
men and the gondola suspended from underneath. Kind of hard to
miss at that distance, don't you think?

It's also rather hard to explain how a "hot air balloon" could:
--leave impressions in hard soil
--fly against the wind
--disappear at over 100 miles per hour
--burn the ground but leave no chemical residue
--be reinflated for takeoff in less than 2 minutes time
--be out flying in high winds to begin with

These are details that any good theory should explain. Again a
true scientific approach is to pay attention to the significant
and ignore the insignificant.

The Eastonian way, however, is to drown everybody and everything
in the insignificant.

 >Bottom line; you wrote:

 >"Unless Zamora was blind, he could not have missed an 80-100
 >foot high balloon with a circumference of some 120 feet at the
 >balloon's equator. When he arrived on the scene he stated that
 >he thought it was an overturned car".

 >As you can see, I have thoroughly researched these basic issues
 >and long ago, factually established the size of a circa 1964,
 >two- man hot-air balloon. Evidently, it could have been much
 >smaller than you claim.

Researched but without even 2 seconds thought as to the
implications. Hot air balloons are too damn big to account for
Zemora's object. Will the perpetually clueless James Easton ever
realize the significance of this? Of course not!


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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                        Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:30:47 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 01:58:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - McCoy


Hello, all Bruce, Easton, Don.

 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:57:03 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Easton
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 04:05:18 +0100

 >>>Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:41:36 -0400
 >>>From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: Don Ledger <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'

 ><snip>

 >>At the outset of research into Zamora's reported sighting, the
 >>'science' of hot-air ballooning, its ostensible connection with
 >>Zamora's encounter and why a hot-air balloon was the obvious
 >>explanation, were in fact discussed with and explained to me by
 >>Don Piccard.

 >The "obvious explanation?"

 >True, Don was wrong in suggesting that the balloon had to be 80
 >ft or more in size.

 >But even 50 ft is a bit large for a car... don't you think?

Even the closest attempt at a Balloon like soultion, would be
the "Ballute" Aerobraking system and it was experimented with at
China Lake CA. in the 60's but was never "man rated" it is used
today for muntions and space probes. The Ballute-half
parachute/Balloon was explored as a way of slowing a high
altitude bailout means of leaving a less than perfect
spacecraft/spyplane.

Tests were not good, and the reliability of the deployment was
not made reasonably reliable until the 80's (Munitions) I
believe the Raven "Sport Balloon" was an program that was
connected to this, but, a ballute would have skimmed across the
sage brush and mesquite like an old garbage bag, with similar
results. Oh, by the way, man rated ballutes were in the 20 ft.
diameter catagory. Not enough to haul two guys down, let alone
to get them off the earth again.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                        Re: Serious Research - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:45:57 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:01:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Young


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:21:09 -0000

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:21:28 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>I'm reluctant to spring for the $75 you want for your book, if
 >>you no longer pay attention to statistics. I thought that maybe
 >>as a teaser you just might want to give us one tidbit from your
 >>list of thousands of sightings of mystery machines flying about,
 >>instead of just plugging you latest saucer book, like so many
 >>other UFO investigators.

 >>Come on, Dick, throw us out a piece of red meat.

 >>We're dying to shred it to pieces.

 >Bob,

 >Pretty cheap shot to try to make me sound mercenary, when I have
 >always pointed out free or inexpensive alternative sources. (And
 >UFOE-II isn't $75 either.

Dick,

My apologies, I have been able to find it offered for only $60,
plus a modest shipping charge.

 >And it does include statistics of a more meaningful kind.)
 >Try my article on www.isso.org.

Thanks for the URL, I think that's the article we discussed some
weeks ago here. I have carefully read the article but couldn't
find any statistics, unless you mean in the bibliography of 50
works by others and 5 additional ones by yourself.

Although I didn't see any statistics, I did read the following
words and phrases: "Among", "high probability", "large
majority", "In mathematical language", "a standard feature",
"Nearly year long", "repeated", "many", "repeated throughout the
history of UFOs", "one of the many indicators of intelligence
behind the phenomenon", "Case after case", "serious medical
injuries in numerous cases", "practically a standard feature",
"various", "hundreds or thousands", "The accumulated data of 50
years", "often", "typically", "data are fully documented in a
forthcoming report", "several of the repetitive flight patterns
indicate physical principles or engineering accomplishments of a
much higher order", "based on numerous case histories",
"collectively suggest", "countless cases", "frequently medical
injuries", "Pervasive", "tended", "almost certainly",
"increasingly", and the delightful, "growing skepticism
(sometimes bordering on paranoia)".

I didn't even have to switch to my computer's scientific
calculator even once. Where's the beef, Dick?

The use of "almost certainly and higher order" sure sounds like
science, doesn't it, boys and girls?  The image appearing is
that of old doc Hynek, with the pipe and attractive beard,
lecturing to the rubes. Without any objective data behind these
statements they are mostly meaningless.  In fact the use of
scientific sounding mumbo-jumbo like this to mask junk is a
commonly recognized sign of pseudoscience.

Thank you for the articles' list of cases which you believe
demonstate the ETH, "UFOs as craft--as someone else's
technology--is one important hypothesis that could be tested.
(In my estimation, it is the most likely hypothesis to be proven
true.)"

I'll list these 20 significant UFO cases here.  Since you won't
say which ones are the best, I guess we can all choose from the
list one or more that suit our fancy.

1) May 1, 1952; Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona; 9:10 a.m. Witnesses:
Major Rudy Pestalozzi, an intelligence officer, and an airman.

2) Aug. 13, 1960; Red Bluff, California; 11:50 p.m. Witnesses:
Officer Charles A. Carson, Officer Stanley Scott, California
Highway Patrol; Tehama County sheriff's deputies; Air Force
radar.

3) Apr. 24, 1964; Socorro, New Mexico; 5:45 p.m. Witnesses:
Lonnie Zamora, Socorro police officer; Deputy Sheriff James
Luckie; Sgt. Sam Chavez, New Mexico State Police.

4) March 5, 1967; Minot AFB, North Dakota; time not reported.
Witnesses: Air Force security police and other base personnel.

5) Oct. 18, 1973; Mansfield, Ohio; 11:00 p.m. Witnesses: Capt.
Lawrence J. Coyne and the crew of an Army Reserve UH-1H
helicopter; separately located ground witnesses.

6) September 1, 1974; Langenburg, Saskatchewan, Canada; 11:00
a.m. Witnesses: Farmer Edwin Fuhr, 36; Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Constable Ron Morier, onsite investigator.

7) January 1, 1978; Santa Monica, California; 12:45-1:00 p.m.
Witnesses: Floyd P. Hallstrom (37 years flying experience, as a
Navy combat air crewman and personal crew chief to admirals,
including the Commander-in-Chief of the Atlantic Fleet.

8) Nov. 9, 1978; Kuwait; time not reported. Witnesses: Oil field
technicians.

9) March 4, 1988; Eastlake, Ohio; 8:35 p.m. Witnesses: Family,
Coast Guard personnel, others separately.

10) May 25, 1995; Bovina, Texas; 10:30 a.m. Witnesses: Capt.
Gene Tollefson, First Officer John J. Waller, America West
Airlines Flight 564.

11) Sept. 3, 1965; Damon, Texas; 11:00 p.m. Witnesses: Deputy
Sheriff Billy E. McCoy; Deputy Sheriff Robert W. Goode.

12) April 17, 1966; Ravenna, Ohio; dawn. Witnesses: Dale Spaur
and Wilbur Neff, deputy sheriffs; police officers in several
other jurisdictions.

13) March 15, 1965; Everglades; 1:00 a.m. Witnesses: James
Flynn, dog trainer; ophthalmologist who treated his eye damage;
investigators who discovered strong physical trace evidence.

14) Sept. 19, 1976; Tehran, Iran; 1:30 a.m. Witnesses: Two F-4
pilots, military radar, citizens.

15) Oct. 15, 1966; Split Rock Pond, New Jersey; 4:30 a.m.
Witnesses: Jerry H. Simons, a forester.

16) April 4, 1969; Atlanta, Missouri; 6:40 a.m. (after sunrise).
Witnesses: William Overstreet, mail carrier.

17) December 29, 1980; Huffman, Texas; 9:00 p.m. Witnesses:
Betty Cash, Vickie Landrum, Colby Landrum; dozens who observed
the helicopters.

18) August 19, 1972; Colby, Kansas; 2:00 a.m. Witnesses: Sgt.
Paul Carter, Officer Dennis Brown, Officer Earl Wood, Jr.,
Officer Duane Nelson, 50-60 citizens.

19) Other examples: Oct. 11, 1967, LaPoint, Utah, night. A
luminous orange object approached and hovered over a truck, its
color changing to green and blue, the light illuminating the
area bright as day. The object followed the truck around several
turns, then departed upward at high speed.

20) June 9, 1972, Algodonales, Cadiz, Spain, 10:30 p.m. Motorist
suddenly blinded by bright light from a pulsating yellow oval
ahead of car, E-M effects on car, object lit up trees as it
passed over them while departing.

If it's OK with you, I won't bother to list the hundreds more in
your book or the many others at the "NICAP" site. That's one of
the problems with UFO claims, as the best ones are solved or
discarded, there are always more unsolved mysteries and
inadequately investigated claims, because the culture and its
beliefs are generating more UFO reports all of the time.

So, if you don't mind, could we agree that irrespective of what
may occur next week, or next month or next year, that each of
these 20 incidents contains evidence that you believe can best
be explained by the presence of craft made by someone or
something else?

This proposition can be a working hypothesis. Then, all that it
needs is proof.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

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

"Let's Get Ready to R-u-u-u-m-b-l-e..."
   -  Apologies to Mr. Vince McMahone, World Wrestling Federation
----------------------------------------------------------------








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                         Re: Body Marks - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:09:37 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:08:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Body Marks - Mortellaro


 >From: Pat McCartney <ElPatricio@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:17:13 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Body Marks
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Subj:  UFO UpDate: Re: Body Marks - Velez
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:17:23 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Body Marks
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>

 >>Would that it was so Brian. The problem is, some of us are awake
 >>now and again when a 'contact' happens. You have to find a way
 >>to live with that in your head. You can't tell anybody. They'll
 >>think you're crazy, or if they really care about you they will
 >>be concerned for your sanity and well being. It is not easy to
 >>deal with this stuff on _any_ level. It's why I work so hard and
 >>give so many hours to the abductees that contact me and to the
 >>public via this List.

 >John,

 >Thank you for so eloquently describing your experiences as a
 >perceived abductee, and sharing that with UFO UpDates. For the
 >record, I have had no similar experience, nor with UFOs --
 >despite my desire to see _something_ that would settle the
 >matter.

 >But, as a journalist who has learned the hard lesson of shutting
 >up and listening to a good story, I know that you have something
 >to teach the rest of us.

 >One issue that I have been wrestling with is the realization
 >that any extraterrestial species that could visit this planet
 >would likely be a far _older_ civilization than us. We, of
 >course, are still in our technological youth. If spacefaring
 >cultures there be, chances are they have been around far, far
 >longer than we can easily grasp.

 >If that proves to be the case, then perhaps the abduction
 >experience reported by people like yourself today occurred to
 >many preceding generations of humans. In fact, an extrasolar
 >civilization might simply be tending their garden _us_ over many
 >of our lifetimes. The more ancient the visiting civilization,
 >the more likely some kind of protocol has been worked out by a
 >nearly infinite number of generations of bureaucrats.

 >Because of that possibility, I'd be interested if some of the
 >more scholarly listers out there could describe the mythical
 >incubus and succubus. Is there a specific etymology or starting
 >point for the description of sexual demons? Makes me want to go
 >read a book ...

 >Regards,

 >Pat McCartney, hard-working city editor
 >Auburn, Calif.


Dear Pat, Listers, EBK, The Famous and Rich;

Score one for the press. The media. Or, in this case, the upper
case "Media."  All from a hard working city editor? God! This is
indeed, the wowest of WOW signals.

Thank you sire, and I do mean "sire," for thinking like a
perceived abductee instead of a city editor. At least the city
editors I've known don't speak as you do. And for that I am
exceedingly grateful.

It has been said that this planet is filled with souls
inhabiting bodies which for some unknown reason, "choose" to be
here. And that there are those in the universe (our portion of
it) who wish us to be successful at this experiment in life. If
we fail as a species, it is said, then all life fails in this
universe. We all sort of depend on each other.

This is the gist from Whitley Strieber's newest put together,
"The Key." It may be a book to read. Not that I entirely agree
in it's truth. But simply that every perspective adds to our
database. Some new way of seeing the truth of another. Such,
when it all comes together, may form a greater truth.

Someone else said that if all the "truths" spoken and written
were all put together, it might very well come close to the
absolute truth. If this is so, then each and every one of us has
a responsibility to research, learn and read. And to do so
without judgment.

As I've said so many times on this List, to denigrate someone's
paradigm is a sin. Because in it might be a kernel of the
absolute truth. Everyone has something to add, not subtract, to
everyone's truth. Together, we may actually be able to determine
a truth. Together. But first, we must find that truth. This, in
lieu of seeking the falsity of truth in that paradigm.

Wouldn't that be a kick in the gas?

Jim Mortellaro,
Pretender to the Kingship and President, of the Abducteesies....
with my port and my portfolio back





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                     Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:57:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:13:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Velez


 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:36:08 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth

 >>Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 17:56:58 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:46:11 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:17:18 -0400
 >>>>From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria as a Myth
 >>>>To: 'UFO UpDates - Toronto' <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>I'm surprised no one has yet stated the obvious example, Orson
 >>>>Wells' "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast.

 >>>The little town in New Jersey where the Martains supposedly
 >>>landed still has an old fashioned small water tower with bullet
 >>>holes in it, and an historical marker. I've seen it. Folks there
 >>>who had seen that tower every day of their lives apparently
 >>>thought it was a Martian "Machine" filled with martians, with
 >>>"intelligences vast and cool" coming to drink their blood.

 >>>If Mass Hysteria doesn't exist, then clearly simultaneous
 >>>hysteria by many people does. What's the difference?

 >>Hola Young Bob,

 >>The difference is, the _whole_ town wasn't out running amok and
 >>shooting up the water tower! I'll bet dollars to donuts that the
 >>few yokels who blew up the water tower had been at the local
 >>'watering hole' immediately before. <LOL>

 >>If there had been reports of a majority of the citizens behaving
 >>totally irrationally as a result of the broadcast that would be
 >>one thing, (a good arguement for "mass" hysteria) but that
 >>wasn't the case.

 >But I can't remember any case where sceptics have actually
 >claimed that an _entire_ town or community has been involved in
 >a single UFO case. You are setting up a "straw man", as Jerry
 >Clark would put it.

 >>There are 'good' and 'bad,' 'smart' and 'dumb' folks all over
 >>Bob. I imagine even in a small town of a thousand people or so
 >>there will be at least 50 wahoos capable of shooting up the
 >>local water tower. That's enough people to make 'headlines' but
 >>hardly "mass" hysteria.

 >If 50 people came down my street shooting at Magonia Towers,
 >that would be mass enough for me! What would you say was the
 >minimum number of people needed to constitute a "mass"?

Hi John,

In answer to your last question (first;) I merely meant that in
terms of percentages it would make more sense to use the term
when defining a 'majority' of some kind. In this case, if say
400 or 500 people out of a 1000 had lost all control and run
amok, calling it "mass hysteria" would be fair. But if it was a
case of few hooligans shooting up the local water tower then to
label it "mass" anything would be a bit much. The point I was
trying to make was, unless you're dealing with a 'majority'
portion of any given group, a label of "Mass" this or that is
not justified.

In terms of 'mass hysteria' and UFOs,...

If UFOs landed en masse in every major city in the world
tomorrow, I agree with you that many people would completely
freak out. Mass hysteria is not a myth. The ones who would be
affected the deepest by disclosure would probably be those who
held the strongest beliefs that such a thing was simply not
possible. Everybody is always asking; if aliens are real, why
haven't they landed on the White House Lawn, or contacted our
world leaders. As if they were the only options available.

They're not. And that's not the way the 'contact' is happening.
The "aliens" have introduced their own version of how 'contact'
will be handled. What I don't like about it is the 'clandestine'
modus operandi they seem to be employing.

"They" haven't gone to 'world leaders' or landed on the White
House lawn. Instead, 'contact' is happening -one on one-. In the
most personal and intimate way that anyone could conceive. Not
only direct physical contact, but mind to mind as well. "They"
(whoever/whatever 'they' are) are contacting and interacting
with us on _their_ terms, not ours. "They" appear to have their
own agenda, and what 'we want' or 'expect' has little if any
meaning or significance for them. They do what they do with
complete impunity. Maybe even relying on the knowledge that
anyone of their victims who tries to speak out or warn others
about their activities are going to be summarily laughed at,
isolated by 'labelling' and dismissed as psych casualties.

Although it's not easy to have ones world view shattered into
ten thousand tiny bits, there are large numbers of us claiming
'contact' who have survived it intact. If 'we' are an example as
to how humanity would react to _direct_ "alien contact," (and I
think the abductees represent just that) then no matter what the
initial reaction, humanity will be 'alright' and survive
psychologically. Myself and the others are examples of it. It
hasn't been a cake walk, but we haven't lost our minds or gone
hysterical either. :)

All those projections of mass hysteria are purely academic. Look
to those who report close encounters to find out how
people/human beings "react" to alien contact. (Last time I
checked I was still a member of the human race.) I represent
'one way' that a person can react to such a contact. I have not
had (yet) a "hysterical" reaction to any of it. I think a
"majority" of people would respond in like manner. The "real
thing" (the abductees) demonstrate something else in all
together terms of response. None of it to with anything even
approaching "hysteria."

John, if the day should ever come when the UFO occupants make
their presence known to all, and you feel like you need someone
to talk to who will not prejudge or ridicule you, I want you to
know that you can contact me anytime. I promise to do my
damndest to 'be there for you' in a much more meaningful way
than you have 'been there' for me. ;)

 >But I can't remember any case where sceptics have actually
 >claimed that an _entire_ town or community has been involved in
 >a single UFO case. You are setting up a "straw man", as Jerry
 >Clark would put it.

As you can see from my previous response, that's not what I
was saying. I didn't teven mention "sceptics" in my original
at all. Maybe you confused something you read in another post
with my statements. I apologize for any misleading language/
phrasing I may have used. But I don't think I said or implied
what you derived from it.

In my best "True Believer" backward Yankee English:

I didn't mean what y'all said I meant. <LOL>

Regards from His Majesty's "former" back yard,...

John Velez, Gullible Yankee Hick :)

            "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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                            Re: Serious Research

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:56:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:22:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research


Bob, Dick, List,

Consider the following Scenario & Conversation:

All winter long I've been confined to a one-room apartment.
There are no windows that would let me look at the outside
world. The only entrance/exit is a single locked door.

One day a Ufologist appears on the door stoop, knocks, and
unlocks the door with his key. He slips inside before I can see
what's outside.

"Are you ready to come out?" he asks. "If so, there's one thing
I must tell you. Your world view has to change because the world
itself has changed in your absence."

"What do you mean the world has changed?" I ask.

"All the leaves are brown now," explains the Ufologist.

"Brown? Can you explain?"

"Yes. It would appear, from the evidence we've gathered that
we've been visited by extraordinary aircraft for something like
the last 50 years. It seems reasonable to conclude, given
internal eyewitness consistency to such sightings, that some, if
not many, of those encounters, represent visits by alien beings
from another planet and solar system. We call this the ETH."

"Is that all?"

"What do you mean?"

"I mean, if they were now actually and truly here, wouldn't
there be some collateral fall out? Wouldn't there be additional
shades or factors of brown, in other words?"

"Yes, there would be, and I'm glad you asked. For one thing, we
have reports from equally credible eyewitnesses that some of
these objects have indeed crashed and been recovered by military
personnel."

"Is that all?"

"Well, actually, some of those same seemingly credible witnesses
have also reported that alien bodies were recovered as well."

"Is that the end to brown, then?"

"Not exactly. Other witnesses claim to have actually interacted
with the crews of these objects; indeed, they claim to have been
physically abducted and medically examined by same."

"Any further adumbrations?"

"What do you mean?"

"I mean, if all this were actually happening, wouldn't the
government have to be involved in an active, ongoing cover up of
same, stretching back 50 years?"

"Yes, we think this is probably the case," says the Ufologist.

Then, says I, if MJ-12 isn't real in name, then it must be real
under some other name. In other words, its real world equivalent
must be functionally real and operative to this day, yes or no?

"I guess I'd have to say yes," says the Ufologist.

"Do you have any evidence that it's still in active operation?"

"Not unless you count all that crap being outputted by the Woods
duo, which I don't. Do you?"

"Alas, no. Glad to hear that most Ufologists don't, either. But
do you have any other convincing evidence that US authorities
could maintain a cover up of such global proportions, dating
back 50 years and continuing throughout the height of the Cold
War, when the US presumably had no control over the worldwide
UFO phenomenon itself, never mind its then erstwhile enemies?"

"Not exactly."

"I see. But you would otherwise probably agree that numerous
American intelligence agencies are in on the secret, and that
any available hard evidence has been examined in detail by some
of the best minds available?"

"That would seem to be an entirely logical corollary -- if some
UFOs indeed represent alien visitation."

"So what you're basically saying is this: While the leaves on
plants and trees may appear to be green, they're actually brown.
Science as a whole has fumbled the ball and the powers that be
have simply misled the masses. When I walk out that door, all
the leaves will be brown, and I'll simply have to adjust to the
new reality. And by brown here, you will mean something like the
following: We are being frequently visited by what appear to be
spacecraft from another planet and solar system. It logically
follows that at least some high military, political,
intelligence, and scientific personnel must be aware of same. In
other words, something very much like MJ-12 undoubtedly exists,
if not by that name. It would further appear that there is some
sort of limited interaction between humans and said aliens. In
addition, evidence exists which suggests that we may well have
in our possession physical debris from the crash of such
vehicles, possibly including the remains of crew members of
same. After all, once you admit the possibility of ET
visitation, the other shades of brown tumble into place almost
automatically."

"Yes, that would seem to be the case, and would amount to a
'fair use' of what we mean by brown," admits the Ufologist.

"Very well," I say, "let's open the door."

The Ufologist unlatches the door and we step outside. It's
Spring and the sun is shining. Plants are blooming and birds are
singing in the trees. But has the world really changed? Are the
leaves on the trees now suddenly brown -- or are they still a
familiar shade of green?

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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                  Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 00:25:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:24:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Velez


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials
 >Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:51:51 -0000

 >>Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:24:23 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Hi Bob, Dick, All,

 >>Getting in between you and Dick Hall lately has become as
 >>dangerous as getting between Stan Freidman and a microphone!
 >><LOL>(Just kidding Stan. You know I love you. ;)

 >>Before Dick has a chance to respond, I'd like to ask you both
 >>what you make of the "UFO" footage that was (allegedly) smuggled
 >>out of the Nellis Test Range several years ago.I am referring to
 >>the clear, daylight footage of a multi-lobed craft that
 >>performed aerial acrobatics and manouvers that cannot be
 >>duplicated by any 'conventional' aircraft (that we currently
 >>know of.)

 >>I have always been fascinated by that footage but little is ever
 >>heard or mentioned about it. It would be nice if Bruce could
 >>'chime in' on this one. Especially if he had a chance to give it
 >>the old 'hairy eyeball.'

 >John,

 >I haven't seen the film footage you mention, and I'm not a
 >qualified photoanalyst anyway except when it comes to my
 >practical experience with lens flares, and all sorts of hoax
 >photos thrown my way over the years. I am inherently skeptical
 >of any film that comes without clearcut protocols.


Hi Dick, Bob, All,

Bob sent me a note privately telling me that he too had not seen
or heard of the Nellis video. My apologies gentlemen. I thought
most folks were familiar with it. I went out on the web so that
I could post a few of the better quality sites/URLs for anyone
who was interested.

I highly recommend the following two sites for information
on the Nellis AFB UFO video.

http://www.isur.com/archive/area51/s30.html

http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/discussion/nellis.htm

I would still like to hear what either of you or Bruce Maccabe
make of the material presented. For my money it is the best
recorded video evidence available. Within the frames that the
object itself was recorded, is a running radar track of the
object. It just doesn't get any better than that boys.  ;)

Let me know what you think after you've had a chance to study
it. Then,.. you guys can pick up where you left off. Never hurts
to have a little cooling down period.  ;)

Warmest regards to both of you "UFO gladiators,"
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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Gaates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:15:02 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:28:01 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gaates



 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:42:36 -0700

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:40:01 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>The CD's are and always will be inferior to a beta copy for
 >>expert examination. If you were truly serious about wanting an
 >>expert opinion, I would imagine you would be more then willing
 >>to get a copy of the Beta and or put Roger in touch with the
 >>person who has the copy so that he could examine it.

 >Robert,

 >For the last time, we do not have a beta copy nor do we have
 >access to a beta copy. If we had access to a beta copy we would
 >certainly try to get Roger a copy, at his expense of course.

Ed,

You did not answer the last part of the question which had
nothing to do with whether you had access or not, but was why
don't you put Roger in touch with the person whose warm
hands have the beta copy, or at least contact that person
and put them in touch with Roger? As I recall the person
who has this beta copy also is the one that claims its
a hoax.

 >We don't think the CDs are inferior to the beta. As I've

While you may not think so, they are.

<snip>

Robert wrote:

 >>Nor does Jurassic Park dinos appear or seem to be a computer
 >>generated FX caper but they were. Even down to the minute detail
 >>such as the splash of water when T-Rex walks, dust and debris
 >>flying up when dinos run etc. In essence the only "proof" we
 >>have that Jurassic Park is computer generated is the
 >>"confessions" if you will of the FX artists who created the
 >>illusions.

Ed said:

 >Yes I understand all that, but we can prove that this footage
 >was filmed with a 16mm camera. It is not a video representation

Even if you could prove it was filmed with a 16mm camera, you
are still unable, nor will you ever be able to prove, _when_
and _by whom_ it was filmed. The only proof you have in that
regard is "well Ray said" or "I trust Ray", and so forth.

 >or computer generated. And yes, FX artists are brilliant as are
 >their creations but the AA is much more than an FX creation.
 >The creature seems as real as you or me. I've never said the

So do the dinos in jurassic park. Complete with splashes when
the foot lands in water, and dust when they run.

 >creature was an alien, in the sense that it was
 >extraterrestrial. I don't know what it is.

How about a nice FX prop? Nah, you wouldn't entertain the
thought. According to the alleged camermans interview the
carcass was cut up three weeks later. Apparently aliens don't
develop rigor mortis. Wait, I can hear it now...something along
the lines of "Well they had to freeze the alien carcass, then
thawed the poor thing out so the doctors could cut on it three
weeks later...."

 >But this is a question I hope we can get to once the
 >authenticity of the AA has been established.

It won't ever be established because Ray buddy will never quite
get around to providing Kodak with film, nor will he ever get
around to bringing forth the cameraman, and I predict that if
somebody is sucessfull in applying pressure to Ray, the next
tale we will hear will go along the lines of "gee the camerman
died...." and or "well, the camerman signed some kind of
agreement with Volker, and gee, you know Volker and how
unhelpful he is, blah blah.

 >>Like I have said previously, if the films producer/director has
 >>done the job correctly, the audience will not be able to tell
 >>what is real and what is fake.

 >Maybe so but when you finally view the CDs, you'll see what I'm
 >talking about. The creature is flesh and blood. You'll be able

The dinos in Jurassic Park "look like" and "appear to be" real
creatures with flesh and blood. They are still fakes.

 >to see this with your own eyes. There won't be any arguments.
 >You'll have your AA moment, and then your world will never be
 >quite the same.

It appears you are still having your "AA moment." :)


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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                           Re: Body Marks - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:19:41 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:45:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Body Marks - Velez


 >From: Pat McCartney <ElPatricio@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:17:13 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Body Marks
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Subj: UFO UpDate: Re: Body Marks - Velez
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:17:23 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Body Marks
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>

 >>Would that it was so Brian. The problem is, some of us are awake
 >>now and again when a 'contact' happens. You have to find a way
 >>to live with that in your head. You can't tell anybody. They'll
 >>think you're crazy, or if they really care about you they will
 >>be concerned for your sanity and well being. It is not easy to
 >>deal with this stuff on _any_ level. It's why I work so hard and
 >>give so many hours to the abductees that contact me and to the
 >>public via this List.


 >John,

 >Thank you for so eloquently describing your experiences as a
 >perceived abductee, and sharing that with UFO UpDates. For the
 >record, I have had no similar experience, nor with UFOs --
 >despite my desire to see _something_ that would settle the
 >matter.

Why thank you sir! ;) As a college drop-out, being called
"eloquent" by a journalist is a rewarding compliment. It's also
good to know that my postings aren't being trashed on sight by
the UpDates List readers.  <LOL>

 >One issue that I have been wrestling with is the realization
 >that any extraterrestial species that could visit this planet
 >would likely be a far _older_ civilization than us. We, of
 >course, are still in our technological youth. If spacefaring
 >cultures there be, chances are they have been around far, far
 >longer than we can easily grasp.

We ran a thread a couple of months ago that dealt with
historical references to UFOs, aliens, and abductions, but
'some' interpreted it as an attempt to mix UFOs and religion and
they managed to suck the life out of the thread before it really
had a chance to develop. You're not alone with your speculations
though. Books have been written on the subject and more are on
the way. Eddie Bullard's 'Folklore' work is among the best of
the genre.

 >If that proves to be the case, then perhaps the abduction
 >experience reported by people like yourself today occurred to
 >many preceding generations of humans. In fact, an extrasolar
 >civilization might simply be tending their garden _us_ over many
 >of our lifetimes. The more ancient the visiting civilization,
 >the more likely some kind of protocol has been worked out by a
 >nearly infinite number of generations of bureaucrats.

That's true. And if we had a truly representative government, we
could ask them, and they'd tell us. But that isn't the case.  ;)

And in terms of "abductions in preceding generations," one of
the more startling revelations I had while exploring this
subject came when I suddenly recalled the story of my uncle
"Ping." (Nickname)

My uncle taught antique furniture restoration at the University
of San Juan in the 50's. He was fired from his job at the univ.
(and later committed to a mental institution by the family)
because he insisted that "elves/dwarves" would visit him in
the night and do things like conduct long conversations with
him, or take him places. He spoke openly and matter of fact
about his encounters with family, friends, and associates. He
insisted that they were real to the point where they had him
committed.

Abductions _are_ multi-generational. I wonder how many were
relegated to institutions in the past for reporting the exact
same things we (abductees) do today. Back then, if folks
thought you were talking crazy, you'd find yourself strapped
to a bed at the local "Laughing Academy" in no time flat. I
have shared this story about my uncle before. I once posed
the question that it would be real interesting to go over old
psychiatric case files just to determine how many people were
being treated for reporting the same kinds of things that
abductees are reporting today. It would be a treasure trove
of information. And possible confirmation that this has been
going on for quite some time.

A little anecdote:

In the past, the country folk in Ireland would dress the male
toddlers in girls nightgowns at bedtime so that the "fairies"
would mistake them for females and not take them away in the
night.

 >Because of that possibility, I'd be interested if some of the
 >more scholarly listers out there could describe the mythical
 >incubus and succubus. Is there a specific etymology or starting
 >point for the description of sexual demons? Makes me want to go
 >read a book ...

I'm sure you'll get responses and reading recommendations aplenty! ;)

Regards, and thanx again for the kind words. They are too few
and far in between in this bloody arena.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                          Help Needed In Australia

From: Diane Harrison  Director AUFORN <tkbnetw@powerup.com.au>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:36:32 +1000
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:47:36 -0400
Subject: Help Needed In Australia


Hi Errol

Can anyone help with the below request

Information regarding missing ovaries or parts?

Let me know if you can ASAP the women is a little bit stressed
out about it as you can imagine.

Thanks Errol

___________________________________________

Diane,

Would any of your network/folk out there be able to help me with
some specific info/cases similar to the following phenomenon.
Please don't mention my name at this stage, as I just want some
info references to check out:

I have an abduction case client in Sydney of 5 years standing
who telephoned me yesterday about going to hospital a few weeks
ago to have her appendix removed - she'd had some discomfort in
the general area. While operating to remove a very slightly
inflamed appendix the surgeon checked the area (normal practice)
and noticed the nearby ovary was missing. Apparently he's very
greatly mystified by the absence.

My client's currently having some ultrasound scans and x-rays
that were taken a few years ago for a minor kidney infection
reviewed, because these showed everything in the area was
normal. It seems the loss is very recent.

Do any of your folk know of similar cases of abductees "missing"
one or more ovaries or parts? (dates, examples, references,
etc.)

_________________________________________


Regards

Diane Harrison

National Director
The Australian UFO Research Network
and UFO Hotline.

Tel number 1800 77 22 88 a Free Call
Australian UFO Research Network -
http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw


A non profit organisation
P.O Box 805
Springwood Qld 4127









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 10:00:33 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:49:07 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Morris


 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >I was led to think there was a previous filmed autopsy that
 >showed a rather grueling post-mortem gynecological exam. If Ed's
 >seen this, or is aware of it, maybe this accounts for the
 >"gender bias".

 >(I's still love to see that alleged first autopsy, by the
 >way--assuming it exists. The fact that our hypothetical hoaxers
 >would film something too "indecent" to even get TV coverage
 >actually argues in favor of authenticity.)


Mac,

The footage you refer to is the alleged First Autopsy, which
does or did exist, and was seen by a few people in private
showing by Ray in early/mid 1995. This footage is claimed to be
much clearer having less out of focus close ups. It has never
been released publicly by Ray, due to, it is thought, the very
"graphic" nature of some of the proceedures carried out on the
body. Two of the parties to view this footage I believe were
Colin Andrews and Philip Mantle as I have written reviews of it
by both.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 06:14:04 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:50:55 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:12:40 EDT
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Bourdais
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:42:31 -0700

Previously, Gildas wrote:

 >If we suppose for a moment that the whole thing was a secret
 >service operation, in order to ruin the Roswell Case at a time
 >when the inquiries were becoming more and more embarrassing, it
 >has been a tremendous success.

 >In France, it was a complete disaster for ufology.

 >Remember, the long awaited film was released just before the
 >long awaited GAO report, and no one paid attention to it in the
 >press.

 >May I add another grain of salt?

 >I think we may also consider that such an operation would have a
 >second, long term, aim: to get the public used to such powerful
 >images.

 >In such a perspective, people like Santilli (who could not even
 >spell Roswell!) and Volker Spielberg, were just second hands
 >obeying orders.

Hi, Gildas!

You may very well be correct. At any rate, in my opinion, AA
isn't footage of a real alien being operated on by real doctors.
Whether Santilli or the Military as its authors, a fake is a
fake.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                  Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:17:29 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:53:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Hall


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Evans
 >Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:43:42 -0400

 >Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 08:53:04 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials

 >  >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >  >Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 23:20:11 -0000
 >  >Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Hall
 >  >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, Bob asked a single question:

 >  >>Care to debate your favorite alien machine case?

 >  >>>The ball is in your court.

 >  >>I just plunked it back, just over the left corner of the net.
 >  >>You can still get it if you try.

 >Richard replied, but didn't answer:

 >  >With lots of backspin lob. Any time you want to get serious, let
 >  >me know. I have already offered to debate any number of "alien
 >  >machine" cases, from the hundreds in my UFOE-II, to the dozen or
 >  >so in my ISSO web site article, to whatever and whichever you
 >  >wish to argue. Why do you and yours keep trying to evade the
 >  >issue(s) and keep trying to insist that it is "aliens" or
 >  >nothing?

 >  >I'm [more than] ready whenever you are to discuss whther or not
 >  >the hardcore unexplained cases (not the easily screened-out IFO
 >  >astronomical and other cases) suggest an ETH interpretation. If
 >  >you want to make jokes, let's joke. If you want to seriously
 >  >discuss and debate the issues, let's do that.

 >Hi, Richard!

 >Why all the posturing? He asked if you wanted to debate and,
 >despite your claim to be eager, you do everything above _except_
 >start the debate! Even more egregious is your claim : "Why do
 >you and yours keep trying to evade the issue(s) and keep trying
 >to insist that it is "aliens" or nothing?"

 >Isn't that whole point, here? _You_ pick the one that you feel
 >best represents an alien machine. Hell, Bob's even letting you
 >pick your favorite most-likely-to-prove-your-point case! Of
 >course, on the other hand, if you are already hedging and feel
 >that _none_ really represents the likelihood of being an alien
 >machine, then it's understandable about you own reluctance to
 >engage in the very debate you claim to be so eager for.

 >For the record, Bob and I don't exactly agree about the issues
 >concerning the probability of ET life. That said, however, it
 >would seem that it is you and yours that are evading the issues,
 >here, Richard. Don't talk about how eager you are to debate.
 >Debate! Let's see some action.

 >Roger


Roger,

This will also serve as a reply to your synchronous swimming
partner, Alan Staithes, who posted a very similar comment same
day.

I am truly and honestly puzzled by your (and his) remarks. No,
it is not the "whole point" for me to have to show anyone a
spaceship in order for harcore UFO reports to be taken seriously
and subjected to careful scientific scrutiny.

What "posturing?" What "egregious claim?" I was asked what I
meant by the best case that could be advanced, I have repeatedly
said where to look.

To insist that I produce a spaceship is hardly a rational basis
for conducting a debate about the merits of the best UFO cases
and whether or not they support the ETH. That is the debate
topic, isn't it? And if not, please tell me what it is.

If Bob is serious about debating, I suggest he start by giving
me explanations for the cases in my ISSO article (www.isso.org)
which I have proferred as a good place to start. How is that an
evasion of the issues? Unless your concept of "the issues" is as
mysterious as your logic.


Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                        Listen, I'm Important, Really

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 14:33:02 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:55:46 -0400
Subject: Listen, I'm Important, Really


Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I have now come to the final conclusion, that there are just too
many fences for us to jump over and meet each other face to
face, regarding ET.

I am appalled to read, that we are now in the throws of people
acting like the king of the roost. People are throwing down
gauntlets everywhere, and signing themselves as kings and Sirs
amongst others. I feel this may largely be down to frustration
felt on all sides of the debate.

As regards who is right or wrong on this List, it does not have
any impact on those seeing and interacting with UFOs, this I
have found again and again. Ask yourself this question: If you
walk out side of your house, how many people stop you in the
street and applaud and recognize you for your views on UFOs?

It's an in house thing going on here, only other UFO researchers
will recognize your views, in a way that will either please or
hurt you.

As I said in an earlier mail, this whole experience is about the
World people who are having UFO experiences. You giving a
lecture on stage in some european country means nothing to Joe
bloggs here in the UK living on a council housing estate with
not a lot of options going for him. And I guess this is a
repeated story world-wide, where you may find such low cost
living ( on the bread line you could say ). And yet if he
happens to see - view - touch, such UFOs he finds himself in
another world, I know it has happened to me, and yes I was like
the guy Joe Bloggs.

So please keep the puffing of chests down, it means nothing to a
lot of people except you and your close colleagues.

As someone told me, "I shall carry on still having these
experiences regardless of what any sceptic will write they
cannot put themselves in my body' I wish they could ".

Ready to pull up your chair? I didn't think so.


To you and yours,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:07:17 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:59:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:23:12 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>incidentally, the best _real_ debunking has always been done by
 >>ufologists. When a ufologist debunks a case, it stays debunked.
 >>When a debunker debunks a case, on the other hand, all that
 >>happens is the sound of robotic head-nodding by those who agree
 >>with him absolutely and who would never dream  of breathing a
 >>whisper of dissent


 >Jerry, et. al.:
 >Here we go again. The same characteristics attributed to
 >debunkers now achieve near heroic proportions when used by
 >ufologists.


The best ufologists act as if they're open-minded. One sign of
that is that they criticize each other.

Skeptics, on the other hand, don't normally criticize each
others' views. One sign of that is the debate, here and
elsewhere, about the Socorro object being, possibly, a balloon.
If that 's the real explanation, than Philip Klass's debunking
of the case -- that it was a hoax -- is obviously wrong. That's
an important point to make, because Klass's reasoning was, shall
we say, a little grandiose. Essentially, he simply assumed, with
no evidence, that the hoax was in effect.  He had reasons for it
(he thought the whole thing was a plot to bring tourists to
Soccoro), but he didn't have evidence for his reasons. Skeptics,
you'd think, would want to improve their skeptical arguments.
Hence -- especially since, as they portray themselves, they're
so scientific -- you'd think they'd be all over each other,
subjecting each others' arguments to peer review.

In that spirit, Bob -- what are the five most mistaken (or
improbable) arguments ever made by any prominent skeptic?

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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                       Re: Body Marks - Gonzlez Manso

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:55:32 +0200
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 03:01:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Body Marks - Gonzlez Manso


 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:59:42 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Body Marks

(snip)

 >I have reams of these letters. If others had a
 >chance to read the many communiques from
 >all ovetr the world that _all_ tell the same story,
 >there would be a lot less resistance to launching
 >a serious and formal multi-disciplinary investigation
 >into the reports/claims of the abductees.

Just curious, John

Is there any comments about the aliens' tool which made them? Is
it described similarly? Or teh abductee just learn about the
marks but nobody remember how "they" made them?

Yours,

Luis R. Gonzlez 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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                    Re: Real Debunkings, Phony Debunkings

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:02:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 03:03:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Real Debunkings, Phony Debunkings


Listfolk,

Back in 1976 I reinvestigated the famous LeRoy, Kansas, 1897
airship-calfnapping story, which had seen print in a number of
books and magazine articles. It had been considered a credible
early CE3, but I learned that it come into the world as a prank.
Since publication of my findings in early 1977, no one has
disputed the conclusion that the tale was a hoax.

 From its inception in the early 1950s, ufology has dealt with
many controversial claims with varying degrees of
sophistication. Some early groups, such as Civilian Saucer
Intelligence of New York, fought hard for a critical-minded
approach and vigorously exposed bogus tales. They set the
pattern for other organizations and individuals that came along
to argue for and practice sober approaches to the UFO question.
Along the way ufologists have debunked or solved a host of
cases, as hoaxes or misperceptions, and these debunkings on the
whole have stood the test of time, embraced (predictably, I
suppose) even by ufology's most vehement critics.

Debunkings by anti-UFO types, as we all know simply from reading
this list, have often tended not to fare so well. In recent
months we have watched the unedifying spectacle of seeing cases
(e.g., Arnold, Socorro, Rendlesham) declared solved, only to
collapse from the weight of the debunkers' unsupported
conjectures and wishful thinking.

Debunking claims made by Klass, Menzel, and Condon have won few
endorsements from serious ufologists or other observers of the
UFO controversy, who have written detailed refutations
underscoring the shortcomings of the various proposed
explanations. (See, for one example, Brad Sparks's masterly
dissection of Klass's theory about the RB-47 case or, for
another, Bruce Maccabee's demolition of Klass/Sheaffer
assertions about the New Zealand film.) In his famous UFO
Handbook (1979), perhaps the most discussed example of debunking
by a ufologist, Allan Hendry made a point of excluding Klass's
and Menzel's books from his bibliography, on the grounds that
they were not serious contributions to the literature. Does
_anybody_ believe, for example, that, say, the Socorro CE2/CE3
or the Marshall County, Minnesota, CE2 is a hoax? Klass and
Menzel proposed this explanation for the first, Klass for the
second.

Only the most fervent debunkers, and typically those with the
least knowledge of the UFO controversy (e.g., Frederick Crews),
even mention Menzel today. One suspects that in time even Klass,
whose debunking career is essentially over, will drop into the
memory hole.

Yet the fact remains that there is a whole lot of stuff that
merits debunking. Debunking, the excesses of the scoffers
notwithstanding, is a worthwhile and even essential part of
truth-seeking. Bad debunkings should not drive out good ones.
Ufology needs more than ever to address the question of what
comprises a successful debunking and how, when the occasion
calls for it, we all can be good debunkers. In other words, when
we debunk, the objects of our debunking stay debunked.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                  Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Young

From: Bob Young <ungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:15:22 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 03:05:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Young


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials
 >Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 23:20:11 -0000

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:52:16 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >I'm [more than] ready whenever you are to discuss whther or not
 >the hardcore unexplained cases (not the easily screened-out IFO
 >astronomical and other cases) suggest an ETH interpretation. If
 >you want to make jokes, let's joke. If you want to seriously
 >discuss and debate the issues, let's do that.

 >Richard the Lionhearted

Richard:

OK. There's another post coming on the incidents listed in your
article, The Science of UFOs: Fact vs. Skepticism on the isso
"inbox" webpage at:

http://www.isso.org/inbox/science.htm


Bob Young
The Black Prince








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:07:57 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 03:07:10 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans


 >From: William Sawers <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
 >Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:27:51 +1200
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Sawers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

Previously, Mac wrote:

 >>(I's still love to see that alleged first autopsy, by the
 >>way--assuming it exists. The fact that our hypothetical hoaxers
 >>would film something too "indecent" to even get TV coverage
 >>actually argues in favor of authenticity.)

William replied:

 >Good point Mac.

Really? Then all those movies on television that are edited for
sexual content must represent true stories. How silly of me! And
all this time, I just thought they were fictional
representations.

Come one, guys. Having to blur out the footage only adds fuel to
the fire, speculation wise. It wouldn't be beyond the scope of
imagination, even Santilli's, to include footage that would have
to be masked just for broadcast. I mean, how many fake
documentaries have we seen where the identity of an individual
is masked to add to the documentary effect? Does that make these
more "real"? Mac, you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things,
but you can't be serious about this.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                        Cydonian Imperative: 04-05-01

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 03:11:37 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 04-05-01


4-5-01
The Cydonian Imperative

Dr. Tom Van Flandern Loses Face at Press Conference

by Mac Tonnies


http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html


This morning, astronomer and SPSR member Dr. Tom Van Flandern
addressed the Washington Press Club, intending to present the
strong evidence favoring the existence of extraterrestrial
artifacts on Mars. He failed - not for lack of evidence, but for
a curious need to embellish imaginary profiles on the planet's
surface.

In his slide presentation, available online as part of his
otherwise commendable MetaResearch website, Van Flandern
presents wildly implausible "artistically reconstructed" images
showing what he perceives as a giant "bird" (which I still can't
seem to make out, even with the artistic enhancement!), a few
curved lines he construes as a megalithic portrait of a "child",
and a credibility-straining "seahorse" sculpture created by
viewing portions of a landform in convenient isolation.

This unforgivable technique, which Van Flandern relies on again
and again during his presentation, is best compared to taking a
giant cookie-cutter to the Martian surface in such a way as to
produce any desired "anomaly." So there's no wonder Van Flandern
sees so many enigmatic shapes on Mars; armed with enough
perceptual cookie-cutters, it's easy enough to populate Mars
with just about anything.

Deer, complete with antlers? Van Flandern's got one (with the
dubious aid of an overlaid drawing).

Cleopatra, complete with headdress? She's there, too - albeit in
murky profile in need of some strategic digital retouching.

To Van Flandern's credit, he addresses the Face - but only in
relatively cursory detail, and completely ignoring the
confirming partial image taken in 2000, which clearly shows the
"eyeball" feature predicted by Vincent DiPietro as well as the
rectilinear "teardrop" and corner of the anatomically accurate
"mouth."

Van Flandern also explores the "tubes" with some success, making
a sound argument for a possible structural origin. He also looks
closely at the similar bright lines abundant in Cydonia, notably
on top of the Cliff and at the edge of the Main City Pyramid.
But for all of the genuine mysteries addressed, Van Flandern's
main concerns appear to be vague, improbable "faces" and
fanciful "animals" that have never had the luxury of having been
subjected to peer-reviewed scrutiny. And as he piles one
impossibly weak image on top of the next, it's made clear
exactly why fellow Cydonia researchers have never treated them
as anything but the amusing caricatures they are (if, of course,
they can see them in the first place).

It was hoped by many that Van Flandern's high-visibility press
conference would pique the planetary science community's
interest in the prospect of discovering artifacts on Mars.
Instead, we're left with a pointless residue that recalls Mike
Malin's own "Smiley Face" crater, or the likeness of Kermit the
Frog seen in a wash of meteorite ejecta.

Fortunately, the Cydonia inquiry does not rely on the weight of
any one self-proclaimed authority. Researchers such as Lan
Fleming, Efrain Palermo, David Jinks, and Richard Hoagland -
whose insights I continue to value, even if I disagree with some
of his tenets - are actively shaping our perception of the Red
Planet and the surprises it may have in store for us.
Revelations will not take the form of press conferences - a
lesson learned from NASA's own politically motivated
"disclosures" of Mars data familiar to planetary anomalists for
years before becoming "official."

Accepting the reality and implications of extraterrestrial
intelligence, assuming its works are on Mars waiting for us to
explore and discover, will more likely be a quiet affair, and
the online "Cydonia underground" is driving this process in the
only way it can: from the inside-out.

-end-








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:29:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 03:15:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee


 >Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:11:21 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:23:12 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:01:35 -0500

 >Previously, Jerry declared:

 >>>incidentally, the best _real_ debunking has always been
 >>>done by ufologists. When a ufologist debunks a case, it stays
 >>>debunked. When a debunker debunks a case, on the other hand, all
 >>>that happens is the sound of robotic head-nodding by those who
 >>>agree with him absolutely and who would never dream of breathing
 >>>a whisper of dissent

 >Hi, Jerry!

 >I noticed you didn't even address the issue of whether or not
 >the debunker was right; only that others agree. Of course,
 >serious UFologists are _never_ guilty of that, are they?


It seems to me that serious ufologists are more likely to get
into arguments over whether or not a particular sighting can be
explained in a particular way than are the dubunkers. If a
dubunker publicizes an explanation, there is an abundance of
silence from other debunkers and skeptics. Few true skeptics
call attention to the failings of certain explanations. For
example, so far as I know, except for my own work, there is no
published refutation of Menzel's suggestion in his last book
(1973) that Arnold saw water drops on his windshield. Yet, even
the dullest debunkers who are nevertheless able to read can read
that Arnold said he turned his plane and rolled down the window
to look at the objects. So, to allow Dr. Menzel to "get away
with" such an obviously ludicrous explanation with no negative
comment is an extreme example of the "silence of the debunkers."

If debunkers did not portray themselves as the only ones to
truly apply science to ufology or UFO sightings then they could
be at least partially "forgiven."

However, they often act much less than scientific when proposing
explanations which make no sense in the context of the sightings
they are supposed to explain. My analysis of explanations by
well known scientist/skeptic/debunkers made me (horrors!)
*skeptical of the skeptics.* (I know, they are coming to take me
away.... again.)

There is nothing inherently wrong with trying to explain
sightings... I do it all the time. But explanations should be
applicable, "good" and, above all, convincing.

Jerry was responding to a comment I made about the lack of
criticism by debunkers of explanations offered by other
debunkers. Example: on the day following the December 31, 1978
New Zealand sightings an astronomer in Christchurch, NZ proposed
Venus as the explanation (this reported in newspaper). Exactly
NO scientist or skeptic or debunker suggested that might be
wrong. Quite inedependently, other skeptics proposed other
explanations, e.g., Sir Bernard Lovell of Jodrell Bank
Observatory in England proposed "unburned meteorites." No
secientist/skeptic publicly criticized Lovell for proposing
"unburned meteorites" even though the observation and filming of
one of these "meteorites" lasted many.

These were two of the immediate "explanations"... more properly
termed Candidate Explanatory Phenomena (CEP)... which were
proposed by the skeptical community without "thought" or waiting
for the evidence, because they inherently knew of my Rule #1:
ANY explanation is better than none.

On the very dqy that the Venus (and "unburned meteorite" )
explanation was published the information was "revealed" that th
sightings had taken place before Venus was up. Then the same
astronomer said he was 99% sure it was the planet Jupiter. This
was published in the next day's paper. Exactly NO scientist
published even a suggestion that it might not have been Jupiter.

A day or so later "squid boats" was suggested as an explanation
for the bright light seen on the film. No scientist published a
criticism of that CEP.

When Klass, through the CSICOP organization, had his "Mars and
Jupiter " explanation published (in February, 1987) for the
Japan Air Lines sighting of November 16, 1986 (over Alaska),
there was a resounding silence from the scientific or debunker
community. The silence was even more deafening when, several
months later (June, 1987), Klass changed his opinion and claimed
(published in the CSICOP journal) that it was moonlight
reflected from clouds. Perhaps the debunkers thought... if they
thought at all, "Hmmm.. well, if it wasn't Mars and Jupiter, I
guess light reflected from clouds would be just as doog and
explanation."

I recall that on March 5, 1987, on the day that the FAA
announced its findings in the JAL sighting investigation, I was
invited to debate a scientist during a short TV new analysis on
the sighting. I showed up at the TV station ready to tackle all
comers. Then the opposition came. If I recall correctly it was
John Pike from the Federation of American Scientists (a surprise
to me). I held all the high cards in this situation because by
this time I had reviewed all the evidence available to the FAA
and knew the desriptions of the phenomena and sighting
directions, times, etc. Pike knew only what he had read in the
newspaper. Poor guy had to ask me what the possible explanations
were. I told him of the CSICOP explanation, which had been
publicized in a news release a couple of weeks earlier. I showed
him a little map I had drawn of the plane and the directions to
Mars and Jupiter which were, indeed, nearly ahead of the plane
during the last part of the flight. I also pointed out that the
captain had placed the huge UFO as being nearly behind the
plane.... as far back as he could see...near the end of the
flight. In other words, I gave Pike the debunker's "explanation"
and also I cautioned him that the sighting lines to Mars and
Jupiter and to the UFO didn't agree.

"Like clockwork", when he was interviewed he proposed the Mars
and Jupiter explanation and I, subsequently, pointed out the
severe (about 150 degree) disagreement between sighting
directions. I also pointed out the descriptions of the phenomena
at the beginning of the sighting which disagreed with the M-J
explanation, such as rearrangement of UFO positions from one
above the other to side- by-side. (This is described in the
PROSAIC EXPLANATIONS paper at http://brumac.8k.com).

James Easton has promoted his pelican theory at every possible
opportunity (it seems!). How many skeptics/scoffers/debunkers
have criticized that?

Certainly there has been criticism from "bunkers," and that
criticism has become quite technically detailed at times (I have
posted calulations of light reflection brightness from snow,
ice, pelicans, etc. and have also "drawn a map").

I must say I do recall an instance of one debunker criticizing
the explanation of another: Many years ago Robert Sheaffer, well
known adamant debunker, admitted to me, privately, that he
didn't accept one of Phil Klass' explanations for a certain
portion of the New Zealand sightings. I think it was the last
section of the movie film that shows the flashing light. Phil
had said it was the flashing red light on top of the airplane
and Sheaffer accepted my argument that it could not be. I don't
recall what he offered as an alternative. (This is in his first
book, the UFO VERDICT, but he doesn't directly criticize Phil in
that book. Been a long time since I thought about this and I
might be wrong on which section of the film Sheaffer disagreed
with Klass.)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:38:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 03:18:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Lehmberg


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:09:52 -0500

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:23:12 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:01:35 -0500

 >>>>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 10:56:51 -0500
 >>>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>>Subject: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>>>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:40:23 -0000

 >>>incidentally, the best _real_ debunking has always been
 >>>done by ufologists. When a ufologist debunks a case, it stays
 >>>debunked. When a debunker debunks a case, on the other hand, all
 >>>that happens is the sound of robotic head-nodding by those who
 >>>agree with him absolutely and who would never dream of breathing
 >>>a whisper of dissent

 >>Here we go again. The same characteristics attributed to
 >>debunkers now achieve near heroic proportions when used by
 >>ufologists.

 >Bob, with all due respect, you're making no sense.

 >There is a long history of internal dissent and criticism within
 >ufology. That's why ufologists have debunked so many UFO claims.
 >I'm surprised that such has miraculously missed your notice on
 >this list alone. But then, I guess, one sees what one wants to
 >see.

 >Whatever its problems, ufology at least understands that real
 >intellectual inquiry demands internal policing and debate in the
 >interest of truth-seeking, as opposed to ideological scoring,
 >where a belief has to be defended at all costs, with no
 >concession or quarter given. The absence of internal criticism,
 >one might add, is one characteristic of pseudoscience.

 >No such policing and debate exist with the UFO-debunking camp,
 >only the sort of robotic head-nodding one observes of
 >true-believing bedfellows who have gathered to fight a common
 >hated enemy. I have a long paper trail of criticism of
 >ufologists' shortcomings. So do Dick Hall, Brad Sparks, and
 >other prominent ufologists on this List and elsewhere. When you
 >get around to offering comparably serious criticisms of the
 >failings of Menzel, Klass, Condon, the psychosociologists, and
 >others who share your beliefs, let me know. Otherwise, the
 >finger you're pointing will remain extended in your direction.

This is forgetting the three he is pointing back at himself,
anyway. Additionally, the first to mention concern over the
spread of ideological points is the most worried about them,
I've noticed. That shallow tactic seems to be the province of
the gravid skepti-bunky around nest building time in their fetid
black-water swamp - all eyes heavenward nervously on guard for
over-flying pelicans.

And while on a similar subject (from another thread), what the
hell is wrong with referencing the work one has done (books one
has written) as content for an answer to that sullenly
conjectured question one can only _assume_ is conscientiously
asked?  Seems little more than a fallacial dodge... but, father
knows best. <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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 14

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 19:19:56 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 03:24:40 -0400
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 14


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

      UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 6, Number 14
April 5, 2001
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/


TITANIC SOLAR FLARE ENGULFS EARTH

"Intense storms raging on the sun made the night sky shimmer
red and green as far south as Palm Springs, California and
southern New Mexico, and scientists say the storms could
briefly disrupt telecommunications as they continue through the
weekend."

""NASA scientists said a powerful flare that erupted Thursday,"
March 28, 2001 "rayed a class X, the most potent category."

"The eruptions triggered a powerful but brief blackout Friday,"
March 29, 2001, "on some high-frequency radio channels and
low-frequency navigational signals, scientists said. They
forecast at least a 30 percent chance of continuing disruptions"
through Monday, April 2, 2001.

"The biggest sunspot cluster seen in the last ten years has
developed on the upper right quarter of the side of the sun
visible from Earth, according to satellite readings."

"On Friday night, the light from solar flares was reported near
cities including Palm Springs and Sacramento, California,
Flagstaff, Arizona and Albuquerque and Carlsbad, New Mexico."

"'It has totally lit up the sky. We've had dozens and dozens of
calls. People want to know what it is,' said Bill Seigel, a
producer at radio station KESQ in Palm Desert, 115 miles (185
kilometers) east of Los Angeles. 'Some people thought it was
UFOs.'"

"Just north of Albuquerque, N.M., David MacKel was making the
rounds at his security job when he saw the lights. He noted it
on his report at 11:23 p.m."

"'It was blood red. That's all I can say. It was kind of opaque
and you could see the stars through it,' MacKel said. He said he
had seen the northern lights while in Alaska, but 'the northern
lights move, and this was more gaseous. It kind of got me
freaked out.'"

"Eddy County, New Mexico Deputy Danny Gonzalez described it as
a purple haze. 'It was very distinct in color,' he said, 'I have
never seen anything like it.'"

"Anthony Watts, a meteorologist in Chico, California, about 17-
miles (272 kilometers) north of San Francisco , said the show
from the coronal mass ejection was interesting but posed no
threat."

"'There's no danger. However, there is a likelihood that that
we'll have radio or television interruptions; he said."

"The sunspot, which is a cooler, darker region on the sun's
surface, is caused by a concentration if temporarily distorted
magnetic fields. It spawns tremendous eruptions, or flares,
into the sun's atmosphere, hurling clouds of electrified gas
toward Earth."

(Editor's Comment: Younger readers, here's a show-and-tell
activity you can do for science class. Bring 13 oranges to
school. Line them up on the table side-by-side so that they are
touching each other. Now tell your classmates that each orange
represents the Earth. That's right. That's how big the sunspot
is. It's 13 Earths wide.)

On Saturday, March 31, 2001, scientists announced that the
Solar Max had reached 264, the highest level since June 2000,
when it peaked at 263. (See the Duluth, Minn. News-Tribune for
April 1, 2001, "Sun's storms likely to disrupt
telecommunications on Earth," page 9A.)


MIR-3 BALLOON CAUSES A RED ALERT IN BOLIVIA

"The first sighting of the flying object took place near the
city of Cochabamba" in Bolivia, over the Parque Nacional de
Tunari (national park--J.T.) around 7:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March
26, 2001.

"Following a sequence of rapid movements interrupted by minutes
of static flight, the object reached the city" of Cochabamba "
"over which it remained until 8:35 a.m."

Immediately, the telephone began ringing in the office of
Colonel Carlos Antero, commander of the Second Air Brigade of
the Fuerzas Aereas de Bolivia (FAB, or Bolivian Air Force--J.T.)

Colonel Antero "was at a loss to explain the event which,
according to eyewitnesses, involved a circular white dot.: But
he notified GAB headquarters in La Paz, the national capital.

The "heads up" alert was passed on to the jet interceptor
squadron at FAB El Alto, located on the altiplano (high
plateau--J.T.) just north of La Paz.

(Editor's Note: The city of La Paz is located at the bottom of
a steep quebrada or canyon. The suburb of El Alto, where the
international airport and the FAB base are, is up on the rim of
the canyon.

"Only a few minutes before 9 a.m., the white object came over
the city of El Alto. Alerted to the phenomenon, the FAB ordered
the scramble of a T-33 jet which unsuccessfully tried to
approach the object."

"'It was a brilliant, metallic-colored sphere, but we could not
determine what kind of object it was,' reported Major Luis
Arzabe Torrico, the T-33's pilot, who explained that he piloted
his military jet to an altitude of 42,500 feet (13,000 meters)
and the object maintained the same distance in regard to the
aircraft as it did from the moment of the jet's takeoff."

"Minutes later, the FAB jet landed at the El Alto air base and
the object vanished."

For two days, all of Bolivia was talking about the UFO
overflight of the national capital. And then the bubble burst.

"It was seen by thousands of Bolivians as it soared across the
skies over Cochabamba, Oruro and La Paz. And they'll be seeing
two more. The 'unidentified flying object' that caused a
commotion during the week was nothing more than a weather
balloon, specifically the MIR-3."

(Editor's Note: MIR, no relation to the Russian space station,
is a French acronym for Montgolfier Inra-Rouge, a balloon to
study the stratosphere in the tropics.)

"Confirmation was provided through the research of astronomer
Gherman Morales Chavez, a specialist at the Sigma Octante
Astronomical Laboratory at the Universidad Catolica de Bolivia
(UCB)."

"MIR-3 is a balloon aimed at researching concentrations of
ozone, and compounds of nitrogen, carbon and oxygen at
stratospheric altitudes for the inter-tropical regions."

The MIR-2 balloon was launched by France's Centre des Etudes
Espaciales and the Balloon Launching Group of the State
University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. "The launch took place February
21, 2001 at Bauru, 340 kilometers )2-4 miles_ west of Sao
Paulo" The balloon has been aloft for over 50 days. It travels
from east to west and takes about 17 days to fly around the
world. )See the Bolivian newspapers La Prensa for March 27,
2001, "Object seen between Cochabamba and La Paz: Air Force jet
chases UFO for 20 minutes," and Los Tiempos de Bolivia for
March 29, 2001, "UFO was the MIR-3 balloon." Muchas gracias a
Scott Corrales, autor de los libros Chupacabras and Other
Mysteries y Forbidden Mexico, y tambien Gloria Coluchi, para
eses articulos de diario.)


LUMINOUS UFO SIGHTED IN ARICA, CHILE

"The presence of a brilliant light which was seen over the
barrio Morro Gordo (sector) from downtown Arica created great
excitement,"

"The phenomenon took place at around 6 p.m. when dozens of
witnesses raised their eyes upward to look at it and wonder
aloud what it could be. Many in the barrio reached the
conclusion that they were in the presence of a UFO."

"At that time of day, the object had the appearance of a first
magnitude star with a glow similar to that of the planet Venus,
and whitish and metallic in color, and moved slowly toward the
southwest (toward the Pacific Ocean--S.C.) As the sun vanished
below the horizon, the object's glow disappeared and its color
turned to red before disappearing completely a few minutes after
7 p.m."

"The public fathered at a photographic and optical supplies
shop located at the corner of Calle 21 de Mayo and Calle
Patricio Lynch (streets) where people stood in line to catch a
glimpse of the object through a telescope,"

"Those lucky enough to see the object" either with the
telescope or with the unaided eye "described it as 'a cup
without a handle and a dangling thread' or 'a cup without a base
and with a narrow foot.'"

"A couple of youngsters who saw the object through a telescope
said that it resembled 'the Temple of the Great Cayosama,' a
sort of floating city (which appears in the Japanese cartoon
series Dragonball Z--J.T.)"

The fact that the object vanished simultaneously before the
eyes of those seeing through telescopes and those seeing it
unaided suggest that it disappeared because it stopped shining
rather than due to distance."

"Furthermore, the gradual manner in which this happened and the
time of day in which the incident occurred suggest that" the
UFO was reflecting sunlight "and the object wasn't
self-luminous."

"Given the witnesses' descriptions and the slowness of the
object's movements, some thought that it could be a balloon
When personnel from the Chacalluta Airport were contacted, about
the possibility, they indicated that weather balloons were not
launched from the region."

Airport personnel also checked with air traffic controllers in
Iquique and Santiago de Chile, the national capital. The object
did not appear on radar, either at Chacalluta Airport near Arica
nor in the other two cities. (See the newspaper La Estrella de
Arica for March 25, 2001, "UFO seen over Arica." Oyta vez,
muchas gracias a Scott Corrales y Gloria Coluchi para ese
articulo de diario.)


BEACH CROWD SEES A BRIGHT UFO IN NEW ZEALAND

On Monday, March 26, 2001, at 8 p.m., a crowd of people at
Wainui Beach, near Gisborne, North Island, New Zealand, spotted
a strange glow out at sea.

Eyewitness Justine W. reported, "'The object approached as a
bright round white light but moved rapidly over the water,
coming from the south It definitely was not a boat because a
boat cannot go as fast as it did."

"It appeared to be about halfway between the shore and the
horizon (about one mile out--N.W.) and just above the water.
The light was bright enough to light up the beach. The object
moved until it was directly opposite them." (the people on
Wainui Beach--J.T.)

The UFO "returned to the southerly direction and then came back
again," Justine added, "And then the object shot straight out
to sea (east) and until it almost disappeared."

"It stopped again and began radiating colors bright and moving
patterns. Someone commented that it looked like angel's wings.
When it stopped radiating colors, it again became an intensely
white light, It then shot back to the south."

(Editor's Comment: Heading for Antarctica?)

"As it neared the Mahia Peninsula, , it changed color from
white to yellow or orange. and finally disappeared. The whole
encounter took approximately four minutes."

"The next morning (Tuesday, March 27, 2001) three people who
had witnessed the object discussed how they had slept. All
reported vivid dreams, In addition, all three reported waking up
with headaches and feeling much grogginess."

The case is being investigated by New Zealand ufologist Norman
Weiss. (Many thanks to Norman Weiss for this report.)

(Editor's Note: Gisborne is one of the most notorious hotspots
for UFO activity in New Zealand and was the scene of a UFO flap
back in 1996.)

THREE UFO SIGHTINGS ARE REPORTED IN ITALY

On Sunday, March 18, 2001, at three people saw "a circular UFO'
hovering over Monte Paganella mountain near the city of Trento.
"One witness described the object as 'a spherical shape with a
metallic sheen to it.' Another said it 'had one point of light
moving around inside the sphere.'"

The same evening, Sunday, March 18, at 8:39 p.m., "a similar
spherical UFO with an intense white spotlight 'like a star of
incredible dimensions,' was seen by a witness in the city of
Modena in northern Italy.

On Wednesday, March 21, 2001, at 8:15 p.m., a family in the
suburbs of Rome "saw a flashing light that hovered for 15
minutes and then moved around the sky in an elliptical fashion.'
The light then shot away at tremendous speed." (See the
newspaper. Gazzetta di Modena for March 20, 2--1. Grazie a
Edoardo Russo e Centro Italiano di Studi Ufologici per questi
rapporti.)

TRIANGULAR UFO SPOTTED IN TAYLORVILLE, ILLINOIS

On Thursday, March 28, 2001, at 10 p.m., a witness spotted a
dark triangular-shaped UFO flying outside his home in
Taylorville, Illinois.

The witness reported, "I was in my bedroom, on the computer.
I'm sitting there, talking to my friends, yaddy-yaddy-ya,00you
know, having a good time. All of a sudden, I feel a sudden
violent movement of the house. I specifically dart to the
window, and right when I look out, to my own surprise, I see a
triangular-shaped object just traveling in a straight line in
what looks like 150 miles per hour (250 kilometers per hour)."

"The triangular object also had lights on the bottom and red
lights on the back of it. It was three-dimensional. It made a
loud roaring noise."

"Just when I lost sight of it, I could still see it hovering,
just sitting in mid-air,. All I could see at this time were the
lights through cloud. All of a sudden, it vanished, and that was
the last I saw of it." (Many thanks to Rev. Billy Dee and Peter
B. Davenport of the National UFO Reporting Center for this
report.)

MYSTERIOUS RED LIGHT SEEN IN KETCHUM, IDAHO

On Tuesday, March 13, 2001, at around 10 p.m., the witness was
walking his dog outdoors near his home in Ketchum, Idaho when
he spotted a strange red light in the sky.

He reported, "I was staring at the stars, as I do nightly, I
saw a red point of light dancing around on a single cloud."

"I assumed someone was playing with a laser pointer. Then the
point started darting around, beyond the boundaries of the
little cloud against the dark, starry night sky. I then realized
it was a vehicle, not a laser pointer."

"What I witnessed had the quality of a 'joy ride,'" as if the
pilot were "'taking the craft out for a spin.' There was no
discernible symmetry or discipline to the craft's maneuvers--a
few loops and zig-zags" going into another part of the sky.

"The sighting started with the craft almost directly overhead,
slightly to the west, then darting about 30 or 40 degrees due
east, then departing southward. The craft itself was a point of
fuzzy red light," which did not blink. (Many thanks to Rev.
Billy Dee and Peter B. Davenport of the National UFO Reporting
Center for this report.)

THE STRANGE DOOM OF FRANK BERTSCHY

This next story sounds like something out of H.P. Lovecraft -
The Doom That Fell On West Milwaukee. Except that it actually
happened - an apparent case of spontaneous human combustion
(SHC) and just last week.

Here's the story as it appeared in the Milwaukee
Journal-Sentinel.

"A 78-year-old blind man died mysteriously of burns he suffered
Thursday (March 29, 2001) after apparently setting himself on
fire while lighting a cigar, authorities said."

"Investigators remained puzzled over the rapidity with which
Francis (nickname Frank--J.T.) Bertschy became engulfed in
flames. He suffered second and third degree burns over about 95
percent of his body, fire officials said."

"Officials were investigating whether an inflammable compound
such as glue or alcohol may have been on Bertschy's clothes."

"No such substance was found on the man's body, however, and a
search of the apartment where he and his wife shared in the
5000 block of West National Avenue" in West Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, "failed to turn up any signs of an accelerant."

"A spokesman at St. Mary's Hospital, where Bertschy was
treated, said Bertschy died sometime Thursday evening.. She was
unsure what time he died, however, and could not comment on the
extent of his injuries."

"Bertschy was burned about 6:15 a.m. Thursday (March 29) after
his cotton clothing apparently caught fire while he was trying
to light a cigar with a match."

"Fatima Ahmed, Bertschy's 13-year-old neighbor, said she awoke
early Thursday morning , as Bertschy screamed desperately for
help, and his wife, Mary, pounded frantically on her (Fatima's)
front door."

"'I got scared at first because I thought, Nobody pounds on our
door at six o'clock in the morning,' she said. 'Then I heard
Mary's husband screaming, 'Someone help me! I'm on fire!' Well,
I went out in the hallway. I saw him standing there, with his
hand on fire.'"

"As Fatima dialed 911 from her home, she said her mother, Noorb
Behegum, followed the Bertschys back into their apartment."

"When she joined them minutes later, Fatima said she saw the
flames had crept across Bertschy's arm and chest and had
consumed his clothing, which Fatima described as 'boxer shorts
and a muscle shirt.'"

"The West Milwaukee Middle School student said Frank Bertschy
was stumbling around in his one-bedroom apartment and turning
on faucets and splashing himself with water in an attempt to
douse the flames."

"When police arrived, they found Bertschy still on fire in the
bathroom. They used a fire extinguisher and towels to douse the
flames, authorities said."

"Two police officers were later treated for smoke inhalation,
police said." (See the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel for March 29,
2001, story by Jessica Hansen and Nahal Toos. Many thanks to
Louise A. Lowry for forwarding this newspaper article.)

(Editor's Comment: SHC is one of the most baffling Fortean
phenomena. I wonder if what happened to Mr. Bertschy might have
been caused by a localized electromagnetic field effect, brought
on by NOA9393, the largest sunspot in eleven years. It would be
interesting to compare the dates of known SHC cases with data on
sunspot activity I am reminded what Arthur C. Clarke said on
his TV show. "If there's anything more to SHC, I don't want to
know about it.")


SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT:

"Hi, this is Bob 'Hasta La Vista' Hope. At age 97, I've sure
seen my share of disasters. Son of Paleface comes immediately
to mind. I hear there's a big one coming up next Friday, so I'd
like to invite everyone to this website for continuing live
coverage of...the end of Oregon! APRIL FOOL!--J.T.

READER FEEDBACK:

MORE WORDS ON BIRDS

Ray Cecot, organizational director of the International
Researchers' Association for Anomalous Phenomena (IRAAP)
writes, "I read the short piece on bird deaths in UFO Roundup.
(See UFO Roundup, volume 6, number 11 for March 15, 2001,
"Mysterious Mass deaths of birds in Long Island, N.Y.," page 4)
and I have a copy of the article in front of me as I am writing
this and wanted to correct the date of the event."

"The article in the Newsday website is listed as Friday, March
2, 2001m which makes the date of the event February 27 (the
previous Tuesday--R.C.) I printed the article out on the
following Wednesday, March 7."

"Read the UFO Roundup with interest. Keep up the good work."

SCIENCE SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE UTAH POOP FALL

Jimbo writes, ""I just read your article about the Utah house
pelted by dung (See UFO Roundup, volume 6, number 12 for March
22, 2001, "Utah town pelted by a rain of excrement," page 4) and
I flashed on a story I read recently that mentioned how the
Russian astronauts (cosmonauts--J.T.) just threw their waste
overboard."

"The question would be, 'Is it possible that the Russians have
developed the technology to allow crap to fall to Earth without
burning up in the atmosphere?'"

"We need to get people working on this right now."


 From the UFO Files...

1909: STRANGE CRUISE OF THE ADELLA SHORES

Lake Superior, the largest of the Great Lakes, has its
legendary "Ghost Fleet." These are the five ships that have
"gone missing" in the last century or so. Their names are known
to everyone living between Duluth, Minnesota and Sault Sainte
Marie, Michigan-- the Bannockburn, the Hydson, the Inkermann,
the Cerisolles...and, of course, the Adella Shores.

The Adella Shores was what we on Lake Superior call a "lumber
hooker." That is, a wooden steamboat with a large flat area
amidships to store lumber for the long journey through the lakes
to Chicago, Milwaukee and Cleveland.

"The Adella Shores was built in Gibraltar, Michigan in 1894 for
the Shores Lumber Company. After a quick and unceremonious
launch, the incomplete vessel was towed to Ashland, Wisconsin ,
where the Shores mills were located."

Millowner Walter Shores was one of the most prominent
businessmen in Ashland. He was also a leading supporter of the
Temperance movement in Wisconsin, and he hated beer and alcohol
of any kind.

(Editor's Note: In 1919, the Temperance movement succeeded in
passing the Volstead Act, which banned the consumption of
alcoholic beverages in the USA. The act was repealed in 1933 by
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which ended the brief
Prohibition era in the USA.)

Mr. Shores decided to name the ship after his beautiful oldest
daughter, Adella. But because he was an ardent [prohibitionist,
he did not wish the ship to be christened with the traditional
bottle of champagne. He was afraid that Ashland people would
laugh if the ship bearing his daughter's name would be soaked
with champagne.

So, on the day of the ceremonial launch, Shores called his
youngest daughter, eight-year-old Bessie, over to the reviewing
stand and handed her an empty bottle. "Take this down to the
lake and fill it up," he told Bessie, "Then come on back here,
and you can launch the ship."

Ole Svalesen, an elderly Great Lakes sailor who had been
cruising Lake Superior since before the Soo canal opened in
1855, happened to overhear the businessman. Hobbling over on his
wooden leg, Ole said, "Oh, Mr. Shores, you can't do that. If
you christen a ship with water, you'll jinx her, and she'll
come to a bad end."

Shores was adamant. "I will not have Adella's name associated
with champagne. I will not have my daughter made a
laughingstock."

"You'll jinx the ship."

"Superstitious rubbish!" Shore replied, "Good heavens,
Svalesen! It's the Nineteenth Century. Don't tell me you
believe in that foolishness. Next I suppose you'll be telling me
you believe in the Black Dog of Lake Erie, too."

Ole turned a ghastly shade of white. "Are you mad!? Bandying
the cursed hound's name about!?" He hurried away. "I'll have no
part of this!"

"Go on, Bessie." Her father gave her a nudge towards the sandy
beach.

Bessie nodded and walked down to the water's edge. Squatting on
her haunches, she filled the empty bottle with fresh lake
water, put a cork in it, and lugged it back to the reviewing
stand.

While her parents and siblings and the spectators sat in the
bleacher seats, Bessie stepped up to the bow of the Adella
Shores. She lifted the bottle like a baseball player getting
ready to hit a home run. Then, in a loud, clear voice, she
cried, "I christen thee...Adella Shores!"

The bottle struck the bow, exploding in a spray of glass and
water. The ship let out a groan and a shudder and began to
slide down the ramp into Lake Superior.

But then something strange happened. Instead of going straight
into the lake, the ship slid sideways. The stern struck the
corner of the bleachers, collapsing them and dumping eight
people into the lake.

No one was really hurt. Just a few people got soaked. But the
rumor that Shores had jinxed the ship spread like wildfire.
Shores himself tried to put the best face on the mishap.

"It was an accident," he said, "It could happen to anybody."

But, off to one side, Ole Svalesen told a group of sailors,
"She's a jinxed ship, and she'll come to a bad end."

Ole died a year later, in 1895.

And the Adella Shores began her career, hauling lumber from
Duluth, Ashland and Beaver Bay, Minn. to the ports on the lower
Great Lakes.

But the Shores Lumber Company had trouble keeping a
fully-manned crew.

Strange things were happening aboard that ship. Helmsmen
complained that the steering wheel would suddenly jam and
refused to budge for a minute or two. Sailors working below
heard strange whispering voices coming from the shadowy corners
of the forecastle. Often, between midnight and 3 a.m., the mate
on watch would hear an odd sound on the lumber deck. A kind of
muted thump-thump-thump, like a man walking with one wooden
leg.

In October 1904, sailors dressing for work in the crew's
quarters let out a yell. Hovering before the bulkhead mirror
was a disembodied white hand. Extending a ghostly forefinger, it
began writing on the glass. Then it vanished.

Running to the mirror, the sailors found this message in
letters of frost--She's a jinxed ship, and she'll come to a bad
end.

Everybody aboard had a look at the message before it faded, The
one shocked worst of all was Patrick Olsen, age 20. He
recognized the handwriting of his maternal grandfather, Ole
Svalesen, who had died nine years earlier.

The Shores mills had to recruit a whole new crew after that.

In November 1905, the Adella Shores was caught in the "Big
Blow" that devastated Lake Superior. Many thought Ole's
prediction had finally come true. But the tough little lumber
hooker survived the storm that sank three larger ships--the
Mataafa and the Crescent City.

After that, there were fewer whispers about "the Jinx Ship."
The Adella Shores plied her trade on the Great Lakes without
incident. When the shipping season began in late March of 1909,
there was every expectation that the Adella Shores would have a
long, uneventful career.

But one foggy morning in April 1909, the Adella Shores took on
a load of lumber at her dark on the bay side of Park Point. She
steamed out of the ship canal and out into the Big Lake, heading
for the Shores dock in Ashland. She picked up another load of
cut boards there and departed in early afternoon, heading up
Chequamegon Bay past the Apostle Islands and out into the
fogbound lake.

She was never seen again.

Three days later, the Duluth harbormaster received a telegram
from the locks at Sault Sainte Marie. Where is the Adella
Shores?

The harbormaster fired off telegrams to all of the port cities
around the lake--Two Harbors, Minn., Grand Marais, Minn.,
Ontonagon, Mich., Marquette, Mich. and Port Arthur (now Thunder
Bay--J.T.), Ontario. He asked the very same question.

And the answer came back from every port--No sign of her.

That was 92 years ago. No trace of the Adella Shores was ever
found.

The "Jinx Ship" has become a ghost ship of Lake Superior. *See
the book Haunted Lakes by Frederick Stonehouse, Lake Superior
Port Cities, Inc, Duluth, Minn., 1997, page 66.)

LATE BREAKING NEWS!

The largest solar flare in recorded history erupted from the
sun on Tuesday, April 3, 2001. The coronal mass ejection (CME),
which originated with the massive sunspot NOA9393, is expected
to reach Earth in 72 hours. Disruptions in TV and radio
broadcasts are expected, as are tremendous auroras in both the
northern and southern hemispheres.

Also on Tuesday, an earthquake measuring 5.1 on the Richter
scale shook buildings less than 100 miles (160 kilometers)
south of Tokyo. Japanese officials said the quake was not a
forerunner of an even bigger earthquake centered in Tokyo.

(Editor's Comment: This is not good. I was hoping Japan was all
finished with earthquakes for a while after that big one in
Hiroshima. Christian seer Quentin Jessup predicted a big
earthquake in the metro Tokyo region a month ago, but he did
not give a specific date for this event.)

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 next week.

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.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                    Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:26:28 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 03:26:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer


 >Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 16:32:06 -0400
 >From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer
 >To: 'UFO UpDates - Toronto' <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Oh, whatever.  I think I've said all I had to say on the topic.
 >I've already said that I think it's a fairly pathetic tactic on
 >the part of any "debunkert" to try to claim that all or most
 >multiple-witness sightings are some form of "hysteria", esp. the
 >ones that (allegedly) involve something clearly physical zipping
 >around, as opposed to the cases where maybe some people are
 >looking at a stationary, bright light, one person goes "UFO!", &
 >suddenly everyone else is "seeing" a UFO.

It's also a pretty pathetic tactic to accuse sceptics of
claiming that "all or most multiple witness sightings are some
form of hysteria" without providing the slightest bit of
evidence.

To repeat my original point: I can think of few, if any,
instances where a sceptical ufologist has dismised a case as
"mass hysteria". Can you give me an example?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:55:21 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 03:30:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:09:52 -0500

 >There is a long history of internal dissent and criticism within
 >ufology. That's why ufologists have debunked so many UFO claims.
 >I'm surprised that such has miraculously missed your notice on
 >this list alone. But then, I guess, one sees what one wants to
 >see.

The problem is that at some stage, some ufologists cross an
invisible boundary, known only to Jerome Clark, which moves them
from the category of "ufologist" to that of "debunker". At this
point their arguments no longer count as internal debate and
criticism, but become "ideological scoring".

Part of the problem is, I think, the difference in the nature of
the sceptical response within the British (and broader European)
UFO world, and American ufology. I have pointed this out before,
but I suspect that Jerry thought I was indulging in some sort of
anti-Americanism, and never responded to my suggestion.

In Britain most of the prominent sceptical ufologist are just
that: ufologists who have come to their sceptical position after
years of actual, getting-your-hands-dirty, UFO investigation.
People like Andy Roberts and David Clarke, and many others who
are probably less well-known to UpDates researchers, are
ufologists first and sceptics second.

This seems to contrast with the American position, where
sceptics like Klass and Scheaffer seem to have come into the
field with scientific or technical credentials already
established elsewhere. I grant that there are one or two
exceptions on either side of the Atlantic (Dennis Stacy and Ian
Ridpath come to mind - perhaps unfairly for either or both of
them)

So that when Andy Roberts explains a case such a Berwyn
Mountain, I see that as an example of the type of "internal
dissent" that Jerry describes above. Presumably Jerry sees it as
an example of external "debunking".

 >Whatever its problems, ufology at least understands that real
 >intellectual inquiry demands internal policing and debate in the
 >interest of truth-seeking, as opposed to ideological scoring,
 >where a belief has to be defended at all costs, with no
 >concession or quarter given. The absence of internal criticism,
 >one might add, is one characteristic of pseudoscience.

I see plenty of beliefs being defended at all costs on this
List. The Alien Autopsy and Gulf Breeze being only two of the
most egregious examples.

 >No such policing and debate exist with the UFO-debunking camp,
 >only the sort of robotic head-nodding one observes of
 >true-believing bedfellows who have gathered to fight a common
 >hated enemy. I have a long paper trail of criticism of
 >ufologists' shortcomings. So do Dick Hall, Brad Sparks, and
 >other prominent ufologists on this List and elsewhere. When you
 >get around to offering comparably serious criticisms of the
 >failings of Menzel, Klass, Condon, the psychosociologists, and
 >others who share your beliefs, let me know.

You continue to believe that sceptics never disagree with each
other. You cannot therefore have read John Harney's criticisms
of Phil Klass's analysis of the Travis Walton case in Magonia
Supplement. Never mind, you'll have the opportunity to read more
in the forthcoming Magonia 74, which shouls be with you in a
couple of weeks. I also find very little evidence of general
support amongst sceptical ufologists of the pelican theory for
Arnold, or the balloon theory for Soccorro.

 >Otherwise, the
 >finger you're pointing will remain extended in your direction.

In Britain the custom is to use two fingers!

 >Jerry Clark


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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

               Dogs barked, Birds Squawked & Frightened Horse

From: Diane Harrison <tkbnetw@powerup.com.au>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:29:40 +1000
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 07:37:51 -0400
Subject: Dogs barked, Birds Squawked & Frightened Horse


Albert Logan Newspaper QLD Australia

Wed 4th 4.2001


It's out there


Dogs barked, birds squawked and frightened horse bolted when a
mysterious bright object streaked across Logan's night sky,
shinning red light over a rural property at Cornubia last week.

Seeing the silent red object has frightened and mystified
property owner Tashma Hosking who said she heard it hit the
ground moments later when it disappeared over a hill.

But her search of the area the next day found nothing.

Mrs Hosking said she had just walked inside her home after
tending a sick pony in the yard at 11.30pm on Wednesday, March
28th, when the object appeared like a fireball.

"I was scared and first thought it would hit the house," she
said "It did not make a sound and the paddock was lit up in red
light.

"Then I heard a bang after it went over the hill" she
said."Whatever it was did go down."

Mrs Hosking said the red object had no defined shape.

Curious about what she saw that night in the Beenliegh, Redland
Bay Road area, Mrs Hosking is hoping others saw the light and
can offer a logical explanation.

"It was very interesting and I just want a answer," she said.

Mrs Hosking said a neighbour had also heard a bang, or what
sounded like a stone crashing on her garage wall.

A nearby hillside resident, Sue Webb, said she had watched two
mysterious pink red glowing lights from the balcony of her home
that night.

She said she observed them for several minutes as they came down
but could offer no explanation as to what they were.

---

Regards Diane Harrison
National Director of The Australian UFO Research Network
Australian Skywatch Director

~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>
THE AUSTRALIAN UFO RESEARCH NETWORK
(A Non-Profit Organization)

E-Mail: tkbnetw@powerup.com.au
E-mail: ufologist@powerup.com.au
http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw

ADMINISTRATION:

PO Box 805
Springwood  Qld  4127
Australia
~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>
Australian UFO Research Network Hotline Number
          1800 77 22 88 Freecall
~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>
Disclaimer: A.UFO.R.N List Owners are not responsible
for the content or misuse of this list.
However, personal insults, flaming will not be tolerated.
~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>~~~~<>







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                       Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 06:51:46 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 07:45:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Ledger


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon' - Easton
 >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 04:05:18 +0100

 >>Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:41:36 -0400
 >>From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: Don Ledger <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Socorro 'Balloon'

 >Don wrote:

 >>In a recent Notice to Airmen release advising of a scientific
 >>package of 1.4 kilograms, about 4 pounds, Transport Canada
 >>advised that the balloon would be 141,000 cu.ft or 4,000 cubic
 >>meters in volume. If that was a cube it would be 54 feet on a
 >>side, just to lift a 4 pound payload. I suspect that it could
 >>probably lift 20 pounds if need be, but they wanted a margin of
 >>lift higher than usual since this thing was to go to 138,000
 >>feet. But even so there is no way you could stretch the rubber
 >>band to lift a payload of say 400 pounds at that size.

 >Don,

 >One of the earliest US hot-air balloon competitions took place
 >on 18, January, 1964. Contemporary with the Zamora case, it's
 >documented that a competing balloon, for a "one-man crew" had a
 >volume of 30,000 cubic feet. Almost a fifth of the size you
 >cite, it was not so much, as a cube, 54 feet per side, as "forty
 >feet in diameter". See:

 >http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9801/0002/cat alina0002.h
tm

 >Obviously, we would expect a 'two-man' hot-air balloon to be
 >larger.

 >Don Piccard is a pioneer of hot-air ballooning and participated
 >in that fateful January, 1964, Catalina challenge.

James,

That should tell you something. How's that for arrogance

<snip>

 >Let's not forget, this is a sighting report which is a pivotal
 >'can't be explained' foundation of beliefs that aliens are
 >visiting Earth.

 >You also wrote:

 >"If you want some science - here's your science. I've been
 >around a balloons a few times and these are very big with tens
 >of thousands of cubic feet of lifting capacity".

 >What leads you to arrogantly state I'm not aware of related
 >'science' and that you have a foundation to publicly insinuate I
 >do not have a comprehensive grasp of this?

 >I would like an answer.

 >At the outset of research into Zamora's reported sighting, the
 >'science' of hot-air ballooning, its ostensible connection with
 >Zamora's encounter and why a hot-air balloon was the obvious
 >explanation, were in fact discussed with and explained to me by
 >Don Piccard.

 >By comparison with your related experiences, surely Don
 >Piccard's credentials are somewhat more extensive, especially in
 >that 1964 era, than having been around hot-air balloons a few
 >times.

 >Wouldn't you agree?

 >I would have thought so, to say the least.

James Easton

Much has been made of late on your shortcoming where they apply
to your understanding of flight. What's Don Piccard got to do
with the the Lonnie Zamora sighting? Did he even know anything
about it? How can you substitute the expertise of the man on the
spot [Zamora] for someone who knows absolutely nothing about the
circumstances. That's a pure debunking ploy - try to give
credibility to someone who has no standing in the case. I'm only
responding to this because it's such an obvious attempt at
burying the facts with nonesense.

What have my credentials and Piccard's got to do with the
sighting? I know Transport Canada's will likely be of more
value.

As for arrogance. A couple of months ago you posted your grand
solution to a flying triangle sighting, I believe in Scotland,
where the witness claimed that it was about 50 feet over his
vehicle and glided out over the sea, silently. Your explanation
for this was a Vulcan bomber with its power pulled back to idle,
gliding over the car - at 50 feet. Your reasoning for this answer
was some Vulcan pilot told you they used this manoeuver. But you
forgot or conveniently forgot to ask him at what altitude they
employed this manoeuver. Certainly not 50 feet.

Your proclamation that this case was now solved is an example of
arrogance and an outright indication of your ignorance of
aerodynamics and flight in general. I'm sure your Vulcan pilot
would have been as embarrassed for your ignorance or arrogance
on this one as I was for you.

So there you are James, I have no faith in your credibility on
questions of flight and lifting bodies, your knowledge of Vulcan
Bombers or ballooning. I've been around ballooning and read
about the Zamora case. Piccard has been around ballooning. I've
been in general aviation for 40 years and a pilot for over
twenty years and out in the field investigating UFO sightings
for nearly ten. I don't know what the hell you've been doing
except spouting nonesense about Arnold and Zamaroa's case and
the Vulcan bomber fiasco. If that's arrogance on my part, so be
it.

BTW if you can answer this in under 10,000 words, I'd appreciate
it - as I'm sure the others on the List will.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Gates

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:40:33 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 07:47:52 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gates


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:15:02 EDT
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:42:36 -0700

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:40:01 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>The CD's are and always will be inferior to a beta copy for
 >>>expert examination. If you were truly serious about wanting an
 >>>expert opinion, I would imagine you would be more then willing
 >>>to get a copy of the Beta and or put Roger in touch with the
 >>>person who has the copy so that he could examine it.

 >>Robert,

 >>For the last time, we do not have a beta copy nor do we have
 >>access to a beta copy. If we had access to a beta copy we would
 >>certainly try to get Roger a copy, at his expense of course.

 >Ed,

 >You did not answer the last part of the question which had
 >nothing to do with whether you had access or not, but was why
 >don't you put Roger in touch with the person whose warm
 >hands have the beta copy, or at least contact that person
 >and put them in touch with Roger? As I recall the person
 >who has this beta copy also is the one that claims its
 >a hoax.


Robert,

Ed can't do that because I told him who loaned me the Beta copy
in confidence, simple as that. I no longer have the copy, only
access to a Beta and VHS copy of the copy. The loan copy I had
is now back with it's owner, and it's not located in the USA but
here in the UK.

As for Betacam SP(4.5mhz bandwidth) being the be-all and end-all
of technical quality, that's moot, it's actually a tad down on
bandwidth from SVHS(5mhz bandwidth) and being tape it's subject
to damage and still being an analog system, subject to noise
from even minor damage, the Beta copy I had was already showing
signs of mechanical ware and tear, a problem you don't have with
CD's unless you use them as coffee coasters or frizbee's.

A further point as to the image quality of the digitised
version, Theresa Carlson used a Betcam tape supplied by Ray
Santilli for her research, during which she "read" the "Danger"
sign wording. Looking at a single raw frame from my CD version
of the AA, this sign _can_ be read, it shows her "reading" of
the sign from her Betacam was incorrect, was her Betacam of
better image quality than my digitised version?.

 >>We don't think the CDs are inferior to the beta. As I've

 >While you may not think so, they are.


If your refering to the usual MPEG1 offerings normally found on
CDI's that would be correct, they offer only 320x240 resolution.
The digitisations It've done are at 640x480 using broadcast
standard MPEG2 format, I have also just completed additional
digitisations in the new MPEG4 format to further increase the
data compression ratio with little if any further loss of
quality, but allowing the 10 distribution files and software to
to fit on 2 CD's rather than the 4 required in the original
MPEG2 format.

Remember, even from a Betacam tape you're still only dealing
with (in European PAL TV terms) a 625 line, frame interlaced TV
picture, with only aprox 575/6 of those lines being used for the
picture information, that's your upper limit of vertical picture
resolution available in the PAL analog TV system whatever the
source, bandwidth variations only effect the amount of detail
within these fixed number of scanlines.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 6

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:29:48 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 07:50:00 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Morris


 >Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:07:57 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp


 >Really? Then all those movies on television that are edited for
 >sexual content must represent true stories. How silly of me! And
 >all this time, I just thought they were fictional
 >representations.

 >Come one, guys. Having to blur out the footage only adds fuel to
 >the fire, speculation wise. It wouldn't be beyond the scope of
 >imagination, even Santilli's, to include footage that would have
 >to be masked just for broadcast.



The "masking" was done by the US broadcaster _just_ for the US market.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 7

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:19:24 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 15:42:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles


 >Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:55:21 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 > >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 > >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 > >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:09:52 -0500

 >Part of the problem is, I think, the difference in the nature of
 >the sceptical response within the British (and broader European)
 >UFO world, and American ufology.

 >In Britain most of the prominent sceptical ufologist are just
 >that: ufologists who have come to their sceptical position after
 >years of actual, getting-your-hands-dirty, UFO investigation.
 >People like Andy Roberts and David Clarke, and many others who
 >are probably less well-known to UpDates researchers, are
 >ufologists first and sceptics second.

 >This seems to contrast with the American position, where
 >sceptics like Klass and Scheaffer seem to have come into the
 >field with scientific or technical credentials already
 >established elsewhere.

 >So that when Andy Roberts explains a case such a Berwyn
 >Mountain, I see that as an example of the type of "internal
 >dissent" that Jerry describes above. Presumably Jerry sees it as
 >an example of external "debunking".


Hi,

This is certainly true - although not exclusively true (for
reasons you will see later).

And it is interesting to note that in the UK there is a
difference in response to these interbal criticsa (however
'nasty') and pontificating debunkers - of which there are some.

Whilst many people do dispute the findings on certain cases of
researchers such as Andy Roberts and David Clarke and are rarely
as negative in their perceptions of Ufology as they seem to be -
their work is respected in the UK, not rejected as it seems to
be beyond the UK.

Why is easy to see. In the UK these people are known as
first-hand researchers. They get out there, interview witnesses,
seek to solve cases by actual investigation in exactly the same
way a good pro-UFO researcher would do. All that differs is the
conclusion that they reach.

So - the outcome is that nobody argues that these people are not
bona fide members of the UFO community. They clearly are and
their views need to be considered, and debated, not alienated
and rejected.

I think part of the problem on Updates comes from a
misperception of bluntness and irony that pepper the writings of
some British researchers from the skeptical side. This is
perceived as aggressive rudeness (which I agree it can come over
as looking like ). If you are 5000 miles away and have never met
this person nor read much of what they have said beyond this
list then you are quite likely to presume they are some demonic
avenger out to rebuke and destroy Ufology.

But these people have published more Ufology than virtually any
other British researcher you would know. You just haven't read
it and thus properly judged their true input. And that's not
their fault, is it?

But those of us who have worked with these people for years
(decades in some cases) are well versed in their thinking via
countless articles (often darkly humourous that condition us to
the expected mode of presentation - we always know what we are
going to get from the likes of Andy!) - plus the lectures and
articles etc. These people are not distant critics. They are
extremely actives parts of the British UFO community .

So they get listened to, their views respected, their
idiosyncrasies tolerated and their opinions debated. But more
than anything it is accepted that they have formed these views
by way of direct experience (not pre-existent doctrine) .

In fact, you are about to get a taste of the British love of the
cynic. I gather US TV is promoting right now a game show import
called 'The Weakest Link' which is even to be presented in the
US by the BBC's own presenter from the UK original version (Anne
Robinson).

Anne is very much in the mould of the British skeptic. She is a
hardened journalist who for many years has presented a consumer
programme on prime time in which she takes viewers criticisms
about shoddy service or rip off prices and confronts the head of
the company with blunt questions live on camera and that takes
no truck from them. This often comes over as rude, but her style
as the peoples champion sees her through despite that.

It was because of this style that she was chosen to front 'The
Weakest Link'  - where she treats the contestants much as might
a miserly schoolmistress who is faced with a class full of
naughty pupils. The show has become a huge hit here - almost
entirely as a result of the way she can pointedly analyse a
feeble players performance and tell them straight how they
mucked up - then say 'You 'are' the weakest link - goodbye!'

Now in the UK we can see the nuances here. If Anne Robinson was
'really' doing this to people for her own pleasure it would be
sadistic. If we stopped for a minute to analyse what she does
(some contestants have cried from the pressure) then we would no
doubt be demanding she be removed from the airwaves. But we see
this as a mode of performance. Its not an act. Its not real
life. Its somewhere in between and somehow we accept the
cynicism, the wicked irony of the in-your-face honesty - where
she says what many would think but dare not say for fear of
offending others - yet all with a modicum of civility that
somehow turns it from pure nastiness into something we can
subconsciously cheer.

I do wonder how this will go down with a US audience. Somehow I
am not sure it will have the same resonance as it does in the
UK. Since you cannot take this overtly. You have to see the
subtleties behind it. And I suspect many of you will find this
woman insufferably rude and switch off from seeing the bigger
picture (and - this is after all just a game show) - therefore
only seeing her character flaws.

I would imagine Anne Robinson is the unofficial mascot of
British Pelicanists Inc.

But it is easier for British Ufologists to judge even the
sometimes venomous skeptics that appear on this list with more
tolerance. That's because we can compare them with the breed of
debunker that also exists in the UK - the 'I'm a scientist and
I'm telling you what' brigade.

There is a media travelling circus of performing skeptics who
appear incessantly on TV chat shows, national news broadcasts,
documentaries etc. And these are not - generally speaking - the
people you will find on this (or any) UFO list. Because these
people are in the main in no way Ufologists. They are
rent-a-quote experts who have solved Ufology like others solve
crossword puzzles (i.e. ten minutes a day during a coffee break)
and often just by talking to fellow part 'experts'.

I know from experience that when you front up to these people
they quite often flounder like a dockside catch just off-loaded.
They are perfectly happy with the easy questions and the easy
ride they are given by TV presenters (who know marginally less
than these 'experts' do about UFOs - that is to say the
presenters, of course, know nothing). They can smile through and
trot out the sort of answers that appease the audience but leave
Ufologists seething because we know how shallow, unreflective
and often downright misleading these statements can be.

But, of course, the presenters and the viewers don't know. And
these people are heroes to science because they put their head
on the block and fight the good fight against the evil empire of
loony Ufologists.

They are Luke Skywalker to the army of dastardly Darth Vaders
who believe silly things about this fantasy subject. The fact
that they are usually more like R2 D2 is known only to the few
hundred people who see their incapacity.

So - Ufologists in the UK understandably reserve their disdain
for those skeptics who form opinions on no real evidence and
often have a very shallow appreciation even of the questions
that are involved. And they respect the skeptics from within
their own ranks - because - even if they fundamentally disagree
with these peoples conclusions about a case - it is accepted
that these are honest opinions forged through the genuine
travail of UFO investigation and the actual participation in the
real world of Ufology.

I have worked with the people within Ufology you hail as
debunkers. And you can investigate a case, agree or disagree on
the findings, publish your own views and move on. I have worked
with rent-a-quotes too and the experience is less satisfying.

On at least one occasion I asked them in to try to help solve a
case. They failed and rapidly lost interest. Not one peep about
this case ever appeared in their house journal. But we solved it
in the end on our own! You know as well as I do that if any
Ufologist 'covers up' a skeptics perceived success in solving a
case then we are chastised for doing so. It is considered a
crime typical of biased Ufologists. But it cuts both ways and in
this straight test the debunkers failed miserably to demonstrate
their objectivity by clearly preferring to forget a case that in
their eyes was not quickly wrapped up.

I hope this gives something of an insight into a question I have
been asked often in recent weeks by stunned US colleagues - 'er
how can you possibly have anything good to say about these
debunkers that you work with?'

I do so because they can - and do - carry out fine research.
Andy Robert's resolution of Berwyn (whilst I don't 100% agree he
has absolutely nailed it down) is first rate, in the field
research that I have to agree leaves the case pretty dead in the
water so far as it being up to very much.

David Clarke's masterful exploration of a UFO crash in the Peak
District hills in l997 (in which incidentally he challenged and
MoD cover up and exposed it!) is a terrific illustration of how
to investigate a UFO case 'and' find answers.

Because often these answers do exist. Not always - IMO - but
often enough to make it foolhardy not to look darned hard to
find them.

Yes, we part company when it comes to a total assessment of what
- if anything - remains after you investigate hard and explain
away much. But that's a trivial matter in the scheme of things,
because we agree on the methods and the possibilities and the
dire need to find answers wherever we can and to say - in public
- to any case found wanting - 'You 'are' the weakest link -
goodbye!'

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 >
   Apr > Apr 7

                         CE-5 Contact And Skepticism

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 6 Apr 2001 07:30:52 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 15:45:26 -0400
Subject: CE-5 Contact And Skepticism

I have read arguements pro and arguements con on the
identification of UFOs or a specific sighting.

The skeptics will state reasons they doubt the details of
specific reports.  Debunkers will take it a step further.
Sometimes skeptics and debunkers are pro-real UFOs as pointed
out by Jerry Clark and some do not believe there are any real
UFOs, just mistakes in observation of something that might
otherwise be determined to be a conventional identifiable
object.

There is a category of experience that has occurred in sighting
UFOs that I and others have experienced that raises the ante on
explaining the experience in terms of conventional
misidentifications and that experience is now classed as a CE-5
by Dr. Richard Haines.

This experience can take several modalities.  A simple one is
using a flashlight as a signaling device and getting a seemingly
"encoded" flash in response.  Now, this type of CE-5 is probably
most open to debunking as many of us can posit explanations for
obtaining such a response from a conventional source.

A more difficult CE-5 experience is the act of influencing a
UFO's behavior or response using only thoughts directed by the
human mind. A typical example is posing a request of the UFO to
turn in a particular direction followed by a compliance to the
request, then repeating other requests followed by compliances
each and every time so that one is impressed with the feeling
that you are carrying out a process of signal communication with
an intelligent agent on the other end of the communication line.
One then wonders how this is possible. If you have a structured
craft in view, then it seems as if one is in telepathic
communication with the pilot or intelligent agent that controls
the movement of the craft.

This even evolves into "calling in" such craft and have them
engage in repeated compliance-request behavior as I have
described.  Sometimes it goes further and one seems to "receive"
a message that forecasts the appearance of such a craft prior to
its appearance at an exact location and time (to the minute and
second given)!  Would you not be impressed by such an event and
consider it a mystery that goes beyond the sighting of an
unidentified/unconventional aerial object?

When I was a teenager I experienced all of what I have described
and a little more which had the effect of reducing my skepticism
to a major degree so, you see, I have had to work at
re-establishing a strong skeptical attitude without discarding
the value of my personal experiences or those I have found that
others have had that correlate with mine.

Skepticism in an investigator/researcher is a positive trait as
far as I am concerned, but, as Dr. Bruce has pointed out, there
is also reason to be skeptical of skeptic's and debunker's
explanations when they do not standup to scrutiny and analysis
based on the facts of the case.

Cases with Hynek's "high strangeness" factor as these might be
considered when hypothesizing the origin and nature of UFOs.
CE-5 cases as well as the old CE-3 ctases where humanoid
occupants are seen in the vicinity of a landed UFO argue for
unconventional explanations.  I have not seen the skeptics
tackle these cases except to dismiss them as hoaxes or consider
an extreme explanation such as a "landed baloon with occupants"
as in the Socorro case.

Dr. Haines book on Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind contains
242 case files of CE-5, or human-initiated contact, where
deliberate human behavior was followed by an obvious response
from an unidentified object and/or humanoid.  Has any other
investigator or researcher on this list studied such cases or
investigated a reported case for MUFON or any other group?

If contact with the intelligent agents behind the UFO phenomena
can be human-initiated, then why not attempt experiments as I
did when I was a naive teenager?  Why not use a light-beam
transceiver as I did? It is just another form of CETI (not
refering to the controversial Dr. Greer here or in any of these
statements).

Sincerely,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 7

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 09:25:36 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 15:48:05 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:40:33 +0100
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gates
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:15:02 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Robert wrote:

 >>>>The CD's are and always will be inferior to a beta copy for
 >>>>expert examination.

Neil replied:

 >As for Betacam SP(4.5mhz bandwidth) being the be-all and end-all
 >of technical quality, that's moot, it's actually a tad down on
 >bandwidth from SVHS(5mhz bandwidth)


Hi, Neil!

Sorry, but this is simply not correct. BetaSP is rated at over 6
megabytes per second, depending on the age and wear of each
deck, and is _not_ inferior to Super VHS by a long shot because
it operates in the component domain whereas SVHS only keeps the
luminance and chrominance separate; in short, a poor man's
BetaSP. In fact, according to my system stats, the data rate for
Super VHS is only 4.5 megabytes per second, so you've actually
got the information in reverse. No matter how you look at it,
Super VHS is not as good as Betacam SP. If it was better, then
why wasn't the AA master produced on SuperVHS instead of BetaSP?

Continuing, you wrote:

 >A further point as to the image quality of the digitised
 >version, Theresa Carlson used a Betcam tape supplied by Ray
 >Santilli for her research, during which she "read" the "Danger"
 >sign wording. Looking at a single raw frame from my CD version
 >of the AA, this sign _can_ be read, it shows her "reading" of
 >the sign from her Betacam was incorrect, was her Betacam of
 >better image quality than my digitised version?.

What type of monitor was she using? Was it component or
composite? Or was the signal demodulated through a receiver with
a standard 320 roll-off on the resolution? What was the size of
the monitor? Was it black and white or color with color masking?
Was the monitor a single gun or three gun monitor? Were the
color guns aligned? Was the monitor calibrated to broadcast
specifications or was it just a plain old TV? Was the focus on
her monitor, assuming she used one and not an RF receiver,
adjusted for the sharpest picture? Was the copy she received
made using component, composite or SVHS inputs? And just how do
you quantify her ability to pick out detail as compared to
someone else looking at the same picture?

In short, to say that she erred in her interpretation of the
signage soley because the Betacam SP copy was inferior is really
a bit of misdirection, Neil. More to the technical point at
hand, it sets an impossible scenario for you since, by your own
admission, you _also_ used a Betacam SP copy yourself to
digitize from. Her interpretations aside, it is _impossible_ for
you to get any more detail out of the Beta SP tape than
originally existed. If she couldn't read it, it is either
because of her own inabilities to sort out detail or other
technical problems associated with the display and/or the
quality of the copy. Any inherent technical limitations of the
BetaSP format would affect the two of you exactly the same.

In fact, if you feel that Super VHS is superior to Betacam SP,
then why use a Betacam SP copy for your digitizing? Considering
your position on the superior nature of SVHS and the reality of
how cheap the SVHS machines are, compared to BetaSP, ($150
versus $8,500) it would seem that SVHS would be your format of
choice. More to the point, if you had a SVHS copy, then the
issue of making a copy for me would be moot! ;)

Finally, Neil wrote:

 >Remember, even from a Betacam tape you're still only dealing
 >with (in European PAL TV terms) a 625 line, frame interlaced TV
 >picture, with only aprox 575/6 of those lines being used for the
 >picture information, that's your upper limit of vertical picture
 >resolution available in the PAL analog TV system whatever the
 >source, bandwidth variations only effect the amount of detail
 >within these fixed number of scanlines.

None of this makes any difference, Neil. You're explaining the
difference in displays and not the limitational differences in
recorded formats. That's like explaining the luminance
difference in headlights between one car over another as a
performance indicator for their engines.

The thing to keep in mind here is that the _original_ tape you
were working with was BetaSP. As such, the higher resolution of
the computer monitor won't give you more detail than originally
existed in the BetaSP tape to begin with. On the other hand,
looking at the Beta SP tape on a better monitor will allow for
access to more information than a monitor of lessor quality.

To that end, let me take your side for a moment:

The CDs you are offering are pretty much on par as DVD's. While
I do not believe that the image quality is better than BetaSP,
it is close and a _lot_ better than VHS! However, I am also
pretty darned sure that no one on this list, other than myself,
happens to have an $8,500 BetaSP deck in their living room or a
$6,000 Ikegami monitor to view it on if they did. What every one
on this List _does_ have is a computer monitor which, if
adjusted to the right resolution, will give a much better look
at the information on the CD's than a livingroom TV will off of
VHS. For that, alone, it is probably worth the money for the
CDs, if one is intent on that sort of inspection. As I said, I
can't open your CDs, have no desire to load unwanted software on
my system and feel that I can get more off a BetaSP copy.

Now back to the battle at hand:

But since we're talking about resolution and bandwidth, did you
transfer the BetaSP copy to computer via component, composite or
SVHS inputs? If you are really serious about quality, component
would be the _only_ correct way to do it. Anything less and
you're leaving money on the table.

Again, I understand the problems with not having access to a
BetaSP copy. However, to promote the idea that a CD based,
second generation image from this copy is going to be superior
to the original is a joke, no matter what data rate you used.
The only difference is going to be whether or not it is seen on
a progressive scan computer monitor or an interlaced video
monitor. Even at that, there is nothing that I would see on a
computer monitor from your CD that I won't see on my $6,000
Ikegami component video monitor from a Beta SP copy made in the
component domain. In point of fact, I would see more because the
BetaSP copy will carry more of the original resolution and
detail than the CD's would since you are limited to the same 4.5
data rate as DVD. DVD is _not_ superior to BetacamSP. I know
because I do film restorations on BetaSP all the time and they
get released on DVD. There is no comparison between the two,
even when I look at both of them on the same Ikegami monitor.

In this particular case, analog rules.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 7

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:28:08 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 15:49:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:09:52 -0500

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:23:12 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:01:35 -0500

 >>>incidentally, the best _real_ debunking has always been
 >>>done by ufologists. When a ufologist debunks a case, it stays
 >>>debunked. When a debunker debunks a case, on the other hand, all
 >>>that happens is the sound of robotic head-nodding by those who
 >>>agree with him absolutely and who would never dream of breathing
 >>>a whisper of dissent

 >>Here we go again. The same characteristics attributed to
 >>debunkers now achieve near heroic proportions when used by
 >>ufologists.

 >Bob, with all due respect, you're making no sense.

Jerry,

Yeah, well this happens once in a while.

<snip>

 >Whatever its problems, ufology at least understands that real
 >intellectual inquiry demands internal policing and debate in the
 >interest of truth-seeking, as opposed to ideological scoring,
 >where a belief has to be defended at all costs, with no
 >concession or quarter given. The absence of internal criticism,
 >one might add, is one characteristic of pseudoscience.

Thanks.  From the master.  Every ufologist should paste this
up on their monitor.


Bob









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 7

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:28:07 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 15:50:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:07:17 -0400

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:23:12 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:55:21 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>>incidentally, the best _real_ debunking has always been done by
 >>>>ufologists. When a ufologist debunks a case, it stays debunked.
 >>>>When a debunker debunks a case, on the other hand, all that
 >>>>happens is the sound of robotic head-nodding by those who agree
 >>>>with him absolutely and who would never dream  of breathing a
 >>>>whisper of dissent

 >>Jerry, et. al.:
 >>Here we go again. The same characteristics attributed to
 >>debunkers now achieve near heroic proportions when used by
 >>ufologists.

 >The best ufologists act as if they're open-minded. One sign of
 >that is that they criticize each other.

 >Skeptics, on the other hand, don't normally criticize each
 >others' views. One sign of that is the debate, here and
 >elsewhere, about the Socorro object being, possibly, a balloon.
 >If that 's the real explanation, than Philip Klass's debunking
 >of the case -- that it was a hoax -- is obviously wrong. That's
 >an important point to make, because Klass's reasoning was, shall
 >we say, a little grandiose. Essentially, he simply assumed, with
 >no evidence, that the hoax was in effect.  He had reasons for it
 >(he thought the whole thing was a plot to bring tourists to
 >Soccoro), but he didn't have evidence for his reasons. Skeptics,
 >you'd think, would want to improve their skeptical arguments.
 >Hence -- especially since, as they portray themselves, they're
 >so scientific -- you'd think they'd be all over each other,
 >subjecting each others' arguments to peer review.

 >In that spirit, Bob -- what are the five most mistaken (or
 >improbable) arguments ever made by any prominent skeptic?

Hi, Greg,

[bzz, click] Off-hand, Greg, [bzzz, click] I can't think of any
[bzz, click, click, bzzzz]. [shut down extended memory].

See John Rimmer's posting, today, for some examples.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 7

                        Re: Serious Research - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:28:03 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 15:51:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Young


 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:56:42 -0500
 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research

 >Bob, Dick, List,

 >Consider the following Scenario & Conversation:

 >All winter long I've been confined to a one-room apartment.
 >There are no windows that would let me look at the outside
 >world. The only entrance/exit is a single locked door.

 >One day a Ufologist appears on the door stoop, knocks, and
 >unlocks the door with his key. He slips inside before I can see
 >what's outside.

 >"Are you ready to come out?" he asks. "If so, there's one thing
 >I must tell you. Your world view has to change because the world
 >itself has changed in your absence."

 >"What do you mean the world has changed?" I ask.

 >"All the leaves are brown now," explains the Ufologist.

<snip>

 >"Very well," I say, "let's open the door."

 >The Ufologist unlatches the door and we step outside. It's
 >Spring and the sun is shining. Plants are blooming and birds are
 >singing in the trees. But has the world really changed? Are the
 >leaves on the trees now suddenly brown -- or are they still a
 >familiar shade of green?

Dennis,

Scary, ain't it?


Hoping for clear skies in Harrisburg,

Bob








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 7

                         Re: Serious Research - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 15:46:45 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 15:53:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Serious Research - Young
 >Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:01:54 -0400

 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:45:57 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:21:09 -0000

 >>Pretty cheap shot to try to make me sound mercenary, when I have
 >>always pointed out free or inexpensive alternative sources. (And
 >>UFOE-II isn't $75 either.

 >My apologies, I have been able to find it offered for only $60,
 >plus a modest shipping charge.

 >>And it does include statistics of a more meaningful kind.)
 >>Try my article on www.isso.org.

 >Thanks for the URL, I think that's the article we discussed some
 >weeks ago here. I have carefully read the article but couldn't
 >find any statistics, unless you mean in the bibliography of 50
 >works by others and 5 additional ones by yourself.

Bob,

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, or perhaps you didn't
comprehend what I was saying. The statistics are in UFOE-II, the
ISSO is the alternate place (along with NICAP web site, etc.) to
find good case summaries suggestive, cumulatively, of the ETH.

 >Although I didn't see any statistics, I did read the following
 >words and phrases: "Among", "high probability", "large
 >majority", "In mathematical language", "a standard feature",
 >"Nearly year long", "repeated", "many", "repeated throughout the
 >history of UFOs", "one of the many indicators of intelligence
 >behind the phenomenon", "Case after case", "serious medical
 >injuries in numerous cases", "practically a standard feature",
 >"various", "hundreds or thousands", "The accumulated data of 50
 >years", "often", "typically", "data are fully documented in a
 >forthcoming report", "several of the repetitive flight patterns
 >indicate physical principles or engineering accomplishments of a
 >much higher order", "based on numerous case histories",
 >"collectively suggest", "countless cases", "frequently medical
 >injuries", "Pervasive", "tended", "almost certainly",
 >"increasingly", and the delightful, "growing skepticism
 >(sometimes bordering on paranoia)".

 >I didn't even have to switch to my computer's scientific
 >calculator even once. Where's the beef, Dick?

In the case data.

 >The use of "almost certainly and higher order" sure sounds like
 >science, doesn't it, boys and girls?  The image appearing is
 >that of old doc Hynek, with the pipe and attractive beard,
 >lecturing to the rubes. Without any objective data behind these
 >statements they are mostly meaningless.  In fact the use of
 >scientific sounding mumbo-jumbo like this to mask junk is a
 >commonly recognized sign of pseudoscience.

Can't you do better than this, Bob? Would you rather that I
sound "unscientific?" (Probably so.) Are you writing off the
case summaries there as "junk" with no debate of the details?
There are lots of objective data there. Are your demands for
"statistics" and "a saucer for the laboratory" not "scientific
sounding mumbo-jumbo?" That sort of labeling and name calling
can cut both ways, can't it? Your remarks border on the ad
hominem; I engage in "mumbo-jumbo" and don't understand science,
and am merely posturing, etc.

I thought you wanted to debate the merits of the cases as
evidence, not engage in mud-slinging. Don't get me wrong: I am
quite willing to at least attempt to debate with you in a
totally free-form, no-holds-barred manner if that's what you
want. But I would much prefer to have a civil, mutually
respectful discussion of the facts and the issues.

Can we agree on a simple statement of what the debate topic is?
I think we have semantical problems right there that likely
would keep us talking (or shouting) past each other. Would you
agree to have a moderator to keep us both on track? (I don't
insist on this, but think it might be a good idea.)

For my part, I agree to confine the discussion to the 18 main
cases cited in the ISSO article (19 & 20 were merely
illustrations that certain features had also been reported by
others). We can let others decide on which of us makes the more
convincing case for our respective positions. I expect you to
offer convincing explanations in mundane terms for those 18
cases, or at least to convincingly cast doubt on their validity
in some way. They form the basis of my generalizations. (See
below.)

 >Thank you for the articles' list of cases which you believe
 >demonstate the ETH, "UFOs as craft--as someone else's
 >technology--is one important hypothesis that could be tested.
 >(In my estimation, it is the most likely hypothesis to be proven
 >true.)"

 >I'll list these 20 significant UFO cases here.  Since you won't
 >say which ones are the best, I guess we can all choose from the
 >list one or more that suit our fancy.

Yes, the list is accurate.

 >If it's OK with you, I won't bother to list the hundreds more in
 >your book or the many others at the "NICAP" site. That's one of
 >the problems with UFO claims, as the best ones are solved or
 >discarded, there are always more unsolved mysteries and
 >inadequately investigated claims, because the culture and its
 >beliefs are generating more UFO reports all of the time.

 >So, if you don't mind, could we agree that irrespective of what
 >may occur next week, or next month or next year, that each of
 >these 20 incidents contains evidence that you believe can best
 >be explained by the presence of craft made by someone or
 >something else?

You are the one with the obsession that each case on its own
must prove the ETH. My position is and always has been that it
is the cumulative evidence of many hundreds of cases of the type
illustrated in this article (see UFOE-II), and associated
physical evidence of various types, and recurring patterns
closely similar or identical to the cases illustrated in this
article, are what make the ETH the most likely interpretation.
For purposes of the present debate, I am willing to base my
argument on these 18 cases.

 >This proposition can be a working hypothesis. Then, all that it
 >needs is proof.

Just to be perfectly clear, I never claimed that these cases and
the many hundreds like them prove the hypothesis; only that they
strongly suggest or indicate that the ETH is a very reasonable
(in my estimation very likely to be true) hypothesis.

In this connection, and on the topic of scientific method, I
commend to your attention (and everyone on the list interested
in scientific method) the book The Rise of Scientific Philosophy
by Hans Reichenbach (Univ. of Calif. Press, 1953). Chapter 2
"The Search for Generality and the Pseudo Explanation" is
particularly relevant to the topic under discussion and to our
disagreement. Despite its date, it is a clear and eloquent
statement of basic scientific principles.

To briefly quote and paraphrase from it: "The essence of
knowledge is generalization....The separation of relevant from
irrelevant factors is the beginning of knowledge.
Generalization, therefore, is the origin of science....[Speaking
of the laws of astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc.] All these
laws are generalizations...they are if-then
statements....Generalization, furthermore, is the very nature of
explanation. What we mean by explaining an observed fact is
incorporating that fact into a general law."

His comments on "pseudo explanations" are extremely interesting,
but too long to quote here.

My full and complete case is presented in great detail in my
book. The ISSO article represents a much condensed but
reasonable sample that will (or should) allow a reasonable
discussion.


Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 7

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:16:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 15:56:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:55:21 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:09:52 -0500


John,

 >>There is a long history of internal dissent and criticism within
 >>ufology. That's why ufologists have debunked so many UFO claims.
 >>I'm surprised that such has miraculously missed your notice on
 >>this list alone. But then, I guess, one sees what one wants to
 >>see.

 >The problem is that at some stage, some ufologists cross an
 >invisible boundary, known only to Jerome Clark, which moves them
 >from the category of "ufologist" to that of "debunker". At this
 >point their arguments no longer count as internal debate and
 >criticism, but become "ideological scoring".

The term "debunker," as I gather you don't understand, was not
coined by the evil Jerome Clark. It has been around for quite a
while. The most useful definition was provided by sociologist of
science Marcello Truzzi (who coined the phrase, nearly always
misattributed to Carl Sagan, about extraordinary claims and
extraordinary proof). Truzzi characterizes a debunker as one
who denies, whereas a skeptic is one who doubts. In other words,
debunkers assume that, because UFOs don't exist, any explanation
is preferable to one that leaves open the possibility that a UFO
report may represent something extraordinary and beyond current
knowledge. A debunker rejects UFOs (as well as other anomalous
phenomena) out of hand. Any investigation or other consideration,
therefore, is intended solely to identify the allegedly prosaic
stimulus behind the report.

 >Part of the problem is, I think, the difference in the nature of
 >the sceptical response within the British (and broader European)
 >UFO world, and American ufology. I have pointed this out before,
 >but I suspect that Jerry thought I was indulging in some sort of
 >anti-Americanism, and never responded to my suggestion.

It's not hard, of course, to suspect anti-Americanism in some of
the rhetoric that wafts from European quarters. Of course, when
pointed out, it is always indignantly denied. American observers
are left to deduce that anti-American impulses are so depressingly
ingrained in some of our colleagues across the water that they
themselves remain oblivious to them. In the paragraph follows,
note the implication that British ufologists are by nature smarter
than their American counterparts:

 >In Britain most of the prominent sceptical ufologist are just
 >that: ufologists who have come to their sceptical position after
 >years of actual, getting-your-hands-dirty, UFO investigation.
 >People like Andy Roberts and David Clarke, and many others who
 >are probably less well-known to UpDates researchers, are
 >ufologists first and sceptics second.

In the United States the best ufologists traditionally have done
years of actual, getting-your-hands dirty UFO investigation.
People such as Walt Webb, James McDonald, Allen Hynek,
Ted Bloecher, Dave Webb, Bruce Maccabee, Jennie Zeidman,
Ray Fowler, Mark Rodeghier, Allan Hendry, Richard Haines,
Isabel Davis, Budd Hopkins, Stan Friedman, Kevin Randle,
Karl Pflock, Len Stringfield, Wendy Connors, Michael Hall,
Coral and Jim Lorenzen, Brad Sparks, Kenny Young, Paul
Cerny, Bill Weitzel, and on and on and on. They are all (or,
in the case of those no longer with us, were) ufologists first
and UFO proponents second.

 >This seems to contrast with the American position, where
 >sceptics like Klass and Scheaffer seem to have come into the
 >field with scientific or technical credentials already
 >established elsewhere. I grant that there are one or two
 >exceptions on either side of the Atlantic (Dennis Stacy and Ian
 >Ridpath come to mind - perhaps unfairly for either or both of
 >them)

Yeah, I guess Peter Sturrock, James McDonald, Allen Hynek,
Brad Sparks, Bruce Maccabee, Walt Webb, Mark Rodeghier,
Stan Friedman, Allan Hendry, Mike Swords, Dick Haines,
David Pritchard, et al., have no scientific credentials, unlike
Klass and "Scheaffer." I presume, incidentally, that you mean
poor Bobby Sheaffer, owner of the most consistently misspelled
last name in all of ufological discourse.

Oh, wait ... exactly _which_ scientific credentials do Klass and
Sheaffer have, beyond one or a small number of undergraduate
courses, if that? (By that definition, I guess I'm a scientist,
too.) The answer to the question is: none I am aware of. Both
were trained as engineers, and neither has ever held down a job
in the sciences, unlike most of the American ufologists listed
above. I guess that explains why Klass and Sheaffer kept making
scientific bloopers, forcing Bruce Maccabee to warn, after
repeated violations, that explanations claiming to be
conventional have to answer to conventional physics. I guess you
can excuse Klass and Sheaffer, however; after all, they are
scientifically untrained, so what else should we expect?

 >So that when Andy Roberts explains a case such a Berwyn
 >Mountain, I see that as an example of the type of "internal
 >dissent" that Jerry describes above. Presumably Jerry sees it
 >as an example of external "debunking".

I defer judgments on the soundness of Roberts's debunking
to Jenny Randles, who knows far more about the case than I.

 >>Whatever its problems, ufology at least understands that real
 >>intellectual inquiry demands internal policing and debate in the
 >>interest of truth-seeking, as opposed to ideological scoring,
 >>where a belief has to be defended at all costs, with no
 >>concession or quarter given. The absence of internal criticism,
 >>one might add, is one characteristic of pseudoscience.

 >I see plenty of beliefs being defended at all costs on this
 >List. The Alien Autopsy and Gulf Breeze being only two of the
 >most egregious examples.

The Alien Autopsy is viewed skeptically by just about everybody
I know in this field, including, I gather from the largely negative
view of same expressed here, most people on this List. Of course
it's always possible that Dick Hall featured it prominently
in The Book Whose Title Bob Young Doesn't Want Us to Mention
and somehow I missed it. I know it isn't the The Collected Works
of Jerome Clark, but then it's always possible that I was suffering
amnesia when I touted the AA. Anyway, you can help all of us
by providing us with page references.

As for Gulf Breeze, I suggest you take up the discussion with
Bruce Maccabee. You can explain to him just where he went wrong
in his technical analyses of the photographs. I look forward to the
discussion, on which I assume you can hardly wait to get started.

 >>No such policing and debate exist with the UFO-debunking camp,
 >>only the sort of robotic head-nodding one observes of
 >>true-believing bedfellows who have gathered to fight a common
 >>hated enemy. I have a long paper trail of criticism of
 >>ufologists' shortcomings. So do Dick Hall, Brad Sparks, and
 >>other prominent ufologists on this List and elsewhere. When you
 >>get around to offering comparably serious criticisms of the
 >>failings of Menzel, Klass, Condon, the psychosociologists, and
 >>others who share your beliefs, let me know.

 >You continue to believe that sceptics never disagree with each
 >other. You cannot therefore have read John Harney's criticisms
 >of Phil Klass's analysis of the Travis Walton case in Magonia
 >Supplement. Never mind, you'll have the opportunity to read more
 >in the forthcoming Magonia 74, which shouls be with you in a
 >couple of weeks. I also find very little evidence of general
 >support amongst sceptical ufologists of the pelican theory for
 >Arnold, or the balloon theory for Soccorro.

Well, that's a relief. It's good to see that Magonia's
iconoclasm, on which it is always congratulating itself, applies
even to stupid debunking explanations. Sad to say, John Harney
is, as even you will agree I am sure, a very minor figure of
whom even few debunkers have heard. Still, he is to be
congratulated for acknowledging the obvious, that Klass's theory
about the Walton case is a load of rubbish. A happy exception to
a grim rule of robotic head-nodding among debunkers.

Incidentally, I shall assume, as I'm sure most who read your
words will, that your energetic defense of debunkers amounts to
a concession - which you have refused to address even after I
have asked you at least six or seven times - that psychosocial
ufology is now a wing of the debunking movement. On the positive
side, if you continue to commit the ultimate heresy of dissent
from the official line on occasion, you will find yourself in
the intellectual wilderness, but at least you will have gotten
there honorably.

Less honorably, you imply that debunkers regularly debate and
critique each other's work. That's a testable hypothesis. Here's
how you can prove it: provide us with at least a partial
bibliography of writings by major debunkers such as Klass,
Sheaffer, or Oberg, or minor ones from the professional
debunking movement (CSICOP, the various skeptics' organizations
affiliated or unaffiliated with same, the assorted publications
of the movement), in which debunking claims about UFO cases are
held up to question, criticism, and ultimate rejection.

Years ago, when challenged to do the same, Klass, Sheaffer, and
Oberg could not come up with a single citation. The very concept
of internal debate and criticism clearly puzzled them; Sheaffer
even characterized the notion as "strange." Maybe you can do
better. All you have to do is to write that bibliography on the
head of a pin. Don't worry - you'll still have space to spare.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                  CCCRN News: 04-06-01 - Ice Circle - Banff

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:09:10 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:06:27 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News: 04-06-01 - Ice Circle - Banff


CCCRN NEWS
The E-News Service of the Canadian Crop Circle Research Network

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

April 6, 2001

_____________________________


ICE CIRCLE - BANFF NATIONAL PARK, ALBERTA (2000)

Preliminary Report - April 6, 2001

Banff National Park, Alberta
January 2, 2000


Another ice ring, or perhaps ice disk in this case, just
reported to CCCRN, in Johnson Canyon in Banff National Park,
Alberta. Found last year, January 2, 2000, but just reported now
after recent media coverage of other ice rings in Canada.

The disk is somewhat oval with smooth edges and was slowly
rotating clockwise. The surrounding terrain, and the disk
itself, are covered with snow. The disk would appear to be
approximately 15 - 20 feet or so in diameter.

Sample photo attached (aerial shot taken from elevated walkway
overhead): banffnationalpark00a.jpg, � Treena Armstrong

A web copy of this report with images will be posted shortly on
the web site.


____________________________


CCCRN News is the e-news service of the Canadian Crop Circle
Research Network, providing the latest news and reports on the
crop circle phenomenon in Canada and other relevant updates, as
well as other information and updates on CCCRN-related news,
projects and events. CCCRN News is available free by
subscription:

To subscribe to CCCRN News, send your e-mail address to:
cccrnnews-subscribe@listbot.com

To unsubscribe from CCCRN News, send your e-mail address to:
cccrnnews-unsubscribe@listbot.com

You can also subscribe or unsubscribe from the CCCRN web site:
http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/emailupdates.html

CCCRN News Archive:
http://www.listbot.com/archive/cccrnnews


CANADIAN CROP CIRCLE RESEARCH NETWORK

Main Office:
Suite 202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC  V5T 2M9  Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

Provincial Branch Contacts:
http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/contacts.html


� Canadian Crop Circle Research Network, 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 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                           Re: Nellis UFO - Fritch

From: Jess Fritch <djfritch@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:31:52 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:11:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Nellis UFO - Fritch



 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:27:10 EDT
 >Subject: Nellis UFO [was: Gauntlet to the Psychosocials]
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:24:23 -0400
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:26:31 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Velez

 >>Before Dick has a chance to respond, I'd like to ask you both
 >>what you make of the "UFO" footage that was (allegedly) smuggled
 >>out of the Nellis Test Range several years ago.I am referring to
 >>the clear, daylight footage of a multi-lobed craft that
 >>performed aerial acrobatics and manouvers that cannot be
 >>duplicated by any 'conventional' aircraft (that we currently
 >>know of.)

 >>I have always been fascinated by that footage but little is ever
 >>heard or mentioned about it. It would be nice if Bruce could
 >>'chime in' on this one. Especially if he had a chance to give it
 >>the old 'hairy eyeball.'

 >I did quite a bit of analysis of this footage based on the
 >overlaid radar data on the video. My graphs of the UFOs
 >trajectory, altitude, velocity, and acceleration can be found
 >at:

 >http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/discussion/nellis.htm

 >(Some of the links are to sites that no longer exist.)

 >Other current relevant sites with video excerpts are at:

 >http://www.cseti.org/position/addition/nellis.htm
 >http://hometown.aol.com/alienrebel020
 >http://aliens.phatstart.com/data/research/77006008.shtml
 >http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/videoclips/

Hi,

I am the holder of a copy of this video. I received it from one
of the controllers of the range. I have been able to id the
technology as electrogravitics (the control of gravity). This is
US built no back engineering. It is the same one seen in the
STS-48 video in 1991. I have a page at:

www.gravitydrive.com

and I am working on a full site. I do lectures on it and some
people that I have talked to think that this technology has not
been developed or that it did not work at all. I have talked to
T.T.Brown's daughter and it has been fully developed by the
government.

Jess Fritch








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Staithes

From: Alan Staithes <AlanStaithes@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:39:28 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:13:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Staithes


 >Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:55:21 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

John Rimmer wrote:

 >The problem is that at some stage, some ufologists cross an
 >invisible boundary, known only to Jerome Clark, which moves
 >them from the category of "ufologist" to that of "debunker".
 >At this point their arguments no longer count as internal
 >debate and criticism, but become "ideological scoring".

An interesting observation John. You refer (below) to the
'Berwyn Mountain' case. This was a case published in Jerry
Clarke's IUR magazine and the emails he sent to Andy Roberts at
the time (I have seen them) are somewhat unctuous.

No mention of the dread 'debunker' word there. Quite the
opposite in fact.

Yet, just as John says, in an act of illusion worthy of David
Blaine, Andy and Dave Clarke suddenly became 'debunkers'. I know
both of them very well and can assure you they are sceptical to
the max, but in no way debunkers. At the moment, for instance, I
can tell you that Andy is reading Don Ledger's account of the
Shag Harbour meteor - sorry - UFO, and finding it fascinating.
It seems that, as John says, a little scepticism is ok. Too
much, or scepticism which involves treading on sacred cows such
as Bentwaters/Lakenheath etc renders one a 'debunker'. To
paraphrase Emerson, 'Inconsistency is the hobgoblin of small
minds'.

 >In Britain most of the prominent sceptical ufologist are just
 >that: ufologists who have come to their sceptical position after
 >years of actual, getting-your-hands-dirty, UFO investigation.
 >People like Andy Roberts and David Clarke, and many others who
 >are probably less well-known to UpDates researchers, are
 >ufologists first and sceptics second.
 >So that when Andy Roberts explains a case such a Berwyn
 >Mountain, I see that as an example of the type of "internal
 >dissent" that Jerry describes above. Presumably Jerry sees it as
 >an example of external "debunking".

John should have also noted that Andy Roberts had a long running
'disagreement' with another UK UFO sceptic, Jenny Randles, about
the Berwyn Mountain case. In various articles, lectures etc Andy
disputed many of Jenny's ideas about the case. If that's not
'internal dissent' then I don't know what is.

There is quite a bit of internal dissent among UK sceptical
researchers- that Jerry and others are unware of it is because
it tends to go on face to face or on 'closed' lists such as the
highly secretive 'UFOIN' list.


Regards,

Alan Staithes









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                          Secrecy News -- 04/06/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:41:41 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:14:57 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 04/06/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
April 6, 2001

**THE PITFALLS OF LEGISLATING SECURITY
**A US-CHINA AGREEMENT ON MILITARY SAFETY
**BUSH ON FOIA


THE PITFALLS OF LEGISLATING SECURITY

In response to various real and perceived security lapses,
Congress has increasingly intervened to legislate new security
policies for the executive branch, unilaterally enacting new
rules on declassification, polygraph testing, and other aspects
of security.  But such legislation is a blunt instrument that is
now creating more problems than it solves, many security
officials say.

The latest controversy concerns a new statute that prohibits the
Defense Department from granting or renewing a security
clearance to:  anyone who has been convicted of a crime and
sentenced to a prison term exceeding one year;  anyone who has
received a dishonorable discharge from the military; and certain
others.

The statute was crafted by Senator Robert Smith last year after
it was discovered that in numerous cases, murderers and other
felons had been granted security clearances. Senator Smith's
language was included as Section 1071 of the FY 2001 Defense
Authorization Act.  See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2000/defauth.html#1071

Keeping felons away from classified material might seem like a
sensible idea, but Sen. Smith's statute is generating new
problems because of its rigid and possibly unenforceable
language.

In the first place, it makes no allowance for the passage of
time.  A 50 year old could lose a security clearance based on an
dishonorable discharge from the military or a drunk driving
conviction that occurred when he was 18.  As a result, not only
would the employee lose his job, the government could lose the
benefits of a person with unique skill sets.

Security clearances are supposed to be adjudicated based on "the
whole person," taking into account all relevant aspects of a
person's behavior over time, including both adverse information
and possible mitigating factors.  The Smith statute says forget
about the whole person -- there are some things that should
categorically disqualify someone from holding a clearance.

A second problem is due to the fact that the statute only
applies to the Department of Defense.  It therefore undermines
the objective of "reciprocity" according to which agencies are
supposed to recognize and accept each other's security clearance
policies.  Under the new law, a person cleared by CIA might now
have to be rejected by NSA or other defense agencies.

Worst of all, the delayed impact of the Smith statute produces
some perverse incentives.  The statute does not immediately
affect any of the two million cleared DoD employees and
contractors-- no clearances will be immediately revoked.
Rather, it prohibits *renewal* of clearances whenever periodic
reinvestigations are performed every 5 years or so.  This means
that an unknown number of cleared personnel will be in a
position to anticipate that because of the new law their
clearance will not be renewed, and their job will be lost, and
there is nothing they can do about it.

"This is a recipe for creating a disgruntled employee," said one
agency security official on Thursday at a meeting of the
National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee,
where the statute was discussed.  "Disgruntled employees" are of
course a source of security violations and other concerns.

"They [Congress] fired for effect," said Dan Jacobson, retiring
staff director of the interagency Security Policy Board (which
was recently abolished by President Bush's National Security
Presidential Directive 1).  "Obviously, this law is going to
have to be fixed."

"I'm sure the Senator didn't intend this," another security
official said, "but it's a real problem."

The lesson of this and similar legislative initiatives to
tighten security seems to be that Congress should set
performance goals and perform rigorous oversight.  But it would
do better to leave the execution of security policy to the
executive branch.


A US-CHINA AGREEMENT ON MILITARY SAFETY

In 1998, the United States and China signed an Agreement "On
Establishing a Consultation Mechanism to Strengthen Military
Maritime Safety" that may provide a framework, or a model, for
advancing a resolution of the current standoff concerning the
downed US Navy plane in China.

In that Agreement, the two countries established a procedure
"for the purpose of promoting common understandings regarding
activities undertaken by their respective maritime and air
forces...."

The agreement "is designed to construct a framework whereby you
can work out issues between China and the United States of both
maritime and aviation rules," said Adm. Craig Quigley at the
Pentagon press briefing on Thursday.

The Pentagon released a copy of the Agreement, which is posted
here:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/sea/text/us-china98.htm


BUSH ON FOIA

President George W. Bush offered his first official thoughts on
the Freedom of Information Act on Thursday, responding to a
question posed at a meeting of the American Society of Newspaper
Editors:

"There needs to be balance when it comes to freedom of
information laws. There's some things that when I discuss in the
privacy of the Oval Office or national security matters that
just should not be in the national arena."

"On the other hand, my administration will cooperate fully with
freedom of information requests if it doesn't jeopardize
national security, for example. The interesting problem I have,
or for me, as the President, is what's personal and what's not
personal. Frankly, I haven't been on the job long enough to have
been -- to have had to make those choices."

"I'll give you one area, though, where I'm very cautious, and
that's about e-mailing. I used to be an avid e-mailer, and I
e-mailed to my daughters or e-mailed to my father, for example.
And I don't want those e-mails to be in public -- in the public
domain. So I don't e-mail any more, out of concern for freedom
of information laws, but  concern for my privacy."

"But we'll cooperate with the press, unless we think it's a
matter of national security, or something that's entirely
private."

It should be noted that the President's personal email messages
-- and presidential records generally -- are not subject to the
Freedom of Information Act.  At the same time, records
concerning national security are not exempt from the Freedom of
Information Act, unless they are also "properly classified."

The President's agreement to "cooperate" with the requirements
of the law is encouraging but not exactly inspirational.  By way
of comparison, oldtimers may nostalgically recall President
Clinton's ringing endorsement of the FOIA in October 1993:

"For more than a quarter century now, the Freedom of Information
Act has played a unique role in strengthening our democratic,
form of government. The statute was enacted based upon the
fundamental principle that an informed citizenry is essential to
the democratic process and that the more the American people
know about their government the better they will be governed.
Openness in government is essential to accountability and the
Act has become an integral part of that process."

See:

http://fas.org/sgp/clinton/reno.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]

___________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
Email:  saftergood@igc.org








                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                    Re: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:04:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:18:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic


 >Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 16:46:37 z (MDT)
 >From: Stephen MILES Lewis <smiles@elfis.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation


 >Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation

 >"A character in the game might ask me the name of my wife. A few
 > months later I might get a call saying, "'Neil, if you don't
  > stop snooping, you might find Laurie in a pool of blood'."

  - Neil Young, Game Designer at Anim-X


 >Back in February I learned of a new "game" which threatens to
 >further blur the lines between fact and fiction within the ufo
 >community and its relevant parapolitical/conspiracy sub-
 >communities. It's called Majestic and it is being billed as "The
 >game that plays you." This new online interactive experience
 >uses the player's own mind as the gaming environment with the
 >world wide web and telecommunications networks as its
 >intravenous feed straight into that player's paranoia prone
 >imagination.

The inventor of this game will be happily raking in the dough
until the game turns around to bite him as the altimate
conspirator.

A major problem with society in the USA today is the
"acceptance" of conspiracy. Just because you are paranoid
doesn't mean you don't have people looking at you. Maybe your
paranoia is "justifiable." When my son started discussing the
moon landing hoax I know that conspiracy was hitting too close
to home. He watched the FOX show. He has already been "brought
up" to think that you can't trust public officials, the
government, etc. Who taught him this?

I didn't do it,...at least not directly, although he is
indirectly aware that my UFO research essentially calls into
question the honesty of certain portions of the government in
relation to the UFO subject. After all, the UFO FBI CONNECTION
is based on documents that were secrets when written and for
many years afterward. What has the government been hiding? we
would all like to know. (This also holds true of the Kennedy
Assassination, King assassination, etc.)

But what if the future generations of children (say 20 and under
at the present time) grtow up continually suspicious of the
government, just as are the so called "militias" we have heard
about in recent years, taking up arms in preparation for a
"government attack?"

When paranoia rules, civilization decays slowly or quickly
depending upon how untrustful people are.

The bottom line here is trust. Civilization is based on mutual
trust between people. Where trust fails laws intervene. Either
you do "good things because you are a responsible person or else
"we " will pass laws to make you do good things ./ (Good, iin
all its various contexts, is defined by the popular opinion if
not by religious dictate such as the Ten Commandments). If I
can't trust you to make sure the brakes on your car are good
then I will pass laws that enforce the rule... you shalll have
your brakes checked. If I can't trust you to have drivers
insurance, then I will pass laws to make sure you can't drive
until you have insurance. And So On.

So what if kids grow up not trusting authority? This has already
happened in a small way (e.g., the children of the 60's and
70's, war protesters, etc.)

Now with the internet and many kids "plugged in"... without
experience of life and history behind them, how are they to
discern truth from falsehood? How are they to understand the FOX
TV show? My son was quite accurate in recalling the various
"telling points" against the landing (it was originally the
Chinese who denied the moon landing back in the 70's).

We have guys like HOagland going around talking about structures
on the moon being covered up by NASA, shuttle videos galore of
UFOs galore in outer space. Why shouldn't kids mistrust the
government? But if you don't trust the government, why do what
the government asks?

I was on a radio show in Bremerton, Washington, the other day...
"Conspiracy Radio." Gee, conspiracies are entertainment (watch
"Conspiracy Theory for great entertainment) until they hit too
close to home. As I recall the host of the show emphasized all
the conspiracies that could be discussed and how the UFO
conspiracy was that day's topic. He wanted to bring all the
conspuiracy information to the kids listening to the show (the
truth about conspiracy HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oxymoron). I responded
by saying I didn't think it was a good idea to bring kids up on
a diet of conspiracy, or words to that effect.

It will be interesting...and perhaps scary -- to see what our
civilization in the USA and other "advanced" countries will be
in 10,. 20 years when the children of today are the rulers of
tomorrow.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                        Re: Serious Research - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:22:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:19:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Clark


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:45:57 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:21:09 -0000

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:21:28 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca


Bob,

 >The image appearing is
 >that of old doc Hynek, with the pipe and attractive beard,
 >lecturing to the rubes.

Interesting choice of word.  "Rubes" is usually understood to
denote gullible victims of con artists.

Is it your contention, then, that Allen Hynek was a charlatan?

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 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Evans

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:21:34 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans


 >Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:07:57 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

<snip>

 >Really? Then all those movies on television that are edited for
 >sexual content must represent true stories. How silly of me! And
 >all this time, I just thought they were fictiona representations.

 >Come one, guys. Having to blur out the footage only adds fuel to
 >the fire, speculation wise. It wouldn't be beyond the scope of
 >imagination, even Santilli's, to include footage that would have
 >to be masked just for broadcast. I mean, how many fake
 >documentaries have we seen where the identity of an individual
 >is masked to add to the documentary effect? Does that make these
 >more "real"? Mac, you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things,
 >but you can't be serious about this.

Roger,

I'm referring to the _alleged_ (note emphasis on alleged)
_first_ autopsy, which was never shown to the public at all, if
the people who have seen it aren;t collaborating on yet another
fiction.  I'm not talking about the blur-effect ghiven to the
"genitals" (or lack thereof) seen in the FOX show.

In this respect, making a film that would never see the light of
day and not make any money seems to detract from the popular
supposition that we are dealing with hoaxers "in it for the
money."

Santilli and Spielberg were definitely in it for some fast cash.
But I'm hesitant to use financial profit as the best answer for
the presumably hoaxed footage as well.

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                  Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 14:27:17 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:25:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Evans


 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 14:33:02 -0700
 >Subject: Listen, I'm Important, Really

Previously, Roy wrote:

 >I am appalled to read, that we are now in the throws of people
 >acting like the king of the roost. People are throwing down
 >gauntlets everywhere, and signing themselves as kings and Sirs
 >amongst others. I feel this may largely be down to frustration
 >felt on all sides of the debate.

Hi Roy!

I agree with the frustration part. I personally grow tired of
people dancing around issues, using little (if any) common sense
and mounting an air of expertise and/or allusions of evidence as
proof. I believe in ET life and the probability of ET
visitation. And it is very true that I am not an "experiencer";
lo how I wish I were. But I lash out at those that claim
expertise and/or proof because, without either, their views are
not as sacrosanct as their egos would have them believe. And
let's face it, there is no proof; only opinion here on this
list.

That said, however, I find the attitude of the "believers" more
off-putting than the "debunkers" if, for no other reason, the
believers' presumptuous notion that they are right, even though
said proof has yet to be produced. Is there evidence? Of course,
and quite a bit of convincing evidence, at that. There is also
quite a bit of evidence that many cherished UFO cases are highly
suspect, as well. The number of each is not as important as the
attitude displayed when such cases are threatened. Since proof
is in short supply, the more belligerent of the proUFO crowd
invariably resort to answer dodging techniques and/or simple
name calling.

Regarding such, I occasionally post the moniker "King Roger",
not because I think of myself as royalty, but because that is
the title Jerry Clarke gave me in lieu of discussing the topic
at hand. But then why should he? After all, he had already
declared himself the winner of the debate!

It is this sort of presumptuous and, quite frankly, seemingly
infectious arrogance that is going to be the undoing of UFology,
in the long run. I respect Bob Young, but he and I do not agree
on the probabilities of ET life or ET visitation and probably
never will. That said, however, we do agree that the discussion
is becoming bogged down in opinion. Granted, that's all we have.
But opinion about a specific case is one thing; opinion about
other people's opinions of someone else's opinion is a major
waste of time and energy.

More importantly, I have seen Bob, on several occasions, offer
to debate with anyone from the pro-UFO camp the specifics of the
_best_ case UFOlogy has to offer. Not just any case, mind you,
but the _best_.

No one will step up to the plate, though many claim to be eager
to do so.

What's offered, instead, are references to new books, old books,
past papers and claims of being too busy to prove the very point
they were tying to defend; usually a point they bought up in the
first place. The _most_ used answer is "You mean you aren't
familiar with my papers on...?" Followed by, "I don't have time
to discuss something that should be so obvious, blah, blah,
blah..."

Cowards. There, I've said the "C" word.

After all, this isn't the skeptics list, this is the UFO UpDates
list. You guys are on home turf. How much home field advantage
do Ufologists need? I _believe_ in ET life and ET visitation!
Come on, guys! Gooooo Team! Make me proud.

Alas, there is no joy in Muddtown. Casey hasn't struck out; he
won't even come to bat.

Regarding such, you wrote:

 >It's an in house thing going on here, only other UFO researchers
 >will recognize your views, in a way that will either please or
 >hurt you.

 >As I said in an earlier mail, this whole experience is about the
 >World people who are having UFO experiences. You giving a
 >lecture on stage in some european country means nothing to Joe
 >bloggs here in the UK living on a council housing estate with
 >not a lot of options going for him. And I guess this is a
 >repeated story world-wide, where you may find such low cost
 >living ( on the bread line you could say ). And yet if he
 >happens to see - view - touch, such UFOs he finds himself in
 >another world, I know it has happened to me, and yes I was like
 >the guy Joe Bloggs.
 >
 >So please keep the puffing of chests down, it means nothing to a
 >lot of people except you and your close colleagues.

Agreed, Roy. However, the perceived puffing of chests is quite often
gasps for fresh air. The mistake is easy to make.


King 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 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Cecchini

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 16:43:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:27:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Cecchini


 >Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:26:28 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth

 >>Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 16:32:06 -0400
 >>From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
 >>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer
 >>To: 'UFO UpDates - Toronto' <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Oh, whatever. I think I've said all I had to say on the topic.
 >>I've already said that I think it's a fairly pathetic tactic on
 >>the part of any "debunkert" to try to claim that all or most
 >>multiple-witness sightings are some form of "hysteria", esp. the
 >>ones that (allegedly) involve something clearly physical zipping
 >>around, as opposed to the cases where maybe some people are
 >>looking at a stationary, bright light, one person goes "UFO!", &
 >>suddenly everyone else is "seeing" a UFO.

 >It's also a pretty pathetic tactic to accuse sceptics of
 >claiming that "all or most multiple witness sightings are some
 >form of hysteria" without providing the slightest bit of
 >evidence.

 >To repeat my original point: I can think of few, if any,
 >instances where a sceptical ufologist has dismised a case as
 >"mass hysteria". Can you give me an example?

Aaahhh! I got caught in John's cross-fire!

(Remember that I like Magonia? But of course that doesn't, and
shouldn't, make me immune to you calling my bluff.)

(I can say that, that I like Magonia, out loud, as I like many
  people from both "sides" of this Great Debate.)

It would've been more accurate if I said that _some_ ("underline
that twenty times" -- name that UFOlogist...) Skeptics/Debunkers
like to invoke the "mass hysteria"/"delusion" "explanation" alot
of the time.

Do I have numbers? No, of course not. (I'd like to think I have
better things to do than count the number of times a Skeptic
says "mass hysteria" or "delusion"...)

I guess I was making more of a blanket statment, because it is
true (I've heard 'em), at least on television and popular print,
that some members of the Skeptic/Debunker side of the debate
often (can I use that word?) throw out "delusion" (mass or
otherwise) along with a bunch of other, standard
"mundane"/"prosaic" (in their minds) "explanations" in response
to an alleged sighting. One only need think of CSICOP.

(Speaking of CSICOP, on Larry King Live the other night, he did
a show on "Haunted Houses and Psychics". On one side, of course,
were the Believers; on the other, CSICOP. Well, needless to say,
but CSICOP did throw out this standard suite of response that
I'm referring to. They do use the word "delusion", but then
qualify it by saying that they believe that the people are quite
possibly honest, and are quite possibly seeing something ... but
that the thing that they're seeing isn't _actually_ there in any
objective kind of way. Fair enough. They also like the word
"hypnagogic".)

But in actuality even that wasn't the main gist of my post.

I should've said that I find it "pathetic" _whenever_ any
skeptic tries to dismiss a compelling, multiple-witness sighting
as being "mass hysteria" or some kind of "group delusion".

I just don't buy that as a plausible explanation when a group of
people report that they allegedly saw a physical craft of some
kind doing this, that and the other thing.

A more plausible explanation, to me, is that they're simply lying.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 8

               NIDS: Low Flying Triangular Objects - A Safety

From: Colm Kelleher <nids@earthlink.net>
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:50:51 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:30:20 -0400
Subject: NIDS: Low Flying Triangular Objects - A Safety

National Institute for Discovery Science - http://www.nidsci.org


Low Flying Triangular Objects-A Safety Hazard

In late 1999, NIDS announced the creation of a 24-hour hotline
[702-798-1700] to receive calls from the public regarding their
sightings of unusual aerial phenomena. Since then, NIDS has
reported only anecdotally on the large number of low flying
triangular craft reports received. One of these cases involved
the sighting by four policemen and several other eyewitnesses in
Illinois on January 5, 2000. The case was thoroughly
investigated by NIDS. Because of the high caliber eyewitnesses,
the investigation gained considerable media attention and was
the subject of an hour-long documentary TV program entitled
'UFOs over Illinois' on the Discovery Channel. This program was
shown several times in late 2000 and early 2001.

The purpose of the present paper is to publish a more complete
summary of the 127 reports that NIDS has received in the past 14
months on the triangular craft phenomenon. Secondly, we ask the
question: Does the reported low altitude of these aircraft
constitute a safety issue in the United States? Although NIDS
receives information on these triangular craft from overseas, by
far the greatest number have come from within the United States.
It should be emphasized that the craft performance
characteristics in these 127 reports is generally not consistent
with any acknowledged aircraft being currently deployed by the
United States military. The recurring characteristics of the
objects described in this report are: (1) Flying at low or very
low altitude; (2) Huge or large; (3) Flying silently; (4)
Hovering or flying very slowly (less than 100 MPH); (5) Very
brightly lit, sometimes with multi-colored lights. The majority
(60.5%) of the reports in the NIDS database describe recent
events that occurred between January 1999 and present.

We report here that the extremely low altitudes of these
triangular aircraft, as reported by dozens of eyewitnesses from
dozens of separate locations in the United States, probably
constitutes a public safety hazard and should be investigated by
appropriate authorities.

The full report can be found on the NIDS web site:

http://www.nidsci.org

in the 'What�s New' section.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                           THE WATCHDOG - 04-06-01

From: "ufowatchdog@earthlink.net" <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 23:24:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:33:14 -0400
Subject: THE WATCHDOG - 04-06-01


UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind."
http://www.ufowatchdog.com

***NEWS***
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/news.html

~Ed Dames: Hocus Pocus
~Mystery Ice Ring In Canada
~Electronic Disinformation Games?
~Adam's Alien Genes?
~Another Chile UFO & UFO Filmed in Africa










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                      Re: Serious Research - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 22:43:30 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 18:58:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Mortellaro



 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:56:42 -0500
 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research

 >Bob, Dick, List,

 >Consider the following Scenario & Conversation:

 >All winter long I've been confined to a one-room apartment.
 >There are no windows that would let me look at the outside
 >world. The only entrance/exit is a single locked door.

 >One day a Ufologist appears on the door stoop, knocks, and
 >unlocks the door with his key. He slips inside before I can see
 >what's outside.

<snip>

 >The Ufologist unlatches the door and we step outside. It's
 >Spring and the sun is shining. Plants are blooming and birds are
 >singing in the trees. But has the world really changed? Are the
 >leaves on the trees now suddenly brown -- or are they still a
 >familiar shade of green?


Dear Dennis,

Make believe.

All the leaves artte brown (pregnant pause) - and the skies are
grey. Maybe gray.

Momma Kass (or is it Klass?) - anyway, Momma, is wolfing down a
fried peanut butter and banana sandwich. It may be a bucket of
Kentucky Fried and Gripple. Anyway, Momma has this bad reaction
and goes unconscious from her 19th nervous breakdown, and dies.

The other day, I was not feeling up to par. In fact, something
I drank disagreed with me. I think it was a gallon of Gripple.
There I was, laying on the front lawn, listening to the grass
grow. When lo, and behold, a worm came over to me and aksed
me a question. "What time is it?" He aksed. I answered, I think
it's time to holler "NEW YORK!" and proceded to do so in a sort
of vectored stream of consious and continuous flow..

The point? Right there on top of your head. But you cannot see
the point. I mean, not without a mirror. Cogito, ergo ... uh ...
uh ... wait ...

I give up. Never mind. UFOs may be real. The abduction phenom
may be real. But some people are just unreal.

(cue the heavenly music)

"All the leaves are brown... and the skies are gray... doo
be doo be doo... doo doo be doodoo... doobe doobe doo..."

etc.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                Mars Online Gazette - The Monolith Graveyard

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:14:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 19:01:52 -0400
Subject: Mars Online Gazette - The Monolith Graveyard



------------------------------------------------------------
THE MONOLITH GRAVEYARD

Mars Online Gazette : April 7, 2001
http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/MarsOnlineGazette.htm

Leading-Edge Mars Graphics and Commentary sponsored by
The Cydonian Imperative & The Electric Warrior

------------------------------------------------------------
MARS ONLINE GAZETTE

Because of its bleakness, the Martian north pole may not seem
inherently interesting. Yet, according to the founder of the
Independent Mars Research Group, it is here that some baffling
behemoths stand watch...

------------------------------------------------------------
The Monolith Graveyard

by Dean R. Wetmore
Independent Mars Research Group
April 5, 2001 - Vastitas Borealis

There comes a time when even the most ardent skeptic is faced
with the inexplicable.

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewMol9.jpg

Mars is an enigma, rife with things that just shouldn't be. One
of the most enigmatic features outside of the region known as
Cydonia has to be the grouping of large "stone" blocks found in
MGS MOC image M01-02950. After analyzing this image extensively,
it occurred to me that the features appear to be huge monoliths
that are partially buried, possibly by snow and sand, hence the
name "Monolith Graveyard." This area near the northern pole may
very well exhibit some of the best evidence of possible
artificiality on the planet's surface. The monoliths stand like
cryptic sentinels guarding the secret past of Mars.

As you can see in the map projected JPEG image that accompanies
the MSSS download page, the objects initially appear to be
triangular in shape. Dr. Tom Van Flandern recently featured this
image in a simulcast address to the National Press Club. It is
unfortunate that he chose not to look at the deeper research
done on this image prior to his presentation on evidence of
artificial structures on Mars, because this one image could have
advanced his case further than the bulk of his presentation.

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/mogMonolithNoMap.jpg

When one looks at the nonmap projected image, the shapes of the
objects become more clear.

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/mogMonolithZoom.jpg

When the features are enlarged their rectangular shape and
monolithic size becomes readily apparent. The objects have a
similarity of form and are all oriented in the same direction.
At first blush some of the blocks seem to appear smaller than
the others, however, note that these objects are embedded in a
hill or knoll. The smaller ones, are at the base of the hill and
the larger ones are resting on top.

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/mogMonolithCurve.jpg

There seems to be a deliberate pattern to this field of stones.
They seem to exhibit a circular pattern. In addition to the
geometric relationships and curves, the blocks tend to align
along a grid.

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/mogMonolithGrid.jpg

While the grid does not conform to the elevations of the hill,
it is peculiar how the monoliths seem to line up at regular
intervals. The grid is set at 10 pixel intervals, therefore,
each square is 128.80 meters (422.57 feet) to a side. The
monoliths' size would measure out at hundreds of feet. An
effort is currently underway to create an elevation map so the
objects can be measured and rendered more precisely.

MSSS claims that imaging the north pole of Mars is very
difficult because the spacecraft's orbit, and the seasonal
clouds over the region, provide very narrow windows of
opportunity. The areas that encompasses the northern plains are
large, almost featureless expanses of terrain, and are in many
ways geologically unexciting compared to the chaotic terrain
associated with many other regions of Mars. The very nature of
this broad, flat, terrain creates an interesting paradox:
because of its bleakness, the region does not interest the
people controlling the camera, yet it is here that these
baffling behemoths stand watch.

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/mogMonolithMore.jpg

There are several other images of this area. Unfortunately, most
are riddled with data errors and are taken from an obscure
angles. Of the handful of usable examples showing these
features, MGS MOC image M07-01290 may be the most useful. In
this image one can clearly ascertain that these features are
rectilinear and arranged in what seems to be a non-random
pattern. This viewpoint is exaggerated when the image is
inverted.

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/mogMonolithInvert.jpg

Could this be evidence of a long extinct technological
civilization? Until more precise data becomes available, we can
only speculate. I believe, however, that this feature is truly
anomalous, resembling all too closely ancient ruins found here
on earth. Are they the remnants of some long forgotten temple,
or perhaps the Martian equivalent of an ancient observatory such
as Stonehenge? It will likely be decades before we learn the
truth. Even so, this area may prove to be one of the best
candidates for artificiality that is currently being researched.


------------------------------------------------------------
The Cydonian Imperative : Martian "Monoliths" Pose Questions

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/mogMonolith3D.jpg

John Dyck has computer-rendered a view of the Martian triangles
by using elevation data provided by the black and white MGS
image. While some elements of Dyck's color version are
necessarily speculative, this still gives a very good idea of
what these peculiar features would look like from the ground.
The question remains: What are they?

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
April 7, 2001
Silicon Valley, CA

------------------------------------------------------------
Permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this
article or any portion thereof.

The Cydonian Imperative
http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

The Electric Warrior Website.
http://www.electricwarrior.com/

Web developers, the HREF for this content is:
"javascript:window.open('http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/MarsOnlineGazett
e.htm','9','width=660,height=475')"

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 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                       Re: ebunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 15:59:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 19:23:57 -0400
Subject: Re: ebunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:28:08 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:09:52 -0500

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:23:12 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:01:35 -0500

Bob,

 >>Whatever its problems, ufology at least understands that real
 >>intellectual inquiry demands internal policing and debate in the
 >>interest of truth-seeking, as opposed to ideological scoring,
 >>where a belief has to be defended at all costs, with no
 >>concession or quarter given. The absence of internal criticism,
 >>one might add, is one characteristic of pseudoscience.

 >Thanks. From the master. Every ufologist should paste this
 >up on their monitor.

Hmmm ... I suppose this is sarcasm. I'm sorry you chose the easy
path, rather than the more challenging one of addressing the
point of my remarks, which is that the sort of internal
criticism that is inherent in true scientific inquiry is
virtually nonexistent in the debunking literature and polemic.
Or are you conceding the point?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:08:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 19:25:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:28:07 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:07:17 -0400

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:23:12 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:55:21 +0100
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


Bob,

 >>>>>incidentally, the best _real_ debunking has always been done by
 >>>>>ufologists. When a ufologist debunks a case, it stays debunked.
 >>>>>When a debunker debunks a case, on the other hand, all that
 >>>>>happens is the sound of robotic head-nodding by those who agree
 >>>>>with him absolutely and who would never dream of breathing a
 >>>>>whisper of dissent

 >>In that spirit, Bob -- what are the five most mistaken (or
 >>improbable) arguments ever made by any prominent skeptic?

 >[bzz, click] Off-hand, Greg, [bzzz, click] I can't think of any
 >[bzz, click, click, bzzzz]. [shut down extended memory].

I think this answer tells us all we need to know, except for.

 >See John Rimmer's posting, today, for some examples.

In other words, the totality of debunking internal criticism can
be traced to two or three articles in a journal few debunkers
have ever heard of, by somebody (John Harney) little known even
to ufologists and virtually not at all to debunkers. I think
you've made our point.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:05:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 19:31:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:28:07 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hi, Greg,

 >[bzz, click] Off-hand, Greg, [bzzz, click] I can't think of any
 >[bzz, click, click, bzzzz]. [shut down extended memory].

 >See John Rimmer's posting, today, for some examples.

Which means, I take it, that you can't think of any. Neither can
John. As if to demonstrate that he doesn't know the UFO
literature, he cites examples only from his own publication. If
he did know the UFO literature, or chose to be honest in his
citation of Magonia, he'd have said something like, "You're
quite right, skeptics don't criticize each other. So we've
decided to set that right, and publish something critical of
Klass." To which I would have replied "Bravo, about time,"
instead of snorting as I'm doing now.

As possibly you're aware, Bob, UFO skepticism has a long
history. Would you care -- John, this means you, too -- to cite
some non-Magonia examples from that history, of skeptics
criticizing each other? Perhaps something from Klass, taking
issue with Oberg or Scheafer? Or something from The Skeptical
Inquirer, finding problems with debunking that's appeared there?
And no, I'm _not_, _not_ saying anything's wrong with Magonia or
British ufology, so let's not raise those red herrings. I'm just
looking for examples from elsewhere, to demonstrate that
skeptics have _consistently_ criticized each other, not just
that they did so once or twice, in the pages (or bits and bytes)
of Magonia.

If no examples are forthcoming, I'll take that as proof that:

1. Bob and John don't know the UFO literature.

Or

2. That they can't find any examples.

Bob, since you've ridiculed Richard Hall for citing his book,
I'll extend you a courtesy you won't extend to him. I won't
require you to produce the examples here online. Citations from
the literature will do.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                       Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:21:07 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 19:35:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:28:07 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:07:17 -0400

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:23:12 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:55:21 +0100
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>>>incidentally, the best _real_ debunking has always been done by
 >>>>>ufologists. When a ufologist debunks a case, it stays debunked.
 >>>>>When a debunker debunks a case, on the other hand, all that
 >>>>>happens is the sound of robotic head-nodding by those who agree
 >>>>>with him absolutely and who would never dream  of breathing a
 >>>>>whisper of dissent

 >>>Jerry, et. al.:
 >>>Here we go again. The same characteristics attributed to
 >>>debunkers now achieve near heroic proportions when used by
 >>>ufologists.

 >>The best ufologists act as if they're open-minded. One sign of
 >>that is that they criticize each other.

 >>Skeptics, on the other hand, don't normally criticize each
 >>others' views. One sign of that is the debate, here and
 >>elsewhere, about the Socorro object being, possibly, a balloon.
 >>If that 's the real explanation, than Philip Klass's debunking
 >>of the case -- that it was a hoax -- is obviously wrong. That's
 >>an important point to make, because Klass's reasoning was, shall
 >>we say, a little grandiose. Essentially, he simply assumed, with
 >>no evidence, that the hoax was in effect.  He had reasons for it
 >>(he thought the whole thing was a plot to bring tourists to
 >>Soccoro), but he didn't have evidence for his reasons. Skeptics,
 >>you'd think, would want to improve their skeptical arguments.
 >>Hence -- especially since, as they portray themselves, they're
 >>so scientific -- you'd think they'd be all over each other,
 >>subjecting each others' arguments to peer review.

 >>In that spirit, Bob -- what are the five most mistaken (or
 >>improbable) arguments ever made by any prominent skeptic?

 >Hi, Greg,

 >[bzz, click] Off-hand, Greg, [bzzz, click] I can't think of any
 >[bzz, click, click, bzzzz]. [shut down extended memory].

 >See John Rimmer's posting, today, for some examples.


Bob,

Just exactly what the hell is this supposed to mean? Ridiculing
people who disagree with you or question your reasoning or pose
a legitimate question simply is not acceptable. It clearly
implies that you don't have a good answer.

Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                       Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:32:04 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 19:38:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:16:42 -0500

 >>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:55:21 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:09:52 -0500

 >John,

<snip>

 >Incidentally, I shall assume, as I'm sure most who read your
 >words will, that your energetic defense of debunkers amounts to
 >a concession - which you have refused to address even after I
 >have asked you at least six or seven times - that psychosocial
 >ufology is now a wing of the debunking movement. On the positive
 >side, if you continue to commit the ultimate heresy of dissent
 >from the official line on occasion, you will find yourself in
 >the intellectual wilderness, but at least you will have gotten
 >there honorably.

 >Less honorably, you imply that debunkers regularly debate and
 >critique each other's work. That's a testable hypothesis. Here's
 >how you can prove it: provide us with at least a partial
 >bibliography of writings by major debunkers such as Klass,
 >Sheaffer, or Oberg, or minor ones from the professional
 >debunking movement (CSICOP, the various skeptics' organizations
 >affiliated or unaffiliated with same, the assorted publications
 >of the movement), in which debunking claims about UFO cases are
 >held up to question, criticism, and ultimate rejection.

 >Years ago, when challenged to do the same, Klass, Sheaffer, and
 >Oberg could not come up with a single citation. The very concept
 >of internal debate and criticism clearly puzzled them; Sheaffer
 >even characterized the notion as "strange." Maybe you can do
 >better. All you have to do is to write that bibliography on the
 >head of a pin. Don't worry - you'll still have space to spare.


 >Jerry Clark

To this I simply add, "Amen!"








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 8

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:58:53 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 19:42:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:16:42 -0500

 >>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:55:21 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:09:52 -0500

 >John,

 >>>There is a long history of internal dissent and criticism within
 >>>ufology. That's why ufologists have debunked so many UFO claims.
 >>>I'm surprised that such has miraculously missed your notice on
 >>>this list alone. But then, I guess, one sees what one wants to
 >>>see.

 >>The problem is that at some stage, some ufologists cross an
 >>invisible boundary, known only to Jerome Clark, which moves them
 >>from the category of "ufologist" to that of "debunker". At this
 >>point their arguments no longer count as internal debate and
 >>criticism, but become "ideological scoring".

 >The term "debunker," as I gather you don't understand, was not
 >coined by the evil Jerome Clark.

Did I say it was?

 >It has been around for quite a
 >while. The most useful definition was provided by sociologist of
 >science Marcello Truzzi (who coined the phrase, nearly always
 >misattributed to Carl Sagan, about extraordinary claims and
 >extraordinary proof). Truzzi characterizes a debunker as one
 >who denies, whereas a skeptic is one who doubts. In other words,
 >debunkers assume that, because UFOs don't exist, any explanation
 >is preferable to one that leaves open the possibility that a UFO
 >report may represent something extraordinary and beyond current
 >knowledge. A debunker rejects UFOs (as well as other anomalous
 >phenomena) out of hand. Any investigation or other consideration,
 >therefore, is intended solely to identify the allegedly prosaic
 >stimulus behind the report.

Well that's what Truzzi thinks. Other people make have other
definitions, but even on Truzzi's definition I think most
sceptical ufologists would accept the possibility - perhaps
remote - that a UFO report may represent something extraordinary
and beyond current knowledge. The good old Oxford English
Dictionary has a rather different definition of debunker
however, but we are after all two nations divided by a common
language. Which leads us to...

 >>Part of the problem is, I think, the difference in the nature of
 >>the sceptical response within the British (and broader European)
 >>UFO world, and American ufology. I have pointed this out before,
 >>but I suspect that Jerry thought I was indulging in some sort of
 >>anti-Americanism, and never responded to my suggestion.

 >It's not hard, of course, to suspect anti-Americanism in some of
 >the rhetoric that wafts from European quarters. Of course, when
 >pointed out, it is always indignantly denied. American observers
 >are left to deduce that anti-American impulses are so depressingly
 >ingrained in some of our colleagues across the water that they
 >themselves remain oblivious to them.

When I'm being anti-American (which is not that often, Jerry)
I'm quite aware of the fact, and will not deny it. But most of
the time I'm quite pro-American, which makes the following even
more baffling than most of Jerry's postings...

 >In the paragraph follows,

(sic)

 >note the implication that British ufologists are by nature smarter
 >than their American counterparts:

 >>In Britain most of the prominent sceptical ufologist are just
 >>that: ufologists who have come to their sceptical position after
 >>years of actual, getting-your-hands-dirty, UFO investigation.
 >>People like Andy Roberts and David Clarke, and many others who
 >>are probably less well-known to UpDates researchers, are
 >>ufologists first and sceptics second.

Now exactly where is the implication that British ufologists are
smarter than Americans? I was pointing out that in Britain most
of the wicked sceptics have come through the ranks of ufologists
rather than pushed in from the outside like most American
sceptics.

 >In the United States the best ufologists traditionally have done
 >years of actual, getting-your-hands dirty UFO investigation.
 >People such as Walt Webb, James McDonald, Allen Hynek,
 >Ted Bloecher, Dave Webb, Bruce Maccabee, Jennie Zeidman,
 >Ray Fowler, Mark Rodeghier, Allan Hendry, Richard Haines,
 >Isabel Davis, Budd Hopkins, Stan Friedman, Kevin Randle,
 >Karl Pflock, Len Stringfield, Wendy Connors, Michael Hall,
 >Coral and Jim Lorenzen, Brad Sparks, Kenny Young, Paul
 >Cerny, Bill Weitzel, and on and on and on. They are all (or,
 >in the case of those no longer with us, were) ufologists first
 >and UFO proponents second.

Your best bit of name-dropping yet, Jerry, but to no avail, as
nowhere have I said or implied that American ufologists,
sceptical or otherwise, have not done years of
getting-your-hands-dirty investigation.

 >>This seems to contrast with the American position, where
 >>sceptics like Klass and Scheaffer seem to have come into the
 >>field with scientific or technical credentials already
 >>established elsewhere. I grant that there are one or two
 >>exceptions on either side of the Atlantic (Dennis Stacy and Ian
 >>Ridpath come to mind - perhaps unfairly for either or both of
 >>them)

 >Yeah, I guess Peter Sturrock, James McDonald, Allen Hynek,
 >Brad Sparks, Bruce Maccabee, Walt Webb, Mark Rodeghier,
 >Stan Friedman, Allan Hendry, Mike Swords, Dick Haines,
 >David Pritchard, et al., have no scientific credentials, unlike
 >Klass and "Scheaffer." I presume, incidentally, that you mean
 >poor Bobby Sheaffer, owner of the most consistently misspelled
 >last name in all of ufological discourse.

Reading what I say might be a good idea, before you sound off
again. Please note: saying that US sceptics have scientific
credentials does not, repeat not, mean that US ufologists do not
have scientific credentials.

 >Oh, wait ... exactly _which_ scientific credentials do Klass and
 >Sheaffer have, beyond one or a small number of undergraduate
 >courses, if that? (By that definition, I guess I'm a scientist,
 >too.) The answer to the question is: none I am aware of. Both
 >were trained as engineers, and neither has ever held down a job
 >in the sciences,

Read what I said: "scientific or technical..."

 >unlike most of the American ufologists listed
 >above. I guess that explains why Klass and Sheaffer kept making
 >scientific bloopers, forcing Bruce Maccabee to warn, after
 >repeated violations, that explanations claiming to be
 >conventional have to answer to conventional physics. I guess you
 >can excuse Klass and Sheaffer, however; after all, they are
 >scientifically untrained, so what else should we expect?

I have no particular desire to excuse Klass and Sheaffer
anything. I am just pointing out that American sceptics tend to
be ufological "outsiders" whereas British sceptics tend to be
ufological "insiders". I just thought this was a significant
observation and you might have some interest in debating why
this is so, and how it has affected ufological attitudes on both
sides of the Atlantic. I should have known better.

 >>So that when Andy Roberts explains a case such a Berwyn
 >>Mountain, I see that as an example of the type of "internal
 >>dissent" that Jerry describes above. Presumably Jerry sees it
 >>as an example of external "debunking".

 >I defer judgments on the soundness of Roberts's debunking
 >to Jenny Randles, who knows far more about the case than I.

I note she offers her judgement on another post, and feel she
sums up the position very adequately.

 >>>Whatever its problems, ufology at least understands that real
 >>>intellectual inquiry demands internal policing and debate in
the >>>interest of truth-seeking, as opposed to ideological
scoring, >>>where a belief has to be defended at all costs, with
no >>>concession or quarter given. The absence of internal
criticism, >>>one might add, is one characteristic of
pseudoscience.

 >>I see plenty of beliefs being defended at all costs on this
 >>List. The Alien Autopsy and Gulf Breeze being only two of the
 >>most egregious examples.

 >The Alien Autopsy is viewed skeptically by just about everybody
 >I know in this field, including, I gather from the largely negative
 >view of same expressed here, most people on this List. Of course
 >it's always possible that Dick Hall featured it prominently
 >in The Book Whose Title Bob Young Doesn't Want Us to Mention
 >and somehow I missed it. I know it isn't the The Collected Works
 >of Jerome Clark, but then it's always possible that I was suffering
 >amnesia when I touted the AA. Anyway, you can help all of us
 >by providing us with page references.

For God's sake, Jerry, please read what I actually say. I said
"I see plenty of beliefs being defended at all costs... the
Alien Autopsy [being one]. I did not say "I see Jerry Clark
defending the Alien Autopsy". I did not say "I see Dick Hall
defending the Alien Autopsy". I did not say "I see a majority of
American ufologists defending the Alien Autopsy". But I do see
some ufologists on this desperate to keep the Alien Autopsy
alive (bad choice of words, but you know what I mean.)

 >As for Gulf Breeze, I suggest you take up the discussion with
 >Bruce Maccabee. You can explain to him just where he went wrong
 >in his technical analyses of the photographs. I look forward to the
 >discussion, on which I assume you can hardly wait to get started.

Then you've got a long wait, my friend.

 >>>No such policing and debate exist with the UFO-debunking camp,
 >>>only the sort of robotic head-nodding one observes of
 >>>true-believing bedfellows who have gathered to fight a common
 >>>hated enemy. I have a long paper trail of criticism of
 >>>ufologists' shortcomings. So do Dick Hall, Brad Sparks, and
 >>>other prominent ufologists on this List and elsewhere. When you
 >>>get around to offering comparably serious criticisms of the
 >>>failings of Menzel, Klass, Condon, the psychosociologists, and
 >>>others who share your beliefs, let me know.

 >>You continue to believe that sceptics never disagree with each
 >>other. You cannot therefore have read John Harney's criticisms
 >>of Phil Klass's analysis of the Travis Walton case in Magonia
 >>Supplement. Never mind, you'll have the opportunity to read more
 >>in the forthcoming Magonia 74, which shouls be with you in a
 >>couple of weeks. I also find very little evidence of general
 >>support amongst sceptical ufologists of the pelican theory for
 >>Arnold, or the balloon theory for Soccorro.

 >Well, that's a relief. It's good to see that Magonia's
 >iconoclasm, on which it is always congratulating itself, applies
 >even to stupid debunking explanations. Sad to say, John Harney
 >is, as even you will agree I am sure, a very minor figure of
 >whom even few debunkers have heard.

An extremely ungracious remark, and quite untrue.

 >Still, he is to be
 >congratulated for acknowledging the obvious, that Klass's theory
 >about the Walton case is a load of rubbish. A happy exception to
 >a grim rule of robotic head-nodding among debunkers.

 >Incidentally, I shall assume, as I'm sure most who read your
 >words will, that your energetic defense of debunkers amounts to
 >a concession - which you have refused to address even after I
 >have asked you at least six or seven times - that psychosocial
 >ufology is now a wing of the debunking movement. On the positive
 >side, if you continue to commit the ultimate heresy of dissent
 >from the official line on occasion, you will find yourself in
 >the intellectual wilderness, but at least you will have gotten
 >there honorably.

If you accept the Oxford English Dictionary definition of
debunking, I am happy to be so described - and so should you.
However I do not accept the arbitrary definition of debunker
that you seem to use - which is not even consistent with
Truzzi's interpretation.

 >Less honorably, you imply that debunkers regularly debate and
 >critique each other's work. That's a testable hypothesis. Here's
 >how you can prove it: provide us with at least a partial
 >bibliography of writings by major debunkers such as Klass,
 >Sheaffer, or Oberg, or minor ones from the professional
 >debunking movement (CSICOP, the various skeptics' organizations
 >affiliated or unaffiliated with same, the assorted publications
 >of the movement), in which debunking claims about UFO cases are
 >held up to question, criticism, and ultimate rejection.

I'm not going to go rooting around amongst the teetering piles
of books and magazines in the curiously-named John Dee Cottage
to provide you with chapter and verse references, but I would
draw your attention to the strong criticisms which have been
made by sceptical ufologists of Steuart Campbell's 'mirage'
theory, in the pages of the British "Skeptic" magazine, in
Magonia and elsewhere.

 >Years ago, when challenged to do the same, Klass, Sheaffer, and
 >Oberg could not come up with a single citation. The very concept
 >of internal debate and criticism clearly puzzled them; Sheaffer
 >even characterized the notion as "strange." Maybe you can do
 >better. All you have to do is to write that bibliography on the
 >head of a pin. Don't worry - you'll still have space to spare.

Whatever.


--
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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Sawer

From: William Sawer <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:27:30 +1200
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 05:24:11 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Sawer


 >Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:07:57 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

 >>From: William Sawers <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
 >>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:27:51 +1200
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Sawers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
 >>>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Previously, Mac wrote:

 >>>(I's still love to see that alleged first autopsy, by the
 >>>way--assuming it exists. The fact that our hypothetical hoaxers
 >>>would film something too "indecent" to even get TV coverage
 >>>actually argues in favor of authenticity.)

 >William replied:

 >>Good point Mac.

 >Really? Then all those movies on television that are edited for
 >sexual content must represent true stories. How silly of me!

 >And all this time, I just thought they were fictional
 >representations.

What you are talking about here Roger are "movies", as you say.
I thought we were talking about the AA.

 >Come one, guys. Having to blur out the footage only adds fuel to
 >the fire, speculation wise. It wouldn't be beyond the scope of
 >imagination, even Santilli's, to include footage that would have
 >to be masked just for broadcast. I mean, how many fake
 >documentaries have we seen where the identity of an individual
 >is masked to add to the documentary effect? Does that make these
 >more "real"? Mac, you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things,
 >but you can't be serious about this.

I'm not so sure that the blurring I mentioned was done by the
producers/editors/hoaxers (there ya go Roger) than by certain
networks around the world who seem to feel they have to protect
the delicate tummies of their citizens.

Here in New Zealand we didn't have the "blurring" at all. It was
still difficult to tell if the creature is asexual, female or
male.

It wasn't 'til I saw the AACDs that I could truly see for myself
the creature is definately female albeit immature. So I don't
know where the hoaxing comes in Roger, unless you Americans
needed _more_ or is it _less_ convincing?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                   Cydonian Imperative: 04-07-01 - Martian

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 05:26:32 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 04-07-01 - Martian


4-07-01
The Cydonian Imperative

Metropolis on Mars?
by Mac Tonnies

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html



IMAGE

This geometric, "celled" terrain suggests an eroded
infrastructure not unlike a terrestrial city's.

A new image has surfaced from the MSSS catalogue that shows
terrain consistent with reasonably well-preserved geometric
structures, not unlike those published online by The Enterprise
Mission several months ago. If artificial, the features
comprising the "metropolis" were apparently constructed atop a
flat mesa or platform on the side of a shallow hill. When
viewing this complex feature, I'm reminded somewhat of a beached
aircraft carrier with small, building-like structures covering
the "runway."

While The Enterprise Mission's graphic (below) is provocative
and inexplicable, the "layout" (assuming conscious design)
appears somewhat more chaotic than that in the new image above.

IMAGE

Cellular, city-like terrain discovered by The
Enterprise Mission.

Fine-scale "ruins" such as this--if that is what they
are--appear notably different from surrounding terrain.
Especially noticeable is the overall "grid" suggestive of "city
blocks" or "streets." If exotic faulting or other natural
factors can be ruled out, an artificial interpretation for this
highly unusual "celled" terrain may also be the most reasonable.

Third-party geological perspectives and technical commentary are
forthcoming.

-end-









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

               Re: The 2001 Mission to Mars That Must Not Fail

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:14:19 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 05:27:45 -0400
Subject: Re: The 2001 Mission to Mars That Must Not Fail


Well listers here we go again,

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/mars_odyssey_sr.html

My only regret is I'm not on that rocket.

GT McCoy
frustrated spaceman









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 02:06:06 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 05:30:15 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gates


 >Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:40:33 +0100
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gates

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:15:02 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:42:36 -0700

 >>>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:40:01 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>The CD's are and always will be inferior to a beta copy for
 >>>>expert examination. If you were truly serious about wanting an
 >>>>expert opinion, I would imagine you would be more then willing
 >>>>to get a copy of the Beta and or put Roger in touch with the
 >>>>person who has the copy so that he could examine it.

 >>>Robert,

 >>>For the last time, we do not have a beta copy nor do we have
 >>>access to a beta copy. If we had access to a beta copy we would
 >>>certainly try to get Roger a copy, at his expense of course.

 >>Ed,

 >>You did not answer the last part of the question which had
 >>nothing to do with whether you had access or not, but was why
 >>don't you put Roger in touch with the person whose warm
 >>hands have the beta copy, or at least contact that person
 >>and put them in touch with Roger? As I recall the person
 >>who has this beta copy also is the one that claims its
 >>a hoax.

 >Robert,

 >Ed can't do that because I told him who loaned me the Beta copy
 >in confidence, simple as that. I no longer have the copy, only
 >access to a Beta and VHS copy of the copy. The loan copy I had
 >is now back with it's owner, and it's not located in the USA but
 >here in the UK.

So contact the owner (since you obviously know her/him) and put
them in touch with Roger.  Should be simple.

 >As for Betacam SP(4.5mhz bandwidth) being the be-all and end-all
 >of technical quality, that's moot, it's actually a tad down on
 >bandwidth from SVHS(5mhz bandwidth) and being tape it's subject
 >to damage and still being an analog system, subject to noise
 >from even minor damage, the Beta copy I had was already showing
 >signs of mechanical ware and tear, a problem you don't have with
 >CD's unless you use them as coffee coasters or frizbee's.

Bottom line is the CD's that were created from that copy will
not be "superior" to the source Beta copy.  As I have pointed
out previously, if you were analysing the JFK assassination,
would you want to work with the original Zapruder film, or a
"copy" of the original, that was then converted into Digital?

On a related note, has anybody _actually_, with their eyes, been
shown by Ray the actual 16mm film, held it to the light, so that
the person or witness could see the alien carcass on the table
with the doctors in view?  Last I have all anybody has actually
seen of the film is a *copy* of several frames that don't show
the carcass.

 >A further point as to the image quality of the digitised
 >version, Theresa Carlson used a Betcam tape supplied by Ray
 >Santilli for her research, during which she "read" the "Danger"
 >sign wording. Looking at a single raw frame from my CD version
 >of the AA, this sign _can_ be read, it shows her "reading" of
 >the sign from her Betacam was incorrect, was her Betacam of
 >better image quality than my digitised version?.

So does Theresa Carlson still have her copy of the tape?  Or did
she give it back to Ray?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                    Re: Serious Research - Gonzlez Manso

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:23:08 +0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 05:32:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Gonzlez Manso


Richard Hall wrote (and Bob Young quoted)

 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:45:57 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Thank you for the articles' list of cases which
 >you believe demonstate the ETH, "UFOs as
 >craft--as someone else's technology--is one
 >important hypothesis that could be tested.

<snip>

 >20) June 9, 1972, Algodonales, Cadiz, Spain,
 >10:30 p.m. Motorist suddenly blinded by bright
 >light from a pulsating yellow oval ahead of car,
 >E-M effects on car, object lit up trees as it
 >passed over them while departing.

Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos in his book "Enciclopedia de los
encuentros cercanos con OVNIs" Plaza & Jans 1987 (p. 331)
included that case in his NELIB Catalogue explained as "ball
lighting"

Ask him if you like.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                          Re: THE WATCHDOG 04-08-01

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:53:42 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 05:34:52 -0400
Subject: Re: THE WATCHDOG 04-08-01


*Advertise with UFOWATCHDOG.COM and reach thousands!*
Contact ufowatchdog@earthlink.net

UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind"
http://www.ufowatchdog.com

***NEWS***
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/news.html

~ NIDS: Low Flying Triangle UFOs a Safety Hazard

*** COMING SOON ***

~ ROSWELL EXCLUSIVE: See images of the alleged Roswell UFO metal
pieces in a UFOWATCHDOG.COM exclusive on the metal and what's
going on. Is this the Roswell smoking gun or another smoking
dud? Coming next week! For further info see:

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/roswellex.html

and

http://ufoxfiles.com/convention.html

~ UFOWATCHDOG.COM interviews former Air Force intelligence
officer Richard Doty.

"This program revealed the truth behind the US Government's
involvement with UFOs over the years."  -- Richard C. Doty,
Former Agent, Air Force Office of Special Investigations

***OF INTEREST***

~ Caveat Emptor
Ed Dames: Hocus Pocus

Is Ed Dames promoting himself at the expense of a murdered teen?
Are his alleged remote viewing capabilities real?
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/rvdames.html


*** YOUR COMMENTS WANTED! ***

UFOWATCHDOG.COM seeks your views and thoughts on the following:
How do you view the current state of UFOlogy? Please feel free
to send your comments to ufowatchdog@earthlink.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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                    Evaluation Of Ohio Y2K UFO Sightings

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 08:12:23 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 05:36:28 -0400
Subject: Evaluation Of Ohio Y2K UFO Sightings


SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT:

Based upon information collected from several sources, a
surprising 71 documented cases of UFO sightings in the State of
Ohio in The Year 2000 has been tallied. This amount reflects a
marked upsurge from previous years.

In March and April of 2001, a study of Y2K UFO sightings from
Ohio was commissioned, and a report is now available for
inspection on the internet.

Donnie Blessing, a College Hill resident and retiree of the
public library system, has conducted an exhaustive compilation
of Ohio UFO sighting data. Her analysis has sought to plot
trends and patterns in review of UFO sighting claims, and she
concludes that nearly 59% of Ohio UFO Sightings for 2000 were
reported in the Northern Part of The State.

"As reports were scrutinized for final editing," Blessing
states, "a trend definitely began to raise a few eyebrows. What
was going on in north/northeastern Ohio? What were people
seeing?"

Blessing reports that 77% of Ohio Y2K UFO sightings occurred
after dark, averaging around 9:00 p.m. with the most occurring
between 9:30 � 10:00 p.m. The average monthly sightings were
6-per month with the low end of 3 in August and the high end of
12 in September.

A pinpoint map charting the location of alleged UFO sightings
has also been prepared in conjunction with the Blessing report.
The report and map are available for public inspection in the
"News and Updates" section of the UFO Research Website, located
on the internet at:

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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

              Chile: UFOs over Arica Pique Scientific Curiosity

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 08:43:42 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 05:38:18 -0400
Subject: Chile: UFOs over Arica Pique Scientific Curiosity

Source: Diario "La Estrella de Arica"
Date: Sunday, April 8, 2001


UFOs in Sight Over Arica, Chile

It is not at all suprising to see a situation similar to the one
appearing in photographs taken of UFOs in our city's skies.

The eyewitness account of a college student who claims having
seen a UFO has become a source of scientific interest.

by Flix Nez

Remember the case involving a college studtent who saw a UFO in
Villa Frontera in the company of his three friends? Or the March
24th case in which a sizeable part of Arica's citizens saw an
unidentified flying object near the Morro Hill antennae?  The
case has silently aroused the interest of scientific groups in
the nations capital , such as the  Grupo de Estudios Ovnilgicos
(GEO), whose members shall arrive in the area next week to
conduct an analyisis of the marks allegedly left on the ground
by this object.

AN ASTRONOMER SPEAKS

 From  Santiago de Chile, Leonardo Araya, an astronomer and team
member, explained that an increase in UFO activity has been
recorded over the area. The most recent case ocurred in the
evening of March 24, when the presence of a brilliant light was
seen over the  Morro Gordo sector,  upon which the television
and radio masts of a number of Arica stations are located.

At 18:00 horas, the object had the aspect of a first magnitude
star, with a brilliance similar to that of the planet Venus, but
having a white or metallic color. It moved slowly toward the
southwest (approaching the sea).

As the sun went down, its brilliance diminished and its color
chaged to red before vanishing completely before 19:00 hours.

THE RADAR EVIDENCE

There were those who thought that a balloon could be involved.
When personnel from the Chacalluta Airport Office of Aeronautics
was consulted, they indicated that weather balloons are not
launched in that area.

Furthermore, they stated that inquiries were made of the
airports at Iquique and Santiago, and no radar contacts were
established with the object. Nor was the phenomenon seen by the
crew of a  Lan Chile flight which took off at the time in which
the citizens of Arica began to notice the odd glow in the sky.
The phenomenon was even seen in broad daylight over the Chucuyo
sector in the andean plateau by a worker fr the Quiborax
company.

THE VILLA FRONTERA EVENTS

The case involving the young college student is being subjected
to scientific study, involving photographs and soil samples,
given the strangeness of the event, according to the expert.

The case, which involved  G.C.,  a 20 year old college student,
occurred while he was in the company of his girlfriend and a
couple of friends enjoying a two day camping trip at Villa
Frontera.  At  around 20.00 hours on the  9th of Februrary--a
night of new moon--G.C. would undergo one of the most remarkable
experiences in his life.

While the group readied itself to roast a piece of meat around
21:30 hourst, they noticed in the distance that a group of
approximately 10 individuals, including children, was beginning
to move toward a nearby location. They were clad in white
tunics, added the young man, whose image was still as clear in
his mind as it had been that very same new moon evening.

THE CIRCLES

Filled with curiousity, he walked a few meters behind some
trees--to be joined later by his girlfriend-- and claims to have
seen a "large round object irradiating a strong reddish light"
which hovered over the white-clad group, whose members held
hands while they raised prayers and chants which were
unintelligible to his ear. The object moved in different
directions and its light illuminated the entire area.

The following day, he became aware of the existence of a circle
"with a diameter similar to that of a large automobile"
surrounded by 4 new smaller circles "about the size of a wheel".
One of the circles had a triangle in its interior and one of the
smaller circles contained a bottle with the words "Lira" and the
face of an old man.

Faced with such evidence, the existence of UFO-related cults in
Arica cannot be dismissed. Said individuals would somehow be in
contact with UFOs themselves. It is believed that such cults are
not destructive in nature, and therefore do not represent a
threat to their members.

##############

Translation (C) 2001. S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic
Ufology.

Special Thanks to Gloria Coluchi.




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
















   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                 Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Skavhaug

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:12:38 +0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 05:41:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Skavhaug


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:39:45 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:31:23 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question

<snip>

 >You would think, based on "eastonian reasoning" that if Rhoads
 >had decided to create hoax photos he would have made the object
 >agree with the popularized version of Arnold's sighting: round,
 >disclike, discus (Russian ambassador) or "frisbee" like.
 >Certainly the hoax objects that were found (several were found)
 >were round, even the saw blades(!) in Chicago(?).
 >Air Force intelligence did not reject the Rhoads photos as a
 >hoax. Instead, they included it in a Top Secret document written
 >in 1948. The best prints of these photos I have seen are in the
 >master copy of that document in the National Archives.

<snip>

 >with the understanding that they would be turned over to the
 >Air Force and then returned. According to Rhoads, they never
 >were returned. Gone into the black hole of intel,
 >I guess.....


Hi Bruce & Listers:

More than a year ago I was fairly convinced that the objects
Arnold saw,

http://www.project1947.com/fig/1947ka.htm

were pelicans, until I came across the letter from prospector
Frank Johnson to the Air Force, on the web, dated August 20th
1947:

http://www.project1947.com/fig/johns47.htm

with the following excerpt:

"(...)Sir.  Saw in the portland paper a short time ago in
regards to an article in regards to the so called flying disc
having any basis of fact. I can say am a prospector and was in
the Mt Adams district on June 24th the day Kenneth Arnold of
Boise Idaho claims he saw a formation of flying disc. And I saw
the same flying objects at about the same time. Having a
telescope with me at the time I can asure you they are real and
noting like them I ever saw before they did not pass verry high
over where I was standing at the the time. plobly 1000 ft. they
were Round about 30 feet in dimater tapering sharply to a point
in the lead end in an oval shape. with a bright top surface. I
did not hear any noise as you would from a plane. But there was
an object in the tail and looked like a big hand of a clock
shifting from side to side like a big magnet. There speed as far
as i know seemed to be greater than anything I ever saw. Last
view I got of the objects they were standing on edge Banking in
a Cloud.

Yours respectfully
/s/
F.M. Johnson
106 No. West 1st Ave
Portland, Oregon"
---------

After reading the letter I changed my mind, now being convinced
that Johnson shouldn't have any interest in _not_ telling the
truth to the Air Force, at least I couldn't think of any
plausible explanation why he shouldn't tell the correct story.
Thus, Johnson -- allegedly -- observed the same number of
objects as Arnold, and at the same time (on June 24th). And
today I still agree on this explanation. There were thus --
allegedly -- two independent observers watching the objects in
the clear, or partly clear, sky.

The aircraft could therefore be "the real thing", or some
experimental aircraft, from US, Soviet or maybe Japan. The
aircraft could also be some specially designed plane(s) to
perform geological/geographical surveys of the mountain area,
including measuring the magnetic or volcanic activities on/from
the ground, and, in fact, many parts of the mountain consist of
highly magnetic rocks. This magnetic activity could also cause
some compass disturbances (which I think Johnson told/wrote
somewhere).

But, however, there's still a possibility for a hoax here (from
Johnson and/or Arnold)...though I realize that it's rather
small.


Best Regards,

Asgeir








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Robert Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:18:27 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 05:43:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:16:42 -0500

 >>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:55:21 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Oh, wait ... exactly _which_ scientific credentials do Klass and
 >Sheaffer have, beyond one or a small number of undergraduate
 >courses, if that? (By that definition, I guess I'm a scientist,
 >too.) The answer to the question is: none I am aware of.

Jerry:

I'm surpised that after using old Uncle Phil's name in vain for
at least a decade, you didn't know that he has a graduate degree
in electrical engineering and for many years has been a senior
editor for avionics for Aviation Week and Space Technology
magazine.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:11:48 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:04:19 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gehrman


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:15:02 EDT
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >You did not answer the last part of the question which had
 >nothing to do with whether you had access or not, but was why
 >don't you put Roger in touch with the person whose warm
 >hands have the beta copy, or at least contact that person
 >and put them in touch with Roger? As I recall the person
 >who has this beta copy also is the one that claims its
 >a hoax.

Robert,

The only person in the US who has a beta copy of the AA is
Theresa Carlson, but as far as I know, she will not lend it out
to other researchers. Roger could ask her for a copy.

She is still skeptical of the AA, but didn't seem interested in
looking at our new evidence. We have studied her objections and
feel she was incorrect in her assessment of the AA footage.

 >Even if you could prove it was filmed with a 16mm camera, you
 >are still unable, nor will you ever be able to prove, _when_
 >and _by whom_ it was filmed. The only proof you have in that
 >regard is "well Ray said" or "I trust Ray", and so forth.

Knowing that the footage was shot on 16mm helps to eliminate the
possibility that the footage was computer generated or shot on
video and then manipulated.

 >So do the dinos in jurassic park. Complete with splashes when
 >the foot lands in water, and dust when they run.

Yes, but those images were computer generated and the AA was
shot on 16mm film. With computer generation, the possibilities
are endless whereas with 16mm the possibilities are rather
limited.

 >How about a nice FX prop? Nah, you wouldn't entertain the
 >thought.

We've entertained the thought but were unable to see how this
could be accomplished. Perhaps you could show us how if you
ever agree to take a close look at the CDs.

 >According to the alleged camermans interview the
 >carcass was cut up three weeks later. Apparently aliens don't
 >develop rigor mortis. Wait, I can hear it now...something along
 >the lines of "Well they had to freeze the alien carcass, then
 >thawed the poor thing out so the doctors could cut on it three
 >weeks later...."

You are absolutely correct. There does not seem to be rigor
mortis. It was one of the first things we all noticed and we
don't know how to explain this fact. It's certainly an
unanswered question but it doesn't make the creature an FX prop.
Why are you so reluctant to view the AA CDs? The only investment
required is your time, and you seem to have plenty of that.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:33:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:06:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >From: Alan Staithes <AlanStaithes@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:39:28 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:55:21 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


 >An interesting observation[,] John. You refer (below) to the
 >'Berwyn Mountain' case. This was a case published in Jerry
 >Clarke's IUR magazine and the emails he sent to Andy Roberts at
 >the time (I have seen them) are somewhat unctuous.

Nope, it's not Jerry Clarke's IUR. It's not Jerry Clark's,
either. It's CUFOS'. Andy Roberts's article was a good one.
IUR's policy is that it will publish any article that represents
a reasonable point of view, and the Berwyn article certainly met
that qualification. For one thing, it was far more restrained
than the sorts of unctuous pronouncements Roberts often makes on
line. It stuck close to the evidence, eschewed polemics, and
made a reasonable case. "Reasonable," of course, is not a
synonym of "certainly true," which is for time to determine. In
the meantime, IUR is, as it always has been, open to good,
well-researched and -reasoned articles by individuals of varying
points of view.

 >No mention of the dread 'debunker' word there. Quite the
 >opposite in fact.

 >Yet, just as John says, in an act of illusion worthy of David
 >Blaine, Andy and Dave Clarke suddenly became 'debunkers'.

Incidentally, IUR has also published David Clarke, who co-wrote
splendid, well-investigated article which brought reasonable
evidence to reasonable conclusion.

Incidentally, is it your contention that Roberts and Clarke are
"debunkers"? They have always emphatically denied being so. If
they are, as you insist, engaged in internal criticism, I should
think that would make them something other than debunkers
virtually by definition. Most of what I have read of Roberts in
particular has been on this list, and I have seen no evidence
there that he is interested in dissenting from debunking
perspectives and engaging in internal criticism of, say, James
Easton's fantastic visions. To the contrary. But if you say he
conducts himself more thoughtfully and critically minded
elsewhere, I'll take your word for it.

Jerry Clark (not to be confused with Jerry Clarke, whoever
he is)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                        Re: Serious Research - Clark

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:38:42 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:07:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Clark


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Serious Research - Clark
 >Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:19:24 -0400

 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:22:34 -0500

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:45:57 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:21:09 -0000

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:21:28 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Bob,

 >>The image appearing is
 >>that of old doc Hynek, with the pipe and attractive beard,
 >>lecturing to the rubes.

 >Interesting choice of word.  "Rubes" is usually understood to
 >denote gullible victims of con artists.

 >Is it your contention, then, that Allen Hynek was a charlatan?

 >Jerry Clark

And Dick Hall as well?









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                  Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:54:23 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:09:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Hall


 >Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 14:27:17 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really

 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 14:33:02 -0700
 >>Subject: Listen, I'm Important, Really

 >That said, however, I find the attitude of the "believers" more
 >off-putting than the "debunkers" if, for no other reason, the
 >believers' presumptuous notion that they are right, even though
 >said proof has yet to be produced. Is there evidence? Of course,
 >and quite a bit of convincing evidence, at that. There is also
 >quite a bit of evidence that many cherished UFO cases are highly
 >suspect, as well. The number of each is not as important as the
 >attitude displayed when such cases are threatened. Since proof
 >is in short supply, the more belligerent of the proUFO crowd
 >invariably resort to answer dodging techniques and/or simple
 >name calling.

Your Bob Young has accused me of just about every sin
imaginable, which is not "name-calling?"

 >Regarding such, I occasionally post the moniker "King Roger",
 >not because I think of myself as royalty, but because that is
 >the title Jerry Clarke gave me in lieu of discussing the topic
 >at hand. But then why should he? After all, he had already
 >declared himself the winner of the debate!

I also posted "King Richard" as a joking response to being
called that, behind my back, on the skeptics list to which I do
not subscribe. Someone forwarded it to me.

 >It is this sort of presumptuous and, quite frankly, seemingly
 >infectious arrogance that is going to be the undoing of UFology,
 >in the long run. I respect Bob Young, but he and I do not agree
 >on the probabilities of ET life or ET visitation and probably
 >never will. That said, however, we do agree that the discussion
 >is becoming bogged down in opinion. Granted, that's all we have.
 >But opinion about a specific case is one thing; opinion about
 >other people's opinions of someone else's opinion is a major
 >waste of time and energy.

 >More importantly, I have seen Bob, on several occasions, offer
 >to debate with anyone from the pro-UFO camp the specifics of the
 >_best_ case UFOlogy has to offer. Not just any case, mind you,
 >but the _best_.

 >No one will step up to the plate, though many claim to be eager
 >to do so.

Apparently you haven't seen my challenge to him to debate the
merits of the "best cases." He seems to have agreed but
continues to engage in name-calling, insults, and put-downs in
the meantime. Are we going to have a debate on the merits or
not?

 >What's offered, instead, are references to new books, old books,
 >past papers and claims of being too busy to prove the very point
 >they were tying to defend; usually a point they bought up in the
 >first place. The _most_ used answer is "You mean you aren't
 >familiar with my papers on...?" Followed by, "I don't have time
 >to discuss something that should be so obvious, blah, blah,
 >blah..."

How else can people make their points without citing published
references? This is standard scientific behavior, don't you
know. Or wouldn't you understand it if you saw it? I'm busy,
very much so, but not too busy to call your and his bluff.

 >Cowards. There, I've said the "C" word.

More name calling. And you are brave, moral, and noble?

 >After all, this isn't the skeptics list, this is the UFO UpDates
 >list. You guys are on home turf. How much home field advantage
 >do Ufologists need? I _believe_ in ET life and ET visitation!
 >Come on, guys! Gooooo Team! Make me proud.

"Home turf?" I have seen exceedingly skeptical viewpoints
expressed here, which is fine by me. I think debate between pro
and con types could be productive and worthwhile, if the
extremists and name-callers would shut up and debate honestly
and fairly. And, by the way, I do not "believe" in anything. I
base my positions on facts, logic, and scientific method.

 >Alas, there is no joy in Muddtown. Casey hasn't struck out; he
 >won't even come to bat.

Go ahead and throw me your best pitch.


Dick 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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:56:35 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:12:03 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Morris


 >Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 09:25:36 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:40:33 +0100
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gates
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, Robert wrote:

 >>>>>The CD's are and always will be inferior to a beta copy for
 >>>>>expert examination.

 >Neil replied:

 >>As for Betacam SP(4.5mhz bandwidth) being the be-all and end-all
 >>of technical quality, that's moot, it's actually a tad down on
 >>bandwidth from SVHS(5mhz bandwidth)

 >Hi, Neil!

 >Sorry, but this is simply not correct. BetaSP is rated at over 6
 >megabytes per second, depending on the age and wear of each
 >deck, and is _not_ inferior to Super VHS by a long shot because
 >it operates in the component domain whereas SVHS only keeps the
 >luminance and chrominance separate; in short, a poor man's
 >BetaSP. In fact, according to my system stats, the data rate for
 >Super VHS is only 4.5 megabytes per second, so you've actually
 >got the information in reverse. No matter how you look at it,
 >Super VHS is not as good as Betacam SP. If it was better, then
 >why wasn't the AA master produced on SuperVHS instead of BetaSP?

Roger,

Data rate has nothing to do with it, it's the system bandwidth,
particularly the luminance bandwidth where the picture detail is
stored that dictates the ultimate limit of what can and cannot
be resolved in the picture. the following is from a broadcast
media reference site.

Analogue recording formats

Format    M-II        EBU-C     Betacam SP  U-Matic SP   S-VHS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Type     Component   Composite   Component   Composite  Composite
           (Y,Cr,Cb)
Bandwidth
   Luma    5.0 MHz     5.5 MHz     4.5 MHz     ~ 4 MHz    ~ 5 MHz
   Chroma  1.8 MHz     1.5 MHz     1.5 MHz               ~ 600 kHz
S/N
    Luma    > 47 dB     43 dB       > 51 dB     > 46 dB     45 dB
    Chroma  > 50 dB     43 dB       > 53 dB     > 48 dB

Audio    2 x FM,    3 x linear   2 x linear   2 x linear,
         2 x linear   (2 + tcode)  2 x AFM, TC   time code
    S/N     > 85 dB                 > 72 dB     > 52 dB    > 90 dB
            (FM)                                            (HiFi)

Tape  1/2" cass.   1" reel    1/2" cass    3/4" cass   1/2" cass
Speed 6.6 cm/s     24.4 cm/s  10.15 cm/s   9.53 cm/s   2.399 cm/s
                                                      (SP)



It seems accepted that Beta gives a better "perceived" image
than most formats, but this is a subjective visual result seen
by the eye of the better signal to noise ratios obtained in the
subcarrier recording systems in Beta SP, rather than technically
a better picture.

 >Continuing, you wrote:

 >>A further point as to the image quality of the digitised
 >>version, Theresa Carlson used a Betcam tape supplied by Ray
 >>Santilli for her research, during which she "read" the "Danger"
 >>sign wording. Looking at a single raw frame from my CD version
 >>of the AA, this sign _can_ be read, it shows her "reading" of
 >>the sign from her Betacam was incorrect, was her Betacam of
 >>better image quality than my digitised version?.

 >What type of monitor was she using? Was it component or
 >composite? Or was the signal demodulated through a receiver with
 >a standard 320 roll-off on the resolution? What was the size of
 >the monitor? Was it black and white or color with color masking?
 >Was the monitor a single gun or three gun monitor? Were the
 >color guns aligned? Was the monitor calibrated to broadcast
 >specifications or was it just a plain old TV? Was the focus on
 >her monitor, assuming she used one and not an RF receiver,
 >adjusted for the sharpest picture? Was the copy she received
 >made using component, composite or SVHS inputs? And just how do
 >you quantify her ability to pick out detail as compared to
 >someone else looking at the same picture?

No idea, You'd have to ask her.

 >In short, to say that she erred in her interpretation of the
 >signage soley because the Betacam SP copy was inferior is really
 >a bit of misdirection, Neil. More to the technical point at
 >hand, it sets an impossible scenario for you since, by your own
 >admission, you _also_ used a Betacam SP copy yourself to
 >digitize from. Her interpretations aside, it is _impossible_ for
 >you to get any more detail out of the Beta SP tape than
 >originally existed. If she couldn't read it, it is either
 >because of her own inabilities to sort out detail or other
 >technical problems associated with the display and/or the
 >quality of the copy. Any inherent technical limitations of the
 >BetaSP format would affect the two of you exactly the same.

Nope, she was using a std's converted NTSC dupe, I was using a
straight PAL copy.

 >In fact, if you feel that Super VHS is superior to Betacam SP,
 >then why use a Betacam SP copy for your digitizing? Considering
 >your position on the superior nature of SVHS and the reality of
 >how cheap the SVHS machines are, compared to BetaSP, ($150
 >versus $8,500) it would seem that SVHS would be your format of
 >choice. More to the point, if you had a SVHS copy, then the
 >issue of making a copy for me would be moot! ;)

Just pointing out the spec's Roger, by choice I'd be using DV now.
Use of Betacam was dictated by the format the material was placed
on back in 1995, now't to do with my preferences.

 >Finally, Neil wrote:

 >>Remember, even from a Betacam tape you're still only dealing
 >>with (in European PAL TV terms) a 625 line, frame interlaced TV
 >>picture, with only aprox 575/6 of those lines being used for the
 >>picture information, that's your upper limit of vertical picture
 >>resolution available in the PAL analog TV system whatever the
 >>source, bandwidth variations only effect the amount of detail
 >>within these fixed number of scanlines.

 >None of this makes any difference, Neil. You're explaining the
 >difference in displays and not the limitational differences in
 >recorded formats. That's like explaining the luminance
 >difference in headlights between one car over another as a
 >performance indicator for their engines.

Roger, how many lines does a broadcast NTSC picture
have?....525? If the data was generated with 525(or 625 with
PAL) you can have as fancy a recording rig as you like you're
not going to get any more verticle resolution out of it that
that.

 >The thing to keep in mind here is that the _original_ tape you
 >were working with was BetaSP. As such, the higher resolution of
 >the computer monitor won't give you more detail than originally
 >existed in the BetaSP tape to begin with. On the other hand,
 >looking at the Beta SP tape on a better monitor will allow for
 >access to more information than a monitor of lessor quality.

 >To that end, let me take your side for a moment:

 >The CDs you are offering are pretty much on par as DVD's. While
 >I do not believe that the image quality is better than BetaSP,
 >it is close and a _lot_ better than VHS! However, I am also
 >pretty darned sure that no one on this list, other than myself,
 >happens to have an $8,500 BetaSP deck in their living room or a
 >$6,000 Ikegami monitor to view it on if they did. What every one
 >on this List _does_ have is a computer monitor which, if
 >adjusted to the right resolution, will give a much better look
 >at the information on the CD's than a livingroom TV will off of
 >VHS. For that, alone, it is probably worth the money for the
 >CDs, if one is intent on that sort of inspection. As I said, I
 >can't open your CDs, have no desire to load unwanted software on
 >my system and feel that I can get more off a BetaSP copy.

 >Now back to the battle at hand:

 >But since we're talking about resolution and bandwidth, did you
 >transfer the BetaSP copy to computer via component, composite or
 >SVHS inputs? If you are really serious about quality, component
 >would be the _only_ correct way to do it. Anything less and
 >you're leaving money on the table.

Transfer was done via composite, that's what was available at the
time.

 >Again, I understand the problems with not having access to a
 >BetaSP copy. However, to promote the idea that a CD based,
 >second generation image from this copy is going to be superior
 >to the original is a joke, no matter what data rate you used.

I don't recall saying that Roger, the aim of the exercise was
to produce a version of the AA with better quality images than
those available on the _VHS_ versions and as close to the Beta
source as was possible with the equipment available.

 >The only difference is going to be whether or not it is seen on
 >a progressive scan computer monitor or an interlaced video
 >monitor. Even at that, there is nothing that I would see on a
 >computer monitor from your CD that I won't see on my $6,000
 >Ikegami component video monitor from a Beta SP copy made in the
 >component domain. In point of fact, I would see more because the
 >BetaSP copy will carry more of the original resolution and
 >detail than the CD's would since you are limited to the same 4.5
 >data rate as DVD. DVD is _not_ superior to BetacamSP. I know
 >because I do film restorations on BetaSP all the time and they
 >get released on DVD. There is no comparison between the two,
 >even when I look at both of them on the same Ikegami monitor.
 >
 >In this particular case, analog rules.

Commercial DVD standards are a mess, but don't dismiss MPEG2 and
digital because of them. The underlying systems are capable of
far greater things than found there. ie, The MPEG2 package I use
is capable of creating streams at resolutions up to 2048 x 1024
and greater, way above the resolutions of the current DVD, DV
and DBS "standards" in use but still within the overall MPEG2
system.

Even Sony have grasped the digital nettle and Betacam SP is fast
becoming a "legacy" system, though still likely to be around for
a few years yet.

My apologises to Errol if this post has strayed off topic a little.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:17:49 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:14:08 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gates


 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:07:57 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

 ><snip>

 >>Really? Then all those movies on television that are edited for
 >>sexual content must represent true stories. How silly of me! And
 >>all this time, I just thought they were fictiona representations.

 >>Come one, guys. Having to blur out the footage only adds fuel to
 >>the fire, speculation wise. It wouldn't be beyond the scope of
 >>imagination, even Santilli's, to include footage that would have
 >>to be masked just for broadcast. I mean, how many fake
 >>documentaries have we seen where the identity of an individual
 >>is masked to add to the documentary effect? Does that make these
 >>more "real"? Mac, you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things,
 >>but you can't be serious about this.

 >Roger,

 >I'm referring to the _alleged_ (note emphasis on alleged)
 >_first_ autopsy, which was never shown to the public at all, if
 >the people who have seen it aren;t collaborating on yet another
 >fiction. I'm not talking about the blur-effect ghiven to the
 >"genitals" (or lack thereof) seen in the FOX show.

 >In this respect, making a film that would never see the light of
 >day and not make any money seems to detract from the popular
 >supposition that we are dealing with hoaxers "in it for the
 >money."

Mac,

Its possible that the so called first film was in fact an
initial test of FX and production. Depending on how the test
crowd reacted, the producers could then fine tune the film or
production for the later "for profit release."

How long did this so called alleged first film last? 10 minutes?
15 minutes? half hour?

 >Santilli and Spielberg were definitely in it for some fast cash.
 >But I'm hesitant to use financial profit as the best answer for
 >the presumably hoaxed footage as well.

The numbers floated around was that Rays company sold approx
400,000 to 500,000 Video copies of AA. When you run the numbers,
you see approx 6-8 Million dollars gross. If you suspect that
Ray et al produced this, and $100-200K is well within reason,
you have a net profit of 5.8 to 7.8 million dollars on the deal.
This is not to mention the bundle Fox paid to Ray to air the
footage.


Cheers,

Robert









                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                    Re: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:23:26 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:16:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic


 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:04:24 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 16:46:37 z (MDT)
 >>From: Stephen MILES Lewis <smiles@elfis.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation

 >>Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation

 >>"A character in the game might ask me the name of my wife. A few
 >>months later I might get a call saying, "'Neil, if you don't
 >>stop snooping, you might find Laurie in a pool of blood'."

 >- Neil Young, Game Designer at Anim-X

 >>Back in February I learned of a new "game" which threatens to
 >>further blur the lines between fact and fiction within the ufo
 >>community and its relevant parapolitical/conspiracy sub-
 >>communities. It's called Majestic and it is being billed as "The
 >>game that plays you." This new online interactive experience
 >>uses the player's own mind as the gaming environment with the
 >>world wide web and telecommunications networks as its
 >>intravenous feed straight into that player's paranoia prone
 >>imagination.

 >The inventor of this game will be happily raking in the dough
 >until the game turns around to bite him as the altimate
 >conspirator.

 >A major problem with society in the USA today is the
 >"acceptance" of conspiracy. Just because you are paranoid
 >doesn't mean you don't have people looking at you. Maybe your
 >paranoia is "justifiable." When my son started discussing the
 >moon landing hoax I know that conspiracy was hitting too close
 >to home. He watched the FOX show. He has already been "brought
 >up" to think that you can't trust public officials, the
 >government, etc. Who taught him this?

Hello Bruce, List and Errol,

This is a most fascinating post, with some particularly
fascinating and important facts lurking deep within't. At least
in my opinion. You mention conspiracy in the same breath as a
lack of trust in government (public officials). I wonder if this
is the correct association? Certainly the movie your son saw on
FOX begs the question I raised, however the fact of mistrust in
public officials is not entirely due to that program or programs
like it. Nor is it due to the Internet's sound berating of
truth, no matter whose, eh?

Rather, it has (again - in my opinion) is due entirely to
"information." Wrong information, right information;
information. Sucked up by eager minds seeing the irony (Lord
forgive me for understating the point) of politics, of law
enforcement (which I've supported all my life), of government in
general. Bruce, these institutions are committing suicide by
virtue of their very existence, not by virtue of FOX TV
programming. They lie themselves to death!

Look at any media venue and see the twisted sisters of ananias
laying the groundwork for their own demise. It's truth which
your son likely seeks and is not finding it. And when such as
FOX presents something counter to the institutions which confuse
and confound, which distort and make helpless our adult
population (those with an intellect) let alone those forming
one, done with a freedom of stupidity - culpable stupidity - of
their own, then those young minds ask many questions.

Which is good. Because as they grow, they will question, not
authority, as in the 1960's, but rather, someone's truth. God
bless them for that. Because our generation did not do this. I
grew up rather likely close to you, was born in 1943 and when
Truman dropped the bomb I cheered with the rest of them. And
laughed when Truman got the prize in the face of news articles
to the contrary. And I laughed hard when Ike did what any good
general would do, create a air of such total secrecy with the
CIA propaganda touting it as necessary in the cold war, that to
me, it was all a happy happening.

Little did I know. It was when I was on the air on the 75 meter
amateur band, speaking with a ham in the Virginia area, when I
heard the news about JFK. And today, ask your kid what he
thinks about that scenario. Ask what they taught him in school
about the event. Was it truth? I was flat on my nose due to
surgery in those days, and had ample opportunity to read the
entire Warren Commission Report. Were you ever able to do so?
I laughed then too. But that time, it was the beginning of the
end. My realization did not come soon enough.

Not to belabor the point, but that pristine bullet went thru
bone, gristle and flesh, thru two men, and just "fell" off the
gurney. And I've got bullets in my speed loader which deform
just by being there. The check is in the male. Clean as a
whistle. Right.

So you see, Bruce, this subject of conspiracy is quite
independent of the subject of mistrust. In the mind of this
lunatic who thinks he was taken up in a solid beam of blue light
into a flying saucer. HAH! What a maroon!

 >I didn't do it,...at least not directly, although he is
 >indirectly aware that my UFO research essentially calls into
 >question the honesty of certain portions of the government in
 >relation to the UFO subject. After all, the UFO FBI CONNECTION
 >is based on documents that were secrets when written and for
 >many years afterward. What has the government been hiding? we
 >would all like to know. (This also holds true of the Kennedy
 >Assassination, King assassination, etc.)

But the Warren Commission claimed truth. As did (and do) the
Air Farce... the Army and the Queen R.... uh, What's her name!

 >But what if the future generations of children (say 20 and under
 >at the present time) grtow up continually suspicious of the
 >government, just as are the so called "militias" we have heard
 >about in recent years, taking up arms in preparation for a
 >"government attack?"

That boat won't float. Militias will always be here. Want to
know the real truth about them? The vast and overwhelming
majority of members of the NRA think they are whackos. So much
for propaganda.

 >When paranoia rules, civilization decays slowly or quickly
 >depending upon how untrustful people are.

 >The bottom line here is trust. Civilization is based on mutual
 >trust between people. Where trust fails laws intervene. Either
 >you do "good things because you are a responsible person or
else >"we " will pass laws to make you do good things ./ (Good,
iin >all its various contexts, is defined by the popular opinion
if >not by religious dictate such as the Ten Commandments). If I
 >can't trust you to make sure the brakes on your car are good
 >then I will pass laws that enforce the rule... you shalll have
 >your brakes checked. If I can't trust you to have drivers
 >insurance, then I will pass laws to make sure you can't drive
 >until you have insurance. And So On.

Perhaps this is not such a bad thing if properly managed by you,
the parent.

 >So what if kids grow up not trusting authority? This has already
 >happened in a small way (e.g., the children of the 60's and
 >70's, war protesters, etc.)

 >Now with the internet and many kids "plugged in"... without
 >experience of life and history behind them, how are they to
 >discern truth from falsehood? How are they to understand the FOX
 >TV show? My son was quite accurate in recalling the various
 >"telling points" against the landing (it was originally the
 >Chinese who denied the moon landing back in the 70's).

That's where you come in. The parent.

 >We have guys like HOagland going around talking about structures
 >on the moon being covered up by NASA, shuttle videos galore of
 >UFOs galore in outer space. Why shouldn't kids mistrust the
 >government? But if you don't trust the government, why do what
 >the government asks?

 >I was on a radio show in Bremerton, Washington, the other day...
 >"Conspiracy Radio." Gee, conspiracies are entertainment (watch
 >"Conspiracy Theory for great entertainment) until they hit too
 >close to home. As I recall the host of the show emphasized all
 >the conspiracies that could be discussed and how the UFO
 >conspiracy was that day's topic. He wanted to bring all the
 >conspuiracy information to the kids listening to the show (the
 >truth about conspiracy HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oxymoron). I responded
 >by saying I didn't think it was a good idea to bring kids up on
 >a diet of conspiracy, or words to that effect.

 >It will be interesting...and perhaps scary -- to see what our
 >civilization in the USA and other "advanced" countries will be
 >in 10,. 20 years when the children of today are the rulers of
 >tomorrow.

 >And I wonder when Neil Young will think when his kids come to
 >him and accuse him of being a conspirator... because that is
 >what is on the web... and the web is the truth.

Well, in spite of my desire to debate the points, I must retire.
I wrote until six AM this morning and remembered something which
gave me a whopper of a headache.

I think you got the point and the Mott's old buddy.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                    Re: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:23:50 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:38:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic


 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:04:24 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 16:46:37 z (MDT)
 >>From: Stephen MILES Lewis <smiles@elfis.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Alert: Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation

 >>Majestic Art of Electronic Disinformation

 >>"A character in the game might ask me the name of my wife. A few
 >>months later I might get a call saying, "'Neil, if you don't
 > >stop snooping, you might find Laurie in a pool of blood'."

 > - Neil Young, Game Designer at Anim-X

 >>Back in February I learned of a new "game" which threatens to
 >>further blur the lines between fact and fiction within the ufo
 >>community and its relevant parapolitical/conspiracy sub-
 >>communities. It's called Majestic and it is being billed as "The
 >>game that plays you." This new online interactive experience
 >>uses the player's own mind as the gaming environment with the
 >>world wide web and telecommunications networks as its
 >>intravenous feed straight into that player's paranoia prone
 >>imagination.

 >The inventor of this game will be happily raking in the dough
 >until the game turns around to bite him as the altimate
 >conspirator.

 >A major problem with society in the USA today is the
 >"acceptance" of conspiracy. Just because you are paranoid
 >doesn't mean you don't have people looking at you. Maybe your
 >paranoia is "justifiable." When my son started discussing the
 >moon landing hoax I know that conspiracy was hitting too close
 >to home. He watched the FOX show. He has already been "brought
 >up" to think that you can't trust public officials, the
 >government, etc. Who taught him this?

Hello Bruce, List and Errol,

This is a most fascinating post, with some particularly
fascinating and important facts lurking deep within't. At least
in my opinion. You mention conspiracy in the same breath as a
lack of trust in government (public officials). I wonder if this
is the correct association? Certainly the movie your son saw on
FOX begs the question I raised, however the fact of mistrust in
public officials is not entirely due to that program or programs
like it. Nor is it due to the Internet's sound berating of
truth, no matter whose, eh?

Rather, it has (again - in my opinion) is due entirely to
"information." Wrong information, right information;
information. Sucked up by eager minds seeing the irony (Lord
forgive me for understating the point) of politics, of law
enforcement (which I've supported all my life), of government in
general. Bruce, these institutions are committing suicide by
virtue of their very existence, not by virtue of FOX TV
programming. They lie themselves to death!

Look at any media venue and see the twisted sisters of ananias
laying the groundwork for their own demise. It's truth which
your son likely seeks and is not finding it. And when such as
FOX presents something counter to the institutions which confuse
and confound, which distort and make helpless our adult
population (those with an intellect) let alone those forming
one, done with a freedom of stupidity - culpable stupidity - of
their own, then those young minds ask many questions.

Which is good. Because as they grow, they will question, not
authority, as in the 1960's, but rather, someone's truth. God
bless them for that. Because our generation did not do this. I
grew up rather likely close to you, was born in 1943 and when
Truman dropped the bomb I cheered with the rest of them. And
laughed when Truman got the prize in the face of news articles
to the contrary. And I laughed hard when Ike did what any good
general would do, create a air of such total secrecy with the
CIA propaganda touting it as necessary in the cold war, that to
me, it was all a happy happening.

Little did I know. It was when I was on the air on the 75 meter
amateur band, speaking with a ham in the Virginia area, when I
heard the news about JFK. And today, ask your kid what he thinks
about that scenario. Ask what they taught him in school about
the event. Was it truth? I was flat on my nose due to surgery in
those days, and had ample opportunity to read the entire Warren
Commission Report. Were you ever able to do so? I laughed then
too. But that time, it was the beginning of the end. My
realization did not come soon enough.

Not to belabor the point, but that pristine bullet went thru
bone, gristle and flesh, thru two men, and just "fell" off the
gurney. And I've got bullets in my speed loader which deform
just by being there. The check is in the male. Clean as a
whistle. Right.

So you see, Bruce, this subject of conspiracy is quite
independent of the subject of mistrust. In the mind of this
lunatic who thinks he was taken up in a solid beam of blue light
into a flying saucer. HAH! What a maroon!

 >I didn't do it,...at least not directly, although he is
 >indirectly aware that my UFO research essentially calls into
 >question the honesty of certain portions of the government in
 >relation to the UFO subject. After all, the UFO FBI CONNECTION
 >is based on documents that were secrets when written and for
 >many years afterward. What has the government been hiding? we
 >would all like to know. (This also holds true of the Kennedy
 >Assassination, King assassination, etc.)

But the Warren Commission claimed truth. As did (and do) the
Air Farce... the Army and the Queen R.... uh, What's her name!

 >But what if the future generations of children (say 20 and under
 >at the present time) grtow up continually suspicious of the
 >government, just as are the so called "militias" we have heard
 >about in recent years, taking up arms in preparation for a
 >"government attack?"

That boat won't float. Militias will always be here. Want to
know the real truth about them? The vast and overwhelming
majority of members of the NRA think they are whackos. So much
for propaganda.

 >When paranoia rules, civilization decays slowly or quickly
 >depending upon how untrustful people are.

 >The bottom line here is trust. Civilization is based on mutual
 >trust between people. Where trust fails laws intervene. Either
 >you do "good things because you are a responsible person or else
 >"we " will pass laws to make you do good things ./ (Good, iin
 >all its various contexts, is defined by the popular opinion if
 >not by religious dictate such as the Ten Commandments). If I
 >can't trust you to make sure the brakes on your car are good
 >then I will pass laws that enforce the rule... you shalll have
 >your brakes checked. If I can't trust you to have drivers
 >insurance, then I will pass laws to make sure you can't drive
 >until you have insurance. And So On.

Perhaps this is not such a bad thing if properly managed by you,
the parent.

 >So what if kids grow up not trusting authority? This has already
 >happened in a small way (e.g., the children of the 60's and
 >70's, war protesters, etc.)

 >Now with the internet and many kids "plugged in"... without
 >experience of life and history behind them, how are they to
 >discern truth from falsehood? How are they to understand the FOX
 >TV show? My son was quite accurate in recalling the various
 >"telling points" against the landing (it was originally the
 >Chinese who denied the moon landing back in the 70's).

That's where you come in. The parent.

 >We have guys like HOagland going around talking about structures
 >on the moon being covered up by NASA, shuttle videos galore of
 >UFOs galore in outer space. Why shouldn't kids mistrust the
 >government? But if you don't trust the government, why do what
 >the government asks?

 >I was on a radio show in Bremerton, Washington, the other day...
 >"Conspiracy Radio." Gee, conspiracies are entertainment (watch
 >"Conspiracy Theory for great entertainment) until they hit too
 >close to home. As I recall the host of the show emphasized all
 >the conspiracies that could be discussed and how the UFO
 >conspiracy was that day's topic. He wanted to bring all the
 >conspuiracy information to the kids listening to the show (the
 >truth about conspiracy HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oxymoron). I responded
 >by saying I didn't think it was a good idea to bring kids up on
 >a diet of conspiracy, or words to that effect.

 >It will be interesting...and perhaps scary -- to see what our
 >civilization in the USA and other "advanced" countries will be
 >in 10,. 20 years when the children of today are the rulers of
 >tomorrow.

 >And I wonder when Neil Young will think when his kids come to
 >him and accuse him of being a conspirator... because that is
 >what is on the web... and the web is the truth.

Well, in spite of my desire to debate the points, I must retire.
I wrote until six AM this morning and remembered something which
gave me a whopper of a headache.

I think you got the point and the Mott's old buddy.


Jim

PS: A Zissen Passoch to those of the Passoch persuasion










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                    UFO/Conspiracy Publisher Passes Away

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:33:28 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:39:48 -0400
Subject: UFO/Conspiracy Publisher Passes Away


Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Earlier today I received the sad news that Ron Bonds of
IllumiNet Press passed away last night.

I shall be always indebted to Ron for having published my
translation of Salvador Freixedo's "Visionaries, Mystics and
Contactees" in 1992. This year, to celebrate I-Net's 10 year
run, Ron had planned to reissue it along with an added treat,
Freixedo's "Defendamonos de los Dioses" (Beware of the Gods).
But it was not to be.

During the '90s, I-Net became known for its controversial UFO
and conspiracy titles, such as "The Men in Black", "Black
Helicopters of America" and reissues of classics such as
"Operation Trojan Horse" and "They Knew Too Much about Flying
Saucers".

Ron is survived by his wife Nancy.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

             Budd Hopkins' IF Seminar Announcement 4-21-01 (NYC)

From: IFConfer@aol.com <IFConfer@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 20:05:30 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:43:10 -0400
Subject: Budd Hopkins' IF Seminar Announcement 4-21-01 (NYC)

Intruders Foundation Seminar Series Announcement


An evening with Richard Hall, veteran UFO researcher

Saturday, April 21, 2001

Richard Hall has been involved in serious scientific UFO
research almost from its beginning. While serving in the U.S.
Air Force in 1950 - over a half century ago - he read Major
Donald Keyhoe's pioneering book, "Flying Saucers Are Real", and
immediately became fascinated with the subject. He published his
own UFO newsletter in the mid-fifties, and by 1958 was working
with Major Kehoe in the headquarters of NICAP, then the largest
and most prestigious UFO research organization. (The first
director of the CIA was a member of NICAP's board of Directors.)
 From that time forward Richard Hall has been at the center of
UFO research, editing, for a number of years, the MUFON UFO
Journal and writing almost continuously. His 1964 book "The UFO
Evidence" is a classic compilation of the most persuasive case
material, but now he has just published its sequel, a
wide-ranging and extremely valuable update, "The UFO Evidence,
Volume II". Hall's "Uninvited Guests" was published in 1988, and
for several years he contributed an influential monthly column
to "UFO Magazine". His column now appears in the MUFON UFO
Journal.

In his talk, Richard Hall will deal with, among other things,
the process by which the reality of the UFO abduction phenomenon
was gradually accepted by initially conservative - even
suspicious - researchers. He will be accompanied in this seminar
by Budd Hopkins and other members of the IF Advisory Committee
in what promises to be a relaxed, informal, and searching
dialogue. After the mid-session break, audience members will be
invited to join in with questions of their own.

This will be a rare opportunity to meet and talk to one of
ufology's most respected senior researchers, a man who has been
a participant in its history.


REGISTRATION & INFORMATION

The seminar will be held on April 21st at the meeting rooms of
A.R.E., on the tenth floor of 150 W. 28th Street, New York, NY.
The price of the seminar is $30 for non-members and $20 for
members of IF, seniors, and students. Reservations must be made
by telephone at 212-645-5278, and will be filled on a first
come, first served basis. Payment must be made in advance to
secure the reservation. Make checks payable to the Intruders
Foundation, P.O. Box 30233, New York, NY 10011. Only 50
reservations will be accepted.

On-street parking is generally available in theneighborhood. The
seminar will begin at 7:30 PM and end at 10:00 PM. Doors open at
7:00 PM. There will be a one half-hour intermission, during
which light complimentary refreshments will be served. A book
table will offer books, videotapes, and other material for sale
to those interested. For additional information, call IF at
212-645-5278.

Hope to see you there!

----------

The Intruders Foundation Seminar Series is presented in the
interests of open-minded scientific learning and the free
exchange of research, ideas, and theories. IF makes no specific
claims or endorsements regarding any materials, views, or
subject matter presented by its guests.

----------

Want to know more about Budd Hopkins and his nonprofit
scientific research organization, as well as past and future IF
events? Please visit our website:

Intruders Foundation Website: www.intrudersfoundation.org

----------

Mark your calendars!Upcoming IF Seminar on Saturday, May 19th:
Professional Therapists - Panel Discussion
More information on this event will follow by separate e-mail.

----------










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:59:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:45:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >From: Alan Staithes <AlanStaithes@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:39:28 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:55:21 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


Patient and gentle listfolk,

Earlier, as I was about to run out the door, I read this posting
hastily and dashed off a fast response. Subsequently, reflecting
on it, I realized that I may have misunderstod Mr. Straithes's
point. So I've reread it, looking for clarification, but find
that I am still confused by his meaning.

 >>The problem is that at some stage, some ufologists cross an
 >>invisible boundary, known only to Jerome Clark, which moves
 >>them from the category of "ufologist" to that of "debunker".
 >>At this point their arguments no longer count as internal
 >>debate and criticism, but become "ideological scoring".

Let's try it again. By skeptic Marcello Truzzi's definition, a
debunker is one who denies, and a skeptic is one who doubts. I
was referring to the former and remarking on the telling -- but
predictable -- absence of internal criticism in the debunking
literature. To their credit, Phil Klass and those who have led
the debunking movement and written its literature proudly think
of themselves as debunkers. I have to say this because there
seems to be a notion among some British posters that the word
"debunker" and the concept "debunking" are the inventions of an
evil entity whose name is sometimes rendered as "Jerry Clarke."

 >. You refer (below) to the
 >'Berwyn Mountain' case. This was a case published in Jerry
 >Clarke's IUR magazine and the emails he sent to Andy Roberts at
 >the time (I have seen them) are somewhat unctuous.

 >No mention of the dread 'debunker' word there. Quite the
 >opposite in fact.

The point of this escapes me. As I said in my previous posting,
Andy wrote an interesting, thoughtful, well-researched piece
which we were happy to publish, and for which I praised him in
private correspondence. It has nothing to do with what he has
posted on this List or elsewhere, which has done him little
credit. His fault, not anybody else's. Not a single "skeptical
to the max" List member has criticized his e-excesses,
unsurprisingly.

 >Yet, just as John says, in an act of illusion worthy of David
 >Blaine, Andy and Dave Clarke suddenly became 'debunkers'. I know
 >both of them very well and can assure you they are sceptical to
 >the max, but in no way debunkers.

This is not meant as a rhetorical question. What is the
difference between "skeptical to the max" and "debunker"?
Skepticism, as I understand it, is not a matter of degree; it is
just a general intellectual stance of caution, conservatism, and
doubt -- about one's own ideas as well as everybody else's.
"Skeptical to the max," in fact, is an oxymoronic phrase Robert
Sheaffer, who is a debunker by anybody's definition, always uses
to characterize himself. Thus, it is pretty strange to find
somebody's saying, at one and the same time, that Roberts and
Clarke are "skeptical to the max" but miraculously _not
debunkers_. A neat trick. I'm not saying it can't be done, but
at the very least, it requires a clear explanation, if one is
even possible. Perhaps you "skeptical to the maxers" can tell me
exactly what it is that separates you from the Klasses and
Sheaffers of the world and what it is that is wrong about their
approach. This would, incidentally, give you the chance to prove
that you really do practice criticism. What are those sounds I
hear? Of silence?

 >At the moment, for instance, I
 >can tell you that Andy is reading Don Ledger's account of the
 >Shag Harbour meteor - sorry - UFO, and finding it fascinating.

Don, you're going to have fun with this one. Keep in mind that
these are the same guys who probably believe, or claim to
believe, that Coyne, his helicopter crew, and the ground
witnesses also saw a "meteor." I can hardly wait for what
follows.

 >It seems that, as John says, a little scepticism is ok. Too
 >much, or scepticism which involves treading on sacred cows such
 >as Bentwaters/Lakenheath etc renders one a 'debunker'. To
 >paraphrase Emerson, 'Inconsistency is the hobgoblin of small
 >minds'.

I have no idea what the point of the above is. I have heard
criticisms of perceived weaknesses in the Lakenheath case (and
other prominent UFO cases) from individuals who do not define
themselves as (or are regarded as being) skeptics, much less
debunkers. Ufology is full of that sort of internal criticism,
dissent, and debate. The words above are either nonsensical on
their face or very poorly phrased..

 >>In Britain most of the prominent sceptical ufologist are just
 >>that: ufologists who have come to their sceptical position after
 >>years of actual, getting-your-hands-dirty, UFO investigation.
 >>People like Andy Roberts and David Clarke, and many others who
 >>are probably less well-known to UpDates researchers, are
 >>ufologists first and sceptics second.
 >>So that when Andy Roberts explains a case such a Berwyn
 >>Mountain, I see that as an example of the type of "internal
 >>dissent" that Jerry describes above. Presumably Jerry sees it as
 >>an example of external "debunking".

Internal dissent in what sense? I am not following the argument
here. Moreover, as I have stated clearly and repeatedly,
debunking in and of itself is a necessary part of the truth-
seeking process. It's when debunking becomes a first principle
(as when the investigator or commentator defines him- or herself
as "skeptical to the max") that the trouble starts.

 >should have also noted that Andy Roberts had a long running
 >'disagreement' with another UK UFO sceptic, Jenny Randles, about
 >the Berwyn Mountain case. In various articles, lectures etc Andy
 >disputed many of Jenny's ideas about the case. If that's not
 >'internal dissent' then I don't know what is.

Oh, I see. Jenny Randles is a "UFO s[k]eptic." I guess you
define things differently over the water, in whatever way needed
to make your point. I was unaware that "s[k]eptics" have
proposed (at least intentionally) paranormal explanations for
UFO experiences. My old friend Jenny has, on not a few
occasions. She and I have even argued, in friendly fashion,
about whether this is a wise approach. Some "s[k]eptic." Some
"internal dissent."

 >There is quite a bit of internal dissent among UK sceptical
 >researchers- that Jerry and others are unware of it is because
 >it tends to go on face to face or on 'closed' lists such as the
 >highly secretive 'UFOIN' list.

I see. Internal criticism about "UK s[k]eptical researchers" is so
sensitive a matter that it has to be kept out of the view of outsiders,
who might thereby be privy to truths that must be kept from them
at all costs.

I guess you'd say that the "dissent," if that's the word, is
_deeply_ internal. Even classified, you might say. So classified
that those of us who have not pledged our lives and sacred honor
to the UFOphobic cause are not allowed to know anything about it
or to arrive at independent judgments based on that knowledge.
Why am I not surprised?

As John Rimmer recently acknowledged on this list, Magonia has
on rare occasion published critical material on debunkers'
claims. He and Magonia could be doing a lot more of it, of
course, but given the paucity of internal dissent and criticism
within UFOphobic circles, even that little means something. It
comprises, I am sure, just about the totality of internal
criticism published within the open literature of the movement.
Sad, but also sadly revealing.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

             CCCRN News: 04-08-01 First Canadian Circles of 2001

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:03:00 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:46:36 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News: 04-08-01 First Canadian Circles of 2001


CCCRN NEWS
The E-News Service of the Canadian Crop Circle Research Network

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

April 8, 2001

_____________________________


FIRST CANADIAN CIRCLES OF 2001 - DAWSON CREEK, BC?

Preliminary Report - April 8, 2001
Dawson Creek, British Columbia
March 25, 2001 (?)


There is a second-hand report of two large grass circles, about
25 feet diameter each, at Dawson Creek, BC, reportedly found
near the end of March. CCCRN is trying to track down this report
and verify it if possible.

If anybody has futher information on this, please let us know,
and of course any other formations. It is a bit too early yet
for 'crop circles' per se, but ones in grass, etc. have also
been reported before, at various times of year, including of
course, the now-famous 'ice rings'!


____________________________


CCCRN News is the e-news service of the Canadian Crop Circle
Research Network, providing the latest news and reports on the
crop circle phenomenon in Canada and other relevant updates, as
well as other information and updates on CCCRN-related news,
projects and events. CCCRN News is available free by
subscription:

To subscribe to CCCRN News, send your e-mail address to:
cccrnnews-subscribe@listbot.com

To unsubscribe from CCCRN News, send your e-mail address to:
cccrnnews-unsubscribe@listbot.com

You can also subscribe or unsubscribe from the CCCRN web site:
http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/emailupdates.html

CCCRN News Archive:
http://www.listbot.com/archive/cccrnnews


CANADIAN CROP CIRCLE RESEARCH NETWORK

Main Office:
Suite 202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC  V5T 2M9  Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

Provincial Branch Contacts:
http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/contacts.html


� Canadian Crop Circle Research Network, 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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 19:56:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:49:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:58:53 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:16:42 -0500

 >>>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:55:21 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:09:52 -0500


John,

 >>The term "debunker," as I gather you don't understand, was not
 >>coined by the evil Jerome Clark.

 >Did I say it was?

Thanks for clarifying. Judging from the huffy, sometimes
not-very- rational responses I get every time I use the dread
word "debunker," I can't be blamed for wondering.

 >>It has been around for quite a
 >>while. The most useful definition was provided by sociologist of
 >>science Marcello Truzzi (who coined the phrase, nearly always
 >>misattributed to Carl Sagan, about extraordinary claims and
 >>extraordinary proof). Truzzi characterizes a debunker as one
 >>who denies, whereas a skeptic is one who doubts. In other words,
 >>debunkers assume that, because UFOs don't exist, any explanation
 >>is preferable to one that leaves open the possibility that a UFO
 >>report may represent something extraordinary and beyond current
 >>knowledge. A debunker rejects UFOs (as well as other anomalous
 >>phenomena) out of hand. Any investigation or other consideration,
 >>therefore, is intended solely to identify the allegedly prosaic
 >>stimulus behind the report.

 >Well that's what Truzzi thinks. Other people make have other
 >definitions, but even on Truzzi's definition I think most
 >sceptical ufologists would accept the possibility - perhaps
 >remote - that a UFO report may represent something extraordinary
 >and beyond current knowledge.

Okay, let's see your evidence, beyond rhetoric. Show us five
instances wherein "s[k]eptical ufologists" have conceded the
anomalous nature of specific UFO incidents and acknowledged that
it is at least possible that these reports represent something
extraordinary and beyond current knowledge. Let's also see
evidence that they (a) respect those who think UFOs represent
genuine unknowns of potentially great significance and (b) state
explicitly that rational, responsible individuals have come to
this conclusion. There are mountains of evidence to the contrary
-- in other words, of the conviction that UFOs are nonsense and
that those who feel otherwise are (fill in your deeply
unflattering adjective; I'm sure you'll get all you need from
The Collected Works of Andy Roberts alone). Here's your chance
to prove that these "s[k]eptical ufologists" didn't really mean
it.

 >>It's not hard, of course, to suspect anti-Americanism in some of
 >>the rhetoric that wafts from European quarters. Of course, when
 >>pointed out, it is always indignantly denied. American observers
 >>are left to deduce that anti-American impulses are so depressingly
 >>ingrained in some of our colleagues across the water that they
 >>themselves remain oblivious to them.

 >When I'm being anti-American (which is not that often, Jerry)
 >I'm quite aware of the fact, and will not deny it. But most of
 >the time I'm quite pro-American,

Thanks for the clarification. You certainly could have fooled us
on this side of the water, but I am happy to take your word
for the above.

 >>>In Britain most of the prominent sceptical ufologist are just
 >>>that: ufologists who have come to their sceptical position after
 >>>years of actual, getting-your-hands-dirty, UFO investigation.
 >>>People like Andy Roberts and David Clarke, and many others who
 >>>are probably less well-known to UpDates researchers, are
 >>>ufologists first and sceptics second.

I agree that Roberts and Clarke have both done useful work (I
should hope so; we've published some of it in IUR, as somebody
noted here recently.) Unless, however, Roberts in particular
was/is just blowing smoke on this List (as Jenny Randles seems
to say he is), I have grave doubts about your last
characterization above, which strikes me as a (at the least)
tone-deaf reading of Robertsian rhetoric. It's always possible
that Roberts is writing in some code to which the rest of us are
not privy.

 >exactly where is the implication that British ufologists are
 >smarter than Americans? I was pointing out that in Britain most
 >of the wicked sceptics have come through the ranks of ufologists
 >rather than pushed in from the outside like most American
 >sceptics.

Okay. Clarification noted. I apologize for misunderstanding.

 >>In the United States the best ufologists traditionally have done
 >>years of actual, getting-your-hands dirty UFO investigation.
 >>People such as Walt Webb, James McDonald, Allen Hynek,
 >>Ted Bloecher, Dave Webb, Bruce Maccabee, Jennie Zeidman,
 >>Ray Fowler, Mark Rodeghier, Allan Hendry, Richard Haines,
 >>Isabel Davis, Budd Hopkins, Stan Friedman, Kevin Randle,
 >>Karl Pflock, Len Stringfield, Wendy Connors, Michael Hall,
 >>Coral and Jim Lorenzen, Brad Sparks, Kenny Young, Paul
 >>Cerny, Bill Weitzel, and on and on and on. They are all (or,
 >>in the case of those no longer with us, were) ufologists first
 >>and UFO proponents second.

 >Your best bit of name-dropping yet, Jerry,

Why is this "name-dropping"? Or does this unflattering term mean
something different in Britain from what it means here? Over
here, it would be name-dropping if I were to mention my close
(albeit nonexistent) friendship with Bob Dylan and Bruce
Springsteen. Citing honored colleagues to make a point may be
name-dropping on your side of the pond, John, but it sure isn't
here. Or maybe -- more likely -- you just weren't reading my
words very closely. It wouldn't, alas, be the first time.

 >nowhere have I said or implied that American ufologists,
 >sceptical or otherwise, have not done years of
 >getting-your-hands-dirty investigation.

 >>>This seems to contrast with the American position, where
 >>>sceptics like Klass and Scheaffer seem to have come into the
 >>>field with scientific or technical credentials already
 >>>established elsewhere. I grant that there are one or two
 >>>exceptions on either side of the Atlantic (Dennis Stacy and Ian
 >>>Ridpath come to mind - perhaps unfairly for either or both of
 >>>them)

 >>Yeah, I guess Peter Sturrock, James McDonald, Allen Hynek,
 >>Brad Sparks, Bruce Maccabee, Walt Webb, Mark Rodeghier,
 >>Stan Friedman, Allan Hendry, Mike Swords, Dick Haines,
 >>David Pritchard, et al., have no scientific credentials, unlike
 >>Klass and "Scheaffer." I presume, incidentally, that you mean
 >>poor Bobby Sheaffer, owner of the most consistently misspelled
 >>last name in all of ufological discourse.

 >Reading what I say might be a good idea, before you sound off
 >again.

Likewise with mine. You're making less sense than usual. If you
are not implying that American ufologists (as opposed to their
critics foreign and domestic) lack scientific credentials, why
did you mention those credentials -- in reality all but
nonexistent -- of Americans you charitably describe as
"s[k]eptics" (sic)? If you had said simply that debunkers Klass
and Sheaffer come from outside ufology, nobody, least of all I,
would have disputed your words, which are obviously true.

  >Please note: saying that US sceptics have scientific
 >credentials does not, repeat not, mean that US ufologists do not
 >have scientific credentials.

See above.

 >>unlike most of the American ufologists listed
 >>above. I guess that explains why Klass and Sheaffer kept making
 >>scientific bloopers, forcing Bruce Maccabee to warn, after
 >>repeated violations, that explanations claiming to be
 >>conventional have to answer to conventional physics. I guess you
 >>can excuse Klass and Sheaffer, however; after all, they are
 >>scientifically untrained, so what else should we expect?

 >I have no particular desire to excuse Klass and Sheaffer
 >anything.

That is a wise course of action.

 >I am just pointing out that American sceptics tend to
 >be ufological "outsiders" whereas British sceptics tend to be
 >ufological "insiders". I just thought this was a significant
 >observation and you might have some interest in debating why
 >this is so, and how it has affected ufological attitudes on both
 >sides of the Atlantic. I should have known better.

Yes, I'm afraid I am always fated to disappoint you, John.

 >>As for Gulf Breeze, I suggest you take up the discussion with
 >>Bruce Maccabee. You can explain to him just where he went wrong
 >>in his technical analyses of the photographs. I look forward to the
 >>discussion, on which I assume you can hardly wait to get started.

 >Then you've got a long wait, my friend.

Again, a wise course of action (or, more properly, inaction).

 >>>>No such policing and debate exist with the UFO-debunking camp,
 >>>>only the sort of robotic head-nodding one observes of
 >>>>true-believing bedfellows who have gathered to fight a common
 >>>>hated enemy. I have a long paper trail of criticism of
 >>>>ufologists' shortcomings. So do Dick Hall, Brad Sparks, and
 >>>>other prominent ufologists on this List and elsewhere. When you
 >>>>get around to offering comparably serious criticisms of the
 >>>>failings of Menzel, Klass, Condon, the psychosociologists, and
 >>>>others who share your beliefs, let me know.

 >>>You continue to believe that sceptics never disagree with each
 >>>other. You cannot therefore have read John Harney's criticisms
 >>>of Phil Klass's analysis of the Travis Walton case in Magonia
 >>>Supplement. Never mind, you'll have the opportunity to read more
 >>>in the forthcoming Magonia 74, which shouls be with you in a
 >>>couple of weeks. I also find very little evidence of general
 >>>support amongst sceptical ufologists of the pelican theory for
 >>>Arnold, or the balloon theory for Soccorro.

 >>Well, that's a relief. It's good to see that Magonia's
 >>iconoclasm, on which it is always congratulating itself, applies
 >>even to stupid debunking explanations. Sad to say, John Harney
 >>is, as even you will agree I am sure, a very minor figure of
 >>whom even few debunkers have heard.

 >An extremely ungracious remark, and quite untrue.

Oh, come on, John. This is really scraping. I said nothing
disparaging about John Harney as Magonia contributor or human
being. I simply stated the obvious: that Harney is a fairly
obscure figure in our field and an even more obscure one within
the debunking movement. I am sure that he is a smart guy, a fine
man, and wonderful company of over pints of superb English ale.
If you were to read my words more carefully, you surely would
not have read a slur into them.

 >>Still, he is to be
 >>congratulated for acknowledging the obvious, that Klass's theory
 >>about the Walton case is a load of rubbish. A happy exception to
 >>a grim rule of robotic head-nodding among debunkers.

 >>Incidentally, I shall assume, as I'm sure most who read your
 >>words will, that your energetic defense of debunkers amounts to
 >>a concession - which you have refused to address even after I
 >>have asked you at least six or seven times - that psychosocial
 >>ufology is now a wing of the debunking movement. On the positive
 >>side, if you continue to commit the ultimate heresy of dissent
 >>from the official line on occasion, you will find yourself in
 >>the intellectual wilderness, but at least you will have gotten
 >>there honorably.

 >If you accept the Oxford English Dictionary definition of
 >debunking, I am happy to be so described - and so should you.
 >However I do not accept the arbitrary definition of debunker
 >that you seem to use - which is not even consistent with
 >Truzzi's interpretation.

Oh, I understand. You're both a debunker and not a debunker.
Thanks for the, er, clarification.

 >>Less honorably, you imply that debunkers regularly debate and
 >>critique each other's work. That's a testable hypothesis. Here's
 >>how you can prove it: provide us with at least a partial
 >>bibliography of writings by major debunkers such as Klass,
 >>Sheaffer, or Oberg, or minor ones from the professional
 >>debunking movement (CSICOP, the various skeptics' organizations
 >>affiliated or unaffiliated with same, the assorted publications
 >>of the movement), in which debunking claims about UFO cases are
 >>held up to question, criticism, and ultimate rejection.

 >I'm not going to go rooting around amongst the teetering piles
 >of books and magazines in the curiously-named John Dee Cottage

Please don't, John. I was only joking. Speaking seriously, I can
assure you already that you won't find anything that will help
you. Not that you didn't already know that.

 >to provide you with chapter and verse references, but I would
 >draw your attention to the strong criticisms which have been
 >made by sceptical ufologists of Steuart Campbell's 'mirage'
 >theory, in the pages of the British "Skeptic" magazine, in
 >Magonia and elsewhere.

Interesting. Now, not to be difficult, isn't Campbell the guy
who thinks UFOs are the product of demonic forces? Some
"s[k]eptic." Your earlier citation of John Harney's dismissal of
Klass's absurd theories about the Walton case was a good one.
This one isn't. What are we up to, now? Two real citations of
internal criticisms from the debunking literature, both from the
pages of Magonia?

 >>Years ago, when challenged to do the same, Klass, Sheaffer, and
 >>Oberg could not come up with a single citation. The very concept
 >>of internal debate and criticism clearly puzzled them; Sheaffer
 >>even characterized the notion as "strange." Maybe you can do
 >>better. All you have to do is to write that bibliography on the
 >>head of a pin. Don't worry - you'll still have space to spare.

 >Whatever.

In other words, the point conceded, and we are agreed: Debunkers
don't criticize other debunkers, and it is a big reason to be
skeptical of the movement they represent and the claims they
make.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Sawer

From: William Sawer <syntax@slingshot.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:49:06 +1200
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:51:30 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Sawer


 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:07:57 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

 ><snip>

 >>Really? Then all those movies on television that are edited for
 >>sexual content must represent true stories. How silly of me! And
 >>all this time, I just thought they were fictional representations.

 >>Come one, guys. Having to blur out the footage only adds fuel to
 >>the fire, speculation wise. It wouldn't be beyond the scope of
 >>imagination, even Santilli's, to include footage that would have
 >>to be masked just for broadcast. I mean, how many fake
 >>documentaries have we seen where the identity of an individual
 >>is masked to add to the documentary effect? Does that make these
 >>more "real"? Mac, you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things,
 >>but you can't be serious about this.

 >Roger,

 >I'm referring to the _alleged_ (note emphasis on alleged)
 >_first_ autopsy, which was never shown to the public at all, if
 >the people who have seen it aren;t collaborating on yet another
 >fiction. I'm not talking about the blur-effect ghiven to the
 >"genitals" (or lack thereof) seen in the FOX show.

 >In this respect, making a film that would never see the light of
 >day and not make any money seems to detract from the popular
 >supposition that we are dealing with hoaxers "in it for the
 >money."

I'm not sure on the money side it either Mac. Sure Santilli may
have been in it for the money (no crime outside of UFOlogy) but
Spielberg and anyone else has to be under suspicion as spooks or
some alterior motive we arn't aware of, including
disinfomation... by way of the timing especially.

I understand Philip Mantle and (perhaps) Colin Andrews saw the
1st Autopsy footage. Could Philip or Colin(?) comment further on
this list or could we get any web sites to view.... anything!
with regard to the first autopsy?

....and in saying that.... is it any wonder that the surgeons
seemed so familiar with the "eye-coverings", if in fact this is
actually the _second_ or even _third_(?) autopsy!?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                  Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 03:55:34 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:56:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Hale


Roger wrote:

 >Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 14:27:17 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really

<snip>

 >And let's face it, there is no proof; only opinion here on this
 >list.


Roger,

As you demonstrate above, the fences are too wide to jump over.
People are having experiences and interactions with UFOs. I shall
live to except that some people feel uneasy about that statement
due to what ever quirk in their psyche.

 >That said, however, I find the attitude of the "believers" more
 >off-putting than the "debunkers" if, for no other reason, the
 >believers' presumptuous notion that they are right, even though
 >said proof has yet to be produced. Is there evidence? Of course,
 >and quite a bit of convincing evidence, at that. There is also
 >quite a bit of evidence that many cherished UFO cases are highly
 >suspect, as well.

Roger, just think' there are some people you will not get on with
on this planet, maybe those who have ET experiences are one kind?

 >Regarding such, I occasionally post the moniker "King Roger",
 >not because I think of myself as royalty, but because that is
 >the title Jerry Clarke gave me in lieu of discussing the topic
 >at hand. But then why should he? After all, he had already
 >declared himself the winner of the debate!

Ok, we shall remember you still as King Roger.

 >It is this sort of presumptuous and, quite frankly, seemingly
 >infectious arrogance that is going to be the undoing of UFology,
 >in the long run.

The undoing of who's ufology Roger? Yours or the silent experiencer?

 >More importantly, I have seen Bob, on several occasions, offer
 >to debate with anyone from the pro-UFO camp the specifics of the
 >_best_ case UFOlogy has to offer. Not just any case, mind you,
 >but the _best_.

 >No one will step up to the plate, though many claim to be eager
 >to do so.

Good old Bob!

 >What's offered, instead, are references to new books, old books,
 >past papers and claims of being too busy to prove the very point
 >they were tying to defend; usually a point they bought up in the
 >first place. The _most_ used answer is "You mean you aren't
 >familiar with my papers on...?" Followed by, "I don't have time
 >to discuss something that should be so obvious, blah, blah,
 >blah..."

 >Cowards. There, I've said the "C" word.

 >After all, this isn't the skeptics list, this is the UFO UpDates
 >list. You guys are on home turf. How much home field advantage
 >do Ufologists need? I _believe_ in ET life and ET visitation!
 >Come on, guys! Gooooo Team! Make me proud.

Roger, do you think we can now give ufolgy back to the people
who are having the interactions? Were making a messy job of it
right now!

 >Agreed, Roy. However, the perceived puffing of chests is quite often
 >gasps for fresh air. The mistake is easy to make.

 >King Roger

Interpretation is the real cause of such brick walling in
ufology!


Roy..


(Someone who didn't choose to see, but did )








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                           The Lost Haven - Stats

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 03:56:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:58:17 -0400
Subject: The Lost Haven - Stats


Hi All,

I would just like to report that it has been an exceptional
month for myself and The Lost Haven.

I just received my web site stats from my host server, and well,
they are pretty hectic. From March 2001 through to the 6th of
April, The Lost Haven received a total of 17,479 requests, from
every corner of the world.

What is intersting is that the US Goverment hit my site 63
times, and the US Military hit it 33 times. Must be good reading
I guess! Oh and USA educational hit it 172 times.

One UFO article which was put on my site only three weeks ago
has received 922 requests.

If you write articles and you want exposure on the web, drop me
a line.


Best Regards,

Roy.. Web Master The Lost Haven.
Editor of Down To Earth Magazine on The Web.
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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                     Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:10:38 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:59:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Young


 >Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 16:43:05 -0400
 >From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth
 >To: 'UFO UpDates - Toronto' <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:26:28 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth

 > I should've said that I find it "pathetic" _whenever_ any
 >skeptic tries to dismiss a compelling, multiple-witness sighting
 >as being "mass hysteria" or some kind of "group delusion". >>

Hi, Ron:

Actually, I don't think you hear this claim very often. Can you
think of the last time you actually saw this used?  Back in the
40s and 50s, it was kicked around, but not much recently.

Which brings up something. Autokinetic motion of the muscles of
the human eye. Normally our brains filter out this continuous
movement, which can cause stars, planets, satellites or planes
to seem to jump, zig-zag, make 90 degree "turns", reverse
direction, etc. This tends to be seen easier if the object is
very bright or there aren't other horizon objects or stars
nearby. It can be easier to notice if a bright star or planet is
near the horizon, where atmospheric extinction has elliminate
dimmer stars, so that there aren't reference points. This is
obviously the old "falling leaf effect".

I have a great demonstration of this in the planetarium where we
have a small dim bulb on a reostat to demonstrate a nova, super
nova, etc. It doesn't take long to see it moving around, which
in darkness, by the way, was the classical experiment
demonstrating this phenomena.

A great way to test this right now is with Jupiter, very bright
in the Western sky in the early evening. It only takes a couple
seconds to notice this and the darn thing starts swinging back
and forth as if it's on a parachute, or balloon.

Since this is a known phenomenon related to the operation of the
eye, it obviously is a factor in IFO, _and UFO_ sightings. No
need to worry about stats here. Presumeably even the appearance
of the Hard Core Unidentifieds, if they are Nocturnal Lights,
would be affected by this.

The interesting thing is that if one person in a group mentions
this, then others usually notice it, too. Since it is just below
the "surface", you might say, of our normal perception, it seems
to be quite prone to suggestibility.

Is this an example of "mass delusion?" I don't know. Perhaps
delusion isn't the right word to use, maybe suggestability.

Just food for thought.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                        Re: Serious Research - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:17:54 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 07:01:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Young


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:22:34 -0500

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:45:57 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:21:09 -0000

 >>The image appearing is
 >>that of old doc Hynek, with the pipe and attractive beard,
 >>lecturing to the rubes.

 >Interesting choice of word.  "Rubes" is usually understood to
 >denote gullible victims of con artists.

 >Is it your contention, then, that Allen Hynek was a charlatan?

Jerry:

Rube - n. slang.  A countryman; farmer; rustic. (Funk & Wagnalls
Standard Dictionary, International Edition, Vol. 2, 1965, p.
1099).


Clear skies,

Bob








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:59:55 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 07:02:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:05:12 -0400

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:28:07 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>See John Rimmer's posting, today, for some examples.

 >Which means, I take it, that you can't think of any.

Greg:

No, it means why waste time looking?

Evidently you have run out of arguments for the ETH, or
whatever, and can't think of anything else to say.

So you want a skeptic of UFO claims to give you examples from
your very short list of a couple skeptics of UFO claims  you've
probably had a problem with in the past where they have been
skeptical of each other?

Maybe they aren't.

What the heck is the point, Greg?  Why should I care? If you're
too lazy to make your own arguments for the existance of little
green men, don't ask me to study my navel for you.

If you want to pick a fight with somebody, email them, yourself,
I'm not going to do your homework for you.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

             Re: Mars Online Gazette - The Monolith Graveyard -

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:39:58 +0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 07:04:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Mars Online Gazette - The Monolith Graveyard -


 >From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
 >Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:14:22 -0700
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 19:01:52 -0400

 >Subject: Mars Online Gazette - The Monolith Graveyard

<snip>

 >Mars is an enigma, rife with things that just shouldn't be. One
 >of the most enigmatic features outside of the region known as
 >Cydonia has to be the grouping of large "stone" blocks found in
 >MGS MOC image M01-02950. After analyzing this image extensively,
 >it occurred to me that the features appear to be huge monoliths
 >that are partially buried, possibly by snow and sand, hence the
 >name "Monolith Graveyard." This area near the northern pole may
 >very well exhibit some of the best evidence of possible
 >artificiality on the planet's surface. The monoliths stand like
 >cryptic sentinels guarding the secret past of Mars.
 >As you can see in the map projected JPEG image that accompanies
 >the MSSS download page, the objects initially appear to be
 >triangular in shape. Dr. Tom Van Flandern recently featured this
 >image in a simulcast address to the National Press Club. It is
 >unfortunate that he chose not to look at the deeper research

<snip>

 >Could this be evidence of a long extinct technological
 >civilization? Until more precise data becomes available, we can
 >only speculate. I believe, however, that this feature is truly
 >anomalous, resembling all too closely ancient ruins found here
 >on earth. Are they the remnants of some long forgotten temple,
 >or perhaps the Martian equivalent of an ancient observatory such
 >as Stonehenge? It will likely be decades before we learn the
 >truth. Even so, this area may prove to be one of the best
 >candidates for artificiality that is currently being researched.


Kurt & List:

There are at least _two other_ interpretation possibilities of
this photo:

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/mogMonolithNoMap.jpg

and one of the explanations is also mentioned here:

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/index.htm

"(...) In an email message posted to the Net, Dr. David C. Pieri
from the Earth and Space Sciences Division of JPL questioned
both TEM's analysis and image processing. Pieri said the
positive relief of the disputed feature is an optical illusion.
That is, the feature is actually concave or popped-in, not
popped-out. With appropriate image processing the "glass worm
illusion vanishes, and we're left with a fairly mundane
image.(...)"

Thus, suggested interpretations are as follows:

1. The sun's chasing shadows _in the_ 4-5 o'clock direction,
    and from a low angle; i.e., the features are 'popped-out'

2. We see the features' dark side as the sun shines
    from a high, undetermined angle, maybe from above
    'somewhere'; i.e., the features are 'popped-out'

3. The features are actually concave or popped-in (something
    which also seemed to be the case regarding 'The Face'
    feature), maybe due to 'a swarm' of meteor (meteorite)
    impacts _from the_ 4-5 o'clock direction, and from a low
    angle (just a simple explanation/example).

So, the sun's angle should be determined, to possibly exclude
no. 1 or 2.

To, possibly, exclude no. 3, or no. 1 or 2, stereoscopic photos
should also be provided.

I think there's no dominating evidence which favours explanation
no. 1, thus, no 'evidence of a long extinct technological
civilization' - yet...


Best Regards,

Asgeir











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                           Re: Body Marks - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 03:53:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 07:06:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Body Marks - Velez


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Body Marks
 >Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:55:32 +0200

 >>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:59:42 -0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Body Marks

 ><snip>

 >>I have reams of these letters. If others had a
 >>chance to read the many communiques from
 >>all ovetr the world that _all_ tell the same story,
 >>there would be a lot less resistance to launching
 >>a serious and formal multi-disciplinary investigation
 >>into the reports/claims of the abductees.

 >Just curious, John

 >Is there any comments about the aliens' tool which made them? Is
 >it described similarly? Or the abductee just learn about the
 >marks but nobody remember how "they" made them?


Hola Luis, hi All,

I don't recall 'how' I got the mark when it does appear. It will
always appear suddenly. One day nothing, the next day the mark
will be there. It takes months for it to fade when I do 'get
it.' I cannot speak for the others.

Bill Hamilton put forward the theory that if enough of these
marks can be carefully compared and measured, that a strong
argument can then be made for a "mechanical/object" origin for
the marks. (If) it is being caused by an "instrument" of some
kind, then the marks 'should' reflect a _measurable_ uniformity
of dimensions. (Repeatable) I happen to agree with him that the
mark is "mechanical" in origin. You have to see it Luis. It is
'too' perfect. Too 'symmetrical'. I mentioned that when it is at
it's brightest it 'looks like' a professionally done tattoo.

All of this falls into the category of "basic research" that
needs to be done. It's a crying shame that so many books have
been written endlessly recounting the "stories," without ever
offering up much in the way of sound, basic research or tangible
statistics.

For instance; none of the "abduction researchers" has ever
published hard data as basic as; how many reports have they
received to date (in total?) Are there more women than men
reporting? What is the average age of those reporting to them
for the first time? What is the ethnic or economic breakdown of
their respective abductee populations?

Simple statistics/facts that would reveal a lot of important
answers. Nobody is doing the actual work of gathering and
compiling all of this basic information. Nobody is conducting
any kind of serious or comprehensive investigation at all.

With so many reports from honest, everyday, and perfectly
credible people, it boggles the mind that it is all being pretty
much uniformly ignored by the rest of humanity. It is an
especially shameful fact regarding the mental health and
scientific community in general. That something as vitally
important to all of humanity as the answers to the question of
UFOs and abductions can be ignored so, is a really good
indicator for the evolutionary 'rung' we currently occupy as a
race.

We aren't as far from the "trees" as we'd like to think. If you
ask me, I think we're all collectively _dumber_ than a bag of
hammers. There's something wrong with anyone who refuses to even
take a look when they are being told that their house is burning
or being ransacked.

They'd have be brain dead wouldn't they?  ;)

Regards,

John Velez, Man With Matches, - "Burnin' Down The House"

                     "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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                           Re: Nellis UFO - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 03:53:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 07:08:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Nellis UFO - Velez


 >From: Jess Fritch <djfritch@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Nellis UFO
 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:31:52 -0700

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:27:10 EDT
 >>Subject: Nellis UFO [was: Gauntlet to the Psychosocials]
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:24:23 -0400
 >>>Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:26:31 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Gauntlet To The Psychosocials - Velez

 >>>Before Dick has a chance to respond, I'd like to ask you both
 >>>what you make of the "UFO" footage that was (allegedly) smuggled
 >>>out of the Nellis Test Range several years ago.I am referring to
 >>>the clear, daylight footage of a multi-lobed craft that
 >>>performed aerial acrobatics and manouvers that cannot be
 >>>duplicated by any 'conventional' aircraft (that we currently
 >>>know of.)

 >>>I have always been fascinated by that footage but little is ever
 >>>heard or mentioned about it. It would be nice if Bruce could
 >>>'chime in' on this one. Especially if he had a chance to give it
 >>>the old 'hairy eyeball.'

 >>I did quite a bit of analysis of this footage based on the
 >>overlaid radar data on the video. My graphs of the UFOs
 >>trajectory, altitude, velocity, and acceleration can be found
 >>at:

 >>http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/discussion/nellis.htm

 >>(Some of the links are to sites that no longer exist.)

 >>Other current relevant sites with video excerpts are at:

 >>http://www.cseti.org/position/addition/nellis.htm
 >>http://hometown.aol.com/alienrebel020
 >>http://aliens.phatstart.com/data/research/77006008.shtml
 >>http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/videoclips/

 >Hi,

 >I am the holder of a copy of this video. I received it from one
 >of the controllers of the range. I have been able to id the
 >technology as electrogravitics (the control of gravity). This is
 >US built no back engineering. It is the same one seen in the
 >STS-48 video in 1991. I have a page at:

 >www.gravitydrive.com

 >and I am working on a full site. I do lectures on it and some
 >people that I have talked to think that this technology has not
 >been developed or that it did not work at all. I have talked to
 >T.T.Brown's daughter and it has been fully developed by the
 >government.


Hi Jess, hi All,

Jess, would you mind telling me what this "made in the USA"
antigravity craft is doing in the skies over Brazil? Please
refer to the photos I have posted at the AIC website on the
"UFO" pages. Go to:

http://www.spacelab.net/~jvif/

Click on the link marked "UFOs" and then go to the page titled;
"Brazil/Nellis UFO">I 'discovered' the Brazil footage while
rummaging through videotapes that Budd Hopkins had received over
the years but never had a chance to review for himself. When I
saw the "Nellis" craft in some footage that was taken by a
Brazilian news team (and aired on local newscasts) I posted to
the List about the identical appearance of these two crafts
immediately. I have had webpages up with several single frame
captures from both videos posted on my website for years. But
nothing much ever came of it all.

I thought it was significant that the -same- "UFO" was recorded
on videotape years apart, (not to mention half a world away,) by
a professional news crew on one end, and trained military
personnel on the other. I thought it was pretty compelling
visual proof that we are 'in fact' dealing with a global
phenomenon.

You say it's "made in the USA".

What's it doing in the airspace over Brazil?

Regards,

John Velez









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                           PRA - Rat Fink Is Dead

From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 05:36:54 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 07:16:44 -0400
Subject: PRA - Rat Fink Is Dead

Oz & ASIA DATA RESEARCH
Phenomena Research Australia


EBK & Researchers,

A little "off topic", but some may find it interesting!
Especially, Rat Fink fans, and all the "UFO Rat Finks" I know
out there. 8-)


INTRODUCTION:

Ed "Big Daddy" Roth (69) Ed 'Big Daddy' Designer, Cultural Icon
who created "Rat Fink" Born March 4, 1932 - Died on April 4,
2001. (See below).


A UFO REMINISCE:


"The Battle Of UFO Rat Finks"

Taken from a gathering at Grovesnor House, Melbourne. A Gunners
conversation (arty) on a taboo theme - Radar & UFOs - sprung up
out of the ether and spread like a wild fire thought the
assembly.

Without any real explanation, rational people suddenly grew
'three heads', and it was on for young and old. Like all good
family fights it soon went into warp drive. People who you would
never expect to get involved joined in. Then out of left field a
conservative and distinguished gentleman blasted onto the podium
where the only free microphone was located, in a splendid "Kung
Foo" leap (somewhat exaggerated - however) he captured the then
battered microphone from a combatant and with no grace at all,
screeched into the spit laden carbon microphone grate:

"Will you all shut up, you're all (expletive delete) UFO Rat
Finks!"

Instantaneously the room hushed into silence, heads turned to
that conservative gentleman location.

Then after what seemed a life time, and from the back of the
room came a clarification comment:

"Ian ... Did you say .... UFO Rat Finks?"

"YES ... UFO Rat Finks"! Was the reply.

On that, the room broke into hilarity and amusing banter.

To this day, the image of the "Battle Of UFO Rat Finks" is best
forgotten by all, but remains in my mind as an example of how
"Cultural Icons" invade even the least expected places.

You see that conservative gentleman was a Major Ian. J.S.
Kennison, CBE - Educated a Melbourne Grammar then Melbourne
University who became the Director General of ASIS - Australian
Secret Intelligence Service. (http://www.asis.gov.au/).

A reminisce to the late "Rat Fink" and a reminder that we have
many new "Cultural Icons" to fall back on - ask my children.
It's a small world and nothing is sacred.

Some New Cultural Icons - Cartoon Sounds:

http://members.nbci.com/praufo/zsound/alienwave.htm

* Alien Rectum Probe      101K   9sec      probe.wav
* Oh My God Space Aliens   56K   5sec   alieneat.wav
* Alien And 10 Beers      284K  13sec    10beers.wav


                        ***


LA Times
Obituaries
Friday, April 6, 2001

Ed 'Big Daddy' Roth; Car Designer, Cultural Icon
Created Rat Fink

By RANDY LEWIS, Times Staff Writer

"Ed "Big Daddy" Roth, the sign painter turned car designer whose
outrageous automotive creations and grungy cartoon alter ego,
Rat Fink, made him an outlaw icon of Southern California pop
culture of the 1950s and '60s, has died. He was 69.

Roth's wife, Ilene, found him dead Wednesday in his workshop
near their home in Manti, Utah, said his business associate and
friend, David Chodosh. The cause of death had not been
determined, Chodosh said Thursday, but he said Roth had been in
good health.

In fact, Roth had been at work Wednesday morning on the latest
in a long line of custom vehicles. He had first gained fame with
the Beatnik Bandit in 1958 and a fiberglass hot rod called the
Outlaw in 1959.

His influence on the culture of Southern California was huge,
said Ellen Fleurov, museum director at the California Center for
the Arts in Escondido, where Roth's works are on display in
"Customized: Art Inspired by Hot Rods, Lowriders and American
Car Culture."

"He really is the Big Daddy," Fleurov said. "He and Von Dutch
and Robert Williams represent the trio of legendary figures who
really shaped the aesthetics of hot rod culture and the art that
came from it.""




WEB PAGE LOC:
http://www.latimes.com/obituary/20010406/t000029516.html


                        ***


Regards to all,


John W. Auchettl
Director PRA Research


PRA WEB:
http://members.aol.com/praufo/PRA1/Pra1.htm


Phenomena Research Australia [PRA]
P.O. Box 523, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia, 3170
Australian & Asia UFO
1961-2001 - 40 YEARS OF RESEARCH SERVICE
---------------------------------------------------------------








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                  Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Kelly

From: Christopher Kelly <pacific.ent.au@wisma.pacific.net.au>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 21:01:34 +1000
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 07:34:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Kelly


 >Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 14:33:02 -0700
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Listen, I'm Important, Really


Roy and list,

"You have to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you know
what life is like for them"

This is a very profound saying and very true.

After I read Roy's posting I was ready to pull out all the stops
and really let go with what I thought about how people are
dealing with investigations and UFO's here.

 >As regards who is right or wrong on this List, it does not have
 >any impact on those seeing and interacting with UFOs, this I
 >have found again and again. Ask yourself this question: If you
 >walk out side of your house, how many people stop you in the
 >street and applaud and recognize you for your views on UFOs?

 >It's an in house thing going on here, only other UFO researchers
 >will recognize your views, in a way that will either please or
 >hurt you.

This is so true.

I write at one of the best Scifi role playing boards on the
Internet. Just a few days ago William Shatner dropped in as
James T. Kirk for a guest chat appearance and I was very honored
to have him say that he liked what I wrote. In fact, I was just
honored that he even knew who I was.

So, I know a thing or two about writing good Scifi stories. But
I didn't come here to write stories. I can here because of
things I have no real explanation for.

I guess I was a fool to think that I mite find answers here with
the ones that are said to know about UFO's and abductions. Maybe
my expectations were to high.

It has been said to me that if you cannot make it writing good
Scifi stories then you write about UFO's.

This I am starting to believe is true.

I know the difference between a story I am creating in my mind
and the OUT_OF_PLACE images I have, I wouldn't be here other
wise. If you think about a real life image you have that is not
so good and you try and edit it, Unless it is a really bad one
it will always come back the same. No matter how many times you
try to change it in your mind. Six months or six years later the
images and experience is the same.

I don't know how these images I have got there. Lord knows I
have tried to find reason to them.

But, Just like the time I was tripped by a friend and fell face
first onto a rock in a garden. (That happened when I was 12
years old and I still remember the stars I saw that day from
hitting the bush rock around the garden with my face.) I still
even remember sitting up and saying "WIPE OUT". No matter how
many times I try to change this memory, it always comes back the
same. Because it really happened! and cannot be changed.

This is what disturbs me so with the UFO's type images and
experiences I have. No matter what I do to edit them in my mind
they never change.

So I am one that is not here to get noticed. I came here
thinking I would find answers.

I already have my own writing board at DarkTrekVoyages if I want
to get noticed. Not to mention the 3D designing I do.

I know I am having a big dig at people here, But I mean to. As
there is no real help from you people at all. Roy has made some
of the best points I have ever read here, And he is right when
he said that a lot of people here wish they had the same
experiences. I wish they had them too. It would change the way
they think.

I think I can speak for many out there that have these, When I say that
we would trade you our memories/experiences for answers or peace of
mind in a heart beat.

Then you can be left with all the doubts, the researching and
the changes to your life, Instead of us. You want my experiences
and images??

Then they are yours free of charge and all that goes with them.
Then you will know what it really feels like. You will know the
frustration, the confusion and all the doubts. You will know
what it's like to see someone being hurt and know the
frustration of not being able to help them. You will know what
it is like to see this and have no one believe you, But most of
all you will know what it's like when you want help because of
all of this and no one is there to help you and the ones you
turn to treat you like you are a nut case.

So have them, they are yours. And there is NO returning them, Period!!!

 >As I said in an earlier mail, this whole experience is about the
 >World people who are having UFO experiences. You giving a
 >lecture on stage in some european country means nothing to Joe
 >bloggs here in the UK living on a council housing estate with
 >not a lot of options going for him. And I guess this is a
 >repeated story world-wide, where you may find such low cost
 >living ( on the bread line you could say ). And yet if he
 >happens to see - view - touch, such UFOs he finds himself in
 >another world, I know it has happened to me, and yes I was like
 >the guy Joe Bloggs.

This goes without saying!!.

Well I guess I am being a little too hard on some here. I know
that there are some people here that are really trying to answer
questions and are trying to help. But they are too few and they
know too little.

What also doesn't help is the hoax's and disinformation that
clogs up and slows down real research. Also there are many
people out there that say they have had experiences and really
haven't which doesn't help.

This is one of the reason why I don't say to much about mine as
I feel it will just add to all the confusion and make it even
harder to tell real cases from hoax ones. And because of this I
really feel that if you do hear from someone that has had a
experience or needs help. The last thing that should be done is
to put it up on the web or in a open forum. I think personal
cases should be kept personal. The information could be made
available to other researchers. But with restrictions like not
for publication ect. A lot of people say they are only doing it
for the truth and not for money. But then their try to sell you
there latest book on the subject.

Which is fine by me. I have nothing against someone making money
to feed themselves or there family. If you're in it for the
money that's fine. But don't try to sell yourself as something
you not. I have more respect for those that write about UFO's
that say they are writing just as much to make money as there
are interested in the subject.

Anyway most people with this problem just stuffer in silences
and we will never hear from them.

Last but no least, I want to make a point. Let us look at this
so called Anal probe. I know just what it's true purpose is.

So can this list tell me what this device is all about????



And yes Roy you are important.


Chris.

(And No Auntie you cannot give anyone the answer that would be
cheating and I will know if you do tell as there is much I
didn't add in my e-mails that you didn't post. *s* )


Live the Adventure:
http://www.darktrekvoyages.net/main.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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                  Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Kelly

From: Christopher Kelly <pacific.ent.au@wisma.pacific.net.au>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 21:10:32 +1000
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 07:38:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Kelly


Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 14:33:02 -0700
From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Listen, I'm Important, Really

At 05:25 PM 8/04/01 -0400,


Roy and list,

"You have to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you know
what life is like for them"

This is a very profound saying and very true.

After I read Roy's first posting I was ready to pull out all the
stops and really let go with what I thought about how people are
dealing with investigations and UFOs here and world wide.

 >As regards who is right or wrong on this List, it does not have
 >any impact on those seeing and interacting with UFOs, this I
 >have found again and again. Ask yourself this question: If you
 >walk out side of your house, how many people stop you in the
 >street and applaud and recognize you for your views on UFOs?

 >It's an in house thing going on here, only other UFO researchers
 >will recognize your views, in a way that will either please or
 >hurt you.

This is so true.

I write at one of the best SciFi role playing boards on the
Internet. Just a few days ago William Shatner dropped in as
James T. Kirk for a guest chat appearance and I was very honored
to have him say that he liked what I wrote. In fact, I was just
honored that he even knew who I was.

So, I know a thing or two about writing good SciFi stories. But
I didn't come here to write stories. I can here because of
things I have no real explanation for.

I guess I was a fool to think that I mite find answers here with
the ones that are said to know about UFO's and abductions. Maybe
my expectations were to high.

It has been said to me that if you cannot make it writing good
SciFi stories then you write about UFO's.

This I am starting to believe is true.

I know the difference between a story I am creating in my mind
and the OUT_OF_PLACE images I have, I wouldn't be here other
wise. If you think about a real life image you have that is not
so good and you try and edit it, Unless it is a really bad one
it will always come back the same. No matter how many times you
try to change it in your mind. Six months or six years later the
images and experience is the same.

I don't know how these images I have got there. Lord knows I
have tried to find reason to them.

But, Just like the time I was tripped by a friend and fell face
first onto a rock in a garden. (That happened when I was 12
years old and I still remember the stars I saw that day from
hitting the bush rock around the garden with my face.) I still
even remember sitting up and saying "WIPE OUT". No matter how
many times I try to change this memory, it always comes back the
same. Because it really happened! and cannot be changed.

This is what disturbs me so with the UFO's type images and
experiences I have. No matter what I do to edit them in my mind
they never change.

So I am one that is not here to get noticed. I came here
thinking I would find answers.

I already have my own writing board at DarkTrekVoyages if I want
to get noticed. Not to mention the 3D designing I do.

I know I am having a big dig at people here, But I mean to. As
there is no real help from you people at all. Roy has made some
of the best points I have ever read here, And he is right when
he said that a lot of people here wish they had the same
experiences. I wish they had them too. It would change the way
they think.

I think I can speak for many out there that have these, When I
say that we would trade you our memories/experiences for answers
or peace of mind in a heart beat.

Then you can be left with all the doubts, the researching and
the changes to your life, Instead of us. You want my experiences
and images??

Then they are yours free of charge and all that goes with them.
Then you will know what it really feels like. You will know the
frustration, the confusion and all the doubts. You will know
what it's like to see someone being hurt and know the
frustration of not being able to help them. You will know what
it is like to see this and have no one believe you, But most of
all you will know what it's like when you want help because of
all of this and no one is there to help you and the ones you
turn to treat you like you are a nut case.

So have them, they are yours. And there is NO returning them,
Period!!!

 >As I said in an earlier mail, this whole experience is about the
 >World people who are having UFO experiences. You giving a
 >lecture on stage in some European country means nothing to Joe
 >bloggs here in the UK living on a council housing estate with
 >not a lot of options going for him. And I guess this is a
 >repeated story world-wide, where you may find such low cost
 >living ( on the bread line you could say ). And yet if he
 >happens to see - view - touch, such UFOs he finds himself in
 >another world, I know it has happened to me, and yes I was like
 >the guy Joe Bloggs.

This goes without saying!!.

Well I guess I am being a little too hard on some here. I know
that there are some people here that are really trying to answer
questions and are trying to help. But they are too few and they
know too little.

What also doesn't help is the hoax's and disinformation that
clogs up and slows down real research. Also there are many
people out there that say they have had experiences and really
haven't which doesn't help.

This is one of the reason why I don't say to much about mine as
I feel it will just add to all the confusion and make it even
harder to tell real cases from hoax ones. And because of this I
really feel that if you do hear from someone that has had a
experience or needs help. The last thing that should be done is
to put it up on the web or in a open forum. I think personal
cases should be kept personal. The information could be made
available to other researchers. But with restrictions like not
for publication ect. A lot of people say they are only doing it
for the truth and not for money. But then their try to sell you
there latest book on the subject.

Which is fine by me. I have nothing against someone making money
to feed themselves or there family. If you're in it for the
money that's fine. But don't try to sell yourself as something
you not. I have more respect for those that write about UFOs
that say they are writing just as much to make money as there
are interested in the subject.

Anyway most people with this problem just stuffer in silences
and we will never hear from them.

Last but not least, I want to make a point. So, Let us look at
this so-called "Anal Probe". I know just what it's true purpose
is.

But can this List tell me what this device is all about?

This should be interesting.


And yes Roy you are important.

Chris.



Live the Adventure:
http://www.darktrekvoyages.net/main.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 >
   Apr > Apr 9

                        Re: Serious Research - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser<Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 07:25:33 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 07:40:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Kaeser


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:17:54 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Rube - n. slang.  A countryman; farmer; rustic. (Funk & Wagnalls
 >Standard Dictionary, International Edition, Vol. 2, 1965, p.
 >1099).

I'm not sure that this English lesson really relates to the
subject at hand, but since this is a "slang" word, you'll find
that the definition varies to some degree from dictionary to
dictionary.

A review of a number of dictionaries seem to have a common
thread that would define a "Rube" as unsophisticated country
folk.  It doesn't directly relate to their occupation, and being
educated doesn't always lead to being sophisticated.

On a carnival midway, the "barkers" realized that most people
weren't familiar with the games of chance presented and so they
appealed to the un-initiated "Rubes" to take a chance.

When a carnival sets up in the country, the "Rubes" tend to be
country folk, but when it sets up near a city they tend to be
city folk.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Evans

From: Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 08:19:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:19:26 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:56:35 +0100
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Morris

 >>Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 09:25:36 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

 >>>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>>Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:40:33 +0100
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gates
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Neil wrote:

 >It seems accepted that Beta gives a better "perceived" image
 >than most formats, but this is a subjective visual result seen
 >by the eye of the better signal to noise ratios obtained in the
 >subcarrier recording systems in Beta SP, rather than technically
 >a better picture.

Hi, Neil!

Yes, I understand the difference between bandwidth and data
rate. However, the fact is that, to maintain its quality, Beta
SP requires a data rate higher than that of SVHS when digitized
for computer use. More to the point, why didn't you use SVHS for
your transfer if you think it's superior? This isn't really
off-topic since this whole discussion is about getting the most
detail out of the AA footage. After all, you brought up the
topic of SVHS, I'm assuming, to point out the weakness of
BetaSP, though you used BetaSP to digitize from.

Either the issue of SVHS is pertinent to this discussion or it's
not. I say it is not since you didn't use SVHS for your
transfer, it isn't considered a broadcast standard, and its
picture doesn't look as good as BetaSP. Also, since the AA
footage is in black and white, the subcarrier issue is moot. If
you felt that SVHS gives more pure detail, then why not use it
instead of BetaSP? Frankly, the issue of SVHS is a non-issue, in
my opinion and there was no need to introduce it into this
discussion.

Continuing, you wrote:

 >>>A further point as to the image quality of the digitised
 >>>version, Theresa Carlson used a Betcam tape supplied by Ray
 >>>Santilli for her research, during which she "read" the "Danger"
 >>>sign wording. Looking at a single raw frame from my CD version
 >>>of the AA, this sign _can_ be read, it shows her "reading" of
 >>>the sign from her Betacam was incorrect, was her Betacam of
 >>>better image quality than my digitised version?.

I responded:

 >>If she couldn't read it, it is either
 >>because of her own inabilities to sort out detail or other
 >>technical problems associated with the display and/or the
 >>quality of the copy. Any inherent technical limitations of the
 >>BetaSP format would affect the two of you exactly the same.

But now we find out:

 >Nope, she was using a std's converted NTSC dupe, I was using a
 >straight PAL copy.

So, in the end, her problems with seeing detail probably had
more to do with losing about 100 lines of resolution during the
NTSC to PAL conversion than anything. Why didn't you reveal that
first instead of trying to promote the idea that BetaSP is
somehow too inferior for adequate inspection of the AA footage?

Continuing, I asked:

 >>In fact, if you feel that Super VHS is superior to Betacam SP,
 >>then why use a Betacam SP copy for your digitizing? Considering
 >>your position on the superior nature of SVHS and the reality of
 >>how cheap the SVHS machines are, compared to BetaSP, ($150
 >>versus $8,500) it would seem that SVHS would be your format of
 >>choice.

Neil replied:

 >Just pointing out the spec's Roger, by choice I'd be using DV now.
 >Use of Betacam was dictated by the format the material was placed
 >on back in 1995, now't to do with my preferences.

Super VHS has been available since around 1985 and the machines
are dirt cheap; cheaper than DV units are today. Just because
the original was on Betacam doesn't mean you couldn't get a SVHS
copy for your needs. Again, this issue is about what method
gives the best results. You seem to claim one thing but practice
something else.

Finally, I had written:

 >>None of this makes any difference, Neil. You're explaining the
 >>difference in displays and not the limitational differences in
 >>recorded formats. That's like explaining the luminance
 >>difference in headlights between one car over another as a
 >>performance indicator for their engines.

Neil replied:

 >Roger, how many lines does a broadcast NTSC picture
 >have?....525? If the data was generated with 525(or 625 with
 >PAL) you can have as fancy a recording rig as you like you're
 >not going to get any more verticle resolution out of it that
 >that.

Now, I understand your point. Yes, digitizing directly off of a
PAL tape is going to give far more detail than an NTSC tape if
the original was produced on PAL. My mistake. Because the AA
source footage was allegedly from the United States, as was the
Fox special, I forgot that the original AA transfer was done in
England on PAL. If this was the original point you were trying
to make, this is a long way around, to be sure.

Moving on I had asked:

 >>But since we're talking about resolution and bandwidth, did you
 >>transfer the BetaSP copy to computer via component, composite or
 >>SVHS inputs? If you are really serious about quality, component
 >>would be the _only_ correct way to do it. Anything less and
 >>you're leaving money on the table.

Neil replied:

 >Transfer was done via composite, that's what was available at the
 >time.

<snip>

 >the aim of the exercise was
 >to produce a version of the AA with better quality images than
 >those available on the _VHS_ versions and as close to the Beta
 >source as was possible with the equipment available.

Well, I don't have to explain how much degeneration of the image
occurs when you use composite instead of component. Beyond that,
I totally agree with your intent. Ultimately, you are correct
about getting a better transfer from something originally
produced on PAL than from an NTSC copy. In the end, this has
less to do with image quality of the CDs and more about what
format the original AA was produced on.

At this point, I would agree that, if I could open your CDs, I'd
_probably_ see more information on my computer than I would on
an NTSC copy of the Beta simply because the CDs would benefit
from the superior PAL resolution. However, how much detail would
be lost due to your use of a composite signal may be the great
equalizer, here. I'd be curious if a component copy in NTSC
would look much different, really.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:41:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:29:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:59:55 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Greg:

 >No, it means why waste time looking?

 >Evidently you have run out of arguments for the ETH, or
 >whatever, and can't think of anything else to say.

 >So you want a skeptic of UFO claims to give you examples from
 >your very short list of a couple skeptics of UFO
 >claims  you've
 >probably had a problem with in the past where they have been
 >skeptical of each other?

 >Maybe they aren't.

 >What the heck is the point, Greg?  Why should I care? If you're
 >too lazy to make your own arguments for the existance of little
 >green men, don't ask me to study my navel for you.

 >If you want to pick a fight with somebody, email them,
 >yourself,
 >I'm not going to do your homework for you.


1. Jerry Clark and I say that published UFO skeptics don't
  criticize each other.

2. Since Bob disagrees, I ask him to name examples.

3. He treats my question as a joke, and cites a reply by John
Rimmer.

4. I explain why Rimmer's reply - which cited only one or two
examples from his own publication - wasn't adequate, because it
didn't deal with years of data from the mainstream skeptical
community. I again challenge Bob to produce some citations of
skeptics criticizing each other.

5. Now Bob changes the subject, and ridicules me for allegedly
being unable to defend my alleged belief in little green men.

This debate wasn't about the ETH. I don't recall saying here
that I believe in "little green men." The debate was about the
conduct of skeptics - and, unfortunately, Bob has done nothing
for skeptics' reputation, with his current, stunning example of
bad faith and intellectual dishonesty.

For anyone who's seriously interested, I know of one example
from the open literature of one skeptic, at least, criticizing
others, though not specifically about UFOs. It's something
Murray Gell-Mann said, about the well-known American
publication, The Skeptical Inquirer. He said - unfortunately I
don't have the exact quote with me as I write this - that
skeptical writing in that magazine treated every case as
solvable, which was a mistake, because loose ends normally
remain in any investigation. I'm sure he didn't mean that some
UFO sightings represent genuine unknowns, but only that, in the
nature of things, sometimes you just can't tie down every last
detail.

Otherwise, I've heard Phil Klass - in an on-the-record interview
with me, but not in public - make criticisms of some of his
skeptical colleagues, which I won't repeat here, because they
were to some degree personal. I don't know that he's made
criticisms in public. As Jerry Clark has pointed out, some of
Menzel's conclusions were rejected by skeptical people in the
Air Force and (if I remember rightly) the Condon Committee, but
again that wasn't in public, and isn't in the skeptical
literature.

If anyone, speaking from any point of view - skeptical,
believing, or neutral - can provide some examples, I'd be happy
to have 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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                 Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:01:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:46:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee


 >From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:12:38 +0200


 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:39:45 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:31:23 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question

 ><snip>

 >>You would think, based on "eastonian reasoning" that if Rhoads
 >>had decided to create hoax photos he would have made the object

<snip>

 >Hi Bruce & Listers:

 >More than a year ago I was fairly convinced that the objects
 >Arnold saw,

 >http://www.project1947.com/fig/1947ka.htm

 >were pelicans, until I came across the letter from prospector
 >Frank Johnson to the Air Force, on the web, dated August 20th
 >1947:

 >http://www.project1947.com/fig/johns47.htm

 >with the following excerpt:

 >"(...)Sir.  Saw in the portland paper a short time ago in
 >regards to an article in regards to the so called flying disc"

 >After reading the letter I changed my mind, now being convinced
 >that Johnson shouldn't have any interest in _not_ telling the
 >truth to the Air Force, at least I couldn't think of any >
 >plausible explanation why he shouldn't tell the correct story.
 >Thus, Johnson -- allegedly -- observed the same number of
 >objects as Arnold, and at the same time (on June 24th). And
 >today I still agree on this explanation. There were thus --
 >allegedly -- two independent observers watching the objects in
 >the clear, or partly clear, sky.

Thanks for mentioning Fred Johnson. His sighting has been
mentioned on this list. He was interviewed by the FBI.

You can find out more about Arnold and Johnson in the article,
below, which appeared in the MUFON Symposium Proceedings of
1997. Fred Johnson's sighting is the first unidentified in the
AF file.


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/


JUNE 24, 1947: HOW IT ALL BEGAN

The Story of the Arnold Sighting
by
Bruce Maccabee

PRESENTED AT THE 1997 SYMPOSIUM OF THE MUTUAL UFO NETWORK
Grand Rapids, Michigan, July 12, 1997

(UPDATED to Sept. 1999)


INTRODUCTION

June 24, 1947. You will not find any conventional history book
that even so much as mentions that on that date there began the
public awareness of a phenomenon of such importance that it
could well be the most important phenomenon discovered in this
century, or even in the history of mankind. The important event
of that date was the sighting, by Kenneth Arnold, of a group of
strange flying objects which eventually became known throughout
the world as flying saucers, Unidentified Flying Objects or UFOs
(English, German, Japanese, etc.), OVNIs (Spanish, French) or
NLOs (Russian).

Since Kenneth Arnold�s story was publicized around the world
fifty years ago, sightings of UFOs/OVNIs/saucers have affected
the lives of thousands of people the world over. So, why haven�t
history books mentioned this very important event? Because the
subject of flying saucers has been considered to be largely
nonsense. Even though no one has yet offered a credible
explanation for Arnold�s sighting, it has been tacitly assumed
by the the majority of the academic community, the community
most likely to write history books, that Arnold�s sighting, and
the tens of thousands of others since his, have been explained
in many ways.

This assumption by conventional historians is based on the fact
that proposed explanations for Arnold�s sighting, and for the
other sightings, were widely publicized by the press, skeptical
scientists and the U.S. Air Force. Historians, not having the
necessary training in physical and perceptual sciences, could
not properly evaluate these explanations and therefore assumed
they were true. The failure of the Air Force or any other
government agency or group of people to provide absolutely
conclusive proof such as �hard evidence� (pieces of a saucer,
aliens, dead or alive) meant that there was no compelling reason
to question the explanations and so the explanations carried the
day.... and the day after that.... and the day after that....
Fifty years later these bogus explanations prevent June 24, 1947
from taking its rightful place in history. It is my intent in
this paper to show how the explanations have failed. In doing so
I hope to justify the inclusion of this day in future history
books.

PRE - HISTORY

Unknown to most of human society, during the spring of 1947
strange things were happening. Oddly shaped objects flying
through the skies were seen by a few people. These appeared to
be machines...but they weren�t any type of flying craft made by
mankind. They did not have aerodynamic shape, yet they traveled
at high speed. The sightings were miracles of a
sort...anomalous events with no explanation... a preview of
coming events. The sightings were portentous occurrences,
heralding the dawn of a new era, but the witnesses did not know
this. All the witnesses knew was that they had seen something
strange. Probably some new development of the Air Force, they
thought. After marveling at the sights, they forgot about them.
These sightings would have been lost in the their distant
memories, absent from history, if it hadn�t been for one man and
the events which followed his June sighting.

In January, 1947 a British Mosquito fighter aircraft chased
unknown flying object for half an hour off the coast of Britain.
In April, in Richmond, Virginia, meteorologists saw round
silvery objects fly past the meteorological balloons they were
tracking. In May a pilot who lived in Oklahoma City saw a huge,
shiny, disk-shaped object fly at a high speed and high altitude
over him (he was on the ground at the time) without making any
noise. During the same month seven employees of a railroad in
Colorado watched a strange object perform strange maneuvers for
several minutes. It looked metallic and it made no sound. Near
the end of May a doctor who was fishing in South Carolina saw
four discs which appeared to be spinning fly nearly overhead at
a high rate of speed. They made no sound. There were a few other
sightings in May and then the sighting rate began to increase in
June. The newspaper reports compiled by Ted Bloecher (reference
8) are known to be an underestimate of the true number of
sightings, but at least they give us an idea of what happened so
long ago. According to Bloecher there was approximately one
sighting every other day for the first half of the June. These
were scattered over the midwest and western United States. Then
the sighting rate doubled to about 2 per day until June 20.
Bloecher found 3 sightings for June 20, two for June 21, three
on June 22, six on June 23..... and then the explosion:
Bloecher found 20 reports on June 24! These were mostly in the
far northwestern states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho.
Sightings were scattered throughout the day from morning to
night. After the 24th the sighting rate stayed at about 10 per
day or higher, with sightings occurring not just in the west but
throughout the country. In early July the sighting rate climbed
beyond 20 per day to 88 sightings on July 4, 76 on July 5, 156
on July 6, 159 on July 7, and a whopping 189 on July 8. After
that it dropped quickly back to 20 per day and then only a few
per day. By the end of July the sighting rate was about one per
day and by August it was down to several per week. (Newspapers
reported a few sightings in other countries as well.)

********************************************************

What had happened? Had the American people undergone a
summertime �silly season?� Was there something in the air that
made people see things that were not there? If you looked at the
major national press for that period you would get the
impression that the citizens of the United States had been
spooked by some odd phenomenon which had burst upon the country
with great speed and fury and had departed just as suddenly.
After the 1947 flap was over there was no hard evidence - at
least none available to the general public - to prove that any
of the reported objects were real, i.e., solid, metallic
objects. There were only stories and a few disputed photos.
During the flap and afterward the U.S. government vehemently
denied responsibility for any sightings and furthermore the Army
Air Force claimed that a search for evidence of unusual flying
craft had produced nothing. By early July explanations were
running rampant and by late July the subject was being forgtten
by all but the witnesses themselves.... and the Air Force and
FBI. (Yes, the FBI did investigate sightings in 1947 and
collected flying saucer information for years afterward. The �X
files� are real! see ref. 12.)

During the first two weeks of the 1947 flap the press had a
generally positive attitude toward the sightings. There was a
feeling that something had really been seen and there were two
acceptable theories: advanced U.S. aircraft or enemy (Soviet)
aircraft. But when the government denied having any such
aircraft, and when it became apparent that the Soviets would be
foolish to fly any advanced aircraft over the United States, the
press became hostile to the idea that saucers were real flying
craft. Instead saucer sightings were explained as delusions,
motes in the eye, reflections off distant aircraft, ice
meteors(!), misidentified natural phenomena and atmospheric
effects such as mirages, hoaxes (of which there were a number)
or just plain tall stories by people wanting notoriety. By the
end of this period witnesses had been embarrassed and worse,
ridiculed, by the stories in the press. New witnesses just
decided to shut up. Even Mr. Arnold told the press that he would
not report anything else he might see.

Of course, the subject of flying saucers did not die with the
end of the flap. It just �went underground�...to pop up again
and again in one form or another as sightings ebbed and flowed
through the years following 1947. And, as students of the
subject well know, the Air Force did not forget the sightings.
For years there was a publicly known Air Force effort to analyze
sightings (projects called Sign, Grudge and Blue Book) and it
was one of these which tackled Kenneth Arnold�s sighting. The
Air Force in December, 1949, publicly claimed to have explained
the sighting....but had not, as you will see. Nevertheless, the
claim was enough to remove Arnold�s sighting from consideration
by historians. (Even some pro-UFO books have suggested that
Arnold saw a mirage.) Therefore, the reasoning went something
like this: if the first major occurrence of a what appears to be
a new phenomenon turns out to be faulty...then it is probable
that any other similar reports are also faulty. And, by this
logic the whole subject was rejected by conventional science,
the press and the history of the period.

However, as the following discussion shows, what was faulty was
not the �first� sighting. What was faulty was the reasoning
which led to various incorrect explanations.

**********************************************************

THE ARNOLD STORY
THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Summaries of Arnold's sighting report have been published in a
number of books (references 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) including his own
(ref. 10). Unfortunately these books leave out some of the
details that must be known in order to properly evaluate (and
reject!) the explanations that have been proposed. I, too, do
not have space to reproduce his sighting report (ref. 11)
verbatim. However, I will present most of the information so
that the reader will have a good understanding of what happened.

The Appendix contains a transcript of what was apparently the
first radio interview of Mr. Arnold. This presents a very brief
overview of the sighting as recalled the day afterward. Although
the information contained therein is not used in the following
reconstruction of the events, I present it here to show that his
basic story had not changed over the weeks between the sighting
and his letter to the Air Force, in which he presented his most
detailed recollections of his sighting.

WHAT WAS HE DOING BEFORE THE SIGHTING?

According to Mr. Arnold, at 2:00 PM, June 24, 1947 he took off
from Chehalis, in the state of Washington, in his small plane
after completing a business trip (he sold and installed fire
fighting equipment). He planned to spend about an hour searching
for a lost C-46 Marine transport plane that had crashed in the
mountains west-southwest of Mt. Rainier. (There was a $5,000
reward for finding the plane.) After searching for about an hour
and not finding anything he turned east toward his next
destination, Yakima, Washington. He was near Mineral,
Washington, about 22 miles west-southwest of Mt. Rainier and
Yakima was about 80 miles ahead of him along a flight path that
would take him just about 12 miles south of peak of Mt. Rainier.
He levelled out onto his new flight path he was at approximately
a 9,200 ft altitude. His sighting began within a minute or two
of the turn. Sentences and paragraphs taken from his Air Force
letter (ref. 11) are preceded by (L) and statements from his
book (ref. 10) are preceded by (B). As you read the following
story please keep in mind that this is history. It actually
happened!

******

THE SIGHTING BEGINS

(L) "The air was so smooth that day that it was a real pleasure
flying and, as most pilots do, when the air is smooth and they
are flying at a higher altitude, I trimmed out my airplane in
the direction of Yakima, which was almost directly east of my
position and simply sat in my plane observing the sky and
terrain. There was a DC-4 to the left and to the rear of me
approximately fifteen miles distance, and I should judge, at
14,000 ft. elevation.

******

COMMENT: The time was about 3:00 PM and the sun was just
slightly to the southwest of being directly overhead (azimuth
230 deg, elevation 60 deg.; this was only two days after the
summer solstice). It is important to notice how Arnold's
attention was first drawn to the presence of strange flying
objects because his initial observation rules out any
explanation that is based on things in the sky which are not
shiny (reflective, like a mirror) such as, for example, birds.
It also rules out atmospheric effects. Also, keep in mind the
general geometry of this sighting. The objects traveled almost
due south along a path that took them just west of Mt. Rainier.
Their travel path from about the location of Rainier to several
miles south of Rainier was essentially perpendicular to Arnold's
eastward line of sight. This was at the time they were closest
to Arnold.











CONNECT THE STARS IN THE FOLLOWING SKETCH TO MAKE THE PATH OF
THE SAUCERS

The following "map" is illustrative but not to scale (this may
not come out readable unless you use a variable character
spacing in your word processor)
The following "map" is illustrative but not to scale (this may not come out read
able unless you use a variable character spacing in your word processor)

                                        *

                                            *
                                                                      (R) = Mt.
Rainier
                                                      ((R))                  ___
_____
            (KA)  ---- 20 miles----   * ---|                          |
   (KA= Arnold's plane)               M                               |
                                                   M
   |
                                                   M  *
  |

      |  about
                                                    M   *   M
 47 miles
                 M = Mountains                                             |  pe
ak
                     South of                      M                          |
   to
                     Rainier
  |  peak
                 (not exact locations)         M                          |
                                                                 *
     |

      |
                                                                   *
     |

      |

      |
                                                                     *
     |
                                                                      (A )_____|
____
                                (A) = Mt. Adams
A) = Mt. Adams

(L) "The sky and air was as clear as crystal. I hadn't flown
more than two or three minutes on my course when a bright flash
of light reflected on my airplane. It startled me as I thought I
was too close to some other aircraft. (B) I spent the next
twenty to thirty seconds urgently searching the sky all around -
to the sides and above and below me - in an attempt to determine
where the flash of light had come from. The only actual plane I
saw was a DC-4 far to my left and rear, apparently on its San
Francisco to Seattle run. My momentary explanation to myself was
that some lieutenant in a P-51 had given me a buzz job across my
nose and that it was sun reflecting off his wings as he passed
that had caused the flash. Before I had time to collect my
thoughts or to find a close aircraft, the flash happened again.
This time I caught the direction from which it had come. I
observed, far to my left and to the north, a formation of very
bright objects coming from the vinicity of Mt. Baker, flying
very close to the mountain tops and traveling at tremendous
speed. (L) I observed a chain of nine peculiar looking aircraft
flying from north to south at approximately 9,500 ft elevation
and going, seemingly, in a definite direction of about 170
degrees.

************************************

COMMENT: Mt. Baker (altitude, 10,000 ft) is about 130 miles
north of Mt. Rainier. Even if the objects were not as far away
as Mt. Baker the flashes must have been very bright to be
visible over a great distance. (If the path of the objects as
estimated by Arnold, 170 degrees azimuth, is projected northward
from Mt. Rainier, his sighting line to Mt. Baker crosses the
projected path abou 50 miles from his plane, which is a more
likely distance for his initial observation of the flashes.)
This suggests that the flashes were reflections of sunlight from
mirror-like (specular) surfaces, i.e., a polished metal
surfaces. Sunlight flashes could be visible over distances as
great as a hundred miles under clear atmospheric conditions.
Anything less would be invisible over such a distance in the
bright sky. Since the sun was at an elevation of about 60 deg,
some portion of the object's surface must have been momentarily
at an angle of about 60 deg. to the horizontal in order to cause
a reflected sun ray to travel nearly horizontally in the
atmosphere from the object to Arnold's plane.

*******

DESCRIPTION AND TIMING THE FLIGHT BETWEEN POINTS

(B) "At first I couldn't make out their shapes as they were
still at a distance of over a hundred miles. I could see that
the formation was going to fly in front of me. I watched as
these objects approached the snow border of Mt. Rainier,
thinking all the time that I was observing a whole formation of
jets. In group count that I have used in counting cattle and
game from the air, they numbered nine. They were flying
diagonally in echelon formation with a larger gap in their
echelon between the first four and last five. What startled me
the most was the fact that I could not find any tails on them. I
felt sure that, being jets, they had tails, but figured they
must be camouflaged in some way so that my eyesight could not
perceive them. I knew that the Air Force was very artful in the
knowledge and use of camouflage. I observed the objects'
outlines plainly as they flipped and flashed against the snow
and also against the sky.

(L) Anyhow, I discovered that this was where the reflection had
come from, as two or three of them every few seconds would dip
or change course slightly, just enough for the sun to strike
them at an angle that reflected brightly on my plane.

(B) As they were traveling perpendicular to my path I was in an
excellent position to clock their speed and I determined to make
an attempt to do so. (L) I had two definite points I could clock
them by. (Note: by this he means Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams,
about 47 miles to the south). The air was so clear that it was
very easy to see the objects and determine their approximate
shape and size at almost fifty miles that day. I remember
distinctly that my sweep second hand on my eight day clock,
which is located on the instrument panel, read one minute to 3
PM as the first object of this formation passed the southern
edge of Mt. Rainier.

(L) I watched these objects with great interest as I had never
before observed airplanes flying so close to the mountain tops,
flying directly south to southeast down the hog's back of a
mountain range. I would estimate their elevation could have
varied a thousand feet one way or the other up or down, but they
were pretty much on the horizon to me which would indicate that
they were near the same elevation as me. They flew like many
times I have observed geese to fly in a rather diagonal
chain-like line as if they were linked together. They seemed to
hold a definite direction but rather swerved in and out of the
high mountain peaks. I could quite accurately determine their
pathway due to the fact that there were several high peaks a
little this side of them as well as higher peaks on the other
side of their pathway.

*******

COMMENT: These statements about how they flew with respect to
the mountain peaks are very important because they provide
information on the distance from Mr. Arnold. These mountain
peaks lie along a wide north-south line extending southward from
Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams. These peaks were about 20 miles east
of Arnold at the time. These statements also provide the
altitude of the objects. To Arnold they appeared to be
approximately at his altitude because they seemed to be "pretty
much on the horizon to me." Since he was flying at 9,200 ft,
this implies that they were close to that altitude. (Arnold
actually stated his letter that they were at 9,500 ft.) However,
the mountain peaks south of Rainier generally are 5,000 to 7,000
ft high, with the higher ones being farther away (more to the
east) from Arnold. Hence his statement that there were higher
peaks on the far side of the pathway indicates that the objects
were definitely lower than about 7,000 ft. Furthermore, he
stated that they went behind some (or at least one) of the
lower, closer peaks. Geological survey maps show that mountain
peaks which the objects could have disappeared behind have
altitudes of 5,000 to 6,000 ft. Hence it appears that they were
lower than 6,000 ft and that Arnold overestimated their
altitude.

Is it reasonable to assume that he could have made an error of
several thousand feet in estimating their altitude? The answer
to this question lies in the fact that Arnold inferred the
altitude by observing that the objects appeared to be almost
exactly on his horizon (i.e., level with his altitude). But it
is very difficult to determine the exact horizon from an
airplane. In this case, the angle (the "depression angle")
between exact horizontal and his downward sighting line to the
mountain peaks south of Mt. Rainier was very small. The
depression angle from Arnold's plane at 9,200 ft altitude to the
top of a 5,500 ft high mountain at a distance of 20 miles
(105,600 ft) was about 2 deg. Such a small angle would be
difficult to detect from an airplane. So the answer is yes, he
could easily have made an error of 4,000 ft in estimating the
altitude of the objects. Perhaps if he had looked up the actual
altitudes of the mountain peaks south of Mt Rainier he would
have revised his statement.

*******************

FORMATION AND �SKIPPING SAUCER� FLIGHT DYNAMICS

While Arnold was timing the flight he observed the objects
carefully. According to his letter, " I observed these objects
not only through the glass of my airplane but turned my airplane
sideways where I could open my window and observe them with a
completely unobstructed view. (Without sun glasses.)"

(B) "They didn't fly like any aircraft I had ever seen before.
In the first place their echelon formation was backward from
that practiced by our Air Force. The elevation of the first
craft was greater than that of the last. They flew in a definite
formation but erratically. As I described them at the time their
flight was like speed boats on rough water or similar to the
tail of a Chinese kite that I once saw blowing in the wind. Or
maybe it would be best to describe their flight characteristics
as very similar to a formation of geese, in a rather diagonal
chain-like line, as if they were linked together. As I put it to
newsmen in Pendleton, Oregon, they flew like a saucer would if
you skipped it across the water. They fluttered and sailed,
tipping their wings alternately and emitting those very bright
blue-white flashes from their surfaces. At the time I did not
get the impression that the flashes were emitted by them, but
rather that it was the sun's reflection from the extremely
highly polished surface of their wings.

(L) What kept bothering me as I watched them flip and flash in
the sun right along their path was the fact that I couldn't make
out any tail on them, and I am sure that any pilot would justify
more than a second look at such a plane. The more I observed
these objects the more upset I became, as I am accustomed and
familiar with most all objects flying whether I am close to the
ground or at higher altitude. Even though two minutes seems like
a very short time to one on the ground, in the air in two
minutes time a pilot can observe a great many things and
anything within his sight of vision probably as many as fifty or
sixty times. Of course, when the sun reflected from one or two
or three of these units, they appeared to be completely round;
but, I am making a drawing to the best of my ability, which I am
including, as to the shape I observed these objects to be as
they passed the snow covered ridges as well as Mt. Rainier. When
the objects were flying approximately straight and level, they
were just a black thin line and when they flipped was the only
time I could get a judgement as to their size. These objects
were holding an almost constant elevation; they did not seem to
be going up or coming down, such as would be the case of
artillery shells. I am convinced in my own mind that they were
some type of airplane, even though they didn't conform with the
many aspects of the conventional types of planes I know.

*******

COMMENT: In his letter Arnold included a sketch which shows the
leading edge being nearly a semicircle, with short parallel
sides and with the rear being a wide angle convex (protruding) V
shape that comes to a rounded point at the trailing edge. (See
also his recorded description in the Appendix: half a pie pan
with a convex triangle at the rear.) He wrote on the sketch
that "they seemed longer than wide, their thickness was about
1/20th of their width." His suggestion that their width (or
length) was about twenty times greater than their thickness may
be an exaggeration. The sketch he drew of how they appeared"on
edge" has the dimensions 4 mm wide by 45 mm long (approx.) which
suggests a ratio closer to 1/11. Although he did not mention it
in his letter, he later stated (e.g., in his book) that one of
the objects had a somewhat different shape. His book shows an
illustration in which the object has a semi-circular front edge
and a rear edge that consists of two concave edges that join at
a rearward pointing cusp at the center of the rear edge.

******

THE ANGULAR SIZE AND SPEED OF THE OBJECTS

(L) I knew they must be very large to observe their shape at
that distance, even on as clear a day as it was that Tuesday. In
fact I compared a zeus fastener or cowling tool I had in my
pocket - holding it up on them and holding it up on the DC-4 -
that I could observe at quite a distance to my left, and they
seemed smaller than the DC-4; but I should judge their span
would have been as wide as the furtherest engines on each side
of the DC-4.

(L) I observed the chain of these objects passing another
snow-covered ridge in between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams, and as
the first one was passing the south crest of this ridge the last
object was entering the northern crest of the ridge. As I was
flying in the direction of this particular ridge, I measured it
and found it to be approximately five miles so I could safely
assume that the chain of these saucer like objects were at least
five miles long.

(L) As the last unit of this formation passed the southern most
high snow covered crest of Mt. Adams, I looked at my sweep
second hand and it showed that they traveled the distance in one
minute and forty-two seconds. Even at the time this timing did
not upset me as I felt confident after I would land there would
be some explanation of what I saw. I might add that my complete
observation of these objects, which I could even follow by their
flashes as they passed Mt. Adams, was around two and one-half or
three minutes--although, by the time they reached Mt. Adams they
were out of my range of vision as far as determining shape or
form.

*******

COMMENT: Arnold provided an estimate of size in an indirect way:
he stated that they appeared to be comparable to the spacing of
the engines on a DC-4 (4 engine propellor driven, 117 ft
wingspan, 94 ft length, 27 ft height) which he had seen at a
distance which he estimated as 15 miles. He estimated the engine
spacing to be 45 - 50 ft, although 60 ft would have been a
better estimate. By this means he was essentially providing an
angular size, measured front-to-back, for the objects: the
equivalent of about 50 (or 60) ft at 15 miles. He reported the
size of the objects as 45 - 50 ft by comparison with the
airplane as if the plane had been at the same distance as the
objects. However, the plane was not at the same distance, so a
correction for the distance difference is necessary.

It is possible to make an estimate of the front-to-back size of
the objects assuming his estimate of the distance to the DC-4,
15 miles, was (approximately) correct. Using the outer engine
spacing as 60 ft, the angular size at his estimated distance is
60/(15 x 5280) = 0.00076 radians or about 2.6 minutes of arc (1
degree = 60 minutes = 0.0174 radians). Projecting this angle to
20 miles, the rough distance of the objects, would yield a size
of about (20 x 5280 x 0.00075 =) 80 ft. Had he overestimated the
distance to the DC-4 (if it had been less than 15 miles away)
the calculated angular size, and hence the calculated object
size would increase. If he underestimated the distance to the
DC-4, then the calculated size of the objects would decrease. My
own suspicion is that he overestimated the distance and that
therefore the objects were larger than 80 ft in length.
Unfortunately no investigator pursued this size estimate at the
time and with Arnold's death many years ago it is no longer
possible to improve the size estimate.

Using the dashboard clock in his airplane Arnold measured the
time from when the first object passed the side of Mt. Rainier
until the last object passed Mt. Adams. The distance from the
flank of Mt. Rainier to the peak of Mt. Adams is about 45 miles
(depending upon where on the side one picks as the starting
point). Since the length of the "chain" of objects was about 5
miles, the leading object was about 5 miles south of Mt. Adams
when the last object passed Mt. Adams. Hence the total distance
it (and the others) traveled was about 50 miles in 102 seconds.
This corresponds to a speed of about 1,760 mph. (Arnold
intentionally underestimated this speed, saying that it was
1,200 mph or more, which was still faster than any aircraft of
the day. Chuck Yaeger was the first person to "break" the "sound
barrier" at about 700 mph in October, 1947.)

Arnold estimated that he had the objects in view for a total of
about 2.5 to 3 minutes. During that time, if their speed was
constant, they may have traveled a total of 80 to 90 miles,
starting from a location about 30 or 40 miles north of Mt.
Rainier where Arnold first saw them (not from the 100 mile
distance near Mt. Baker, as Arnold had thought) to some distance
south of Mt. Adams, where they disappeared from view.

When Arnold landed at Yakima, Washington, he told some of the
people at the airport about these amazing high speed aircraft.

*******

ARNOLD REPORTS HIS SIGHTING

(L) When I landed at Yakima, Washington airport I described what
I had seen to my very good friend Al Baxter, who listened
patiently and was very courteous but in a joking way didn't
believe me.

******

COMMENT: Arnold then left the airport to fly to Pendleton,
Oregon on a business trip. The discussion of his sighting
presumably would have ended in Yakima if it hadn't been for the
fact that someone at the airport contacted the press to report
that some new, high speed aircraft had been sighted. When Arnold
arrived at Pendelton he was surprised to find a number of
reporters eager to learn about the new aircraft. Arnold told
them about the sighting and his (under)estimated speed of 1,200
mph. He then described how they flew: they wobbled and flipped,
like saucers skipping on the water. A reporter, hearing the
description, coined a name for the new aircraft, a name which we
have been stuck with ever since: FLYING SAUCERS.

*******

(L) I did not accurately measure the distance between these two
mountains (Note: Rainier and Adams) until I landed at Pendleton,
Oregon, that same day where I told a number of pilot friends of
mine what I had observed and they did not scoff or laugh but
suggested they might be guided missiles or something new. In
fact several former Army pilots informed me that they had been
briefed before going into combat overseas that they might see
objects of similar shape and design as I described and assured
me that I wasn't dreaming or going crazy. .....A former Army Air
Forces pilot ...(told me)..."What you observed, I am convinced,
is some type of jet or rocket propelled ship that is in the
process of being tested by our government or even it could
possibly be by some foreign government."

____________________________________________________________

  EXPLANATIONS OFFERED FOR KENNETH ARNOLD'S SIGHTING

The official Air Force explanation is that Arnold saw a mirage.
Having read the previous material you may wonder how the Air
Force could justify that explanation. The answer is not
straightforward. The Air Force intelligence officers who
investigated the initial saucer reports in the summer of 1947
and through the summer of 1948 treated all of the sightings,
including Arnold's, seriously. This was, at least in part, a
result of the fact that a number of Air Force pilots reported
seeing flying saucers. Arnold's sighting was included as
unexplained in the Top Secret intelligence memorandum compiled
by Air Force intelligence at the Pentagon during the late fall
of 1948 (ref. 3). However, in the early fall of 1948 General
Hoyt Vandenburg rejected the conclusion expressed in the
"Estimate of the Situation" that saucers were interplanetary
vehicles (See ref. 4. Captain Edward Ruppelt, who was the
director of Project Blue Book from late 1951 to early 1953,
wrote that the Estimate was written by technical intelligence
analysts at Wright Patterson AFB who had concluded, in August,
1948, that "interplanetary" was the only logical explanation.
They wrote the Estimate of the Situation and sometime in
September sent it to General Hoyt Vandenburg Chief of Staff of
the Air Force. He rejected the conclusion. The analysts, who
were the acknowledged experts in analysis of foreign aerodynamic
vehicles, then visited the general to argue their case, but they
were told by something like this: "Sorry,wrong answer!") By
rejecting the Estimate Vandenburg effectively established an Air
Force policy that the �interplanetary hypothesis� was not to be
considered as a possible explanation for any sighting. Another
alternative, that the Russians had made immense improvements on
German aircraft developed during WWII and were flying their new
aircraft over the United States, was too much for the
intelligence analysts to accept. Therefore they were forced to
come up with some conventional explanation for each sighting
even if there was no logical conventional explanation. The "urge
to explain" biased the sighting analyses done during Projects
Grudge (1949-1951) and Blue Book (1951 - 1969). This sorry
situation is described more fully, with numerous examples, in
ref. 12.

Explanations for Arnold's sighting were proposed by two
scientists with close connections to the Air Force project.
These skeptical scientists were Dr. J. Allen Hynek and Dr.
Donald Menzel. Dr. Hynek, a professor at Ohio State University
and then at Northwestern University, was the astronomy
consultant to the Air Force's UFO projects starting with Project
Sign in 1948 and continuing through the end of Project Blue Book
in 1969. Although his specialty was astronomy he was asked to
suggest explanations for all types of sightings. Dr. Menzel was
an astrophysicist and director of the Harvard Observatory during
the same time period. Dr. Hynek, who died in 1986, reversed his
skeptical stance toward UFO reports in the late 1960's and, in
1973, founded the Center for UFO Studies, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Menzel, who died in 1976, never retreated
from his published opinion that all sightings by credible
observers could be explained, many as meteorological phenomena.

In 1948 Dr. Hynek (who was not aware of the Top Secret Air
Intelligence Report (ref. 3)) was hired to analyze sightings and
to decide which ones could be catagorized as misidentified
astronomical phenomena. As a "side benefit" to the Air Force he
also gave his opinion on the other sightings, including
Arnold's. (rev. 9)

Hynek began his analysis of the sighting by assuming that at
least part of what Arnold said was true: that Arnold could see
the overall shape of the objects, that he could see them
edge-on, and that he thought their width was about twenty times
greater than their thickness. Hynek decided to try to calculate
their size based on the basic visual capabilities of the human
eye. He pointed out that the angular resolution of the human eye
is typically about 3 minutes of arc (1 minute of arc = 1/60 of a
degree = 0.00029 radians = 0.29 mr, where mr is the abbreviation
for milliradians; the angular size of the moon is about 1/2
degree or about 30 minutes of arc or about 8.7 mr). He then
claimed that if the vertical angular size, i.e., the apparent
thickness, were substantially less than this, Arnold could not
have seen the objects. Hence, Hynek concluded that the thickness
must have been at least 3 minutes of arc (about one tenth of the
apparent size of the moon). Hynek calculated that this angular
size corresponds to a thickness of about 100 feet at the
greatest distance estimated by Arnold, 25 miles. Therefore, if
Arnold's 20:1 ratio of length to thickness were correct, then
the objects were about about 2,000 ft long. Dr. Hynek could not
accept the idea that 2,000 ft long objects were flying at high
speed through the earth's atmosphere. It was just too
ridiculously large.

But, on the other hand, Arnold had not said that the objects
were that large. He had estimated that the objects were the size
of fighter aircraft with typical lengths of 40 to 50 ft. One may
imagine Hynek saying to himself, �Aha, a contradiction! There
must be an error in Arnold�s estimates.� Hynek calculated that
if, indeed, they had been this short then they would have been
too small for Arnold to see any details. Furthermore, if the
20:1 ratio were correct, they would have been too thin to see
edge-on if 25 miles away. Thus Hynek noted an inconsistency in
Arnold's report: if the objects' size and distance were as
estimated by Arnold he could not have seen any details of their
shape because he could not have been seen them at all!

Hynek decided to resolve the inconsistency by ignoring both
Arnold's distance and size estimates. Instead, Hynek argued that
if the objects were a more reasonable size, say, the size of the
largest known aircraft, roughly 400 ft long and 30 feet high,
then they must have been much closer to Arnold in order for them
to be seen "edge on." Hynek estimated their distance at 6 miles.
At this distance the aircraft could appear (from the position of
Arnold's plane) to travel past Mt. Rainier and then past Mt.
Adams in 102 seconds if their speed were only about 400 mph.
Hynek concluded as follows: "in view of the above (calculations)
it appears probable" that Arnold saw "some sort of known
aircraft."

As a result of Hynek's discussion of the discrepancy between
Arnold's estimates of the distance and size of the objects, the
Air Force officers who wrote the final report of Project Grudge
in the spring of 1949 decided that "the entire report of this
incident is replete with inconsistencies and cannot bear even
superficial examination." (ref. 9)

So, what about Hynek's argument that the objects would have been
too thin to be visible, based on his claim that the human eye
can't see something smaller than 3 arc minutes in angular size?
Does it make any sense at all? The answer to this question is
no, and it comes in two parts. First, the fact is that many
people can "see" objects smaller than 3 arc minutes in angular
size, especially if they are larger than this in one dimension
(e.g., like a long cylinder, such as a long wire, viewed from
the side). The second part of the answer comes directly from
Arnold's report to the Air Force. Although it would have been
"nice" if Arnold could have taken an eye test to provide Hynek
with actual visual acuity data, the fact is that some
information in his report, information that Hynek ignored,
provides us with a clue as to Arnold's visual acuity. He said he
was able to see a DC-4 at 15 miles (estimated distance) and he
compared the spacing of the engines on the plane with the
apparent size of the saucers. With its visible height of about
23 ft, the vertical angular size of the DC-4 at that distance
was about 0.00034 radians or about 1 arc minute. (Even if Arnold
overestimated the distance and it was really 10 miles away then
vertical angular size would still have been less then 2 arc
minutes.) Hence, by Hynek's criterion, Arnold should not have
been able to see the DC-4, and certainly he wouldn't have been
able to see the engines and thereby to see the spacing of the
engines. But Arnold said that he did see the airplane and its
engines and Hynek did not dispute that statement. Therefore
Hynek's objection...the "inconsistency"... must be rejected.

Had Dr. Hynek tested his hypothetical explanation - "known
aircraft" - against the information in Arnold's report he might
have rejected his own explanation. To test Hynek's explanation
assume that the unknown objects were ordinary large aircraft six
miles away and ask the following question: why wasn't Arnold
able to identify them, to see their engines, tails, wings, etc.,
even though Arnold was able to identify another aircraft that
was about 15 miles away? Evidently Hynek did not notice the
inconsistency in his own analysis. Had Hynek done what skeptics
usually fail to do, that is, to thoroughly test his suggested
explanation against the data, he would have seen that his
hypothetical solution failed.

It is amusing to imagine what would have happened if Hynek had
accepted Arnold's distance estimate. Then he would have been
forced to accept the high velocity (about 1,700 mph), in which
case it is conceivable that the early history of the UFO subject
would be different from what actually occurred. But instead,
Hynek, for good scientific reasons, I presume, chose to take the
road more traveled by...to reject important parts of Arnold's
sighting...and that has made all the difference (with apologies
to poet Robert Frost!). The handwriting was on the wall, but
Hynek looked the other way.

Dr. Hynek's work was done secretly for the Air Force and his
discussion of Arnold's sighting was not published, although his
conclusion was mentioned in the "Project Saucer" report
published by the Air Materiel Command at Wright Field (now
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) on April 27, 1949. Few civilian
scientists had access to Air Force files and so there was no
dispute of Hynek's analysis until Dr. Donald Menzel decided to
write about Arnold's sighting in his first book on UFOs, which
was published in 1953 (ref. 5). This was the first flying saucer
book by a scientist and, because of his stature in the field of
astrophysics, it was treated very seriously. It received
favorable reviews, although there were some atmospheric
scientists who questioned Menzel's use of weather phenomena to
explain sightings. Libraries and scientific organizations
throughout the United States and in other countries ordered the
book and it became an important reference for scientists in the
following years. In retrospect this is unfortunate since, as I
will demonstrate, Menzel did not provide accurate descriptions
of some sightings and he apparently slanted the data as
necessary to make his explanations fit, beginning with Arnold's
sighting.

Menzel criticized the Air Force for accepting Hynek's suggestion
that Arnold had seen rather close aircraft. He gave a brief
description of Arnold's sighting and mentioned Arnold's estimate
of distance and total sighting duration (3 minutes). Menzel
wrote, "He clocked the speed at about 1,200 miles an hour,
although this figure seems inconsistent with the length of time
that he estimated them to be in view. From his previous
statement they could scarcely have traveled more than 25 miles
during the three minutes that he watched. This gives about 500
miles an hour, which is still a figure large enough to be
startling.." Menzel did not tell the reader that Arnold had
timed the flight of the objects between two points. Instead,
Menzel invented a travel distance of 25 miles, and implied that
this distance was covered in 3 minutes (180 seconds). Hence he
was able to assign a much lower, although "startling," speed of
500 mph.

Menzel went on to "solve" the mystery of Arnold's sighting:
"Although what Arnold saw has remained a mystery until this day,
I simply cannot understand why the simplest and most obvious
explanation of all has been overlooked.... the association of
the saucers with the hogback (of the mountain range south of Mt.
Rainier).... serves to fix their distance and approximate size
and roughly confirms Arnold's estimate of the speed." (note that
Menzel, unlike Hynek, accepted Arnold's distance estimate).
Menzel then went on to suggest that Arnold saw "billowing blasts
of snow, ballooning up from the tops of the ridges" caused by
highly turbulent air along the mountain range. According to
Menzel, "These rapidly shifting, tilting clouds of snow would
reflect the sun like a mirror...and the rocking surfaces would
make the chain sweep along something like a wave, with only a
momentary reflection from crest to crest."

This first explanation by a scientist with the reputation of Dr.
Menzel may seem slightly convincing, but only until one realizes
that (a) snow cannot reflect light rays from the sun (60 deg
elevation angle) into a horizontal direction toward Arnold's
airplane and thereby create the very bright flashes that Arnold
reported in the same way that a polished metal surface or mirror
would, (b) there are no 1,200 mph or even 500 mph winds on the
surface of the earth to transport clouds of snow (fortunately!),
(c) there are no winds that would carry clouds of snow all the
way from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams (Arnold saw the objects pass
Mt. Adams before they were lost to his view), (d) Arnold flew
eastward along a path that took him south of Mt. Rainier minutes
later and surely his plane would have been strongly buffeted
(and perhaps destroyed!) by such high winds, but he reported,
instead, very calm conditions, (e) an atmospheric oscillation
wave can't bend or reflect light over an angle of nearly 60
degrees, which would be necessary to make it appear as if the
sun had been reflected by objects nearly at Arnold's altitude,
and (f) an atmospheric oscillation wave with a "phase velocity"
of 1,200 mph is unlikely, but in any case, when traveling
southward its crests would be oriented east-west, so if it
reflected any sunlight at all (highly unlikely), the reflection
would be in the north-south direction and not westward toward
Arnold's plane. Furthermore, even if such amazing atmospheric
phenomena had occurred, it is difficult to imagine how Arnold
could have failed to realize that he was just seeing snow
blowing from the mountain tops, especially since he flew over
the mountains about 12 miles south of Mt. Rainier on his way
east just a few minutes after the sighting.

In case the first explanation wasn't sufficiently convincing,
Menzel offered "another possibility:" he suggested that perhaps
there was a thin layer of fog, haze or dust just above or just
below Arnold's altitude which was caused to move violently by
air circulation and which reflected the sunlight. Menzel claimed
that such layers can "reflect the sun in almost mirror fashion."
Menzel offered no substantiation for this claim. Perhaps he was
thinking in terms of a "reflection" from an atmospheric layer
when the sun is so low on the horizon that the light rays make a
"grazing angle" with the layer. If so, then that explanation as
applied to the Arnold sighting makes no sense since the sun was
at an elevation of 60 degrees and southwest of Arnold.
Furthermore, layers form under stable conditions and violent air
circulation would tend to break them up so there would be no
"reflections" of sunlight. Again, one wonders how Arnold could
have failed to notice that he was just seeing the effects of a
haze layer.

Ten years after his first book, Dr. Menzel offered his third,
fourth and fifth explanations in his second book (ref. 6,
written with Lyle Boyd): mountain top mirages, "orographic
clouds" and "wave clouds in motion". To support the third
explanation he presented a photograph of mountain top mirages
taken by a photographer many years earlier, and proposed by the
photographer, as the explanation for Arnold's sighting. (This is
the explanation which appears in the files of Project Blue Book,
the "official" Air Force explanation. These files are available
to be reviewed on microfilm at the National Archives.) The
mirages appear as vague images above the tops of the mountains.
(Actually the mirage is an inverted image of the top of the
mountain.) These mirages can be seen under proper atmospheric
conditions (requiring a stable atmosphere) when the line of
sight from the observer to the mountain top is tilted by no more
than one half of a degree above or below horizontal.
Unintentionally (or intentionally?) Menzel failed to report in
his book the following information in Arnold's report: as they
traveled southward he saw them silhouetted against the side of
Mt. Rainier which is 14,400 ft high, much higher than the
altitude of the saucers. Since mountain top mirages occur above
the mountain peaks these objects were far below any mirage of
Mt. Rainier. Of course, mountain top mirages stay above the tops
of the mountains, so the mirage theory cannot explain the
lateral high speed movement of the objects reported by Arnold.
Nor can a mirage explain the brght flashes of light from the
objects.

Menzel's fourth explanation was that Arnold saw orographic
clouds which can assume circular shapes and often form in the
lees (i.e., downwind of) mountain peaks. The clouds would, of
course, be large but, as Menzel notes in his book, they "appear
to stand more or less motionless." The lack of motion, as well
as the lack of bright reflections, rules them out so, why did he
even mention them? Also, Arnold would have realized they were
just clouds as he flew past Mt. Rainier only minutes later.

Menzel's fifth explanation, wave clouds, is comparable to his
first suggestion of "billowing blasts" of snow except that this
time he proposed clouds of water vapor instead of snow. In his
second book this explanation was supported by a photograph of
such a cloud taken by a newspaper photographer. However, this
explanation, too, fails to account for the very bright
reflections reported by Arnold, for distinct semi-circular
shapes and for the high lateral speed. Again, Arnold surely
would have recognized a cloud as he flew past Mt. Rainier.

In his third and last UFO book (ref. 7; written with Dr. Ernst
Taves in the early 1970's, just before Menzel died), which is
subtitled "The Definitive Explanation of the UFO Phenomenon,"
Menzel again discussed Arnold's sighting and offered his sixth
(and last) explanation: Arnold saw water drops on the window of
his aircraft.

To support this explanation Menzel described a sighting of his
own that turned out to be water drops that had condensed on the
outside of the window of an aircraft in which he was flying.
They moved slowly backwards from the front of the window. They
were so close to his eyes as he looked out the window that they
were out of focus and he thought they were distant objects
moving at a great speed until, after a few seconds, he refocused
his eyes and discovered what they were. In comparing his
"sighting" with Arnold's, Menzel writes: "I cannot, of course,
say definitely that what Arnold saw were merely raindrops on the
window of this plane. He would doubtless insist that there was
no rain at the altitude at which he was flying. But many queer
things happen at different levels in the earth's atmosphere."

Although no one would argue with Menzel's claim that "queer
things" happen at different levels of the atmosphere, this fact
is irrelevant. Had Menzel bothered to carefully read Arnold's
letter to the Air Force he would have seen Arnold's statement
that he turned his plane sideways and viewed the objects through
an open window to be sure that he was getting no reflections
from window glass. (Fortunately Menzel did not propose water
drops on Arnold's eyes!)

The �bottom line� is that neither Hynek nor Menzel proposed
reasonable explanations for Arnold�s sighting, but that didn't
stop the Air Force from accepting one of them (mirage).

Recently (1998-99) some skeptics have proposed that Arnold saw a
flight of geese or pelicans heading southward at high altitude
(about 9,000 ft). These birds were proposed because they can fly
quite rapidly, perhaps up to 50 miles per hour. Of course they
would have been quite close to Arnold for him to see them (80 ft
objects at 20 miles subtend the same angle as 4 ft long objects
at 1 mile; this size refers to the length of the bodies of the
birds; the wings would have been seen nearly edge-on and so,
although the wingspan might be as much as 12 ft, this size would
not have been seen broadside, but in a foreshortened
perspective). Of course, these birds would not cause bright
mirror-like reflections of the sun but, as skeptics often do,
they ignored that "minor" detail or tried to imagine that Arnold
incorrectly reported the bright "flashing" of these objects
(perhaps assuming that Arnold got it wrong or simply lied about
it). They also ignored Arnold's claim that he turned his plane,
rolled down his window (to view them without glass in the way)
and flew parallel to the flight path of the objects for a short
time. Arnold did not report his air speed. However, because of
the type of aircraft he was flying his speed would definitely
have been above a stall speed of 80 mph and probably above 100
mph. By drawing a map, using a reasonable assumption about
Arnold's flight path and and a reasonable assumption about the
path of hypothetical pelicans or geese, one can show that the
birds would never appear to pass Mt. Rainier and then, 100 or so
seconds later, appear to pass Mt. Adams, from Arnold's (moving)
perspective. Rather, Arnold would be more likely to cross their
flight track and have to look backward at them. In any case he
would have realized immediately that they were relatively slow
compared to his speed and certainly he wouldn't have estimated
their speed at anything like 1,700 miles per hour, or even 100
miles per hour. In other words, had they been birds, even if
unrecognized by Arnold, he would have had no reason to think
that he was seeing radically new aircraft with extreme flight
capabilities, so his whole report would have to be a
fabrication. In June, 1997, just in time for the 50th
anniversary of Arnold's sighting, San Francisco Examiner writer
Keay Davidson published another suggested explanation: meteors.
The details of the explanation are given in a small monthly
publication by Philip Klass which he calls the Skeptics UFO
Newsletter (SKUFON; issue #46 of July 1997). (One wonders why it
took 50 years for this explanation to be proposed. Could it be
that previous skeptics considered this to be just too
"outrageous?") Mr. Klass has been writing articles and books
purporting to explain UFO sightings for at least the last 30
years, yet he has not previously "explained" the Arnold
sighting. (His first book, UFOS IDENTIFIED was published in
1968.) According to Mr. Klass writing in SKUFON the new
explanation was published by Mr. Davidson after some research
that was "sparked by a conversation" with Mr. Klass. The exact
nature of this conversation was not reported, but one may
imagine Klass suggested that Davidson ought to check on the
possibility that Arnold saw meteors. According to Klass, after
some research Davidson discovered that "the number of meteor
falls reaches a peak around 3:00 PM," in June in the northern
hemisphere. Arnold's sighting occurred at 3:00 PM, June 24,
1947. Thus, according to Klass' article, the large number of
meteors detected in June lends support to the meteor hypothesis.
(The astute reader will note the careful, "lawyerly" use of
words: "lends support to" which is not the same as "proves" or
"is evidence for.") Klass' SKUFON article mentions Arnold's
statement that the objects seemed bright and shiny as if
reflecting the sun. By way of comparison and explanation Klass
cites the 6:00 PM, June, 5, 1969 pilot sighting, which he claims
turned out to be several meteors, in order to point out that
meteors, when seen in the daytime, can look as if they are shiny
metal. These pilots saw the bright objects seeming to come
toward them (i.e., they were looking along the trajectory of the
objects) and thought they were looking at shiny metallic
objects. The pilots thought the objects were close, when in fact
they were over a hundred miles away. Klass also pointed out that
pilots can make errors (as if we didn't know that!). The
implication is that if the 1969 pilots could mistake daytime
meteors for UFOS, then perhaps Arnold did, also. However, the
Arnold sighting was quite different from the 1969 sighting.

Arnold reported seeing repeated bright flashes at varying time
intervals from nine objects traveling one after another, along a
roughly horizontal trajectory. Their altitude was about 6,000 ft
(since they traveled at the level of the mountain peaks south of
Mt. Rainier). He realized that the flashes occurred as the
objects tilted steeply to the left and right as they flew along
a southward path. Arnold concluded that the flashes were a
result of reflections of light from the sun which was high in
the sky to the west (behind him). The objects flew southward
past Mt. Rainier and, when they weren't tilted, he saw them as
thin dark lines silhouetted against the snow on the sides of Mt.
Rainier. When they were tilted but not aligned with the sun so
as to make a bright flash, he saw them as semi-circular at the
front with convex, somewhat pointed rear ends (one seemed to
have a double concave crescent shape at the rear).

By way of contrast, meteors which are traveling fast enough to
appear to glow do not dim to the point of being "not bright" and
then brighten again. This is because, as Klass correctly points
out, what causes the light is the high velocity of the meteor
passing through atmosphere. The meteor is traveling so fast that
it "instantaneously" heats the air as it passes through. (Note:
Klass gives a meteor speed as 10,000 mph or 2.8 mi/sec. However,
this is lower than that of any body entering the earths
atmosphere from space. Free fall to the earth from a great
distance would produce a speed of about 7.4 mi/sec at the
earth's surface in the absence of atmosphere. Orbital speed,
which is lower than meteoric speed but still large enough to
cause a plasma in the upper atmosphere, is about 5 mi/sec.)
This heating is a very rapid process caused by the meteor
compressing the air ahead of it and raising the temperature
(kinetic energy of the air molecules) to the point where the air
becomes ionized (a plasma). In returning to the un-ionized
state (free electrons reuniting with the atoms/molecules) the
atoms/molecules give off light which appears to envelop the
meteor (one does not see the meteor itself, but rather the
envelope of heated air). The natural tendency of a meteor is to
slow down as it meets with resistance while forcing itself at
high speed through the atmosphere. If it slows to a speed low
enough so that it no longer creates a plasma it will become dark
(not giving off light) and will not again appear bright since
there is no way for it to regain its lost speed. At the high
altitudes of meteors (50 miles and up) the atmosphere is quite
thin and easily heated to the plasma state by the speed of the
meteor. Furthermore the air resistance is quite low, so the
meteor can travel a great distance before being slowed to
"sub-plasma" speed. However, as the altitude decreases the
atmospheric density increases and it takes ever more energy from
the meteor to maintain a glowing plasma. It is doubtful that
any meteor would be still glowing at an altitude of 10,000 ft,
but if it were, it would be quite large and eventually slowed to
the point of hitting the earth. The suggestion that one.. or
several... meteors could travel many miles horizontally at a
speed high enough to glow while at an altitude below 10,000 ft
is not supported by any known physics of meteors.

Klass points out that Arnold estimated he saw the objects for 2
1/2 to 3 minutes. This included about 1/2 minute of time before
they passed Mt. Rainier and another nearly 2 minutes after they
passed Rainier. This would be "extra long" for a meteor (most
burn out in a second or so; large meteors called fireballs can
last many seconds). Hence Klass argues that Arnold's time
estimate was probably wrong. He points out that "witnesses are
notoriously unreliable in estimating the time duration of
unexpected events" and cites the Mar. 3, 1968 reentry of the
Zond Soviet space rocket as an example in which witness errors
resulted in sighting duration estimates as low as 15 seconds and
as high as 5 minutes.

There is an important difference between Klass' example of
witness error and the Arnold sighting: Arnold used a clock!

Klass acknowledges that Arnold used his dashboard clock to time
the passage of the objects between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams but
Klass does not mention the time duration reported by Arnold.
Instead, he writes as follows: "SUN questions whether
Arnold...who was focusing his attention on the unusual obejcts
while also occupied flying his aircraft... would have taken his
eyes off the objects to carefully observe his cockpit clock." In
other words, Klass questions the accuracy of the witness' claims
about his own actions. If the actions seem illogical to Klass,
then the actions are suspect and, of course, any data resulting
from the actions are suspect.

So, why did Arnold do such an "illogical" thing as look at his
dashboard clock as the objects were disappearing? Even though
Klass used Arnold's letter to the Air Force as a reference, he
does not tell his readers that Arnold wrote that he
intentionally measured the speed: "I had two definite points I
could clock them by" (he was referring to Mt. Rainier and Mt.
Adams) He reported that he could see the objects were flying
southward so he looked at his dashboard clock as the first
object passed the south flank of Mt. Rainier. He then watched
the objects as they continued southward. During this time the
objects passed over a ridge that is about 5 miles long.
According to Arnold "the first one was passing the south crest
of the ridge" as the last one "was entering the northern crest."
Hence they covered a total distance of about 5 miles. By the
time they were passing Mt. Adams they were so far away he could
only see their flashes. At this point there was *no reason to
continue watching carefully* because they were fading out in the
distance. Therefore he wasn't missing anything by taking his
eyes off the objects to look at the clock. The second hand on
his clock showed that 102 seconds had passed. (Note: he was able
to pay attention to the objects even though flying the plane
because, as he reported, the atmosphere was calm and clear and
there were no aircraft in his vicinity; the closest aircraft was
roughly 15 miles north and heading away from him.)

The calculated speed based on Arnold's measured time between
Rainier and Adams is by itself sufficient to reject the meteor
explanation (is this why Klass did not report the calculated
speed?). The objects traveled about 50 miles in 102 seconds,
corresponding to a speed of about 1,700 mph, far below any
meteoric speed and certainly not enough to make the atmosphere
glow.

By way of comparison, if one were to hypothesize a meteor in a
level trajectory traveling at essentially orbital speed but at
an altitude of 6,000 ft, it would have required roughly 9 - 10
seconds to travel from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams. Even at Klass'
underestimated speed of 10,000 mph the flight time between the
peaks would be only about 17 seconds. One would hope that
Arnold, using his dashboard clock, could tell the difference
between 102 seconds and 10 (or 17) seconds.

Aside from the difficulty in imagining that Arnold could mistake
10 seconds for 102 seconds, the mere suggestion that a meteor,
or nine such meteors, could travel at a meteoric speed at an
altitude of 6,000 ft while glowing brightly is far outside the
accepted meteor phenomenology. Meteors cool as they penetrate
the lower atmosphere, or rather the speed decreases to the point
that they are no longer ionizing the dense air. Hence the basic
concept that Arnold saw bright meteors traveling past Mt.
Rainier must be rejected.

Consider, now the number of explanations offered for the Arnold
sighting: mirage (Hynek), blasts of snow (Menzel), haze
reflection (Menzel), mirage (Menzel), orographic clouds
(Menzel), wave clouds in motion (Menzel, water drops on the
windshield (Menzel), birds (recent skeptics) and meteors
(Klass/Davidson).

With all these available explanations, surely the Arnold
sighting has been explained? NOT!

________________________________________________________
THE PROSPECTOR'S SIGHTING

As fate would have it, a second witness saw the same objects as
Arnold. His sighting occurred just as Arnold was losing sight of
them near Mt. Adams. (Dr. Hynek evidently was not aware of this
because he indicated in his analysis of the Arnold sighting that
there were no other witnesses.)

In the latter half of August the Air Force received an
unsolicited letter dated August 20, 1947, which reads as follows
(the errors in the original letter are preserved; emphasis
added):

*****

Sir. Saw in the portland paper a short time ago in regards to an
article in regards to the so called flying disc having any basis
in fact. I can say am a prospector and was in the Mt Adams
district on June 24th the day Kenneth Arnold of Boise Idaho
claims he saw a formation of flying disc. And i saw the same
flying objects at about the same time. Having a telescope with
me at the time i can asure you they are real and noting like
them I ever saw before they did not pass verry high over where I
was standing at the the time. plobly 1000 ft. they were Round
about 30 foot in dimater tapering sharply to a point in the head
and in an oval shape. with a bright top surface. I did not hear
any noise as you would from a plane. But there was an object in
the tail end looked like a big hand of a clock shifting from
side to side like a big magenet. There speed as far as i know
seemed to be greater than anything I ever saw. Last view I got
of the objects they were standing on edge Banking in a Cloud.

  Yours Respectfully

  (Fred Johnson)

*******

(Note: the Blue Book file page which contains this letter is
labelled "A TRUE COPY" that was authenticated by Lt. Col. Donald
Springer. I assume that the errors in the above letter were in
the original letter and were not simply errors in copying.)

At this time during the summer of 1947 the FBI was actively
investigating sightings, at the request of the Army Air Force,
to determine whether or not any such reports could be part of
subversive activities carried on by enemies of the United
States. (Yes, the "X-Files" are real,as described in ref. 12.
The FBI ended these investigations, having found no evidence of
subversion, in the fall of 1947.) Therefore, at the request of
the Air Force, an FBI agent interviewed Mr. Johnson. He sent a
copy of his report to FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, with
the title "REPORTS OF FLYING DISCS, SECURITY MATTER -X." This
report was discovered when the FBI responded to a Freedom of
Information Act request which I made in 1976 for any documents
concerning flying saucers, UFOs, etc. The FBI found well over
1,000 pages of material relating to the Air Force investigation
of UFOs, internal memoranda and sightings reported to FBI (see
ref. 12). The FBI report on Johnson's sighting reads as follows:

*******

(Fred Johnson, resident of) First Avenue, Portland (Oregon),
reported without consulting any records that on June 24, 1947,
while prospecting at a point in the Cascade Mountains
approximately five thousand feet from sea level, during the
afternoon he noticed a reflection, looked up, and saw a disc
proceeding in a southeasterly direction. Immediately upon
sighting this object he placed his telescope to his eye and
observed the disc for approximately forty-five to sixty seconds.
He remarked that it is possible for him to pick up an object at
a distance of ten miles with his telescope. At the time the disc
was sighted by Johnson it was banking in the sun, and he
observed five or six similar objects but only concentrated on
one. He related that they did not fly in any particular
formation and that he would estimate their height to be about
one thousand feet from where he was standing. He said the object
was about thirty feet in diameter and appeared to have a tail.
It made no noise.

According to Johnson he remained in the vicinity of the Cascades
for several days and then returned to Portland and noted an
article in the local paper which stated in effect that a man in
Boise, Idaho, had sighted a similar object but that authorities
had disclaimed any knowledge of such an object. He said he
communicated with the Army for the sole purpose of attempting to
add credence to the story furnished by the man in Boise.

Johnson also related that on the occasion of his sighting the
objects on June 24, 1947 he had in his possession a combination
compass and watch. He noted particularly that immediately before
he sighted the disc the compass acted very peculiar, the hand
waving from one side to the other, but that this condition
corrected itself immediately after the discs had passed out of
sight.

Informant appeared to be a very reliable individual who advised
that he had been a prospector in the states of Montana,
Washington and Oregon for the past forty years.

*******

Mr. Johnson's letter to the Air Force indicates that he was in
the right area at the right time to see the objects which Arnold
reported. Johnson, like Arnold, reported that his attention was
attracted to them by a reflection, possibly a flash of light on
the rocks he was examining. He reported only five or six, but it
is likely that he missed seeing the others as he concentrated on
his telescopic view of a single one. (Also, he was recalling the
event almost two months after it occurred, so he may well have
forgotten some details, such as the exact number of objects.)
Adding his estimated distance of the objects above him, 1,000
ft, to his estimated altitude, 5,000 ft, yields an altitude for
the UFOs, about 6,000 ft, which is consistent with the altitude
indicated by Arnold's claim that they were traveling "in and
out" of the mountain peaks south of Mt. Rainier.

Johnson claimed that he watched one disc for 45 to 60 seconds.
Assuming that they were traveling at the speed calculated
previously, about 1,700 mph, in 45 seconds they would travel
about 20 miles. Although it may have been possible that Johnson
could see the objects over a distance of 20 miles from his
location, it seems more likely that he saw them for less time.
However, even if it were only for 30 seconds with his telescope,
we may assume that he was able to discern many details that
Arnold couldn't see, such as the point on the front and the
"tail" waving side to side "like a big magenet" in the rear.
(Here I presume Johnson is comparing it with the magnetic needle
in a compass which swings left and right before reaching
equilibrium.) He claimed that the objects were "round" and also
"oval," thus generally agreeing with Arnold's description of
nearly round objects (certainly they they weren't square or
triangular or T shaped) and he estimated that they were 30 ft in
diameter, a value that is smaller than Arnold's estimate and
smaller than the previously calculated value, suggesting that
Johnson underestimated the size. He also stated that the speed
was "greater than anything I ever saw", which is consistent with
the speed calculated from Arnold's sighting. He heard no noise.
He observed that while the objects were in sight the needle of
his compass waved from side to side. The waving stopped after
the objects were out of sight.

The last statement in Johnson's letter provides important
confirmation of Arnold's claim that he was able to see flashes
of sunlight reflected from the objects. In the previous
discussion of Arnold's sighting I pointed out that for the
objects to reflect sun toward Arnold it would be necessary for
some portion of each shiny object to tilt at least to an angle
of about 60 degrees. The idea that the objects could tilt that
much is supported by Johnson's claim that when he last saw the
objects they were "standing on edge" while "banking in a cloud."

Aside from the apparent confirmation of Arnold's sighting,
Johnson's sighting is unique as being the first to include a
report of a physical effect during sighting (the apparent effect
on the needle of his compass).

Dr. Hynek, in reviewing all the sightings for Project Grudge in
1949, did not offer an explanation for this sighting. Dr.
Menzel, on the other hand, claimed to have explained it while
analyzing the early sightings for his 1953 book (ref. 5). Menzel
began his review of the sighting by pointing out that it
occurred on the same day as Arnold's. However, he did not tell
his readers that it took place at the same time in the
afternoon, nor did he mention that Johnson was near Mt. Adams at
the time and thus in the area where Arnold last saw the objects
(flying past Mt. Adams). Thus the reader of his book would not
have known, as Menzel probably did (Menzel had access to the Air
Force files), that Johnson said he saw the objects reported by
Arnold!

Menzel accepted Johnson's sighting as real (i.e., not a hoax,
not a delusion), but explainable. After pointing out that
Johnson observed the objects through his telescope for nearly a
minute Menzel stated his explanation: "The behavior of the
saucers... is distinctive enough to label them as probably a
true sighting. Bright reflections from patches of clouds were
the most likely cause."

One wonders how Menzel could seriously suggest that Johnson
could fail to realize that the objects were merely clouds after
viewing them for many seconds through a telescope as they
traveled by rapidly and were last seen banking into a cloud.

Menzel also dismissed the wobbling compass effect, arguing that
in his excitement Johnson was not able to hold the compass
steady. This is essentially saying that Johnson, who had about
forty years of prospecting experience at the time, would not
realize that the compass would wobble if he didn't hold it
steady.

.......................................

Fred Johnson's sighting holds a unique place in the history of
the Air Force investigation.

Although I have stated that after the early fall of 1948 the Air
Force investigators were under pressure to provide conventional
explanations for all sightings because "interplanetary" was not
an option, the fact is that some sightings resisted explanation.
By the time Project Blue Book closed in 1969 the Air Force
analysts at the Air Technical Intelligence Center at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, had collected a
total of about 13,000 sightings (1947-1969). Of these about 700
were left unexplained. Fred Johnson's sighting is the first of
these 700!

But, you may ask, why isn't Arnold's sighting first, if Johnson
saw the same things minutes (or less) after Arnold, and
Johnson's sighting is unexplained? The answer is that due to
sloppy record keeping and analysis (or by intent?) these two
sightings were effectively separated (recall that Hynek did not
know that Johnson's sighting occurred immediately after
Arnold's) and hence one could not support the other. Then, when
Arnold's sighting was determined by Hynek to be "replete with
inconsistencies" it lost its credibility and was therefore
explainable (as a mirage).

(Note: the Air Force has explained its failure to identify the
700 or so unexplained sightings as follows: there was not enough
information to allow a positive identification. In other words,
the Air Force says, "If we had had more information we could
have identified these, too." Although this may seem like a
reasonable explanation, the fact is that the unidentified
sightings were the ones with TOO MUCH information to allow a
reasonable identification. Johnson's sighting is a good example
of this. If he had just said "I saw some strange objects fly
over. I don� know what they were," and left it at that, any
reasonable explanation would be acceptable. Instead, he provided
specific details. He described high speed, large angle tilting
during flight, unusual semi-circular shape, tail wobbling back
and forth, lack of noise and the apparent magnetic effect on his
compass. What conventional aircraft or phenomenon had these
characteristics in June, 1947? Answer: none. To explain this
sighting one has to reject almost the complete description. No
wonder it was left unexplained.)

___________________________________________________________

CONCLUSION

Fifty years later it is clear that Kenneth Arnold�s (and Fred
Johnson's) sighting contained sufficient information to prove
that strange, non-manmade objects were flying around in the
atmosphere. Therefore it is a tribute to the effectiveness of
the (yes, I�ll say it) propaganda put forth by the government
and military, and widely promulgated by the press, the
propaganda that all sightings have been or could be explained,
that society in general has not accepted the idea that at least
some reported UFOs/saucers are real, physical "hardware" objects
of odd, non-aerodynamic shape and extreme dynamical
capabilities.

It is resoundingly not a tribute to science that Dr. Menzel's
explanations carried such weight with the scientific community
that scarcely anyone complained about his atmospheric
explanations. Instead the book was complemented for bringing a
measure of sanity to the field of flying saucer research.

Hynek�s and Menzel�s �explanations� helped to establish the
TRADITION which we live under today, that flying saucers/ufos,
are all mistakes or hoaxes or delusions and certainly nothing to
worry about. This TRADITION has a vary important impact on
present society... (so important that you could write a song
about it, and have portly gentleman dancing around singing
TRA-DI-TION....!)

However, careful analyses of sightings such as these by Kenneth
Arnold and Fred Johnson show that this tradition is like a house
of cards built on sand... .... and it is crumbling.

__________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

1.) Daniel S. Gilmour, Ed., "The Scientific Study of
Unidentified Flying Objects," Chapter 5, Section 1; AFOSR
contract study F44620-67-C-0035; Edward U. Condon, Director,
1968; Bantam Books Edition, New York, NY, 1969, pg. 481

2.) David. M. Jacobs, "The UFO Controversy in America," Indiana
University Press, (1975)

3.) Air Intelligence Report # 100-203-79, "Analysis of Flying
Object Incidents in the U.S.," Directorate of Intelligence (of
the Air Force) and Office of Naval Intelligence, 10 Dec. 1948;
classified TOP SECRET until declassification on March 5, 1985;
available from the Fund for UFO Research

4.) Edward J. Ruppelt, "The Report on Unidentified Flying
Objects," Doubleday and Co., Garden City, NJ (1956) and Ace
Books, NY (1956)

5.) Donald Menzel, "Flying Saucers," Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 1953

6.) Donald Menzel and Lyle Boyd, "The World of Flying Saucers,"
Doubleday and Co., Garden City, NY, 1963

7.) Donald Menzel and Ernest Taves, "The UFO Enigma," Doubleday
and Co., Garden City, NY, 1977

8.) Documents found in the files of Project Blue Book at the
National Archives

9.) Ted Bloecher, "The UFO Wave of 1947," (NICAP, 1967)

30.) J. Allen Hynek, The "Hynek UFO Report," Dell Pub. co, NY,
1977

10.) Kenneth Arnold, The "Coming of the Saucers," privately
published (1953)

11.) Kenneth Arnold, letter to the Army Air Force in the files
of Project Blue Book (National Archives)

12.) Maccabee, Bruce, "THE FBI-UFO CONNECTION/ the REAL X-Files"

___________________________________________________________



APPENDIX

RADIO INTERVIEW OF KENNETH ARNOLD, June 25, 1947

I thank Mike Christol for providing the audiotape and John
Powell for transcribing it and posting it on the Encounters
Forum of Compuserve

This is probably Arnold�s the first radio interview.

****

NEWSCASTER:

  The nation, every newscaster, and every newspaper across thenation has made he
adlines out of it, and this afternoon we are honored,indeed, to have here in our
 studio this man, Kenneth Arnold, who, webelieve, may be able to give us a first
-hand account and give you thesame on what happened.
  Kenneth, first of all if you'll move up here to the microphonejust a little cl
oser, we'll ask you to just tell in your own fashion, asyou told us last night i
n your hotel room, and again this morning, whatyou were doing there and how this
 entire thing started. Go ahead,Kenneth.


KENNETH ARNOLD:

  Well, about 2:15 I took off from Chehalis, Washington, en route to Yakima, and
, of course, every time that any of us fly over the country near Mt. Rainier, we
 spend an hour or two in search of the Marine plane that's never been found that
 they believe is in the snow someplace southwest of that particular area. That a
rea is located at about, it's elevation is about 10,000 foot, and I had made one
 sweep in close to Mt. Rainier and down one of the canyons and was dragging it f
or any types of objects that might prove to be the Marine ship, uh, and as I com
e out of the canyon there, was about 15 minutes, I was approximately 25 to 28 mi
les from Mt. Rainier, I climbed back up to 9200 feet and I noticed to the left o
f me a chain which looked to me like the tail of a Chinese kite, kind of weaving
 and going at a terrific speed across the face of Mt. Rainier. I, at first, thou
ght they were geese because it flew like geese, but it was going so fast that I
immediately changed my mind and dec
ided it was a bunch of new jet planes in formation. Well, as the plane come to t
he edge of Mt. Rainier flying at about 160 degrees south, I thought I would cloc
k them because it was such a clear day, and I didn't know where their destinatio
n was, but due to the fact that I had Mt. Saint Helens and Mt. Adams to clock th
em by, I just thought I'd see just how fast they were going, since among pilots
we argue about speed so much. And, they seemed to flip and flash in the sun, jus
t like a mirror, and, in fact, I happened to be in an angle from the sun that se
emed to hit the tops of these peculiar looking things in such a way that it almo
st blinded you when you looked at them through your plexiglass windshield. Well,
 uh, I uh, it was about one minute to three when I started clocking them on my s
weep second hand clock, and as I kept looking at them, I kept looking for their
tails, and they didn't have any tail. I thought, well, maybe something's wrong w
ith my eyes and I turned the plane
around and opened the window, and looked out the window, and sure enough, I coul
dn't find any tails on 'em. And, uh, the whole, our observation of these particu
lar ships, didn't last more than about two and a half minutes and I could see th
em only plainly when they seemed to tip their wing, or whatever it was, and the
sun flashed on them. They looked something like a pie plate that was cut in half
 with a sort of a convex triangle in the rear. Now, I thought, well, that maybe
they're jet planes with just the tails painted green or brown or something, and
I didn't think too much of it, but kept on watching them. They didn't fly in a c
onventional formation that's taught in our army, they seemed to kind of weave in
 and out right above the mountaintops, and I would say that they even went down
into the canyons in several instances, oh, probably a hundred feet, but I could
see them against the snow, of course, on Mt. Rainier and against the snow on Mt.
 Adams as they were flashing, and a
gainst a high ridge that happens to lay in between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams. Bu
t when I observed the tail end of the last one passing Mt. Adams, and I was at a
n angle near Mt. Rainier from it, but I looked at my watch and it showed one min
ute and 42 seconds. Well, I felt that was pretty fast and I didn't stop to think
 what the distance was between the two mountains. Well, I landed at Yakima, Wash
ington, and Al Baxter was there to greet me and he said
...[unintelligible]...
  And, he told me, I guess I better change my brand, but he kind of gave me a my
sterious sort of a look that maybe I had seen something, he didn't know, and wel
l, I just kind of forgot it then, until I got down to Pendleton and I began look
ing at my map and taking measurements on it. And, the best calculation I could f
igure out, now even in spite of error, would be around 1200 miles an hour, becau
se making the distance from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams, in, we'll say approximatel
y two minutes, it's almost, well, it'd be around 25 miles per minute. Now allowi
ng for air, we can give them three minutes or four minutes to make it, and they'
re still going more than 800 miles an hour, and to my knowledge, there isn't any
thing that I've read about, outside of some of the German rockets, that would go
 that fast. These were flying in more or less a level, constant altitude. They w
eren't going up and they weren't going down. They were just simply flying straig
ht and level and I, I laughed ...[u
nintelligible]..., they sure must have had a tailwind. But it didn't seem to hel
p me much. But to the best of my knowledge, and the best of my description, that
 is what I actually saw, and, uh, like I told the Associated Press, I'll, I'd be
 glad to confirm it with my hands on a Bible because I did see it, and whether i
t has anything to do with our army or our intelligence or whether it has to do w
ith some foreign country, I don't know. But I did see it and I did clock it and
I just happened to be in a beautiful position to do it and it's just as much a m
ystery to me as it is to everyone else who's been calling me the last 24 hours,
wondering what it was.

NEWSCASTER:

  Well, Kenneth, thank you very much. I know that you've certainly been busy the
se last 24 hours, 'cause I've spent some of the time with you myself, and I know
 that the press associations, both Associated Press and our press, the United Pr
ess, has been right after you every minute. The Associated and the United Press,
 all over the nation, have been after this story. It's been on every newscast, o
ver
the air, and in every newspaper I know of. The United Press in Portland has made
 several telephone calls here at Pendleton to me, and to you this morning, and f
rom New York I understand, they are after this story, and that we may have an an
swer ...[unintelligible]... because, if it is
some new type of army or navy secret missile, there would probably a story come
out on it from the army or navy asking, saying that it is a new secret plane and
 that will be all there is to it, and they will hush up the story, or perhaps th
at we will finally get a definite answer to it.
  I understand the United Press is checking on it out of New York now with the A
rmy, and also with the Navy, and we hope to have some concrete answer before nig
htfall. We certainly want to thank you, Kenneth for coming into our studio. We f
eel very pleased that this news which is making nationwide news across the count
ry, we are able to give our listeners over KWRC a first-hand report direct from
you, of what you saw. And we urge our listeners to keep tuned to this station, b
ecause anytime this afternoon or this evening, and we get something on it on our
 United Press teletype, which is in direct communications with new York, Chicago
, Portland, in fact, every United Press bureau across the nation, why, we'll hav
e it on the air.

END.
.......................................................








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                     Re: PRA - Rat Fink Is Dead - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 08:17:38 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:07:52 -0400
Subject: Re: PRA - Rat Fink Is Dead - McCoy


 >From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 05:36:54 EDT
 >Subject: PRA - Rat Fink Is Dead
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Oz & ASIA DATA RESEARCH
 >Phenomena Research Australia

 >EBK & Researchers,

 >A little "off topic", but some may find it interesting!
 >Especially, Rat Fink fans, and all the "UFO Rat Finks" I know
 >out there. 8-)

<snip>

Hello, Listers and Rat Finks everywhere.

As one who was a Builder of Ed "Big Daddy" Roth's creations I am
sorry to see him go, at least he went out the way one should
leave-doing what you love to do. I 'll never forget the Revell
model of the "Beatnik Bandit" and the pain and struggle to get
it right for a contest at a local hobby store.

Only to be beaten by a kid who's pop was a commercial
artist-hmmm? The ol' "Bandit" survived until it was dropped from
the second floor of the old farmhouse I lived in as a Kid, -by
my cousin, who was staying there for the summer just an accident
-I think, she had a good story anyway. Sort of the "The Hatch
just blew" theory.

Anyway it brought back many memories of warm nights in my room
of glue and paint, and the wonderment that maybe, just maybe, I
could be as good as "Big Daddy".


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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:19:11 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:09:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young


 >From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:12:38 +0200

 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:39:45 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:31:23 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question

<snip>

 >I came across the letter from prospector Frank Johnson to
 >the Air Force, on the web, dated August 20th 1947:

 >http://www.project1947.com/fig/johns47.htm

 >with the following excerpt:

 >"(...)Sir. Saw in the portland paper a short time ago in
 >regards to an article in regards to the so called flying disc
 >having any basis of fact. I can say am a prospector and was in
 >the Mt Adams district on June 24th the day Kenneth Arnold of
 >Boise Idaho claims he saw a formation of flying disc. And I saw
 >the same flying objects at about the same time. Having a
 >telescope with me at the time I can asure you they are real and
 >noting like them I ever saw before they did not pass verry high
 >over where I was standing at the the time. plobly 1000 ft. they
 >were Round about 30 feet in dimater tapering sharply to a point
 >in the lead end in an oval shape. with a bright top surface. I
 >did not hear any noise as you would from a plane. But there was
 >an object in the tail and looked like a big hand of a clock
 >shifting from side to side like a big magnet. There speed as far
 >as i know seemed to be greater than anything I ever saw.

Asgeir:

His claim that he had a telescope with him so he knows they were
real but travelling low and faster than anything he ever saw is
not credible. It is virtually impossible to acquire a fast
object in a telescope. I think the newspaper article probably
explains what he "saw".


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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                        Re: Serious Research - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:02:08 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:11:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Young


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:38:42 -0000

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:22:34 -0500

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:45:57 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>The image appearing is
 >>>that of old doc Hynek, with the pipe and attractive beard,
 >>>lecturing to the rubes.

 >>Interesting choice of word.  "Rubes" is usually understood to
 >>denote gullible victims of con artists.

 >>Is it your contention, then, that Allen Hynek was a charlatan?

 >>Jerry Clark

 >And Dick Hall as well?

Dick:

I was commenting on your attractive red beard.

And your use of scientific sounding words and phrases such as,
"Among", "high probability", "large majority", "In mathematical
language", "a standard feature", etc. without one, single
supporting number,

And your 55 item "Rerences & Notes", and your "Suggested Reading
List for Scientists - Annotated" - all without one, single page
reference to the many scientific-sounding and
mathematical-sounding claims in your article.


Bob Young

Rube - n. slang.  A countryman; farmer; rustic. (Funk & Wagnalls
Standard Dictionary, International Edition, Vol. 2, 1965, p.
1099).









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                 Re: Chile: UFOs over Arica Pique Scientific

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:27:33 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:14:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Chile: UFOs over Arica Pique Scientific


 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 08:43:42 -0400
 >Subject: Chile: UFOs over Arica Pique Scientific Curiosity

 >Source: Diario "La Estrella de Arica"
 >Date: Sunday, April 8, 2001

 >UFOs in Sight Over Arica, Chile

<snip>

 >by Flix Nez

 >The most recent case ocurred in the
 >evening of March 24, when the presence of a brilliant light was
 >seen over the  Morro Gordo sector,  upon which the television
 >and radio masts of a number of Arica stations are located.

 >At 18:00 horas, the object had the aspect of a first magnitude
 >star, with a brilliance similar to that of the planet Venus, but
 >having a white or metallic color. It moved slowly toward the
 >southwest (approaching the sea).

 >As the sun went down, its brilliance diminished and its color
 >chaged to red before vanishing completely before 19:00 hours.

Hi, Scott:

I wonder how fast the object was moving? How high above the
horizon and in what direction did it disappear?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 17:39:49 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:16:30 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Morris


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:17:49 EDT
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Evans
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:07:57 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

<snip>

 >>Roger,

 >>I'm referring to the _alleged_ (note emphasis on alleged)
 >>_first_ autopsy, which was never shown to the public at all, if
 >>the people who have seen it aren;t collaborating on yet another
 >>fiction. I'm not talking about the blur-effect ghiven to the
 >>"genitals" (or lack thereof) seen in the FOX show.

 >>In this respect, making a film that would never see the light of
 >>day and not make any money seems to detract from the popular
 >>supposition that we are dealing with hoaxers "in it for the
 >>money."

 >Mac,

 >Its possible that the so called first film was in fact an
 >initial test of FX and production. Depending on how the test
 >crowd reacted, the producers could then fine tune the film or
 >production for the later "for profit release."


Robert,

The handfull of people who have actually seen this footage would
hardly be called a market sample on which to base those sort of
conclusions.

 >How long did this so called alleged first film last? 10 minutes?
 >15 minutes? half hour?

I don't recall any of the parties timed the veiwing but I get
the impression it's several minutes, I guess that would be
consistant with the total of 22 reels Ray claims he bought.

 >>Santilli and Spielberg were definitely in it for some fast cash.
 >>But I'm hesitant to use financial profit as the best answer for
 >>the presumably hoaxed footage as well.

 >The numbers floated around was that Rays company sold approx
 >400,000 to 500,000 Video copies of AA. When you run the numbers,
 >you see approx 6-8 Million dollars gross. If you suspect that
 >Ray et al produced this, and $100-200K is well within reason,
 >you have a net profit of 5.8 to 7.8 million dollars on the deal.
 >This is not to mention the bundle Fox paid to Ray to air the
 >footage.

Robert, which video are you refering to?, "Alien Autopsy Fact or
Fiction" which was a Kiviat/Fox production?, "Incident at
Roswell" a Purdie/Ch4 production?, I don't see either of those
two production companies/networks running a Ray Santilli charity
fund while selling videos of their own programs.

The only video Ray Santilli's company produce themselves was I
believe "Alien Autopsy - The Footage", predominantly sold over
the Internet, past estimates of numbers sold were in the low
hundreds, I have a copy but I've not come across many other
people, even those interested in the topic who have, this would
seems to support the low estimate of units sold for this 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
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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:27:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:19:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >From: Robert Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:18:27 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:16:42 -0500

 >>>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:55:21 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

Bob,

 >>Oh, wait ... exactly _which_ scientific credentials do Klass and
 >>Sheaffer have, beyond one or a small number of undergraduate
 >>courses, if that? (By that definition, I guess I'm a scientist,
 >>too.) The answer to the question is: none I am aware of.

 >I'm surpised that after using old Uncle Phil's name in vain for
 >at least a decade, you didn't know that he has a graduate degree
 >in electrical engineering and for many years has been a senior
 >editor for avionics for Aviation Week and Space Technology
 >magazine.

Wow. You're not even close on this one. No one has disputed that
Klass is trained as an engineer. The matter at issue was whether
he is trained as a scientist, which he isn't (though I've seen a
letter wherein Klass hilariously declares himself a scientist on
the basis of a Bachelor of Science degree). His lack of
scientific training would explain, for example, his record of
embarrassing, even elementary scientific errors. Surely you're
familiar with the amusing saga of his first book, so egregiously
pseudoscientific that _both_ James McDonald and a subcommittee
of plasma physicists assembled for the Condon Committee tore it
apart.

You've been citing Klass uncritically for a long time. What
surprises me is that you would attempt so clearly uninformed a
defense of the guy.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                        Re: Serious Research - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:34:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:20:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Clark


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:17:54 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:22:34 -0500

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:45:57 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>>Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:21:09 -0000


Bob,

 >>>The image appearing is
 >>>that of old doc Hynek, with the pipe and attractive beard,
 >>>lecturing to the rubes.

 >>Interesting choice of word. "Rubes" is usually understood to
 >>denote gullible victims of con artists.

 >>Is it your contention, then, that Allen Hynek was a charlatan?

 >Rube - n. slang. A countryman; farmer; rustic. (Funk & Wagnalls
 >Standard Dictionary, International Edition, Vol. 2, 1965, p.
 >1099).

You didn't answer my question. I am well aware of the definition
of "rube." It was inherent in the question you chose not to
reply to. Let's try again:

Do you, or do you not, regard Allen Hynek as a charlatan?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                   Re: CE-5 Contact And Skepticism - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:15:51 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:22:19 -0400
Subject: Re: CE-5 Contact And Skepticism - Young


 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com
 >Subject: CE-5 Contact And >Skepticism
 >Date: 6 Apr 2001 07:30:52 -0700

<snip>

 >There is a category of experience that has occurred in sighting
 >UFOs that I and others have experienced that raises the ante on
 >explaining the experience in terms of conventional
 >misidentifications and that experience is now classed as a CE-5
 >by Dr. Richard Haines.

 >This experience can take several modalities. A simple one is
 >using a flashlight as a signaling device and getting a seemingly
 >"encoded" flash in response. Now, this type of CE-5 is probably
 >most open to debunking as many of us can posit explanations for
 >obtaining such a response from a conventional source.

 >A more difficult CE-5 experience is the act of influencing a
 >UFO's behavior or response using only thoughts directed by the
 >human mind. A typical example is posing a request of the UFO to
 >turn in a particular direction followed by a compliance to the
 >request, then repeating other requests followed by compliances
 >each and every time so that one is impressed with the feeling
 >that you are carrying out a process of signal communication with
 >an intelligent agent on the other end of the communication line.
 >One then wonders how this is possible. If you have a structured
 >craft in view, then it seems as if one is in telepathic
 >communication with the pilot or intelligent agent that controls
 >the movement of the craft.

 >This even evolves into "calling in" such craft and have them
 >engage in repeated compliance-request behavior as I have
 >described. Sometimes it goes further and one seems to "receive"
 >a message that forecasts the appearance of such a craft prior to
 >its appearance at an exact location and time (to the minute and
 >second given)! Would you not be impressed by such an event and
 >consider it a mystery that goes beyond the sighting of an
 >unidentified/unconventional aerial object?

 >When I was a teenager I experienced all of what I have described
 >and a little more which had the effect of reducing my skepticism

Bill,

Has a double blind experiment ever been conducted to demonstrate
that these events have occurred and have not been simply "in the
eye of the beholder"? I am not sure how such a true double blind
experiement could be orgazined for this purpose.

If an incident like this involved others, how could one rulel
out a hoax?

If it involved oneselve, how could one rule out self-deception?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                     Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:48:37 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:25:04 -0400
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young


 >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:23:29 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:07:32 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:16:53 -0500
 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>The brightnest reflections occur when the sun is low and the
 >>>pelicans are nearly in line with the sun... the opposite of the
 >>>reported situation (sun in west, objects in east).>

 >>Hi, Bruce:

 >>I think we once discussed this point. What was the direction of
 >>the objects and the time of the sighting. I think that it was
 >>about noon?

 >Only once?

 >I presume you are talking about Arnold's sighting here: about 3
 >PM, June 24, 1947.  Sun at 60 elevation in the west (if I recall
 >correctly) and the objects were east of Arnold... initially
 >northeast and at the end of the sighting south-southeast and
 >"about at his level" or below (so they could seem to travel
 >behind a mountain peak.

Bruce,

Thanks.

I put this info, assuming a location of Boise, Idaho, into the
program, Expert Astronomer.

Boise, Idaho
3 PM PDT

The program indicated a Sun direction at this hour of 258
degrees (just slightly south of west), and a Sun Altitude of 46
degrees.

A mirror placed vertically would cause a specular reflection
which would be at the same incident angle down, 46 degrees, and
could not be seen.

But a perpendicular mirror at an angle of 46 degrees away from
Arnold, perhaps snow or ice on a 46 degree mountain slope, could
be seen by a viewer in the direction of the Sun. If the slope
was not exactly perpendicular to the observer, the Sun could be
in the appropriate reciprocal position.

Viola, a specular flash of the sun from the mountain peaks, or
from the shiny, Trent mirror-like, flying saucers seen near
Arnold's altitude against the mountain backdrop.


Clear, cloudless skies,

Bob Young


"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality
should not be posited without necessity."

The words are those of the medieval English philosopher and
Franciscan monk, William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349).









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                  Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 16:22:48 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:27:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Hale


 >Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 21:01:34 +1000
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Christopher Kelly <pacific.ent.au@wisma.pacific.net.au>
 >Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really

<snip>

 >But, Just like the time I was tripped by a friend and fell face
 >first onto a rock in a garden. (That happened when I was 12
 >years old and I still remember the stars I saw that day from
 >hitting the bush rock around the garden with my face.) I still
 >even remember sitting up and saying "WIPE OUT". No matter how
 >many times I try to change this memory, it always comes back the
 >same. Because it really happened! and cannot be changed.

 >This is what disturbs me so with the UFO's type images and
 >experiences I have. No matter what I do to edit them in my mind
 >they never change.

 >So I am one that is not here to get noticed. I came here
 >thinking I would find answers.

 >I think I can speak for many out there that have these, When I
 >say that we would trade you our memories/experiences for
 >answers or peace of mind in a heart beat.

 >Then you can be left with all the doubts, the researching and
 >the changes to your life, Instead of us. You want my experiences
 >and images??

 >Then they are yours free of charge and all that goes with them.
 >Then you will know what it really feels like. You will know the
 >frustration, the confusion and all the doubts. You will know
 >what it's like to see someone being hurt and know the
 >frustration of not being able to help them. You will know what
 >it is like to see this and have no one believe you, But most of
 >all you will know what it's like when you want help because of
 >all of this and no one is there to help you and the ones you
 >turn to treat you like you are a nut case.

 >So have them, they are yours. And there is NO returning them,
 >Period!!!


Hi Christopher,

There is not much more I can add to your mail, except to say I
admire and respect your honest and detailed writing.

The fact is, until science invents a machine which can place
another person in my or any other experincers body, we will have
to run the gauntlet of unacceptance of such experiences by other
humans who cannot even begin to relate what it is that has
occured.

I stopped trying to please other peoples hang-ups some years
back.


Best 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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Bolton

From: David Bolton <David@Bolton.SOL.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:44:17 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:29:20 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Bolton


 >From: William Sawer <syntax@slingshot.co.nz>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:49:06 +1200

<snip>

 >....and in saying that.... is it any wonder that the surgeons
 >seemed so familiar with the "eye-coverings", if in fact this is
 >actually the _second_ or even _third_(?) autopsy!?

Possibly it was because they remembered seeing it done during
the autopsy scene in the Gerry Anderson TV series 'UFO' in the
early 70's...


David G Bolton

<David@Bolton.SOL.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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:51:52 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:31:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 19:56:27 -0500

 >>Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:58:53 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>to provide you with chapter and verse references, but I would
 >>draw your attention to the strong criticisms which have been
 >>made by sceptical ufologists of Steuart Campbell's 'mirage'
 >>theory, in the pages of the British "Skeptic" magazine, in
 >>Magonia and elsewhere.

 >Interesting. Now, not to be difficult, isn't Campbell the guy
 >who thinks UFOs are the product of demonic forces? Some
 >"s[k]eptic."

Yes, in the 'seventies, at about the same time you were writing
a book promoting psychosocial and occult viewpoints on UFOs. If
you are apparently permitted to do a 180-degree volte-face and
still retain credibility as a UFO writer, surely Mr Campbell
should be allowed the same privilege?

 >Your earlier citation of John Harney's dismissal of
 >Klass's absurd theories about the Walton case was a good one.
 >This one isn't. What are we up to, now? Two real citations of
 >internal criticisms from the debunking literature, both from the
 >pages of Magonia?

I also mentioned that Campbell had been criticised in "Skeptic"
magazine (a UK publication, despite that "k"), which has often
published criticism of, and debate between, sceptical
viewpoints. Maybe you've never had the opportunity to read it.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                           Re: Nellis UFO - Fritch

From: Jess Fritch <djfritch@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:17:51 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:34:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Nellis UFO - Fritch


 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 03:53:49 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Nellis UFO

 >>From: Jess Fritch <djfritch@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Nellis UFO
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:31:52 -0700

 >>I am the holder of a copy of this video. I received it from one
 >>of the controllers of the range. I have been able to id the
 >>technology as electrogravitics (the control of gravity). This is
 >>US built no back engineering. It is the same one seen in the
 >>STS-48 video in 1991. I have a page at:

 >>www.gravitydrive.com

 >>and I am working on a full site. I do lectures on it and some
 >>people that I have talked to think that this technology has not
 >>been developed or that it did not work at all. I have talked to
 >>T.T.Brown's daughter and it has been fully developed by the
 >>government.

 >Jess, would you mind telling me what this "made in the USA"
 >antigravity craft is doing in the skies over Brazil? Please
 >refer to the photos I have posted at the AIC website on the
 >"UFO" pages. Go to:

<snip>

Hi John and all;

First please don't use the term antigravity when it comes to
these craft. They control gravity not consul it out. If you
remember the sts-48 video, this is the first time we saw this
craft. The cruse alone the edge of the atmosphere at about 54000
miles per hour. The can go anywhere in the world in about 4 to 5
minutes.How it works is it is like a capacitor, the positive
charge forms a gravity well and the negative charge forms a
gravity hill. So all together it forms a gravity wave and the
craft rides it like a surf board on a wave. Now why are they in
the skies over Brazil? I really don't know but they can go
anywhere they want to.

Jess Fritch









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                      Housekeeping - Excessive Quoting

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:49:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:49:50 -0400
Subject: Housekeeping - Excessive Quoting




Gentle Posters,

The amount of un-necessary quoting in responses is
increasing. Please use common sense and quote only
pertinent lines from previous messages.


Errol Bruce-Knapp,
Moderator, UFO UpDates - Toronto








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                        Re: Serious Research - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 16:55:29 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:52:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hatch


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:23:08 +0200

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:45:57 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>Thank you for the articles' list of cases which
 >>you believe demonstate the ETH, "UFOs as
 >>craft--as someone else's technology--is one
 >>important hypothesis that could be tested.

 ><snip>

 >>20) June 9, 1972, Algodonales, Cadiz, Spain,
 >>10:30 p.m. Motorist suddenly blinded by bright
 >>light from a pulsating yellow oval ahead of car,
 >>E-M effects on car, object lit up trees as it
 >>passed over them while departing.

 >Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos in his book "Enciclopedia de los
 >encuentros cercanos con OVNIs" Plaza & Jans 1987 (p. 331)
 >included that case in his NELIB Catalogue explained as "ball
 >lighting"


Hello Luis!

The case sounded more interesting in Ballester-Olmos' well known
Catalog of Type-I UFO events in Spain and Portugal. (Vallee
Translation, CUFOS, April 1976, page 37.) There I find more of
an oval shape, estimated 2 meters in length, but only a few
centimeters in thickness (tall).

The silence, electromagnetic effects etc. seem consistent with
"ball lightning" accounts elsewhere. It is only the thin shape,
and lack of odor which make me wonder.

I'm no kugelblitz expert, (who is?) but I had the distinct
impression that ball-lightning manifestations were pretty much
spherical, of various sizes, and often reeked of ozone as one
might expect of some highly energetic electrical phenomenon ..
if that is what it is.

My Dad had a "Jacob's Ladder" set up in his classroom for a
high-school science fair once.  You could smell the ozone out in
the hallway. There was also a complete human skeleton, but Dad
never connected the two. He preferred to hide a small
loud-speaker behind the skull, connected to a low-voltage audio
amplifier.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                     Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:54:30 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:54:04 -0400
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young


Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:23:29 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:07:32 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:16:53 -0500
 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>The brightnest reflections occur when the sun is low and the
 >>>pelicans are nearly in line with the sun... the opposite of the
 >>>reported situation (sun in west, objects in east).>

 >>I think we once discussed this point. What was the direction of
 >>the objects and the time of the sighting. I think that it was
 >>about noon?

 >Only once?

 >I presume you are talking about Arnold's sighting here: about 3
 >PM, June 24, 1947.  Sun at 60 elevation in the west (if I recall
 >correctly) and the objects were east of Arnold... initially
 >northeast and at the end of the sighting south-southeast and
 >"about at his level" or below (so they could seem to travel
 >behind a mountain peak.

Bruce,

Thanks for the info.

OOps!  He, he.  This is a Corrected Post, I used Boise, Idaho,
Arnold's hometown, instead of Yakima, Wa, the approxomiate
location of the sighting.

I put this info, assuming a location of Yakima, Washington, into
the program, Expert Astronomer.

Yakima, Washington
3 PM PDT

The program indicated a Sun direction at this hour of 234
degrees (just slightly west of southwest), and a Sun Altitude of
58 degrees.

A mirror placed vertically would cause a specular reflection
which would be at the same incident angle down, 58 degrees, and
could not be seen.

But a perpendicular mirror at an angle of 119 degrees away from
Arnold, perhaps snow or ice on a 61 degree mountain slope, could
be seen by a viewer in the direction of the Sun. If the slope
was not exactly perpendicular to the observer, the Sun could be
in the appropriate reciprocal position.

Viola, a specular flash of the sun from the mountain peaks, or
from the shiny, Trent mirror-like, flying saucers seen near
Arnold's altitude against the mountain backdrop.


Clear, cloudless skies,

Bob Young


"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality
should not be posited without necessity." The words are those
of the medieval English philosopher and Franciscan monk,
William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349).










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Keith

From: Rebecca Keith <xiannekei@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:57:10 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Keith


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 02:06:06 EDT
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >On a related note, has anybody _actually_, with their eyes, been
 >shown by Ray the actual 16mm film, held it to the light, so that
 >the person or witness could see the alien carcass on the table
 >with the doctors in view?  Last I have all anybody has actually
 >seen of the film is a *copy* of several frames that don't show
 >the carcass.

Last time I checked, no one had seen actual film that had the
"alien" carcass on it.

I think that Phil Mantle was shown some film but he does not
recall the alien being visible.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

               Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 23:53:02 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:01:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Mortellaro


 >Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 14:27:17 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really
 >
 >
 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 14:33:02 -0700
 >>Subject: Listen, I'm Important, Really

 >Previously, Roy wrote:

 >>I am appalled to read, that we are now in the throws of people
 >>acting like the king of the roost. People are throwing down
 >>gauntlets everywhere, and signing themselves as kings and Sirs
 >>amongst others. I feel this may largely be down to frustration
 >>felt on all sides of the debate.

 >Hi Roy!

 >I agree with the frustration part. I personally grow tired of
 >people dancing around issues, using little (if any) common sense
 >and mounting an air of expertise and/or allusions of evidence as
 >proof. I believe in ET life and the probability of ET
 >visitation. And it is very true that I am not an "experiencer";
 >lo how I wish I were. But I lash out at those that claim

Sir, Madams and Errol,

You do, eh? The caveat to be very careful what you wish for applies
in spades to that wish. A witness, perhaps, to sighting(s) but not an
experiencer. Why would anyone want to wish that on themselves.

To have had the experience of perceived abduction means going
through life wondering about your sanity. Wondering what people
will say about you when you come out of your closet. Wondering
if you will lose your job, your self respect, your
respectability, your very livelihood. A good friend of mine
worries over being able to support his little family if the
truth becomes known, the truth about his perceptions of what has
been happening to him most of his life.

And then there are the illnesses which perceived abductees carry
with them all their lives. The phobias. The pain. Real pain.
Physical pain. Emotional pain.

No my friend. Not what any sane person would hope for.

Want just the experience without the accouterments above? Don't
work that way.

 >expertise and/or proof because, without either, their views are
 >not as sacrosanct as their egos would have them believe. And
 >let's face it, there is no proof; only opinion here on this
 >list.

Quite true that there are egos on this list. Egos which make the
rest of us look bad. But egos are not restricted to experiencers.
And besides, the egos represent the smallest segment of our
little society of maniacs who think they've been stolen from their
beds in the night.

And what of the egos of the other side? Frankly, sometimes I
wonder what is ego (on the part of experiencers) and what is
purely frustration in the attempt to defend what they know as
reality and what someone else calls pelicans. Just how
frustrating do you imagine that might be?

Get a grip.

 >That said, however, I find the attitude of the "believers" more
 >off-putting than the "debunkers" if, for no other reason, the
 >believers' presumptuous notion that they are right, even though
 >said proof has yet to be produced. Is there evidence? Of course,

And what is off putting over a man's firm memory. Like the back
of your hand. That memory. It happend. Period. I respect those
more however, who realize the "perceived" nature of the
experience. But trust me when I tell you that these memories are
so real as to be unreal. No other way to describe it. Proof.
Indeed proof. The proof so often unrespected is the mind and
recall of the experiencer. It is never taken as proof. I can
understand this. But why cannot you understand the nature of the
objection made by "us."

 >and quite a bit of convincing evidence, at that. There is also
 >quite a bit of evidence that many cherished UFO cases are highly
 >suspect, as well. The number of each is not as important as the
 >attitude displayed when such cases are threatened. Since proof
 >is in short supply, the more belligerent of the proUFO crowd
 >invariably resort to answer dodging techniques and/or simple
 >name calling.

 >Regarding such, I occasionally post the moniker "King Roger",
 >not because I think of myself as royalty, but because that is
 >the title Jerry Clarke gave me in lieu of discussing the topic
 >at hand. But then why should he? After all, he had already
 >declared himself the winner of the debate!

 >It is this sort of presumptuous and, quite frankly, seemingly
 >infectious arrogance that is going to be the undoing of UFology,
 >in the long run. I respect Bob Young, but he and I do not agree
 >on the probabilities of ET life or ET visitation and probably
 >never will. That said, however, we do agree that the discussion
 >is becoming bogged down in opinion. Granted, that's all we have.
 >But opinion about a specific case is one thing; opinion about
 >other people's opinions of someone else's opinion is a major
 >waste of time and energy.

 >More importantly, I have seen Bob, on several occasions, offer
 >to debate with anyone from the pro-UFO camp the specifics of the
 >_best_ case UFOlogy has to offer. Not just any case, mind you,
 >but the _best_.

 >No one will step up to the plate, though many claim to be eager
 >to do so.

 >What's offered, instead, are references to new books, old books,
 >past papers and claims of being too busy to prove the very point
 >they were tying to defend; usually a point they bought up in the
 >first place. The _most_ used answer is "You mean you aren't
 >familiar with my papers on...?" Followed by, "I don't have time
 >to discuss something that should be so obvious, blah, blah,
 >blah..."

 >Cowards. There, I've said the "C" word.

 >After all, this isn't the skeptics list, this is the UFO UpDates
 >list. You guys are on home turf. How much home field advantage
 >do Ufologists need? I _believe_ in ET life and ET visitation!
 >Come on, guys! Gooooo Team! Make me proud.

This is not the skeptics list? Right. And is the check in the
mail, too?

 >Alas, there is no joy in Muddtown. Casey hasn't struck out; he
 >won't even come to bat.

 >Regarding such, you wrote:

 >>It's an in house thing going on here, only other UFO researchers
 >>will recognize your views, in a way that will either please or
 >>hurt you.

 >>As I said in an earlier mail, this whole experience is about the
 >>World people who are having UFO experiences. You giving a
 >>lecture on stage in some european country means nothing to Joe
 >>bloggs here in the UK living on a council housing estate with
 >>not a lot of options going for him. And I guess this is a
 >>repeated story world-wide, where you may find such low cost
 >>living ( on the bread line you could say ). And yet if he
 >>happens to see - view - touch, such UFOs he finds himself in
 >>another world, I know it has happened to me, and yes I was like
 >>the guy Joe Bloggs.

 >>So please keep the puffing of chests down, it means nothing to a
 >>lot of people except you and your close colleagues.

 >Agreed, Roy. However, the perceived puffing of chests is quite often
 >gasps for fresh air. The mistake is easy to make.

 >King Roger

Your high ness. Allow me an opinion. One of a man who perceives
that he has been manhandled.... make that alien handled, most of
his life. This is not a friendly place. And let me tell you why
it is not a friendly place. Because of all the people who should
know better, should understand better, should sympathize; of all
the skeptics and skeptibunkers and downright meanspiritedness
here and elsewhere, the meanest and most frustrating are from
our own.

I might add, embarrassing too.

I represent myself. But then again... I make Gripple and drink
it too. Can't trust a man who does that.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:05:35 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies


 >From: William Sawer <syntax@slingshot.co.nz>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:49:06 +1200

<snip>

 >I'm not sure on the money side it either Mac. Sure Santilli may
 >have been in it for the money (no crime outside of ufology) but
 >Spielberg and anyone else has to be under suspicion as spooks or
 >some alterior motive we arn't aware of, including disinfomation...
 >by way of the timing especially.

Is there any evidence of an intelligence connection? I thought
this was just one of my many theories...

 >I understand Philip Mantle and (perhaps) Colin Andrews saw the
 >1st Autopsy footage. Could Philip or Colin(?) comment further on
 >this list or could we get any web sites to view.... anything!
 >with regard to the first autopsy?

I'm pretty sure there is a first autopsy, and have always been
surprised that its existence has been skirted. Does anyone know
Mantle's email address? I don't see how any sort of proper
investigation into the reality of the AA can be attempted
without reference to the first autopsy, which, presumably, would
have required another weird human corpse/FX dummy/alien. To me,
that makes the whole AA saga much more interesting.

 >....and in saying that.... is it any wonder that the surgeons
 >seemed so familiar with the "eye-coverings", if in fact this is
 >actually the _second_ or even _third_(?) autopsy!?

Exactly. Who knows? Until _all_ of the footage is placed into
the public domain and chemically dated, no one will.

I find myself in the strange position of defending the AA,
simply because we haven't nailed a smoking gun. Of course, just
because we haven't doesn't mean it's real.

Also, I've viewed the CDs! Very good quality. I'm not a video or
computer tech, so I'm afraid I can't get into the merits of
digital vs. analogue. I don't think the footage is quite as
"murky" as we tend to refer to it. Placing myself in the
cameraman's shoes (fastened inside a bulky cleansuit...), I
don't think this is an especially bad effort of documentation.

However, assuming authenticity for the sake of argument, the
black-and-white, "rushed" treatment only makes sense if the
autopsy is being done

a.) in a hurry (for reasons we don't know--radiological?
Remember the "MAXIMUM WORKING TIME" sign) after the elapsed 3
weeks mentioned by the cameraman...

or

b.) shortly after the crash in an effort to salvage the best
possible biological remains (which contradicts the "cameraman.")

Personally, I've always considered the "cameraman" an invention
of Santilli. I think his "testimony" is fiction. Given the
profit motive, the AA may very well be too, but I see it as
distinct from the provenly false statements of the "cameraman."

Remember, Santilli admitted to hoaxing the "tent footage,"
leading one to suspect that maybe this was the best he could
come up with. If there is indeed a first autopsy, and it appears
there is, then this is certainly to Santilli's credit, if
hoaxed. It would also explain some of the odd procedural details
seen in the AA we all know and love (i.e. the surgeons "knowing
what to expect.")

All I can do is file this whole thing in my "gray" basket (no
pun intended) until the first autopsy is made available to
inspection and forensic dating.

I have no major problem with the three-week "discrepancy" that's
taken so much attention because the "cameraman" interview is a
demonstrated hoax, full of historical implausibilities, and
clearly used as commercial damage control. Why do AA defenders
continue to treat his words like gospel?

The only enigma here is the footage itself. And barring some
breakthrough with Volker Spielberg, the answers we need are not
forthcoming.


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:19:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:07:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:41:12 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:59:55 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Bob had written:

 >>I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Greg replied:

 >1. Jerry Clark and I say that published UFO skeptics don't
 >criticize each other.

 >This debate wasn't about the ETH. I don't recall saying here
 >that I believe in "little green men." The debate was about the
 >conduct of skeptics - and, unfortunately, Bob has done nothing
 >for skeptics' reputation, with his current, stunning example of
 >bad faith and intellectual dishonesty.

Hi, Greg!

Here's an example of "bad faith and intellectual dishonesty".

In previous posts, Jerry was asked repeatedly to point out where
anyone had ever said or even implied that "eyewitness testimony
has no value whatever and can be discarded without a single
thought". He has yet to do this, even though not doing so merely
makes the very point he was trying to disprove. After all,
apparently Jerry was the only known witness to this statement.
Unless he can substantiate the mystery quote, he only proves
that witness testimony needs to be verified before it can be
believed.

Want another example?

Okay, despite Jerry's habit of avoiding issues and not answering
questions, he has the gall to write the following to Bob:

 >I'm sorry you chose the easy
 >path, rather than the more challenging one of addressing the
 >point of my remarks, which is that the sort of internal
 >criticism that is inherent in true scientific inquiry is
 >virtually nonexistent in the debunking literature and polemic.
 >Or are you conceding the point?

Now there are two big problems with this line of thinking. First
is his assumption that a lack of response means that others
automatically agree with him. This is ego run-amok. Considering
the number of posts where I have stated a position that he has
not responded to, I guess I can assume he must agree with me. In
fact, if non-response is the equivalent of conceding the point,
then I guess Jerry must the concede the point every time he
refuses to answer a question from someone!

The second, and quite frankly, biggest problem with the above
statement is revealed in your opening line:

 >1. Jerry Clark and I say that published UFO skeptics don't
 >criticize each other.

Now, despite this position, you incredibly go on to give
examples of something you and Jerry don't believe exist:

 >For anyone who's seriously interested, I know of one example
 >from the open literature of one skeptic, at least, criticizing
 >others, though not specifically about UFOs. It's something
 >Murray Gell-Mann said, about the well-known American
 >publication, The Skeptical Inquirer. He said - unfortunately I
 >don't have the exact quote with me as I write this - that
 >skeptical writing in that magazine treated every case as
 >solvable, which was a mistake, because loose ends normally
 >remain in any investigation. I'm sure he didn't mean that some
 >UFO sightings represent genuine unknowns, but only that, in the
 >nature of things, sometimes you just can't tie down every last
 >detail.

 >Otherwise, I've heard Phil Klass - in an on-the-record interview
 >with me, but not in public - make criticisms of some of his
 >skeptical colleagues, which I won't repeat here, because they
 >were to some degree personal. I don't know that he's made
 >criticisms in public. As Jerry Clark has pointed out, some of
 >Menzel's conclusions were rejected by skeptical people in the
 >Air Force and (if I remember rightly) the Condon Committee, but
 >again that wasn't in public, and isn't in the skeptical
 >literature.

So here we have grand examples of "bad faith and intellectual
dishonesty", all contained within a single post! First you
chastise Bob for not giving examples of something you claim
doesn't exist. Then, in the same post, you give a handful of
examples that it does exist! Jerry operates on the notion that
lack of response equates agreement; his lack of response
notwithstanding. And ultimately, his inability to substantiate
something that only he was witness to means that witness
testimony must be verified to be believed, after all.

In the end, if he doesn't respond to this, I assume he must
agree.


Roger Evans








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:44:06 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:35:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:27:45 -0500

 >>From: Robert Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:18:27 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Jerry:

You had previously written:

 >>>Oh, wait ... exactly _which_ scientific credentials do Klass and
 >>>Sheaffer have, beyond one or a small number of undergraduate
 >>>courses, if that? (By that definition, I guess I'm a scientist,
 >>>too.) The answer to the question is: none I am aware of.

 >>I'm surpised that after using old Uncle Phil's name in vain for
 >>at least a decade, you didn't know that he has a graduate degree
 >>in electrical engineering and for many years has been a senior
 >>editor for avionics for Aviation Week and Space Technology
 >>magazine.

 >Wow. You're not even close on this one. No one has disputed that
 >Klass is trained as an engineer.

Since when do engineers with graduate degrees have "only one or
a small number of undergraduate [science] courses, if that?"
Perhaps on the planet Clarion. "If that?" means maybe he has
never taken even an undergraduate science course, Jerry.

 >Surely you're familiar with the amusing saga of his first book,
 >so egregiously pseudoscientific that _both_ James McDonald
 >and a subcommittee of plasma physicists assembled for the
 >Condon Committee tore it apart.

Would you say, Jerry, that this subcommittee of plasma
physicists were skeptics or believers in flying saucers?

Of course, as Greg Sandow has just pointed out, this would be an
example of one skeptic criticizing another. Thought this never
happened?


Clear skies,

Bob








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                         Re: Serious Research - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:59:18 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:38:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:02:08 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:45:57 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>The image appearing is
 >>>>that of old doc Hynek, with the pipe and attractive beard,
 >>>>lecturing to the rubes.

 >>>Interesting choice of word.  "Rubes" is usually understood to
 >>>denote gullible victims of con artists.

 >>>Is it your contention, then, that Allen Hynek was a charlatan?

 >>>Jerry Clark

 >>And Dick Hall as well?


 >I was commenting on your attractive red beard.

 >And your use of scientific sounding words and phrases such as,
 >"Among", "high probability", "large majority", "In mathematical
 >language", "a standard feature", etc. without one, single
 >supporting number,

 >And your 55 item "Rerences & Notes", and your "Suggested Reading
 >List for Scientists - Annotated" - all without one, single page
 >reference to the many scientific-sounding and
 >mathematical-sounding claims in your article.

 >Bob Young

Bob,

Are we debating the merits of the cases yet? By the way, those
are not "scientific sounding" words, they are scientific words.
As I said before, this article is a highly condensed version of
my full argument, and you know where you can find that.

As a technical writer and editor (and database abstractor and
indexer) I know quite a lot about proper documentation and
citation of sources. My usages were proper; your general
implication that I have committed some undefined impropriety
needs to be more specifically justified. Otherwise you are just
using smear tactics and personal put-downs instead of presenting
rational arguments. Let's get on to the cases, shall we?


Dick

 >Rube - n. slang.  A countryman; farmer; rustic. (Funk & Wagnalls
 >Standard Dictionary, International Edition, Vol. 2, 1965, p.
 >1099).








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 10

                           Re: Nellis UFO - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:30:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:43:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Nellis UFO - Velez


 >From: Jess Fritch <djfritch@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Nellis UFO
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:17:51 -0700

 >>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 03:53:49 -0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Nellis UFO

 >>Jess, would you mind telling me what this "made in the USA"
 >>antigravity craft is doing in the skies over Brazil? Please
 >>refer to the photos I have posted at the AIC website on the
 >>"UFO" pages. Go to:

 ><snip>

 >Hi John and all;

 >First please don't use the term antigravity when it comes to
 >these craft. They control gravity not consul it out. If you
 >remember the sts-48 video, this is the first time we saw this
 >craft. The cruse alone the edge of the atmosphere at about 54000
 >miles per hour. The can go anywhere in the world in about 4 to 5
 >minutes.How it works is it is like a capacitor, the positive
 >charge forms a gravity well and the negative charge forms a
 >gravity hill. So all together it forms a gravity wave and the
 >craft rides it like a surf board on a wave. Now why are they in
 >the skies over Brazil? I really don't know but they can go
 >anywhere they want to.


Hello Jess,

I don't recall seeing the "Nellis" style craft in the STS video.
I saw nothing in that video that even remotely resembled the
four lobed craft that is seen close-up in the Nellis range
video.

Ok, it's time to ask: You make noises like you know what the
deal is with the Nellis craft. I suspect we're about to hear
another "Lazar" or "Corso" type story but I'll ask anyway. How
do you know what that craft is, or what kind of propulsion
system is being used?

I hesitate to ask because I suspect I'm opening a can of worms
by engaging you in a dialog over this. Already you imply
intimate knowledge about something (that if it's ours) would be
ranked as top secret. I hope I haven't assumed a position
directly behind the dump chute of a dung wagon by asking.


Expecting a huge load,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:32:09 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:32:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:19:09 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:07:55 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To:
 >>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:41:12 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:59:55 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Here's an example of "bad faith and intellectual dishonesty".

 >In previous posts, Jerry was asked repeatedly to point out where
 >anyone had ever said or even implied that "eyewitness testimony
 >has no value whatever and can be discarded without a single
 >thought". He has yet to do this, even though not doing so merely
 >makes the very point he was trying to disprove. After all,
 >apparently Jerry was the only known witness to this statement.
 >Unless he can substantiate the mystery quote, he only proves
 >that witness testimony needs to be verified before it can be
 >believed.

Jerry,

Yeah, what about this?  Have you ever run across a UFO skeptic
every putting this into the printed word?


Clear skies,

Bob Young


"Intellectual inquiry demands internal policing and debate in the
interest of truth-seeking, as opposed to ideological scoring,
where a belief has to be defended at all costs, with no
concession or quarter given."  - - Jerome Clark, 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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clarke

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:06:21 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:34:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clarke


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:59:26 -0500

 >>From: Alan Staithes <AlanStaithes@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:39:28 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >This is not meant as a rhetorical question. What is the
 >difference between "skeptical to the max" and "debunker"?
 >Skepticism, as I understand it, is not a matter of degree; it is
 >just a general intellectual stance of caution, conservatism, and
 >doubt -- about one's own ideas as well as everybody else's.
 >"Skeptical to the max," in fact, is an oxymoronic phrase Robert
 >Sheaffer, who is a debunker by anybody's definition, always uses
 >to characterize himself. Thus, it is pretty strange to find
 >somebody's saying, at one and the same time, that Roberts and
 >Clarke are "skeptical to the max" but miraculously _not
 >debunkers_. A neat trick. I'm not saying it can't be done, but
 >at the very least, it requires a clear explanation, if one is
 >even possible.

Hi Jerry,

If you want a definition that helps you to pigeonhole me, I
can't do better than my favourite 'signature', as neatly
expressed by Sir Walter Raleigh himself:

"...The Skeptick doth neither affirm, neither denie any
position; but doubteth of it..."

Experience has made me s[k]eptical to the point where I would
not assert that _nothing_ happened in a specific UFO claim or
experience, but rather than what _seems_ or _is claimed_ to have
happened, may not be what has _really_ happened.

Simple really.

Hope this helps

Dave Clarke










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                 Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:36:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:37:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:19:11 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >>Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:12:38 +0200

 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:39:45 -0500
 >>>Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:31:23 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question

<snip>

 >>I came across the letter from prospector Frank Johnson to
 >>the Air Force, on the web, dated August 20th 1947:

 >>http://www.project1947.com/fig/johns47.htm

 >>with the following excerpt:

 >>"(...)Sir. Saw in the portland paper a short time ago in
 >>regards to an article in regards to the so called flying disc

<snip>

 >>Having a
 >>telescope with me at the time I can asure you they are real and
 >>noting like them I ever saw before they did not pass verry high
 >>over where I was standing at the the time. plobly 1000 ft. they
 >>were Round about 30 feet in dimater tapering sharply to a point


 >His claim that he had a telescope with him so he knows they were
 >real but travelling low and faster than anything he ever saw is
 >not credible. It is virtually impossible to acquire a fast
 >object in a telescope. I think the newspaper article probably
 >explains what he "saw".


This is not a "smart" statement. The witness said he saw the
objects through a telescope. He could track them with the
telescope. I suspect they were farther away than he thought, but
with distance comes lower angular rate of speed.

You have only the vaguest idea of the conditions under which he
made his observations, so there is really little or no
justification for your outright rejection ("Virtually
impossible") of his claim to have seen one (or more) of these
objects through his telescope (We don't even know the power of
the telescope or the type).










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                            NOVA/UFOs & The Media

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:26:33 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:16:21 -0400
Subject: NOVA/UFOs & The Media


Hi All,

Following is an excerpt from Terry Hansen's book, 'The Missing
Times' about news media complicity in the UFO cover-up.

I have reproduced a section that deals with NOVA and PBS and
hope it will motivate some folks to go out and buy Terry's book.
It's an eye opener and a subject that needs airing/discussion.

I got to meet a lot of terrific people because of my
participation in the NOVA hatchet job. CDB Bryan is one of them.
His response to the experiencers that he met, as well as the
producer that John Mack mentions in the chapter below, are pretty
'typical' of those who actually take the time to talk to, and
get to know, the people that are reporting the phenomenon. (And
I'm talking about researched abduction cases/abductees. Not the
self-proclaimed 'personalities' that litter the Internet and
these Lists with their personal needs and mindless blather.)
There's nothing like the "real thing" baby. If more journalists,
scientists, and researchers would only take _more_ than just a
cursory look at the material, and get to know some of the
solid/credible people who are reporting, we'd all be a lot
further in the quest for reliable answers.

Trouble is, nobody's taking the time. And the ones who
contribute nothing but 'noise' and ego-static only serve to
reinforce the impression that _all_ abductees are 'flakes' or
trying to get attention.

Someday folks are going to wake-up. I can't wait for that day.

Enjoy the excerpt.

John Velez

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

'The Missing Times: News Media Complicity In The UFO Coverup'

Author: Terry Hansen

Published by Xlibris Corporation
www.Xlibris.com

ISBN: 0-7388-3612-5

pages 256-262


The commercial TV networks aren't alone in promoting the
official view about UFOs. On October 12, 1982, PBS broadcast a
treatment of the UFO issue on its NOVA science series. Called
The Case of the UFOs, the BBC/NOVA joint production could more
accurately have been called The Case of the IFOs, since it spent
a huge amount of time on cases that are easily explained. The
producers had interviewed astronomer Dr. J. Allen Hynek who had
presented them with impressive evidence for the reality of UFOs.
It was a little too impressive, evidently, because producers cut
all of Hynek's testimony from the program. Instead, NOVA gave
inordinate time to non-scientists including debunker Philip J.
Klass and space-exploration writer James Oberg, both members of
CSICOP.

The NOVA program focused heavily on UFO cases that had received
widespread media coverage, almost as if its very purpose was
spin control. NOVA admitted that some UFO cases appeared
puzzling but said the most likely explanations were entirely
prosaic. Included among the suggested causes of UFO sightings
were hoaxes, misperceptions, the planet Venus, atmospheric
refraction, temperature inversions, illuminated squid boats, and
plasma discharges. NOVA gave considerable weight to a fringe
theory advocated by Canadian scientist Michael Persinger.
Persinger has argued that UFO sightings and experiences are
triggered by electrical phenomena produced by stress along
geological fault lines, a provocative but scientifically
unsubstantiated idea.

Although NOVA admitted Persinger's ideas were "controversial at
best' it nevertheless used his obscure theory to explain away
high-profile UFO cases. Included were an incident in which
Minnesota Deputy Sheriff Val Johnson's patrol car reportedly was
knocked sideways and damaged by a UFO, and the Travis Walton
story, which Persinger suggested was a case of electrically
induced confabulation, similar to cases of religious experience.
Throughout the program, NOVA referred to those who study UFOs
with pejorative terms ("buffs" and "believers"). In the end,
NOVA's message was clear: Alas, science has taken much of the
mystery out of life. Consequently, many people appeal to
irrational beliefs in aliens and UFOs to rest ore this
much-needed psychological element to their dreary existences.
In short, UFOs were a religion. End of story. Following in the
footsteps of CBS, PBS had set up its UFO straw man and knocked
it flat.

PBS revisited the UFO controversy in 1996 with NOVA's Kidnapped
by Aliens? Once again, CSICOP members were out in force, this
time arguing that cases of abductions could all be accounted for
by "false memories". NOVA depended heavily on testimony from
those who had never studied UFO abductions for this "scientific"
conclusion, an odd tactic for a program that claims to represent
the scientific cause. The program's message was essentially a
replay of NOVA's earlier argument that UFOs were a psychological
phenomenon.

To say that John Mack and Budd Hopkins, as well as thousands of
UFO witnesses, suffered at the hands of NOVA's skillfully
constructed production would be an understatement. "Dr. Mack,
who gives credence to the alien-encounter experience will likely
not be pleased with this film, which proceeds to demolish the
claims of the various hucksters, charlatans, assorted
exhibitionists and garden variety nitwits immersed in humbug
about alien abductors - and does so with quietly killing
authority", wrote reviewer Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street
Journal. What NOVA didn't tell viewers was that Mack and Hopkins
were not alone in concluding that something scientifically
significant is behind the UFO abduction phenomenon. Only the
high-profile targets were singled out for attack. There was much
more that NOVA didn't tell its viewers.

"Although the appearances of CSICOP members Carl Sagan,
Elizabeth Loftus and Robert A. Baker were 'balanced' by the
inclusion of UFO researchers Budd Hopkins and John Mack, it was
clear to anyone familiar with UFO research on abductions (or
to me at least) that the program's central argument rested upon
a rather superficial treatment of the hypnosis issue in
abduction research," commented Gettysburg College sociologist
Charles F. Emmons. "UFO researchers are well aware of the issue
of possible 'false memories' under hypnosis, but many abduction
accounts are collected without hypnosis, and many researchers
have ways of testing for 'confabulation' under hypnosis, none of
which was mentioned in the program. Nor were there any examples
given of physicaI-evidence correlates of abduction ("body marks,
implants, etc.) or of multiple-witness testimony"

Journalist C.D.B. Bryan is author of Close Encounters of the
Fourth Kind, a lengthy book about scientists interested in the
UFO abduction phenomenon who met to discuss the issue at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1992.72 Bryan told me
he was initially dubious about UFO abductions. He said he'd
started out planning "a skeptical tongue-in-cheek kind of piece"
for the New Yorker but realized that such an approach would not
do justice to the caliber of scientists studying the abduction
phenomenon, many of whom are accomplished academics at major
universities. He wound up writing an entire book on the topic.
Although Bryan told me he still has no idea what is behind the
UFO abduction phenomenon, he had little good to say about NOVA's
treatment of the complex issue. Bryan characterized Kidnapped by
Aliens? as "utter crap" and said the program also was "mean
spirited:'

"That's what my impressions were," he continued. "They were
rude. As a matter of fact [the NOVA program] was badly
researched. They had not done their homework. It ended up being
just the kind of sensationalist bashing program that these
things always get"

Harvard's John Mack told me an earlier version of the NOVA
program was worse than mean-spirited, it was potentially
libelous. "[NOVA] even went so far as to film [Donna Bassett] in
a hotel room with ashtrays and something to eat or drink," Mack
said. "The implication they gave on the program was that I had
taken her into a hotel room with the implication of wrong doing
on my part, when the facts were utterly different"

After Mack's attorney, Eric MacLeish, sent NOVA a letter
pointing out various factual errors and potentially defamatory
statements, NOVA re-edited the program. Later, however, NOVA
denied it had done so in response to Mack's objections. "They
removed some of the most radically distorted, untrue portions -
we knew that because we had both versions - and later denied
that they had made any changes in response to legal pressure,"
Mack told me.

To be sure, the UFO abduction phenomenon is complex and
controversial, even among those who have spent years studying
it. Opinions as to just what is happening to UFO "abductees"
vary. (John Mack actually prefers the term "experiencers') So
when NOVA told its audience that scientists understand and agree
upon the answers to the abduction mystery, it was engaging in
nothing less than propaganda.

Why had NOVA taken this slanted approach? NOVA producer Denise
Dilanni provided some answers in a 1996 interview with
newsletter editor Michelle LaVigne. NOVAs Dilanni acknowledged
she was motivated by fear that people might come to accept that
UFO abductions were really taking place.

"I have seen people who have been troubled by this," Dilanni
said. "I've seen people who are troubled by the notion that they
and their children, for generations now and into the future,
will be abducted and there is not a thing they can do about it.
I think as a mother of a small child and as a human being that
is a really frightening proposition. I'm glad that science and
scientist methodology exist to tell me that perhaps there is a
different explanation'

This is an illuminating comment. It suggests that a key motive
behind Abducted by Aliens? was to reassure a troubled public;
not to pursue the scientific truth behind the UFO experience,
whatever that might be. Thus what was really at stake in the
mind of NOVA producer Dilanni was a struggle between alternate
belief systems. Since the time of Galileo, the political
establishment repeatedly has had to defend itself against new
and subversive theories brought about through the study of
anomalous phenomena. In this latest battle for the public mind,
PBS had sided with the status quo, as the elite media
organizations typically have done throughout the twentieth
century during times of crisis. Does this suggest ties between
PBS and the U.S. national security establishment?

As the effectiveness of atrocity stories has shown, appeals to
emotion are always more effective in swaying public opinion than
appeals to logic and reason, a fact familiar to CSICOP's
PhilipJ. Klass. In his book UFO Abductions: A Dangerous Game,
Klass aims for the reader's gut by suggesting that those who
take UFO abduction reports seriously are not merely misguided,
they are creating a dangerous cult. As Klass put it in the
introduction to UFO Abductions, "It is a cult that threatens the
mental health, perhaps even the life, of those who unwittingly
become its participants". It is easy to see how impressionable
PBS producers who fear for the welfare of children could be
swayed by such inflammatory rhetoric.

In the case of the commercial TV networks, though, the source of
bias in UFO-related coverage often seems to be corporate policy,
however that is formulated. John Mack, who has had considerable
experience with the elite media, said network reporters often
have little choice about how the subject is portrayed. They're
kept on a short leash and pulled back into line if they wander
too far from the officially approved position on UFOs.

Following publication of Mack's first book about the UFO
abduction phenomenon in 1994, NBC's Dateline took an interest in
the subject. "There was a young reporter who was interested in
this but rather a skeptic," Mack explained. "He met a couple of
experiencers and it changed his whole view. He got very
interested in it and took it very seriously and did something
that no other producer that I know ofhas done. He went out to
the home to meet with the parents of one of the experiencers,
and... back with the experiencer, too, to some of the childhood
sites where some of the experiences had taken place. And he
developed such a trust with our staff and one of the
experiencers that we did what turned out to be a very powerfiil
regression session on camera, with the NBC cameramen there
filming the whole thing.

"We were very excited about this program," Mack continued. "He
had so much good material that he was petitioning NBC to make it
a two-hour show - a special. Well, what happened was that when
it came time to do it, the editors took what he had done, [and]
basically told him, 'You cannot credit this phenomenon... we
cannot do that,' for what-ever reason. And they then put some
debunkers on the program, they cut out the entire interview that
I had done with the experiencer, and they packed it into the
usual on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand, rather dismissive
thing.

"Now, what was even more interesting about this was that this
producer had such pride in his work that he said that he
couldn't go along with this because it did such violation to
what he had created. And they fired him. I got incensed and I
offered to go to the top people at NBC and raise hell in his
support. And he said, 'Don't do that. If that happens I'll be
seen as a troublemaker and be blackballed from getting other
jobs' And the program came out and it was the usual trashy,
woo-woo type of UFO show."

Of course, such experiences are common among journalists working
for the elite news organizations. Digging into subjects that
powerful organizations and people don't want exposed can be very
risky, career wise, as explained in Fear and Favor in the
Newsroom, a film documentary about newsroom power politics
narrated by Studs Terkel. The documentary explains how
journalists, no matter how well intentioned, routinely run up
against internal corporate policies that play a primary role in
deciding what stories get reported and how they get spun.
Journalists find out quickly which topics are off limits. Those
who ignore the boundaries suffer for it, while those who learn
to play by the un-written corporate rules rise through the
ranks.



            "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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:29:54 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies


 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Rebecca Keith <xiannekei@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gates
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

<snip>

 >Last time I checked, no one had seen actual film that had the
 >"alien" carcass on it.

 >I think that Phil Mantle was shown some film but he does not
 >recall the alien being visible.

The shred of actual film that circulated showed a door. I've
seen the same thing on the CDs, saved under "Fragments". The
problem, of course, is that the "door footage" could be from
_any_ filmstrip and does nothing to verify claims that the AA
originated in the 40s.

(Inside the doorway is a table with a sheet on it, but it
doesn't appear to be the operating table from the AA. It looks
like someone's basement, frankly.)


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                     Online Competition at Ufology U.K.

From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 21:31:13 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:35:35 -0400
Subject: Online Competition at Ufology U.K.


ONLINE COMPETITION OF UFOLOGY UK


'Ufology UK and Faster Than Light are organising a competition
to win a fantastic prize and the good people at O'Reilly
publishing have donated 20 prizes for the best 20 answers.

The prize is the new book 'Beyond Contact' by Brian McConnell
which is an intriguing compilation that outlines the many
problems and positive theories and ideas about actually
communicating with alien civilisations.

The book takes the reader through various pertinent
technological breakthroughs and of generic possibilities, which
may be synonymous with other races in the cosmos, able to
communicate with us and vice versa. It probes the question of
alien semiotics and re-defines some of the previously widely
accepted notions ET may not be able to communicate with us and
demonstrates communication may really be possible in a number of
ways. Anyone who has pondered this topic will appreciate the
addition of this book to their library, so why not give this
competition a try?

The rules of the competition are simple:

1. The competition is international and anyone may enter;
notices will be widely posted over the next four weeks
publicising the competition for entrants to have plenty of time
to think up their answers. Groups and individuals may enter,
however there will only be one prize per individual or group who
is chosen by judges.

2. Judges will be diligently chosen and represent a balanced
international footing.

Some regulars of UFO Updates Mailing list and other lists may be
privately asked to participate as judges, so if you are asked
and can spare some little time, please consider helping out.
Also, an impartial overseer will be appointed to check the
organisation and judging of the competition is fair and same
will act as ombudsman. Judges may participate in the competition
but obviously may not choose their own entries. Judges will
choose the best entries based on their merit and practicality
and will be left to their own discretion to pick which entrants
they think may best represent this. The decision of judges is
final.

3. The closing date for entrants to the competition is June 4
and results and winners will be picked and published as promptly
as possible following this date. If an excessive number of
entrants apply, more than the time it would reasonably take for
pre-chosen number of judges to make their decisions, competition
organisers reserve the right to randomly pick a workable number
of entrants for judges to make their decisions from. Although
this is an International competition, for practical reasons,
entries should be written in the English. Allowances will be
made for entries from people who cannot write English.

4. There are two questions and both must be answered to win. The
space for entrants to answer these two questions will be
limited, so simplicity and making most in expressing answers is
important. The competition is strictly online through the link
page below, no postal entries will be permitted though a postal
address for each entrant will be required for posting of prizes.
Entrants without postal address will not be accepted.

Question 1. How would you communicate with ET who may not
understand an Earth language?

Question 2. What message would you communicate with ET?

Further details and application to this competition can be found
at:

www.ufology.org.uk   under book competition.

Good luck!! Have fun and please feel free to forward this
message to any group or individual who may be interested in this
competition.


Regards

Gary Anthony, Chris Whitlock, Joe McGonagle & Chris Evers.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:53:07 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:41:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:19:09 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Hi, Greg!

 >Here's an example of "bad faith and intellectual dishonesty".

 >In previous posts, Jerry was asked repeatedly to point out where
 >anyone had ever said or even implied that "eyewitness testimony
 >has no value whatever and can be discarded without a single
 >thought". He has yet to do this, even though not doing so merely
 >makes the very point he was trying to disprove. After all,
 >apparently Jerry was the only known witness to this statement.
 >Unless he can substantiate the mystery quote, he only proves
 >that witness testimony needs to be verified before it can be
 >believed.

Roger, you'll have to argue with Jerry on your own. I don't need
-- and he doesn't need me -- to speak for him.

 >The second, and quite frankly, biggest problem with the above
 >statement is revealed in your opening line:

 >>1. Jerry Clark and I say that published UFO skeptics don't
 >>criticize each other.

 >Now, despite this position, you incredibly go on to give
 >examples of something you and Jerry don't believe exist:

 >>For anyone who's seriously interested, I know of one example
 >>from the open literature of one skeptic, at least, criticizing
 >>others, though not specifically about UFOs. It's something
 >>Murray Gell-Mann said, about the well-known American
 >>publication, The Skeptical Inquirer.

<snip>

 >>Otherwise, I've heard Phil Klass - in an on-the-record interview
 >>with me, but not in public - make criticisms of some of his
 >>skeptical colleagues,

<snip>

 >As Jerry Clark has pointed out, some of
 >>Menzel's conclusions were rejected by skeptical people in the
 >>Air Force and (if I remember rightly) the Condon Committee, but
 >>again that wasn't in public, and isn't in the skeptical
 >>literature.

 >So here we have grand examples of "bad faith and intellectual
 >dishonesty", all contained within a single post! First you
 >chastise Bob for not giving examples of something you claim
 >doesn't exist. Then, in the same post, you give a handful of
 >examples that it does exist!

Roger, my first question to you is how much of the skeptical
literature you've read. I'm talking, at a minimum, about maybe
four of Phil Klass's books (UFOs Explained, UFOs: The Public
Deceived, and Phil's studies of Roswell and abductions), one by
Oberg, and a couple by Robert Sheaffer. Maybe I'd add to that
the Condon Report. And certainly I'd add The Skeptical Inquirer,
generally regarded as the leading skeptics' publication in
America, and Phil Klass's SUN newsletter ("Skeptics' UFO
Newsletter"), to which I used to subscsribe.

I don't think you'll find in all of this any active debate, any
sense of people taking an interest in critiquing each others'
views. Next I might ask you whether you've often read IUR
(International UFO Reporter), the CUFOS publication that Jerry
has edited, or JUFOS (Journal of UFO Studies), also published by
CUFOS. In these publications, you will find debate, especially
in the form of reassessment of previously studied cases.

So much for the larger context of what I've been trying to say.
As for the post you criticize, I'm charmed to think of myself of
someone able to propound a proposition, and then immediately
contradict it, a few short sentences later. Just a couple of
months ago, in something I wrote for the New York Times Book
Review, I criticized a musicologist for doing exactly that.

In my case, I think you misunderstand. When I said that skeptics
don't criticize each other, I meant that they don't as a general
rule. I think this is a reasonable way to use the English
language. Then, in the interest of honesty and completeness, I
cited the few exceptions I know of.

Though if I wanted to be really rigorous, I could say that these
few examples aren't exceptions at all, because they're not from
the skeptical UFO literature, and also because only one of my
three cases was a published, public discussion. Nor were Klass's
comments largely about the substance of his colleagues' work. He
had far, far more to say about their personalities. As for Murray
Gell-Mann, he may never have written about UFOs, as far as I
know. He was talking about everything the Skeptical Inquirer
writes about, of which UFOs are a very small part.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                   Filer's Files #15 -- 2000 - [Truncated]

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:16:55 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:45:11 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #15 -- 2000 - [Truncated]


Filer's Files #15 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
April 10, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

HAPPY EASTER AND HAPPY PASSOVER

LARGE UFOS ARE BEING OBSERVED in Rhode Island, New York,
Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska,
California, Washington, Chile and Italy. Huge unidentified
flying objects are causing a hazard to the aviation public, its
time to start examining the hundreds of UFO reports. In the past
air traffic controllers report alleged false radar images and
diverted commercial aircraft near Chicago. Several UFOs were
spotted last week in air space near Chicago's O'Hare
International Airport often advertised as the nations' busiest.
It seems likely the radars are picking up the UFOs.

At this time of the year, it is appropriate to consider some
amazing new discoveries that endorse statements made in the
Bible. Your ancestors may not be primordal soup or apes as the
Theory of Evolution claims. My mother always told me some people
may be related to apes, but we are from a higher place and
looked toward the heavens. Zecharia Sitchin the noted researcher
and author of the Earth Chronicles explains why your forefathers
came from a more complex higher life form.

SCIENCE CATCHES UP TO BIBLE EXPLANATION OF OUR GENES

Zecharia Sitchin writes, "In whose image was The Adam - the
prototype of modern humans, Homo sapiens - created?" The Bible
asserts that the Elohim said: "Let us fashion Adam in our image
and after our likeness." But if one is to accept a tentative
explanation for enigmatic genes that humans possess, offered
when the deciphering of the human genome was announced in
mid-February, the feat was decided upon by a group of bacteria!
"Humbling" was the prevalent adjective used by the scientific
teams and the media to describe the principal finding -- that
the human genome contains not the anticipated 100,000 - 140,000
genes (the stretches of DNA that direct the production of
amino-acids and proteins) but only some 30,000+ -- little more
than double the 13,601 genes of a fruit fly and barely fifty
percent more than the roundworm's 19,098. What a comedown from
the pinnacle of the genomic Tree of Life! Moreover, there was
hardly any uniqueness to the human genes. They are comparative
to 99 percent of the chimpanzees, and 70 percent of the mouse.
Human genes, with the same functions, were found to be identical
to genes of other vertebrates, as well as invertebrates, plants,
fungi, even yeast. The findings not only confirmed that there
was one source of DNA for all life on Earth, but also enabled
the scientists to trace the evolutionary process -- how more
complex organisms evolved, genetically, from simpler ones,
adopting at each stage the genes of a lower life form to create
a more complex higher life form -- culminating with Homo
sapiens. The "Head-scratching" Discovery It was here, in tracing
the vertical evolutionary record contained in the human and the
other analyzed genomes, that the scientists ran into an enigma.

The "head-scratching discovery by the public consortium," as
Science termed it, was that the human genome contains 223 genes
that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic
evolutionary tree. How did Man acquire such a bunch of enigmatic
genes? In the evolutionary progression from bacteria to
invertebrates (such as the lineages of yeast, worms, flies or
mustard weed -- which have been deciphered) to vertebrates
(mice, chimpanzees) and finally modern humans, these 223 genes
are completely missing in the invertebrate phase. Therefore, the
scientists can explain their presence in the human genome by a
"rather recent" (in evolutionary time scales) "probable
horizontal transfer from bacteria." In other words: At a
relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired
an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically
on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion
of genetic material from bacteria... An Immense Difference Now,
at first glance it would seem that 223 genes is no big deal. In
fact, while every single gene makes a great difference to every
individual, 223 genes make an immense difference to a species
such as ours. The human genome is made up of about three billion
neucleotides (the "letters" A-C-G-T which stand for the initials
of the four nucleic acids that spell out all life on Earth); of
them, just a little more than one percent are grouped into
functioning genes (each gene consists of thousands of
"letters").

The difference between one individual person and another amounts
to about one "letter" in a thousand in the DNA "alphabet." The
difference between Man and Chimpanzee is less than one percent
as genes go; and one percent of 30,000 genes is 300. So, 223
genes is more than two-thirds of the difference between me, you
and a chimpanzee! An analysis of the functions of these genes
through the proteins that they spell out, conducted by the
Public Consortium team and published in the journal Nature,
shows that they include not only proteins involved in important
physiological but also psychiatric functions. Moreover, they are
responsible for important neurological enzymes that stem only
from the mitochondrial portion of the DNA - the so-called "Eve"
DNA that humankind inherited only through the mother-line, all
the way back to a single "Eve." That finding alone raises doubt
regarding that the "bacterial insertion" explanation.

Zecharia Sitchin states, "The Role of the Anunnaki Readers of my
books must be smiling by now, for they know the answer." They
know that the biblical verses dealing with the fashioning of The
Adam are condensed renderings of much much more detailed
Sumerian and Akkadian texts, found inscribed on clay tablets, in
which the role of the Elohim in "Genesis" is performed by the
Anunnaki - "Those Who From Heaven to Earth Came." As detailed in
my books, beginning with The 12th Planet (1976) and even more so
in Genesis Revisited and The Cosmic Code, the Anunnaki came to
Earth some 450,000 years ago from the planet Nibiru - a member
of our own solar system whose great orbit brings it to our part
of the heavens once every 3,600 years. They came here in need of
gold, with which to protect their dwindling atmosphere.
Exhausted and in need of help in mining the gold, their chief
scientist Enki suggested that they use their genetic knowledge
to create the needed Primitive Workers. When the other leaders
of the Anunnaki asked: How can you create a new being? He
answered: "The being that we need already exists; all that we
have to do is put our mark on it." The time was some 300,000
years ago. What he had in mind was to upgrade genetically the
existing hominids, who were already on Earth through Evolution,
by adding some of the genes of the more advanced Anunnaki. That
the Anunnaki, who could already travel in space 450,000 years
ago, possessed the genomic science (whose threshold we have now
reached) is clear not only from the actual texts but also from
numerous depictions in which the double-helix of the DNA is
rendered as Entwined Serpents and often depicted in Sumarian
drawings (a symbol still used for medicine and healing)

When the leaders of the Anunnaki approved the project (as echoed
in the biblical "Let us fashion the Adam"), Enki with the help
of Ninharsag, the Chief Medical Officer of the Anunnaki,
embarked on a process of genetic engineering, by adding and
combining genes of the Anunnaki with those of the
already-existing hominids. When, after much trial and error
breathtakingly described and recorded in antiquity, a "perfect
model" was attained, Ninharsag held him up and shouted: "My
hands have made it!" An ancient artist depicted the scene on a
cylinder sea. And that, I suggest, is how we had come to possess
the unique extra genes. It was in the image of the Anunnaki, not
of bacteria, that Adam and Eve were fashioned. A Matter of
Extreme Significance Unless further scientific research can
establish, beyond any doubt, that the only possible source of
the extra genes are indeed bacteria, and unless it is then also
determined that the infection ("horizontal transfer") went from
bacteria to Man and not from Man to bacteria, the only other
available solution will be that offered by the Sumerian texts
millennia ago. Until then, the enigmatic 223 alien genes will
remain as an alternative - and as a corroboration by modern
science of the Anunnaki and their genetic feats on Earth. Thanks
to ZECHARIA SITCHIN (c) Z. Sitchin Reprinted with permission.

RHODE ISLAND FLYING CHEVRON WING

PORTSMOUTH - A chevron-shaped object was seen in the Rhode
Island sky at night of the Vernal Equinox. The witness and her
husband ,who works for local city government, were in the hottub
in their backyard stargazing on March 20, 2001. The sky was very
clear with a full blanket of stars at 7:30 PM. Local aircraft
traffic was flying by but this was not like that traffic. For
less than 30 seconds an object appeared, chevron or flying wing
in shape, with six unblinking lights along the perimeter. From
the witnesses' perspective, it appeared in the night sky to be a
hand's breadth and length at arm's length. It moved swiftly and
straight from the East-South-East to the North-North-West.
Thanks to Peter Davenport National Reporting Center.

NEW YORK HUGE BLIMP SHAPED UFO

ONEIDA -- In early summer of 1972, I awoke around 1:00 AM with
my room aglow from what I thought was a forest fire. Black
airplanes and helicopters were silhouetted against the
red-orange sky. I thought the planes were dropping
flame-retardants on the pines. I watched for about 20 minutes,
when a HUGE blimp-shaped object, bright red with orange tinge at
the bottom, rose slowly and majestically above the pines. As it
hovered I saw it was several acres big, as it overlapped the
east and west borders of the pine grove. I was stunned and then
realized I was watching a UFO. The planes and helicopters had
disappeared. By now I was kneeling on my bed with my face
plastered against my window in complete awe. After hovering for
about three minutes, it suddenly shot upwards within a second it
was gone. The pines leaned to the west as it left, as if huge
wind was blowing them at once. Seeing that thing shook the
perception of reality I had up to that time. I was too afraid to
talk about it and had bad dreams about it for years. Thanks to
Pat and Larry Clark pathoyt@mediaone.net and
nymufon@nycap.rr.com

VIRGINIA DISC

VIRGILINA -- On January 21, 2001, a disc was observed at 2:15 PM
by Susann and her friend who were driving back from getting a
large roll of hay for their horses. They were driving south on
Red Bank Road and saw a silver, disc-shaped UFO moving North. It
was approximately 5,000 feet high. At first, they thought it may
be a jet, but there were no contrails in the clear blue sky.
They saw it moving North for about three seconds then it
vanished after picking up speed and moving faster than a jet.
They said if the sun would not have shined off of it they would
not have seen it. This report was completed by Tom Ginther, VA
MUFON.

NORTH CAROLINA FLYING TRIANGLE

DURHAM -- A very large Flying triangular object with two very
bright lights on the front and a reddish looking light on the
bottom center was observed on March 26, 2001. The witness
reports, "As we approached an intersection at 9:35 P.M., we
noticed two very bright lights up in the sky that looked like
they were just hovering there. One of my kids finally asked me,
"What is that?" The only thing I could think of was that maybe
they had put up some kind of tower because I knew it wasn't an
airplane. We continued to watch it just sitting there and then
it began to move very slowly across the main roadway to the
other side and began to hover again. As we got closer to where
it was we looked up at it and noticed a strange triangular shape
with a reddish light in the bottom of the center of it. It began
moving again very slowly and then turned and moved back across
the main roadway toward the side where we had first seen it.
Then it suddenly just disappeared. We turned around to follow it
thinking maybe it went down below the tree line, but it was
gone. Then as we approached near the hospital, we looked over in
the field and saw the two bright lights hovering there again. As
we were observing, it began to move slowly away and downward
when it suddenly disappeared again. We rode around near both
places we had seen it but could not find it anymore. We never
heard any type of sound coming from it. Thanks to Peter
Davenport NUFORC

FLORIDA STRANGE OCCURRENCES

OCALA NATIONAL FOREST -- K. T. Frankovitch reports many strange
occurrences in the forest where she lives. Goats have been found
dead with rectum removed and blood drained. Twelve rabbits were
also found dead by their owner drained of blood with two small
puncture wounds on their neck. A baby calf was found in
wandering in the forest without her mother many miles from any
farm or cow. A horse was found dead near the top of a 15 foot
Palmetto tree. There is no way for the horse to have jumped that
high and it must have been air dropped to its position. UFOs,
generally disc-shaped, have been seen regularly in the area. The
local people call them space ships. The area is exceptionally
dry and is ravaged by fires. Thanks to K.T. Frankovitch.

ILLINOIS HOUSE SHAKES, UFOs NEAR O'HARE AIRPORT

TAYLORVILLE -- It happened so fast, it made my house shake, and
I looked out the window and saw a triangular-shaped object with
lights on it. On March 22, 2001, at around 10:00 PM, I was in my
bedroom on the computer and talking to my friends, having a good
time. All of a sudden, I felt a sudden vibrant movement of the
house. I quickly darted for the window. I looked out and saw a
triangular-shaped object traveling in a straight line at what
looked like 150 mph. This triangular object also had lights on
the bottom of it and red lights along the back of it. It wasn't
flat, it was three-dimensional. It made a huge roaring noise.
Right when I lost sight of it, I could still see it, hovering,
just sitting in mid-air. All I could see at this time were the
lights though. And, all of a sudden, it vanished. This is
definitely no plane, helicopter, military base test flight, or
anything else normal. It is the weirdest thing I have ever seen
in my life and I'm still shocked over it. We're located 200
miles south of Chicago.

CHICAGO -- At 8:00 PM Sunday night on March 25, 2001, I was
observing the southern sky and something brought my attention to
look slightly West and almost straight up. I live close to the
Loop, and I saw a tight group of some kind of craft streaking
northward. They were chevron-shaped and in at that moment in a
tight, bunched-up formation. I ran across to the front of my
house and yelled for my brother to look out the front door. He
also saw the craft which now were changing positions amongst
each other almost magically. The speed in which they traveled
from the Southern to the Northern sky was incredible. I live by
O'Hare Airport and I've seen airplanes before -- these were not
airplanes! Just for good measure, I also noticed that, along
Lake Michigan's shoreline, at least four batteries of
searchlights began what appears to be a frantic search of the
skies West over Chicago. I've seen promotional light shows and
this didn't appear to be one due to the number of lighting
batteries included in what seemed an aerial search. Crazy as it
may sound, there are now straight-line looking clouds running
East to West over to the South of Chicago. Are these
chem-trails? After these craft were sighted, I'm a perplexed
believer in what I saw. Thanks to P. Davenport NUFORC

GRAYSLAKE -- Rick writes that on the night of April 8, 2001, I
was driving back from my fiance's house down Route 83. About
11:15 PM, I saw a huge triangle shaped craft hovering over the
landfill along the highway. As I came

[Message Truncated--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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                 Re: CE-5 Contact And Skepticism - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 10 Apr 2001 14:24:34 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:13:42 -0400
Subject: Re: CE-5 Contact And Skepticism - Hamilton


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:15:51 EDT
 >Subject: Re: CE-5 Contact And Skepticism
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com
 >>Subject: CE-5 Contact And >Skepticism
 >>Date: 6 Apr 2001 07:30:52 -0700

 ><snip>

 >>This even evolves into "calling in" such craft and have them
 >>engage in repeated compliance-request behavior as I have
 >>described. Sometimes it goes further and one seems to "receive"
 >>a message that forecasts the appearance of such a craft prior to
 >>its appearance at an exact location and time (to the minute and
 >>second given)! Would you not be impressed by such an event and
 >>consider it a mystery that goes beyond the sighting of an
 >>unidentified/unconventional aerial object?

 >>When I was a teenager I experienced all of what I have described
 >>and a little more which had the effect of reducing my skepticism

 >Bill,

 >Has a double blind experiment ever been conducted to demonstrate
 >that these events have occurred and have not been simply "in the
 >eye of the beholder"? I am not sure how such a true double blind
 >experiement could be orgazined for this purpose.

I don't believe anyone has taken it that seriously.

 >If an incident like this involved others, how could one rule
 >out a hoax?

There were several instances where others were present. The most
amazing is when one is on the receiving end and a message
designating the exact time and location of the sighting is
forecast and several witnesses are there to see the promise
fulfilled. Without jumping to conclusions, this type of event is
rare but very impressive. Unfortunately, as far as I know, it
has never been conducted as a scientific experiment. When I
suggested to scientists at a group meeting (a few years ago)
that they consider doing such an experiment, I got lifted
eyebrows in response. They just don't take it seriously.

I have not been able to reproduce my early results in the
current time frame and there is only one crazy man left who
received messages such as this. In 1976 in Tonopah, Arizona (not
Nevada) he showed a few of us a typed message at 1 pm that
predicted an appearance of a UFO over our position at 10 p.m
that same day and 50-100 people witnessed its appearance at
exactly 10 pm. I saw a previous performance in 1967, but have
not seen him do anything like this recently. One would have to
ask for volunteers.

Bill 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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:06:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:16:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:16:42 -0500

<snip>

 >As for Gulf Breeze, I suggest you take up the discussion with
 >Bruce Maccabee. You can explain to him just where he went wrong
 >in his technical analyses of the photographs. I look forward to the
 >discussion, on which I assume you can hardly wait to get started.

Jerry, we can get started on this particular discussion anytime
you like.

 From your above remarks I can only assume that::

1) You either essentially agree with or support Maccabee's basic
analysis of the GB photos as suggestive of the ETH -- or you
don't. Which is it?

2) Since Maccabee seems to think Ed's photos are the "real
thing", we can only conclude that you do, too, given your
deference to Maccabee's analytical magic (or expertise, if you
prefer) in these matters.

But we really don't care what Maccabee thinks about Gulf Breeze
in this context: what do *you* think about it? (No dodging
permitted.)

And having thought about it, where are your internal ufology
criticisms of Maccabee re same? Dick Hall can weign in here,
too.

On a scale of 1 to 10, where does GB rank?

Jerry, Dick?

Dennis









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:06:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:18:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:41:12 -0400


 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:59:55 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Otherwise, I've heard Phil Klass - in an on-the-record interview
 >with me, but not in public - make criticisms of some of his
 >skeptical colleagues, which I won't repeat here, because they
 >were to some degree personal. I don't know that he's made
 >criticisms in public. As Jerry Clark has pointed out, some of
 >Menzel's conclusions were rejected by skeptical people in the
 >Air Force and (if I remember rightly) the Condon Committee, but
 >again that wasn't in public, and isn't in the skeptical
 >literature.

 >If anyone, speaking from any point of view - skeptical,
 >believing, or neutral - can provide some examples, I'd be happy
 >to have them.

If I recall correctly, the Journal of the British Interplanetary
Society, way back in the mid fifties published a review of
Menzel's first book. The reviewer was an atmospheric physicist.

As I recall he was skeptical of some of Menzel's atmospheric
explanations (some of which were a lot of hot air... but that"s
my side/snide comment, not a comment by the reviewer). However,
the reviewer did applaud Menzel for taking on the challenge and
providing the first scientific look at the flying saucer
phenomenon.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:06:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:21:07 -0400
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:48:37 EDT
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:23:29 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

<snip>

 >A mirror placed vertically would cause a specular reflection
 >which would be at the same incident angle down, 46 degrees, and
 >could not be seen.

 >But a perpendicular mirror at an angle of 46 degrees away from
 >Arnold, perhaps snow or ice on a 46 degree mountain slope, could
 >be seen by a viewer in the direction of the Sun. If the slope
 >was not exactly perpendicular to the observer, the Sun could be
 >in the appropriate reciprocal position.

 >Viola, a specular flash of the sun from the mountain peaks, or
 >from the shiny, Trent mirror-like, flying saucers seen near
 >Arnold's altitude against the mountain backdrop.

Ah, yes. Glints from Glaciers, perhaps. Why didn't I think of
that?

I know why. Mountains and reflections stay fixed while saucers
travel by! (Arnold reported seeing the flashes before and after
the objects were silhouetted against Mt Rainier.) Also, such
bright flashes would not likely be a one-time event. SInce
Arnold had been flying in the vicinity of the mountain for many
minutes before the sighting and also for many minute afterward,
one would have to ask was what special about those few minutes
when he saw flashes from snow/ice and thought he was seeing
semicircular high speed objects travel by.... and disappear to
view in the diretion to Mt ,.. Adams.


Since the objects were reported as tilting back and forth and
since they may well have had curved surfaces it is not a great
stretch of the imagination to imagine that occasionally one
would tilt so much it caused a specular reflection of the sun in
Arnold's direction. Fred Johnson reported seeing objects which
tilted . He said he last saw them "standing on edge" as they
were banking into a cloud. This sounds like a rather large tilt
angle. If they actually did a "roll" of 90 one way (or any angle
greater than 60 roll) then the reflected sunlightcould go in
Arnold's direction

See the Arnold article that has been posted already on this List
(thanks, EBK) and also the article on brightness and flashes
which I sent to you directly.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                   Filer's Files #15 -- 2000 - [Complete]

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:16:55 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:26:18 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #15 -- 2000 - [Complete]


Filer's Files #15 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
April 10, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

HAPPY EASTER AND HAPPY PASSOVER

LARGE UFOS ARE BEING OBSERVED in Rhode Island, New York,
Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska,
California, Washington, Chile and Italy. Huge unidentified
flying objects are causing a hazard to the aviation public, its
time to start examining the hundreds of UFO reports. In the past
air traffic controllers report alleged false radar images and
diverted commercial aircraft near Chicago. Several UFOs were
spotted last week in air space near Chicago's O'Hare
International Airport often advertised as the nations' busiest.
It seems likely the radars are picking up the UFOs.

At this time of the year, it is appropriate to consider some
amazing new discoveries that endorse statements made in the
Bible. Your ancestors may not be primordal soup or apes as the
Theory of Evolution claims. My mother always told me some people
may be related to apes, but we are from a higher place and
looked toward the heavens. Zecharia Sitchin the noted researcher
and author of the Earth Chronicles explains why your forefathers
came from a more complex higher life form.

SCIENCE CATCHES UP TO BIBLE EXPLANATION OF OUR GENES

Zecharia Sitchin writes, "In whose image was The Adam - the
prototype of modern humans, Homo sapiens - created?" The Bible
asserts that the Elohim said: "Let us fashion Adam in our image
and after our likeness." But if one is to accept a tentative
explanation for enigmatic genes that humans possess, offered
when the deciphering of the human genome was announced in
mid-February, the feat was decided upon by a group of bacteria!
"Humbling" was the prevalent adjective used by the scientific
teams and the media to describe the principal finding -- that
the human genome contains not the anticipated 100,000 - 140,000
genes (the stretches of DNA that direct the production of
amino-acids and proteins) but only some 30,000+ -- little more
than double the 13,601 genes of a fruit fly and barely fifty
percent more than the roundworm's 19,098. What a comedown from
the pinnacle of the genomic Tree of Life! Moreover, there was
hardly any uniqueness to the human genes. They are comparative
to 99 percent of the chimpanzees, and 70 percent of the mouse.
Human genes, with the same functions, were found to be identical
to genes of other vertebrates, as well as invertebrates, plants,
fungi, even yeast. The findings not only confirmed that there
was one source of DNA for all life on Earth, but also enabled
the scientists to trace the evolutionary process -- how more
complex organisms evolved, genetically, from simpler ones,
adopting at each stage the genes of a lower life form to create
a more complex higher life form -- culminating with Homo
sapiens. The "Head-scratching" Discovery It was here, in tracing
the vertical evolutionary record contained in the human and the
other analyzed genomes, that the scientists ran into an enigma.

The "head-scratching discovery by the public consortium," as
Science termed it, was that the human genome contains 223 genes
that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic
evolutionary tree. How did Man acquire such a bunch of enigmatic
genes? In the evolutionary progression from bacteria to
invertebrates (such as the lineages of yeast, worms, flies or
mustard weed -- which have been deciphered) to vertebrates
(mice, chimpanzees) and finally modern humans, these 223 genes
are completely missing in the invertebrate phase. Therefore, the
scientists can explain their presence in the human genome by a
"rather recent" (in evolutionary time scales) "probable
horizontal transfer from bacteria." In other words: At a
relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired
an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically
on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion
of genetic material from bacteria... An Immense Difference Now,
at first glance it would seem that 223 genes is no big deal. In
fact, while every single gene makes a great difference to every
individual, 223 genes make an immense difference to a species
such as ours. The human genome is made up of about three billion
neucleotides (the "letters" A-C-G-T which stand for the initials
of the four nucleic acids that spell out all life on Earth); of
them, just a little more than one percent are grouped into
functioning genes (each gene consists of thousands of
"letters").

The difference between one individual person and another amounts
to about one "letter" in a thousand in the DNA "alphabet." The
difference between Man and Chimpanzee is less than one percent
as genes go; and one percent of 30,000 genes is 300. So, 223
genes is more than two-thirds of the difference between me, you
and a chimpanzee! An analysis of the functions of these genes
through the proteins that they spell out, conducted by the
Public Consortium team and published in the journal Nature,
shows that they include not only proteins involved in important
physiological but also psychiatric functions. Moreover, they are
responsible for important neurological enzymes that stem only
from the mitochondrial portion of the DNA - the so-called "Eve"
DNA that humankind inherited only through the mother-line, all
the way back to a single "Eve." That finding alone raises doubt
regarding that the "bacterial insertion" explanation.

Zecharia Sitchin states, "The Role of the Anunnaki Readers of my
books must be smiling by now, for they know the answer." They
know that the biblical verses dealing with the fashioning of The
Adam are condensed renderings of much much more detailed
Sumerian and Akkadian texts, found inscribed on clay tablets, in
which the role of the Elohim in "Genesis" is performed by the
Anunnaki - "Those Who From Heaven to Earth Came." As detailed in
my books, beginning with The 12th Planet (1976) and even more so
in Genesis Revisited and The Cosmic Code, the Anunnaki came to
Earth some 450,000 years ago from the planet Nibiru - a member
of our own solar system whose great orbit brings it to our part
of the heavens once every 3,600 years. They came here in need of
gold, with which to protect their dwindling atmosphere.
Exhausted and in need of help in mining the gold, their chief
scientist Enki suggested that they use their genetic knowledge
to create the needed Primitive Workers. When the other leaders
of the Anunnaki asked: How can you create a new being? He
answered: "The being that we need already exists; all that we
have to do is put our mark on it." The time was some 300,000
years ago. What he had in mind was to upgrade genetically the
existing hominids, who were already on Earth through Evolution,
by adding some of the genes of the more advanced Anunnaki. That
the Anunnaki, who could already travel in space 450,000 years
ago, possessed the genomic science (whose threshold we have now
reached) is clear not only from the actual texts but also from
numerous depictions in which the double-helix of the DNA is
rendered as Entwined Serpents and often depicted in Sumarian
drawings (a symbol still used for medicine and healing)

When the leaders of the Anunnaki approved the project (as echoed
in the biblical "Let us fashion the Adam"), Enki with the help
of Ninharsag, the Chief Medical Officer of the Anunnaki,
embarked on a process of genetic engineering, by adding and
combining genes of the Anunnaki with those of the
already-existing hominids. When, after much trial and error
breathtakingly described and recorded in antiquity, a "perfect
model" was attained, Ninharsag held him up and shouted: "My
hands have made it!" An ancient artist depicted the scene on a
cylinder sea. And that, I suggest, is how we had come to possess
the unique extra genes. It was in the image of the Anunnaki, not
of bacteria, that Adam and Eve were fashioned. A Matter of
Extreme Significance Unless further scientific research can
establish, beyond any doubt, that the only possible source of
the extra genes are indeed bacteria, and unless it is then also
determined that the infection ("horizontal transfer") went from
bacteria to Man and not from Man to bacteria, the only other
available solution will be that offered by the Sumerian texts
millennia ago. Until then, the enigmatic 223 alien genes will
remain as an alternative - and as a corroboration by modern
science of the Anunnaki and their genetic feats on Earth. Thanks
to ZECHARIA SITCHIN (c) Z. Sitchin Reprinted with permission.

RHODE ISLAND FLYING CHEVRON WING

PORTSMOUTH - A chevron-shaped object was seen in the Rhode
Island sky at night of the Vernal Equinox. The witness and her
husband ,who works for local city government, were in the hottub
in their backyard stargazing on March 20, 2001. The sky was very
clear with a full blanket of stars at 7:30 PM. Local aircraft
traffic was flying by but this was not like that traffic. For
less than 30 seconds an object appeared, chevron or flying wing
in shape, with six unblinking lights along the perimeter. From
the witnesses' perspective, it appeared in the night sky to be a
hand's breadth and length at arm's length. It moved swiftly and
straight from the East-South-East to the North-North-West.
Thanks to Peter Davenport National Reporting Center.

NEW YORK HUGE BLIMP SHAPED UFO

ONEIDA -- In early summer of 1972, I awoke around 1:00 AM with
my room aglow from what I thought was a forest fire. Black
airplanes and helicopters were silhouetted against the
red-orange sky. I thought the planes were dropping
flame-retardants on the pines. I watched for about 20 minutes,
when a HUGE blimp-shaped object, bright red with orange tinge at
the bottom, rose slowly and majestically above the pines. As it
hovered I saw it was several acres big, as it overlapped the
east and west borders of the pine grove. I was stunned and then
realized I was watching a UFO. The planes and helicopters had
disappeared. By now I was kneeling on my bed with my face
plastered against my window in complete awe. After hovering for
about three minutes, it suddenly shot upwards within a second it
was gone. The pines leaned to the west as it left, as if huge
wind was blowing them at once. Seeing that thing shook the
perception of reality I had up to that time. I was too afraid to
talk about it and had bad dreams about it for years. Thanks to
Pat and Larry Clark pathoyt@mediaone.net and
nymufon@nycap.rr.com

VIRGINIA DISC

VIRGILINA -- On January 21, 2001, a disc was observed at 2:15 PM
by Susann and her friend who were driving back from getting a
large roll of hay for their horses. They were driving south on
Red Bank Road and saw a silver, disc-shaped UFO moving North. It
was approximately 5,000 feet high. At first, they thought it may
be a jet, but there were no contrails in the clear blue sky.
They saw it moving North for about three seconds then it
vanished after picking up speed and moving faster than a jet.
They said if the sun would not have shined off of it they would
not have seen it. This report was completed by Tom Ginther, VA
MUFON.

NORTH CAROLINA FLYING TRIANGLE

DURHAM -- A very large Flying triangular object with two very
bright lights on the front and a reddish looking light on the
bottom center was observed on March 26, 2001. The witness
reports, "As we approached an intersection at 9:35 P.M., we
noticed two very bright lights up in the sky that looked like
they were just hovering there. One of my kids finally asked me,
"What is that?" The only thing I could think of was that maybe
they had put up some kind of tower because I knew it wasn't an
airplane. We continued to watch it just sitting there and then
it began to move very slowly across the main roadway to the
other side and began to hover again. As we got closer to where
it was we looked up at it and noticed a strange triangular shape
with a reddish light in the bottom of the center of it. It began
moving again very slowly and then turned and moved back across
the main roadway toward the side where we had first seen it.
Then it suddenly just disappeared. We turned around to follow it
thinking maybe it went down below the tree line, but it was
gone. Then as we approached near the hospital, we looked over in
the field and saw the two bright lights hovering there again. As
we were observing, it began to move slowly away and downward
when it suddenly disappeared again. We rode around near both
places we had seen it but could not find it anymore. We never
heard any type of sound coming from it. Thanks to Peter
Davenport NUFORC

FLORIDA STRANGE OCCURRENCES

OCALA NATIONAL FOREST -- K. T. Frankovitch reports many strange
occurrences in the forest where she lives. Goats have been found
dead with rectum removed and blood drained. Twelve rabbits were
also found dead by their owner drained of blood with two small
puncture wounds on their neck. A baby calf was found in
wandering in the forest without her mother many miles from any
farm or cow. A horse was found dead near the top of a 15 foot
Palmetto tree. There is no way for the horse to have jumped that
high and it must have been air dropped to its position. UFOs,
generally disc-shaped, have been seen regularly in the area. The
local people call them space ships. The area is exceptionally
dry and is ravaged by fires. Thanks to K.T. Frankovitch.

ILLINOIS HOUSE SHAKES, UFOs NEAR O'HARE AIRPORT

TAYLORVILLE -- It happened so fast, it made my house shake, and
I looked out the window and saw a triangular-shaped object with
lights on it. On March 22, 2001, at around 10:00 PM, I was in my
bedroom on the computer and talking to my friends, having a good
time. All of a sudden, I felt a sudden vibrant movement of the
house. I quickly darted for the window. I looked out and saw a
triangular-shaped object traveling in a straight line at what
looked like 150 mph. This triangular object also had lights on
the bottom of it and red lights along the back of it. It wasn't
flat, it was three-dimensional. It made a huge roaring noise.
Right when I lost sight of it, I could still see it, hovering,
just sitting in mid-air. All I could see at this time were the
lights though. And, all of a sudden, it vanished. This is
definitely no plane, helicopter, military base test flight, or
anything else normal. It is the weirdest thing I have ever seen
in my life and I'm still shocked over it. We're located 200
miles south of Chicago.

CHICAGO -- At 8:00 PM Sunday night on March 25, 2001, I was
observing the southern sky and something brought my attention to
look slightly West and almost straight up. I live close to the
Loop, and I saw a tight group of some kind of craft streaking
northward. They were chevron-shaped and in at that moment in a
tight, bunched-up formation. I ran across to the front of my
house and yelled for my brother to look out the front door. He
also saw the craft which now were changing positions amongst
each other almost magically. The speed in which they traveled
from the Southern to the Northern sky was incredible. I live by
O'Hare Airport and I've seen airplanes before -- these were not
airplanes! Just for good measure, I also noticed that, along
Lake Michigan's shoreline, at least four batteries of
searchlights began what appears to be a frantic search of the
skies West over Chicago. I've seen promotional light shows and
this didn't appear to be one due to the number of lighting
batteries included in what seemed an aerial search. Crazy as it
may sound, there are now straight-line looking clouds running
East to West over to the South of Chicago. Are these
chem-trails? After these craft were sighted, I'm a perplexed
believer in what I saw. Thanks to P. Davenport NUFORC

GRAYSLAKE -- Rick writes that on the night of April 8, 2001, I
was driving back from my fiance's house down Route 83. About
11:15 PM, I saw a huge triangle shaped craft hovering over the
landfill along the highway. As I came closer to the object it
moved away from the dump. It didn't loop around like an airplane
it actually moved sideways and hovered over the road about 100
feet high. I could tell very easily that it was triangle shaped
with a bright light in the front and two at the rear points. The
front light was a bright red and the other lights at the rear
points were a strange green color. I was going to stop to look
at it, but it flew off as I came closer. This situation was
disturbing because I'm a photographer and this was one of the
few times that I did not have my camera with me. The object was
the size of a 747 aircraft. I just thought I should report this.
Now keep in mind I'm not a quack and I'm also a major skeptic
about UFO stories. However I'm not a skeptic anymore. Thanks to
Rick and Whitley Strieber.

Editor's Note: This Flying Triangle was operating less than 25
miles from Chicago's, O'Hare Airport, one of the busiest in the
world. Additionally it was operating at 100 feet over a well
traveled highway. Other reports indicate these craft cause homes
to shake probably due to their powerful propulsion systems.
These craft are regularly picked up on the screens of O'Hare air
traffic controllers forcing pilots to take sudden turns
unnecessarily. Last year, Terminal Radar Approach Control Center
in Elgin, Illinois has ordered pilots to avoid what appeared to
be planes on their radar, potentially putting passengers at
risk. The Chicago Sun Times called them false radar images, but
I think they are UFOs.

NEBRASKA CIGAR SHAPED UFO WITH FLASHING LIGHTS

VALENTINE -- The witness observed an extremely large
cigar-shaped craft on March 26, 2001, that he estimates was at
least 200 yards long. The UFO had two flashing lights on each
end when he noticed it at 9:00 PM. The craft flew right above
us, with two flashing lights at each end. It was slightly tilted
and was moving fast. We were in an extremely dark part of town
and the object was moving East. The UFO was sort of
cigar-shaped; the lights were bright, flashing and white. The
observers were a freshman in high school and an eighth-grade
student. Thanks to Peter Davenport NUFORC

ARKANSAS AIRSHOW BY EIGHT DISC-SHAPED UFOs.

HOT SPRINGS -- I was at work pulling shopping carts inside on
March 23, 2001, as my job requires, when an older gentleman
said, "What the HELL!'" Concerned for customer safety, I looked
around and saw the gentleman looking into the sky. I looked up
also at 7:23 PM. About 500 feet in the air were eight crafts
that appeared to be making high-speed ninety degree (90 degree)
turns. The gentleman noticed me watching and asked me if I saw
them too. I replied with a, "Yes sir!" and then proceeded to ask
him, "What are they?'' He replied, "I don't know." We watched
these acrobatic crafts for almost seven minutes before six of
them shot off to the North at an astounding rate of speed. The
other two craft just sat and hovered for a minute or so and then
shot off the West just as fast as the six to the North did. I
have seen aircraft like F-16's make turns but not as sharp or
perfectly cornered as these craft seemed to be doing.

Editor's Note: Large mothership cigar shaped UFOs have been seen
more often lately perhaps due to severe solar storms. Smaller
disc craft are often seen leaving and entering these
motherships.

CALIFORNIA CIGAR SHAPED UFOs

DUBLIN - The witnesses reports he sees these craft almost every
morning at 7:40 AM while waiting for the BART train. On March
31, 2001, he made his second report of this cigar-shaped object.
It flies over every morning. In my first report the object was
flying much lower and much slower. I called the FAA office at
the Livermore Airport. Is it coincidental that the object now
passes overhead at a much higher altitude so that it will go
largely unobserved? It appears to be white, cigar-shaped, with
no wings, no sound, no windows, nor anything that would make it
resemble a known object. It flies from the sSouthwest to the
Northeast or East.

LUCERNE VALLEY - Three hours later, two witnesses were traveling
north down Mesa Road near Alemeda at 10:45 AM when they saw a
similar white object that looked like a cigar. Both ends were
pointy instead of rounded. This object traveled from East to
West down the middle of the valley not far from the first
sighting in Dublin. It was flying at about 500 feet and just
glided silently by. It had no wings, tail, or exhaust. It was
only about the size of a jet fighter and was traveling at about
the same speed those planes cruise at. It was also very smooth
looking. Thanks to Peter Davenport Director
http://www.ufocenter.com/

WASHINGTON LUMINOUS LIGHTS

TROUT LAKE -- Six adult eyewitnesses and five children observed
UFOs on April 8, 2001, at 9:42 P.M . Eastern. After a typically
cold winter with snow, rain and cloudy skies, the skywatches
have started again on the South side of Mt. Adams. Our first
skywatch was spectacular when a large luminous light, turquoise
in color, came in from the Southwest. It was a pulsing green
energy field and looked about four times brighter than Venus.
The witnesses are writing statements. As it crossed directly
overhead, it threw off several, very large pulses of light which
seemed to have a psychological calming effect on the people
below. The object was filmed as it passed halfway through the
sighting and expanded into what looked like infinity,
disappearing in the camera, but to the naked eye it remained.
These anomalies are not uncommon. The UFOs often show they have
control over what is being filmed. They can even selectively
block their appearance to individuals all standing in a row.

James Gilliland writes, "During our July 1st skywatch last year,
a particular guest had a bad attitude. He shot 9 photos of a UFO
going directly overhead. He was a professional photographer. The
guests and myself had no problem filming the UFO, yet not one of
his pictures came out that night. Clips of this event from two
different camcorders are available on the UFO video we offer
through our website." This supports our theory that the success
of contact and documentation of that contact has everything to
do with an open mind, loving heart and pure intent. Thanks to
James Gilliland Self-Mastery Earth Institute,
http://www.cazekiel.org

CHILE: OVAL-SHAPED UFO

CALAMA HILLS -- On April 4, 2001, an object, originally
displaying considerable luminosity, was seen by at least five
witnesses. The sighting occurred between 1:40 and 2:15 P.M., and
had a duration of half an hour. According to Freddy L.A., and
his father, Ren L.M., who were on their way back home, an
intensely luminous object drew their attention: it was so bright
that it hurt their eyes and kept them from making out any
greater details. Freddy claims he has seen the light in that
location several times. The light was compared to the brightness
of a mirror reflecting the sun. Patricio V.T. and Jaime M.L were
clearly able to see an oval, cream-colored object with an
intense yellow-hued band around its central section. They
estimated its size at 200 meters, adding that the object made
constant triangular maneuvers. The object moved a high speed
during these motions and shot straight up into the air, losing
itself amid "a sort of cloud." Patricio V.T. claims having had
the impression that this object engaged in such triangular
maneuvers while it waited for, "a door in the skies," to open.
As soon as said door opened, it passed through it. Thanks to La
Estrella de Arica.

ITALY: THREE UFO SIGHTINGS

TRENTO -- On Sunday, March 18, 2001, three people saw, "a
circular UFO hovering over Monte Paganella Mountain near the
city of Trento." "One witness described the object as 'a
spherical shape with a metallic sheen to it.' " Another said it,
'had one point of light moving around inside the sphere.' The
same evening, at 8:39 PM, "a similar spherical UFO with an
intense white spotlight, 'like a star of incredible dimensions,'
" was seen by a witness in the city of Modena in northern Italy.
On Wednesday, March 21, 2001, a family in the suburbs of Rome,
"saw a flashing light at 8:15 PM that hovered for 15 minutes and
then moved around the sky in an elliptical fashion.' The light
then shot away at tremendous speed." Thanks to Gazzetta di
Modena News for March 20, and Edoardo Russo e Centro Italiano di
Studi Ufologici and UFO Roundup Joe Trainor Editor.

ASTRONOMERS IDENTIFY 20 NEW PLANETS

Tim Radford, science editor of The Guardian reports two British
astronomers have counted up to 20, "free floating" planets,
drifting in the constellation of Orion. They told the National
Astronomy Meeting in Cambridge yesterday that they had
identified the "signature" of water vapor in the infrared
spectrum of faint points of light in the Orion nebula. This is a
vast cloud of gas and dust 1,300 light years from Earth, but
visible as the middle "star" in the sword of the constellation
of Orion. Philip Lucas, of the University of Hertfordshire, and
Patrick Roche, of the University of Oxford, told the meeting
that the planets would be several times the mass of Jupiter, and
would not circle around any parent star, but instead drift in
space. Although huge by Earth standards, and inhospitable to
life, they would be at surface temperatures of about 2,000C,
cool enough for water to exist in their atmospheres. The guess
is that the gaseous planets are hot because they have condensed
from the gas cloud in the past million years or so. Thanks to
the Guardian
http//www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,468070,00.html
April 4, 2001.

THE UFO - JESUS CONNECTION

David E. Twichell writes, "The ancient astronaut and Biblical
UFO hypotheses are not new. However, no one seems to want to
take the matter to the next logical step. If Ezekiel's, "wheel
within a wheel," and Moses', "pillar of fire and cloud," were
forerunners of today's UFOs, then the Star of Bethlehem and the
brilliant cloud to which Jesus ascended must be treated in the
same vein. When Biblical descriptions of anomalous aerial
phenomena are overlaid on that of modern-day UFO reports, the
picture seems to meld as one. Once the evidence has been
presented, the reader is led to a conclusion that is at best
convincing and at least thought provoking. Are you willing to
risk having your world view shaken? Read the preface free at:
http://hometown.aol.com/fi4mufon/myhomepage/index.html To order
your copy of THE UFO - JESUS CONNECTION, go to:

http://www.buybooksontheweb.com

Or Save the shipping charges and order your autographed copy by
sending a check or money order for $13.95 (US) per copy to:
David Twichell, P.O. Box 511, Trenton MI. 48183-0511

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. 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

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 2001 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. 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. Caution, most of
these are initial reports and require further investigation.
Regards, George Filer


The local Fire Station sign reads, "May the angels protect You!








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                           Re: Nellis UFO - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 20:14:49 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:30:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Nellis UFO - Rudiak


 >From: Jess Fritch <djfritch@earthlink.net>
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:17:51 -0700
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:34:43 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Nellis UFO - Fritch

 >>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 03:53:49 -0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Nellis UFO

 >>>From: Jess Fritch <djfritch@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Nellis UFO
 >>>Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:31:52 -0700

 >>>I am the holder of a copy of this video. I received it from one
 >>>of the controllers of the range. I have been able to id the
 >>>technology as electrogravitics (the control of gravity). This is
 >>>US built no back engineering. It is the same one seen in the
 >>>STS-48 video in 1991. I have a page at:

 >>>www.gravitydrive.com

 >>>and I am working on a full site. I do lectures on it and some
 >>>people that I have talked to think that this technology has not
 >>>been developed or that it did not work at all. I have talked to
 >>>T.T.Brown's daughter and it has been fully developed by the
 >>>government.

 >>Jess, would you mind telling me what this "made in the USA"
 >>antigravity craft is doing in the skies over Brazil?

 >Hi John and all;

 >First please don't use the term antigravity when it comes to
 >these craft. They control gravity not consul it out. If you
 >remember the sts-48 video, this is the first time we saw this
 >craft. The cruse alone the edge of the atmosphere at about 54000
 >miles per hour. The can go anywhere in the world in about 4 to 5
 >minutes.How it works is it is like a capacitor, the positive
 >charge forms a gravity well and the negative charge forms a
 >gravity hill. So all together it forms a gravity wave and the
 >craft rides it like a surf board on a wave. Now why are they in
 >the skies over Brazil? I really don't know but they can go
 >anywhere they want to.


Hello Jess,

It is quite possible I met you several years ago at a MUFON
meeting in San Jose where someone was selling complete copies of
the Nellis UFO video footage (where I acquired my copy).
Furthermore, whoever it was was likewise claiming this was one
of our craft based on perfected electrogravitics propulsion
originally developed by T. Townsend Brown in the 1950's.

I have the same questions as John Velez. Why would we be flying
such a craft in diverse parts of the globe? If you go to my
article on the Nellis UFO at:

http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/ (click on UFO Evidence,
photographic cases)

it links to a composite image of similar multilobed objects
being photographed elsewhere:

http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/images/Nelmexbr.jpg

There are not only images of the Sao Paulo UFO mentioned by John
Velez, but also several videos of objects over Mexico City. Why
risk exposing a highly secret technology by flying it over such
areas?

Also, like John Velez, I wonder how you can be so certain that
this is one of our craft and even know its mode of propulsion.
What is the source of such information?

You even throw out the remarkably precise number of 54,000 mph
or 15 miles per second for this object's top speed. How could
you possibly know this?

Even at these speeds, in 5 minutes or 300 seconds, the maximum
distance covered by such an object would be 4500 miles. That's
quite impressive, but still not enough to go anywhere in the
world in only 4 or 5 minutes. It would take about 3 times longer
than that to travel to a point on the opposite side of the globe
(or 12000+ miles away).

I'm certainly quite open to a positive identification. In my
article, one of our own craft is listed as one of the
possibilities. One thing that troubles me about this object is
that its multilobed appearance does not match traditional UFO
reports from the last 50+ years. Also it's flight parameters
(speed, acceleration) as reconstructed from the radar data on
the Nellis UFO video aren't too far removed from the
conventional.

However, simply claiming it is one of our craft is not the same
as proving it, or even making a compelling argument that it
might be. That is why John and I must ask pointed questions
about your source or sources of information, assuming you have
any and this isn't all just conjecture on your part.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                           Re: Nellis UFO - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:53:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:32:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Nellis UFO - Evans


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:30:37 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Nellis UFO - Velez

 >>From: Jess Fritch <djfritch@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Nellis UFO
 >>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:17:51 -0700

Previously, Jess wrote:

 >>First please don't use the term antigravity when it comes to
 >>these craft. They control gravity not consul it out. If you
 >>remember the sts-48 video, this is the first time we saw this
 >>craft. The cruse alone the edge of the atmosphere at about 54000
 >>miles per hour. The can go anywhere in the world in about 4 to 5
 >>minutes.How it works is it is like a capacitor, the positive
 >>charge forms a gravity well and the negative charge forms a
 >>gravity hill. So all together it forms a gravity wave and the
 >>craft rides it like a surf board on a wave. Now why are they in
 >>the skies over Brazil? I really don't know but they can go
 >>anywhere they want to.

John replied:

 >Ok, it's time to ask: You make noises like you know what the
 >deal is with the Nellis craft. I suspect we're about to hear
 >another "Lazar" or "Corso" type story but I'll ask anyway. How
 >do you know what that craft is, or what kind of propulsion
 >system is being used?

 >I hesitate to ask because I suspect I'm opening a can of worms
 >by engaging you in a dialog over this. Already you imply
 >intimate knowledge about something (that if it's ours) would be
 >ranked as top secret. I hope I haven't assumed a position
 >directly behind the dump chute of a dung wagon by asking.


Hi, John!

Yes, I have been watching this load grow and grow as the posts
went by. I am going to stand way over here until the pressure is
released.

Jess, where do you get your information from? What makes you
such an expert on the Nellis craft?

Holding my nose.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Cecchini

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 20:35:32 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:34:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Cecchini


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 19:56:27 -0500

 >Over here, it would be name-dropping if I were to mention
 >my close (albeit nonexistent) friendship with Bob Dylan and
 >Bruce Springsteen.


You were just this --><-- close to being my New Best Friend!

But then I reread it and... well, maybe next time.











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:48:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:50:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:44:06 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:27:45 -0500

 >>>From: Robert Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:18:27 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca


Bob,

 >>>I'm surpised that after using old Uncle Phil's name in vain for
 >>>at least a decade, you didn't know that he has a graduate degree
 >>>in electrical engineering and for many years has been a senior
 >>>editor for avionics for Aviation Week and Space Technology
 >>>magazine.

 >>Wow. You're not even close on this one. No one has disputed that
 >>Klass is trained as an engineer.

 >Since when do engineers with graduate degrees have "only one or
 >a small number of undergraduate [science] courses, if that?"
 >Perhaps on the planet Clarion. "If that?" means maybe he has
 >never taken even an undergraduate science course, Jerry.

I'm sure Klass and Sheaffer took one or two or three
undergraduate science courses. That doesn't make them
scientists, or even scientifically trained, by any but a
grasping debunker's definition.

 >>Surely you're familiar with the amusing saga of his first book,
 >>so egregiously pseudoscientific that _both_ James McDonald
 >>and a subcommittee of plasma physicists assembled for the
 >>Condon Committee tore it apart.

 >Would you say, Jerry, that this subcommittee of plasma
 >physicists were skeptics or believers in flying saucers?

I have no idea, and in any event that has nothing to do with
anything. The scientists didn't address the larger issue and, as
far as we know, didn't care one way or another. They, after all,
were not (and did not become) participants in the larger UFO
debate, and thus didn't have to be debunkers or proponents. They
just had to be scientists.

They were brought in to look at one specific question: the
plausibility of plasma and ball-lightning theories about UFOs,
in which Klass was then a leading true believer. In considering
the evidence, they were able to show why the claims Klass made
were based on elementary scientific errors. Klass's
pseudoscientific bumbling no doubt stemmed from his
all-but-nonexistent scientific education. And the plasma
physicists who criticized him weren't, unlike you, Sheaffer,
Klass, and Oberg, grinding axes. They could act, in other words,
like scientists, not as uncritical advocates, and didn't have to
subscribe to the philosophy that anybody who agrees with me,
however crazy or dishonest, is my friend..

 >Of course, as Greg Sandow has just pointed out, this would be an
 >example of one skeptic criticizing another. Thought this never
 >happened?

As I've said above, this is no instance of that at all. The fact
that you have to stretch it to make one shows what a paucity of
examples you have to point to. So far we have established that
the practice of debunkers openly criticizing debunkers has
occurred twice in Magonia (not ordinarily considered a journal
of the debunking movement, and certainly barely known to the
bulk of American true disbelievers), once in another British
publication. Wow. I _am_ impressed.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

              Re: Yet Another Un-Authenticated Autopsy! - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 20:01:16 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:58:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Yet Another Un-Authenticated Autopsy! - McCoy


Hello, all Wendy

 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:36:42 -0400
 >From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates list <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Yet Another Un-Authenticated Autopsy!


I must protest this goulish dismemberment of innocent Peeps!
clearly the peeps in question were "alive" at the time! The use
of a dremel moto tool clearly , well, indicate that they were in
a semi frozen state and no anistetic was used-Shame!

 >http://marks.networktel.net/slicing.html

A peep was properly meant to go down in two or less bites! Now
about chocolate bunnies and the state of rumored hollowness that
would be worth a Autopsy.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

              Re: Yet Another Un-Authenticated Autopsy! - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:44:58 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:59:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Yet Another Un-Authenticated Autopsy! - Velez


 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:36:42 -0400
 >From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates list <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Yet Another Un-Authenticated Autopsy!

 >http://marks.networktel.net/slicing.html

I have a secret. Once a year at Easter time my wife will indulge
a decadent addiction I have had all my adult life. She buys me a
box of Peeps. They are made out of nothing but sugar but, Ghod
help me I love them. When I saw what those monsters were doing
to them on that website I was horrified.

Peeps being tortured and maimed in every way imaginable. I could
have lived without those images burned into my memory. Peeps
being butchered by surgeons, Peeps forced to melt in driving
rain, the carnage and excesses of the torture were just too much
for me to bear. I had to turn away.

The horror... the horror.

Thanks for putting those horrible images into my head Wendy.
Happy Easter to you too!

Shocked and revulsed,


John Velez
Witness to the Peep Holocaust


                     "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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                    Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:47:07 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:05:23 -0400
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:48:37 EDT
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >I put this info, assuming a location of Boise, Idaho, into the
 >program, Expert Astronomer.

 >Boise, Idaho
 >3 PM PDT

 >The program indicated a Sun direction at this hour of 258
 >degrees (just slightly south of west), and a Sun Altitude of 46
 >degrees.

 >A mirror placed vertically would cause a specular reflection
 >which would be at the same incident angle down, 46 degrees, and
 >could not be seen.

 >But a perpendicular mirror at an angle of 46 degrees away from
 >Arnold, perhaps snow or ice on a 46 degree mountain slope, could
 >be seen by a viewer in the direction of the Sun. If the slope
 >was not exactly perpendicular to the observer, the Sun could be
 >in the appropriate reciprocal position.

 >Viola, a specular flash of the sun from the mountain peaks, or
 >from the shiny, Trent mirror-like, flying saucers seen near
 >Arnold's altitude against the mountain backdrop.


Hi Bob,

I think it's time you pulled out the texts on this one and read
up on the Arnold sighting. He was close to Mineral, Washington
and nowhere near Boise, Idaho. It's clear you are shooting blind
here. Arnold was approx. 400 miles northwest of Boise when he
had the sightings.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                  Re: CE-5 Contact And Skepticism - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:38:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:02:43 -0400
Subject: Re: CE-5 Contact And Skepticism - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:15:51 EDT
 >Subject: Re: CE-5 Contact And Skepticism
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com
 >>Subject: CE-5 Contact And >Skepticism
 >>Date: 6 Apr 2001 07:30:52 -0700

<snip>

 >>When I was a teenager I experienced all of what I have described
 >>and a little more which had the effect of reducing my skepticism

 >Has a double blind experiment ever been conducted to demonstrate
 >that these events have occurred and have not been simply "in the
 >eye of the beholder"? I am not sure how such a true double blind
 >experiement could be orgazined for this purpose.

 >If an incident like this involved others, how could one rulel
 >out a hoax?

 >If it involved oneselve, how could one rule out self-deception?


Hi Bob,

Quick question. What's self-deception?

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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                           Re: Nellis UFO - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:35:17 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:14:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Nellis UFO - Ledger


 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:30:37 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Nellis UFO - Fritch

 >>From: Jess Fritch <djfritch@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Nellis UFO
 >>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:17:51 -0700

<snip>

 >>First please don't use the term antigravity when it comes to
 >>these craft. They control gravity not consul it out. If you
 >>remember the sts-48 video, this is the first time we saw this
 >>craft. The cruse alone the edge of the atmosphere at about 54000
 >>miles per hour. The can go anywhere in the world in about 4 to 5
 >>minutes.How it works is it is like a capacitor, the positive
 >>charge forms a gravity well and the negative charge forms a
 >>gravity hill. So all together it forms a gravity wave and the
 >>craft rides it like a surf board on a wave. Now why are they in
 >>the skies over Brazil? I really don't know but they can go
 >>anywhere they want to.

 >Ok, it's time to ask: You make noises like you know what the
 >deal is with the Nellis craft. I suspect we're about to hear
 >another "Lazar" or "Corso" type story but I'll ask anyway. How
 >do you know what that craft is, or what kind of propulsion
 >system is being used?

 >I hesitate to ask because I suspect I'm opening a can of worms
 >by engaging you in a dialog over this. Already you imply
 >intimate knowledge about something (that if it's ours) would be
 >ranked as top secret. I hope I haven't assumed a position
 >directly behind the dump chute of a dung wagon by asking.

 >Expecting a huge load,


You'd better stand at the ready with your shovel at high port
John, here it comes.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:39:23 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:16:50 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gates


 >Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 17:39:49 +0100
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:17:49 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>Its possible that the so called first film was in fact an
 >>initial test of FX and production. Depending on how the test
 >>crowd reacted, the producers could then fine tune the film or
 >>production for the later "for profit release."

 >The handfull of people who have actually seen this footage would
 >hardly be called a market sample on which to base those sort of
 >conclusions.

A test audience made up of UFO people would and could be
considered a reasonable sample especially if you are able to
"sell" the film to them, let them publicly blather about it for
months, then unload the finished product.

 >>How long did this so called alleged first film last? 10 minutes?
 >>15 minutes? half hour?

 >I don't recall any of the parties timed the veiwing but I get
 >the impression it's several minutes, I guess that would be
 >consistant with the total of 22 reels Ray claims he bought.

As I recall Ray initially claimed he bought 15, then that
changed to 22, and the alleged camerman said about 25.

 >>>Santilli and Spielberg were definitely in it for some fast cash.
 >>>But I'm hesitant to use financial profit as the best answer for
 >>>the presumably hoaxed footage as well.

 >>The numbers floated around was that Rays company sold approx
 >>400,000 to 500,000 Video copies of AA. When you run the numbers,
 >>you see approx 6-8 Million dollars gross. If you suspect that
 >>Ray et al produced this, and $100-200K is well within reason,
 >>you have a net profit of 5.8 to 7.8 million dollars on the deal.
 >>This is not to mention the bundle Fox paid to Ray to air the
 >>footage.

 >Robert, which video are you refering to?, "Alien Autopsy Fact or
 >Fiction" which was a Kiviat/Fox production?, "Incident at
 >Roswell" a Purdie/Ch4 production?, I don't see either of those
 >two production companies/networks running a Ray Santilli charity
 >fund while selling videos of their own programs.

As I recall people connected to Ray stated at one point that
he/they had sold the rights to Fox for the Fact or Fiction
broadcast, not to mention others. There was something to the
effect that Rays company got a piece of the action on every
video sold etc etc.

I realize that some of the AA supporters like to claim something
along the lines of "Poor Ray, he didn't make any money on the
whole deal, in fact he lost money, blah blah blah......"

 >The only video Ray Santilli's company produce themselves was I
 >believe "Alien Autopsy - The Footage", predominantly sold over
 >the Internet, past estimates of numbers sold were in the low
 >hundreds, I have a copy but I've not come across many other
 >people, even those interested in the topic who have, this would
 >seems to support the low estimate of units sold for this video.

This number allegedly was the 400 plus thousand, not to mention
royaltys or whatever from the others and the bundle FOX and
others paid to the company.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                  Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:10:51 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:20:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Sparks


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:19:11 EDT
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young


 >>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question


 ><snip>

 >>I came across the letter from prospector Frank Johnson to
 >>the Air Force, on the web, dated August 20th 1947:

 >>http://www.project1947.com/fig/johns47.htm

 >>with the following excerpt:

 >>"(...)Sir. Saw in the portland paper a short time ago in
 >>regards to an article in regards to the so called flying disc
 >>having any basis of fact. I can say am a prospector and was in
 >>the Mt Adams district on June 24th the day Kenneth Arnold of
 >>Boise Idaho claims he saw a formation of flying disc. And I saw
 >>the same flying objects at about the same time. Having a
 >>telescope with me at the time I can asure you they are real and
 >>noting like them I ever saw before they did not pass verry high
 >>over where I was standing at the the time. plobly 1000 ft. they
 >>were Round about 30 feet in dimater tapering sharply to a point
 >>in the lead end in an oval shape. with a bright top surface. I
 >>did not hear any noise as you would from a plane. But there was
 >>an object in the tail and looked like a big hand of a clock
 >>shifting from side to side like a big magnet. There speed as far
 >>as i know seemed to be greater than anything I ever saw.

 >Asgeir:

 >His claim that he had a credible. It is virtually impossible to
 >acquire a fast object in a telescope. I think the newspaper
 >article probably explains what he "saw".


Bob,

Fred Johnson didn't say he "acquired" the objects through the
telescope. He saw them with the naked eye first then trained the
telescope on them.

In the part of the Fred Johnson FBI interview you snipped out he
alludes to a 10-mile distance in conjunction with his 1,000-foot
altitude level above his own on Mt. Adams (where he was at the
5,000-foot level). I take the two indicators together to point
to an elevation angle of roughly one degree above his level or
about 2� above the horizon. What is interesting is that this is
exactly the same elevation above the horizon indicated by
Arnold, about 2�, because when Arnold put the objects at about
his own height level that is the angle above his apparent
horizon from his higher altitude (near 10,000 feet).

Johnson should have had little trouble training his telescope on
objects low over the horizon where the horizon would provide a
guide marker to help him steady the telescope.

By the way, I've recently seen a posting somewhere claiming that
Johnson's story was first reported in a newspaper as early as
June 25 or 26?, 1947. I'd like to see confirmation of this as
would be important early evidence confirming Johnson's story.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:31:18 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:23:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Jones


 >From: Alan Staithes <AlanStaithes@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:39:28 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Morning Alan

<snip>

Being that this is the first time that we have crossed swords I
will be gentle with you. <g>

 >Yet, just as John says, in an act of illusion worthy of David
 >Blaine, Andy and Dave Clarke suddenly became 'debunkers'. I know
 >both of them very well and can assure you they are sceptical to
 >the max, but in no way debunkers.

I know Andy and Dave to a degree, I have met both of them more than
once, and swapped countless emails with both of then, but I don't
drink down the pub with them as your missive implies.

Andy is a debunker. I say this with clarity of vision because he
has admitted both publicly and privately that _all_ UFO cases
can be resolved. If that doesn't imply a closed mind what does?

Dave is a tad less closed mind (about the same as the Duke of
Mendoza in my not so humble opinion), but still far more than
just plain sceptical.


Best regards


    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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:33:17 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:26:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Jones


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:19:24 +0100

Morning Jenny, Listers

 >And it is interesting to note that in the UK there is a
 >difference in response to these interbal criticsa (however
 >'nasty') and pontificating debunkers - of which there are some.

 >Whilst many people do dispute the findings on certain cases of
 >researchers such as Andy Roberts and David Clarke and are rarely
 >as negative in their perceptions of Ufology as they seem to be -
 >their work is respected in the UK, not rejected as it seems to
 >be beyond the UK.

 >Why is easy to see. In the UK these people are known as
 >first-hand researchers. They get out there, interview witnesses,
 >seek to solve cases by actual investigation in exactly the same
 >way a good pro-UFO researcher would do. All that differs is the
 >conclusion that they reach.

<snip>

 >But those of us who have worked with these people for years
 >(decades in some cases) are well versed in their thinking via
 >countless articles (often darkly humourous that condition us to
 >the expected mode of presentation - we always know what we are
 >going to get from the likes of Andy!)

Yes we certainly do. He believes, and has stated both publicly
and privately, that _all_ UFO cases can be resolved.

To my mind that makes him a sKeptic (scoffer) not a sceptic.

<Another snip>

 >I do so because they can - and do - carry out fine research.
 >Andy Robert's resolution of Berwyn (whilst I don't 100% agree he
 >has absolutely nailed it down) is first rate, in the field
 >research that I have to agree leaves the case pretty dead in the
 >water so far as it being up to very much.

I agree with you, Andy's research was first rate. I was at the
Southport conference two years ago when he first presented his
evidence. Not knowing the case personally, I would have to say
he provided a reasonable explanation. But he still had the
starting point of the case _could_ be resolved.

 >David Clarke's masterful exploration of a UFO crash in the Peak
 >District hills in l997 (in which incidentally he challenged and
 >MoD cover up and exposed it!) is a terrific illustration of how
 >to investigate a UFO case 'and' find answers.

Another good case for showing hard work, and good research. I
had many off the list discussions with Dave and I found him far
more reasonable than Andy on the viewpoint of case solving.

 >Best wishes,

 >Jenny Randles

My best wishes to you Jenny.

Before I go, I just wanted to add.

Both Andy and Dave do do good work on UFO research, far better
than anything that I have done in the public eye. But Andy has a
closed mind, Dave, not so quite closed but certainly more
blinkered than I would consider fair for an open mind. As a
sceptic, I look to see if there is an answer to the riddle, but
I do not approach the case with the belief that it can be
resolved. I am fully aware that 95 to 97 percent of UFO cases
can be resolved ( I could point out that my article "101
Possible Explanation for UFO's" proves this) but there is still
the remaining three percent of golden nuggets. These golden
nuggets keep us back seat, not concerned with the publicity, UFO
researchers, chomping at the bit when we find them. And it's
when these sKeptics (scoffers) rip them apart with extremely
lame excuses that we get a weeny bit miffed. For it is that,
that riles and begets name calling and etc, than fair minded
criticism.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:12:31 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:27:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:19:09 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:41:12 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

 >>1. Jerry Clark and I say that published UFO skeptics don't
 >>criticize each other.

 >Now, despite this position, you incredibly go on to give
 >examples of something you and Jerry don't believe exist:

Quite so. I would also question the degree to which UFO
believers criticize each other, despite what Jerome Clark says.
Most examples of ufologist-on-ufologist criticism stem from
various personal and/or group rivalries, and seem to be on the
"how dare you explain _my_ case!" basis. No doubt Jerry will
cite some totally objective examples of such criticism (I seem
to hear the words "Swords" and "MacDonald" already), but I'd be
more interested to hear, for example, of any prominent
abductologist who has criticised another such, despite them
often holding views which are mutually contradictory.

I certainly don't expect any criticism of Budd Hopkins from
Jerome Clark, as I have a quote from the latter saying "Budd
Hopkins is as good as they come. I love Budd." No doubt Jerry
will claim I have taken the quote out of context. If he does
I'll post the whole quotation, which is even more embarrassing.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                 Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 05:53:25 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:31:10 -0400
Subject: Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses


Recently on this List there has been a lot of comment on the
alleged accuracy or ianccuracy of eyewitnesses.

As much as they like Condon's conclusions about the alleged
unreliability and inaccuracy of eyewitnesses, debunkers have
never done any in-depth study of the data on witness accuracy
that is contained in the Condon Report. The Condon Committee
itself suppressed any statistical analysis of the witness
accuracy data that its own project investigators had compiled.
Instead they left the data sitting undigested, some of it in the
final report, much of it left unpublished. What was published
did include some very interesting compilations of witness
testimony on IFO's which the Committee evidently refused to
analyze because it ran counter to the conclusion the Committee
debunkers wanted -- which was that eyewitnesses are very
unreliable so please forget the whole UFO phenomenon. The data
in the Condon Report are -- conveniently for the debunkers --
just not put together.

The reason for this failure by the Condon Committee to
statistically analyze its own sighting data on witness accuracy
is evidently because the witnesses came out TOO ACCURATE and it
did in passing comment grudgingly on that accuracy in at least
one case (Case 18). Here are some statistics I compiled by
laboriously scrutinizing the case writeups in the Condon Report,
focussing on the multiple-witness IFO cases with the largest
numbers of witnesses because it's easier to cross-check multiple
witnesses against each other and it's easier to compile the
statistics:

Case 18 -- approx. 99% accurate (about 150 data points).
Case 23 -- approx. 99% accurate (about 66 data points).
Case 36 -- approx. 90% to 98% accurate (about 42 data points).
Zond 4 Rocket Re-entry -- approx. 97% accurate (about 86 data
points).

TOTAL: Approx. 97% to 98% accurate (about 344 data points total).

I did a partial analysis back in 1977 of the alleged Zond 4
rocket reentry sightings which showed that contrary to
Hartmann's disparaging remarks most o f the witness observations
were accurate (I still am not convinced it was a reentry, and
still think that it was a meteor fireball instead, but for
simplicity I'll keep calling it the "Zond 4 Rocket Reentry";
Hartmann very suspiciously omitted all time duration data that
would help decide the issue). He had padded his list with
erroneous witness opinions and conclusions instead of filtering
those out and analyzing the pure observational data. When one
does the latter, filter out opinions and conclusions, the actual
observational data turn out to be 97% accurate.

For some examples out of the Condon Report where there were
large numbers of witnesses, Case 18 turned out to be several
hot-air balloons launched as a prank experiment. However, the 9
mostly multiple-witness reports from 14 observers turned out
"highly consistent with one another," according to the Condon
Report with differences "no greater than would be expected from
situational and perceptual differences." The "degree of
similarity between the reports" was considered "noteworthy." The
investigators Low and Wadsworth commendably decided not to focus
on witness "speculations" about the nature of the objects but to
be "confined to observational data." They did mention that "Many
small discrepancies could be pointed out, especially with regard
to estimates of distance and direction, but these are not great
enough to affect the overall impression of the event." (CR p.
305) But my examination of the data shows no such "small
discrepancies" at all. It would be dishonest to criticize
witnesses for distance estimates -- really opinions rather than
observations -- when a competent scientific investigator knows
it was impossible to estimate distance. But that is always the
debunker trick -- attack and discredit the witnesses for errors
actually committed by the investigators.

I could find only _one_ error in all of the data points (which
are unfairly reduced in number by conflating the 14 multiple
witnesses into 9 reports one for each single site location).  An
astronomer made a time error and thought the sighting was at
10:40 PM whereas the hoaxers and other observers more accurately
put the time at about 10:00-10:20 PM. The astronomer also was
the only one who didn't see the three hot-air balloons that had
been launched together but only saw one light but he was also
the most distant of the observers and two of the balloons may
not have been visible from his position. So out of roughly 150
data points on duration, angular size, shape, color, formation,
motion, initial elevation and direction, final elevation and
direction, and actions such as dropping sparks, only 1 or
possibly 2 points were in error, making witness observational
data about 99% accurate in this case. No wonder they didn't do a
statistical analysis of witness accuracy -- it would have turned
out too good!

Another case that the Condon Committee wrote up but didn't
statistically analyze because it showed the witnesses were too
accurate, was a daytime fireball meteor in Case 36, though the
project didn't really investigate it at all but relied on the
reports sent in by a university professor. Project staffer
Wadsworth commented that "The discrepancies in distance and size
are hardly significant because such estimates are
characteristically inaccurate," but that the _ratio_ of size to
distance (= angular size) was consistent. (CR pp. 366/8) One of
the four independent witnesses apparently got the time wrong
(said it was 10 AM instead of 9:05). That witness and two others
reported the object as "cylinder" shaped which may or may not be
inaccurate since a fireball burns a tubular path through the air
and that may be what they were trying however imperfectly to
describe (if the case had actually been investigated this could
have been clarified) -- they did agree it was a luminous or
glowing blue-green and/or yellow. Out of roughly 42 data points
in this _uninvestigated_ case, the time was wrong once, and it
is debatable whether the three "cylinder" descriptions are
errors. The time-error witness also said it appeared "metallic"
-- we know from the Iowa Fireball case Phil Klass loves to
recite that daytime fireballs can apparently seem to be
metallic, so is that an error? Something about the intense
flashing luminosity can appear to seem like a metallic sheen.
The size/distance ratios were accurate so it seems unfair to
score the witnesses for error in reporting the unobservable,
i.e., distance or size taken separately. So at worst call the
one time and three "cylinder" shapes as 4 data points in error,
or at best the time error alone for 1 data point in error, out
of roughly 42, for an accuracy rate of about 90% to 98% and had
it actually been investigated by the Condon Committee instead of
being assigned a Case Number as if it had, the seeming errors
might have been clarified into accurate observational detail.

Here's another, Case 23, where they maligned the 7 witnesses for
supposedly having "widely different versions" of the event, a
prank by Navy flyers with a searchlight, when in fact they
nitpicked and split hairs over a fairly accurate set of
accounts. The Condon Committee investigators alleged the
accounts "differed substantially as to motion, appearance,
duration of sighting, and the object's identity." (CR p. 324)
But the "object's identity" is not an observation but a
conclusion, an opinion of the witness drawing upon all the
details he/she observed and how it relates to past experience.
The "details" that "differed widely" included the fact that 5
witnesses said the object came from the NW but one said the N
(that's nitpicking!), and only the one saying the E was in error
unless perhaps that was the direction it disappeared in. The
durations ranged from about 20+ seconds to 2-3 minutes, but that
isn't necessarily due to error because the witnesses did not all
see the aircraft at exactly the same time and some focused on
the appearance of the searchlight which was briefer in duration
-- the witnesses were in two groups 1/2 mile apart. There were 3
who said the object flew straight but 2 who said it made a 90�
turn before it departed, but the investigators couldn't say who
was right or wrong about this and depending on completeness or
incompleteness of the accounts all 5 could easily be right (same
about the number of running lights seen or not seen). The
witness who guessed the object was about 50 feet in size was of
course just about exactly correct depending on the type of
twin-engine Navy plane used. In any case there was really only
one clear error, the E direction, out of about a total of about
66 data points, for an accuracy rate of almost 99%.

There were actually two tables conveniently compiling much of
the witness data in two of the cases, Tables 4 and 5 (CR pp.
304, 367). No one on the Condon Committee bothered to
statistically analyze this data to get an assessment of witness
observational accuracy. Yet three entire chapters of the report
were devoted to this subject of witness perception and accuracy
(CR pp. 559-598) without a single analysis of the project's own
case investigations of IFO's for calibrating witnesses'
reliability, even though two chapters lambasted witnesses over
the Zond 4 rocket reentry case which had NOT been investigated
by the Condon Committee but rather perfunctorily by Project Blue
Book. (CR pp. 561, 571-577, 585-588) As I said earlier, when
properly analyzed so that witnesses are not blamed for the
investigators' errors, the Zond 4 rocket reentry case comes out
about 97% accuracy rate for eyewitness observation.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:39:07 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:33:48 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Morris


 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
 >>From: Rebecca Keith <xiannekei@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gates
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 ><snip>

 >>Last time I checked, no one had seen actual film that had the
 >>"alien" carcass on it.

 >>I think that Phil Mantle was shown some film but he does not
 >>recall the alien being visible.

 >The shred of actual film that circulated showed a door. I've
 >seen the same thing on the CDs, saved under "Fragments". The
 >problem, of course, is that the "door footage" could be from
 >_any_ filmstrip and does nothing to verify claims that the AA
 >originated in the 40s.

 >(Inside the doorway is a table with a sheet on it, but it
 >doesn't appear to be the operating table from the AA. It looks
 >like someone's basement, frankly.)


Mac, Rebecca,

At the time it was reported (though I have never seen images
from) that Bob Kiviat, producer of Alien Autopsy-Fact or Fiction
had a couple of 16mm film fragments, one like Bob Shell's
showing the "doorway" (that one I have seen) but also a further
fragment showing the autopsy table _without_ the body. 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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                     Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'?

From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:26:30 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:06:35 -0400
Subject: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'?


For all of you out there who are convinced that Ray Santilli
and/or his associates/company faked the 'alien autopsy film'
purely for financial gain, may be interested to know that I have
recently interviewed a new witness who could scupper all such
ideas.

The full facts surrounding this new witness will eventually be
used in the new book I am co-authoring with Tim Matthews
(entitled Alien Autopsy Inquest).

Basically the witness in question (full name etc will be used in
the book) was shown the alien autopsy film in the USA in the
l970's. The witness in question is a professional, award winning
photographer, and many years ago he even qualified as a
mid-wife.

I have interviewed this person twice now and I am literally in
the process of transcribing the second interview.

I just  wondered what those individuals out there who made such
accusations against Ray Santilli will have to say once this part
of the story is published in our book. I'm not saying this in
any proves the film to be authentic, but surely such a highly
credible witness might well put pay to the ideas that Santilli
faked it for money ? If this is so then there are quite a few
'ufologists' out there who could well have egg on their faces,
would you not agree ?

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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

             Re: Yet Another Un-Authenticated Autopsy! - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:07:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Yet Another Un-Authenticated Autopsy! - Tonnies


 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:44:58 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Yet Another Un-Authenticated Autopsy!

<snip>

 >Thanks for putting those horrible images into my
 >head Wendy.

I've been looking carfeully at the background in those
Peep images and I think I can make out President Truman...


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                    Re: NOVA/UFOs & The Media - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 11 Apr 2001 07:11:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:11:23 -0400
Subject: Re: NOVA/UFOs & The Media - Hamilton


 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:26:33 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: NOVA/UFOs & The Media

 >Following is an excerpt from Terry Hansen's book, 'The Missing
 >Times' about news media complicity in the UFO cover-up.

 >I have reproduced a section that deals with NOVA and PBS and
 >hope it will motivate some folks to go out and buy Terry's book.
 >It's an eye opener and a subject that needs airing/discussion.

 >I got to meet a lot of terrific people because of my
 >participation in the NOVA hatchet job. CDB Bryan is one of them.
 >His response to the experiencers that he met, as well as the
 >producer that John Mack mentions in the chapter below, are pretty
 >'typical' of those who actually take the time to talk to, and
 >get to know, the people that are reporting the phenomenon. (And
 >I'm talking about researched abduction cases/abductees. Not the
 >self-proclaimed 'personalities' that litter the Internet and
 >these Lists with their personal needs and mindless blather.)
 >There's nothing like the "real thing" baby. If more journalists,
 >scientists, and researchers would only take _more_ than just a
 >cursory look at the material, and get to know some of the
 >solid/credible people who are reporting, we'd all be a lot
 >further in the quest for reliable answers.

 >Trouble is, nobody's taking the time. And the ones who
 >contribute nothing but 'noise' and ego-static only serve to
 >reinforce the impression that _all_ abductees are 'flakes' or
 >trying to get attention.

 >Someday folks are going to wake-up. I can't wait for that day.

 >Enjoy the excerpt.

 >'The Missing Times: News Media Complicity In The UFO Coverup'

 >Author: Terry Hansen

 >Published by Xlibris Corporation
 >www.Xlibris.com

 >ISBN: 0-7388-3612-5

 >pages 256-262

<snip>

 >In the case of the commercial TV networks, though, the source of
 >bias in UFO-related coverage often seems to be corporate policy,
 >however that is formulated. John Mack, who has had considerable
 >experience with the elite media, said network reporters often
 >have little choice about how the subject is portrayed. They're
 >kept on a short leash and pulled back into line if they wander
 >too far from the officially approved position on UFOs.

I found that shows like "Sightings" and the now defunct 'Strange
Universe' sometimes treated UFO reports with more factuality
than the Discovery Channels, Discovery and TLC.

In the case of the Phoenix Lights I found that none of the
Discovery channels reported the full breadth of the incidents
reported and deliberately pared them down to only two, ignoring
two other significant events with multiple witnesses.

I found this bias and distortion common in television specials
and have became disillusioned with these shows for that reason.
It has also caused me to question whether other specials
depicting factual information in other subject areas are to be
accepted as factual. The producers definitely put a slant on
these programs.


-Bill 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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                    Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:15:29 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:13:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Mortellaro


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:32:09 EDT
 >Subject: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:19:09 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:07:55 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

<snip>

 >>Here's an example of "bad faith and intellectual dishonesty".

<snip>

 >Jerry,

 >Yeah, what about this? Have you ever run across a UFO skeptic
 >every putting this into the printed word?

 >Bob Young

 >"Intellectual inquiry demands internal policing and debate in the
 >interest of truth-seeking, as opposed to ideological scoring,
 >where a belief has to be defended at all costs, with no
 >concession or quarter given." - - Jerome Clark, 2001

We disagree. That is, I and the voices in my head. We would
rather say it this way:

"Intellectual inquiry demands argumentative and irrelevant
attempts to score points in the attempt to make one's self
appear right. All attempts at posturing and playing at being a
big shot are acceptable. Ideological scoring is in. Belief is
not defended at all costs, only opinion. No concession or
quarter is given." Which is the problem.

And so say all of us. (The voices in my head)


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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                     The Truth May Finally Be Out There

From: Kelly <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:50:47 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:17:25 -0400
Subject:  The Truth May Finally Be Out There


Source: The Scotsman - Edinborough

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=63397&keyword=David%20Montgomery

The Scotsman - 11 April 2001

The truth may finally be out there

David Montgomery Science Correspondent

POWERFUL new telescopes and planned space missions will reveal
within 20 years whether there is life elsewhere in the universe,
a leading astronomer claimed yesterday.

The quest for extraterrestrials has so far failed to find other
planetary systems with traces of water, oxygen or ozone, which
are necessary for life to survive.

But Anneila Sargent, the Scots-born director of the Owens Valley
Radio Observatory in California and professor of astronomy at
the California Institute of Technology, said that didn�t
necessarily rule out the existence of other lifeforms.

And she said the answer to the age-old question would become
clear within the next two decades as improved technology and new
missions expanded the search for Earth-like planets.

These include a joint Nasa-European Space Agency mission to send
four telescopes into orbit.

"I think that might take 20 years, but we are on the way to
having a definitive answer, and it might be no, but I think we
need to know the answer one way or the other," she said. "I
personally lean to the view that it is more likely to be yes."

She added: "I�m quite optimistic that there is some kind of life
out there but I wouldn�t be prepared to go as far to say that it
is human life."

Prof Sargent, president of the American Astronomical Society,
will today present a public lecture Is there anybody out there?
as part of the Edinburgh International Science Festival.

She said yesterday that our solar system was 4.5 billion years
old and species of life evolved on Earth as early as 3.9 billion
years ago. This ability to appear so soon after the Earth formed
had helped convince her that life could do so again on other
planets.

"It means that life really appeared the minute it could," she
said. "It didn�t hang around and wait until things looked
better. And it seems to me that if life forms as fast as that,
then that�s one reason why there might be other life."

Prof Sargent said the fact planets weren�t just seen around Suns
like ours, but could be detected around pulsars, gave more
credence to the existence of other life.

"So the possibilities are that there may well be life elsewhere,
but whether we can ever communicate with it, or if it�s like us,
is something for organisations like the Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence to go after."

Prof Sargent and her Owens Valley team discovered a giant disc
of stellar dust and gas, more than ten times the size of our
solar system, around a young star 450 light years away in the
constellation of Auriga.

It was the kind of proto-planetary disc, such as the Orion
nebula, which could possibly give rise to groups of planets such
as the Earth.

The Burntisland-born scientist said that by looking at stars at
varying stages of evolution, from 4.5 billion years ago onwards,
it was possible to learn how other planetary systems might form.

She said once it was understood how and why they were forming, a
pathway could be found for the organic material that was needed
for life.

"It might not necessarily be life like us, but some kind of
life," she said. "That is one of the things we are really
beginning to get a big handle on now in the sense that we can
study discs around stars and examine the nature of the material.

"We have as a result been able to form a pretty good picture of
how we think stars and dust clouds collapsed to form stars and
how they evolved.

"We know there is an end stage which is forming a planetary
system. What we are trying to do now is look in between."

This had led to a number of on-going research projects studying
the discs that exist to see if organic molecules can be found.

Samples expected to come back from Mars at the end of the decade
could also produce interesting findings.

But Prof Sargent said that if after looking at 100 of the
nearest stars which should have planetary systems no signs of
life were found, then the answer would be pretty clear.

But she added: "We have to have a completely open mind. We have
come very far, very fast. After all, it�s only 500 years since
Copernicus said the Earth is not the centre of the universe."

However the astronomer cast doubts on the likelihood of
Unidentified Flying Objects, or UFOs, ever being discovered.

"I know people who sit all night on mountains and look up in the
sky, but they have never seen a UFO yet," she said.

Prof Sargent�s lecture is being held today at George Square
Theatre in Edinburgh at 8pm.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                       Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:55:53 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:32:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:06:13 -0500

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:16:42 -0500

 ><snip>

 >>As for Gulf Breeze, I suggest you take up the discussion with
 >>Bruce Maccabee. You can explain to him just where he went wrong
 >>in his technical analyses of the photographs. I look forward to the
 >>discussion, on which I assume you can hardly wait to get started.

 >Jerry, we can get started on this particular discussion anytime
 >you like.

 >From your above remarks I can only assume that::

 >1) You either essentially agree with or support Maccabee's basic
 >analysis of the GB photos as suggestive of the ETH -- or you
 >don't. Which is it?

 >2) Since Maccabee seems to think Ed's photos are the "real
 >thing", we can only conclude that you do, too, given your
 >deference to Maccabee's analytical magic (or expertise, if you
 >prefer) in these matters.

 >But we really don't care what Maccabee thinks about Gulf Breeze
 >in this context: what do *you* think about it? (No dodging
 >permitted.)

 >And having thought about it, where are your internal ufology
 >criticisms of Maccabee re same? Dick Hall can weign in here,
 >too.

Dennis,

In the MUFON UFO Journal, by me, contemporaneously with the
MUFON investigation. You could look it up.

By the way, I'll respond privately to you about the copy of The
Anomalist that you so kindly sent me, unless you intended for my
reply to be on this list. Due to some adverse circumstances here
I can't do so right away, but will fairly soon.


Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                 Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:58:29 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:35:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:10:51 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:19:11 EDT
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young


 >>>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question


 >><snip>

 >>>I came across the letter from prospector Frank Johnson to
 >>>the Air Force, on the web, dated August 20th 1947:


 >>His claim that he had a credible. It is virtually impossible to
 >>acquire a fast object in a telescope. I think the newspaper
 >>article probably explains what he "saw".


 >Bob,

 >Fred Johnson didn't say he "acquired" the objects through the
 >telescope. He saw them with the naked eye first then trained the
 >telescope on them.

 >In the part of the Fred Johnson FBI interview you snipped out he
 >alludes to a 10-mile distance in conjunction with his 1,000-foot
 >altitude level above his own on Mt. Adams (where he was at the
 >5,000-foot level).

He says he could "pick up an object" (see an object) at 10 miles
with his telescope/. H did not say the objects of interest were
10 miles away. His brief descriptions in the Air Force letter
and the FBI interview (see my recently posted Arnld paper for
complete details) lead me to believe that th objects were at a
large angular elevation/. Perhaps they did not go exactly over
his head, but at an elevation of 45 degrees or mre.

 >I take the two indicators together to point
 >to an elevation angle of roughly one degree above his level or
 >about 2� above the horizon.

I don't think so. See above.

 >What is interesting is that this is
 >exactly the same elevation above the horizon indicated by
 >Arnold, about 2�, because when Arnold put the objects at about
 >his own height level that is the angle above his apparent
 >horizon from his higher altitude (near 10,000 feet).>

I think the objects were loer than Arnold, not higher, with
perhaps a 2 degree depression angle (to the level of the
mountain tops south of Mt. Rainier... the peak of which was abou
2 degrees above Arnold)

<snip>

 >By the way, I've recently seen a posting somewhere claiming that
 >Johnson's story was first reported in a newspaper as early as
 >June 25 or 26?, 1947. I'd like to see confirmation of this as
 >would be important early evidence confirming Johnson's story.

The FBI interview says Johnson claimed he stayed in the Cascade
range a few more days after the sighting and it wasn't until he
got back home that he read abou Arnold's sghting. Hence any
newspaper article would be perhaps 5 days or more after Arnold's
sighting. N such article has turned up, so far as I know.
Perhaps Johnson reported only to the Air Force and then was
interviewed by the FBI ("security matter -x, the "REAL X-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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

              Re: Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses -

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:16:52 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:36:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 05:53:25 EDT
 >Subject: Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Recently on this List there has been a lot of comment on the
 >alleged accuracy or ianccuracy of eyewitnesses.

 >As much as they like Condon's conclusions about the alleged
 >unreliability and inaccuracy of eyewitnesses, debunkers have
 >never done any in-depth study of the data on witness accuracy
 >that is contained in the Condon Report. The Condon Committee
 >itself suppressed any statistical analysis of the witness
 >accuracy data that its own project investigators had compiled.
 >Instead they left the data sitting undigested, some of it in the
 >final report, much of it left unpublished. What was published
 >did include some very interesting compilations of witness
 >testimony on IFO's which the Committee evidently refused to
 >analyze because it ran counter to the conclusion the Committee
 >debunkers wanted -- which was that eyewitnesses are very
 >unreliable so please forget the whole UFO phenomenon. The data
 >in the Condon Report are -- conveniently for the debunkers --
 >just not put together.

Brad,

A very worthy study and commentary that deserves to be published
in IUR or Journal of UFO Studies. I snipped most of it to save
space here.


Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:31:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:43:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:53:07 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:19:09 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

Previously, I had written:

 >>Here's an example of "bad faith and intellectual dishonesty".

 >>In previous posts, Jerry was asked repeatedly to point out where
 >>anyone had ever said or even implied that "eyewitness testimony
 >>has no value whatever and can be discarded without a single
 >>thought". He has yet to do this, even though not doing so merely
 >>makes the very point he was trying to disprove. After all,
 >>apparently Jerry was the only known witness to this statement.
 >>Unless he can substantiate the mystery quote, he only proves
 >>that witness testimony needs to be verified before it can be
 >>believed.

Greg replied:

 >Roger, you'll have to argue with Jerry on your own. I don't need
 >-- and he doesn't need me -- to speak for him.

Really? Yet another unsubstantiated statement from the Ufology camp.

Continuing, I wrote:

 >>The second, and quite frankly, biggest problem with the above
 >>statement is revealed in your opening line:

 >>>1. Jerry Clark and I say that published UFO skeptics don't
 >>>criticize each other.

 >>Now, despite this position, you incredibly go on to give
 >>examples of something you and Jerry don't believe exist:

 >>>For anyone who's seriously interested, I know of one example
 >>>from the open literature of one skeptic, at least, criticizing
 >>>others, though not specifically about UFOs. It's something
 >>>Murray Gell-Mann said, about the well-known American
 >>>publication, The Skeptical Inquirer.

 ><snip>

 >>>Otherwise, I've heard Phil Klass - in an on-the-record interview
 >>>with me, but not in public - make criticisms of some of his
 >>>skeptical colleagues,

 ><snip>

 >>>As Jerry Clark has pointed out, some of
 >>>Menzel's conclusions were rejected by skeptical people in the
 >>>Air Force and (if I remember rightly) the Condon Committee, but
 >>>again that wasn't in public, and isn't in the skeptical
 >>>literature.

 >>So here we have grand examples of "bad faith and intellectual
 >>dishonesty", all contained within a single post! First you
 >>chastise Bob for not giving examples of something you claim
 >>doesn't exist. Then, in the same post, you give a handful of
 >>examples that it does exist!

Greg responded:

 >As for the post you criticize, I'm charmed to think of myself of
 >someone able to propound a proposition, and then immediately
 >contradict it, a few short sentences later.

That's interesting, Greg. You deem it "charming" while most
would simply consider it hypocrisy. Certainly skeptics aren't
allowed such "charming" behavior, are they?

Finally, you wrote:

 >In my case, I think you misunderstand. When I said that
 >skeptics don't criticize each other, I meant that they don't as
 >a general rule.

"The general rule"? _Which_ general rule, Greg? There are so
many, as they seem to be made up on the spot.

First the problem was debunking, in general. Then, as Jerry
Clark pointed out, debunking was okay as long as a factory
trained, certified Ufologist did it, otherwise it wouldn't
"take". ("When a Ufologists debunks a case, it stays debunked!",
company spokesman, Jerome Clark.)

Then the problem was that skeptics never criticize each other.
But according to you they do, after all!

Now the problem is that they don't do it _enough_ to satisfy
Ufologists. This is kind of like the whole debunking thing; only
a Ufologist gets to decide when something has been debunked.

Welcome to the Ufologists' Waffle House, where the menu changes
daily, there's always far too many cooks in the kitchen and
everyone is entitled to a little waffle, now and then. Everyone,
that is, except skeptics.

I hear the Waffle House is serving crow this week. ;)


Roger Evans










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                                Data Exchange

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:37:40 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:45:59 -0400
Subject: Data Exchange


To John Rimmer and whomever else it may concern in the UK:

Something that is becoming evident to me in the often
acrimonious exchanges in regard to internal criticism by
advocates as compared to doubters, is that we apparently do not
know each others' UFO literature very well. I was formerly
well-acquainted with Flying Saucer Review, but it ain't what it
used to be. I rarely see any other UK publications these days,
but did have a (possibly nonrepresentative) free subscription to
Fortean Times for a while.

I have been outspokenly critical of both the methods and
findings of many pro "ufologists" and my comments have been
widely published in our mainline publications. And I'm not the
only one. The Fund for UFO Research took on Steven Greer (of
CSETI infamy). Jerry Clark has been critical of many ufologists
in his excellent works and has exposed hoaxes, etc. Strong peer
review critiques have been published in IUR and the MUFON UFO
Journal.

I would be delighted to have, say, a couple of years back issues
of Magonia, and a current complimentary subscription, for my
Donald E. Keyhoe Archives where they would be available to
scholarly researchers and news media types, as well as to my
closest colleagues. In return, I would be willing to send
something of equivalent value from my holdings (Perhaps some of
the critical articles mentioned above)or to arrange for some
complimentary copies of Fund for UFO Research publications,
which are numerous.

Shall we have some "cultural exchange?"


Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:54:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:12:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:06:13 -0500

 >Jerry, we can get started on this particular
 >discussion anytime you like.

 >From your above remarks I can only assume that::

 >1) You either essentially agree with or support
 >Maccabee's basic
 >analysis of the GB photos as suggestive of the ETH - or you
 >don't. Which is it?

 >2) Since Maccabee seems to think Ed's photos are the "real
 >thing", we can only conclude that you do, too, given your
 >deference to Maccabee's analytical magic (or expertise, if you
 >prefer) in these matters.

 >But we really don't care what Maccabee thinks about Gulf Breeze
 >in this context: what do *you* think about it? (No dodging
 >permitted.)

Dennis,

You didn't ask me, but I've been talking about this offline
lately, and thought I'd share my thoughts.

My own instinct is that Gulf Breeze is a hoax. On the other
hand, I take Bruce seriously as a photo analyst, so I think all
serious criticism of GB has to deal with what he says. I don't
feel competent to assess Bruce's comments, because I'm not an
expert in that field. Thus, I retain my _belief_ (note my stress
on that word) that GB is a hoax, while also feeling comfortable
when I say I don't _know_ that it is.

I'd like to see a debate among qualified, scientific photo
analysts, including neutral parties new to the debate. I'm
entirely comfortable thinking that Bruce is an entirely
respectable scientific thinker who might be wrong in this case.
He wouldn't be the first qualified expert to be wrong - honestly
wrong - about something.

What I'd like to avoid is the following: Talk about GB that
starts from a spoken or unspoken assumption that any sensible
person knows the case just has to be hoaxed, and that therefore
Bruce's analysis is obviously wrong, and therefore irrelevant.
Sometimes - such is life - the things we most "know" are true
turn out to be not as clear-cut as we think. That, I might add,
is why we do scientific analysis of things, rather than simply
trust our instincts.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:54:22 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:16:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:12:31 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >but I'd be
 >more interested to hear, for example, of any prominent
 >abductologist who has criticised another such, despite them
 >often holding views which are mutually contradictory.

 >I certainly don't expect any criticism of Budd Hopkins from
 >Jerome Clark, as I have a quote from the latter saying "Budd
 >Hopkins is as good as they come. I love Budd." No doubt Jerry
 >will claim I have taken the quote out of context. If he does
 >I'll post the whole quotation, which is even more embarrassing.

Budd really is, as a human being, as good as they come. I love
him, too.

Nevertheless, I criticized him in my report - published in IUR
in 1997 - on his "Linda" case. I've also criticized both him and
Dave Jacobs in my essay "The Abduction Conundrum," which Dennis
Stacy and Patrick Huyge published in "The Anamolist".

Dave blasted John Mack and other abduction researchers who
believe the aliens are friendly in "The Threat", published
recently enough for John Rimmer, assuming he keeps up with UFO
literature, to easily remember it. Budd has debated John Mack
publicly in Boston, and made rather sharp criticisms of John's
approach during the question period of a public lecture Mack and
members of his group gave in New York.

Jerry - not an 'abductologist', but labelled here as a great
supporter of Budd's, and therefore, perhaps, given honorary
membership in the field - slammed John Mack's first abduction
book in a review in IUR.

The published proceedings of the abduction conference held at
MIT in 1992 are full of debate and internal criticism of the
field. It was at this conference that Richard Beal (I think
that's his name - I don't have the volume near me as I write
this) - laid down his famous challenge to abduction researchers.
Beal, a UFO believer and also a physician, didn't believe that
pregnant abductees were losing their babies mysteriously, as
Budd and Dave have so famously claimed. Beal's disbelief in this
has been widely quoted. Less widely quoted, but equally
important is David Hufford's paper at the conference, which in
very strong language takes issue with what Hufford thinks are
almost amateurish inadequacies in abduction research.

Stuart Appelle, not an abduction researcher, but the editor of
the Journal of UFO Studies (published by CUFOS), published a
60-page essay on abduction evidence, equally critical of
believers and skeptics. This isn't precisely what John is
looking for - criticisms by abduction researchers of each other
- but it certainly is an example of criticism of abduction
research appearing in a pro-UFO publication. JUFOS also
published a very strong critique of the well-known Roper poll,
which attempted to show how many abductees there might be in
America, using (or so the critique said) faulty methodology.

The late Karla Turner, in print and in statements at public
conferences, was strongly critical of other abduction
researchers.

John Carpenter was blasted by many people in the abduction
world, not long ago, and right here on UpDates (among other
places).

Finally, John Rimmer might recall John Velez's rather slashing
critique of Leo Sprinkle right here on UpDates.

This is all I can come up with off the top of my head. If I did
some research, I'd come up with more.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 11

                  Dick Cheney Questioned On UFOs - 04-11-01

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 11 Apr 2001 09:44:43 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:56:18 -0400
Subject: Dick Cheney Questioned On UFOs - 04-11-01


This morning on the Diane Rehm show

http://www.wamu.org/dr/

I asked a UFO question of Vice-President Dick Cheney. A rough
outline of the question:


Due to a statement made by George Bush last July there is a
vicious story going around the UFO community that you have been
"read into" the UFO program.

My question is, in the jobs that you have had with the
government have you ever been briefed on the subject of UFOs. If
so, when was it, and what were you told?


I was cut off before I could hear the answer but the first words
of Cheney answer were "If I had been briefed..."

The audio of this one hour show can be heard by going to the
archives at the Rehm home page. It should be up tomorrow April
12. My question is the first one 40 minutes into the interview.

-----

"We just moved in and violated all the rules. We didn't have the
procedures. They (Congress) knew the bills would be paid, and if
one were asked to do something by Schiever's group, a company
say, they knew they were going to get paid and everything was
alright. They went ahead and did the job.

Q. The statutes weren't actually changed then.....

A. ... no, no.....

Q. ...just ignored?

A. That's right. That's right. Yes, we accomplished a great
    deal, I'll tell you."

    General Nathan Twining speaking about the development of
    the ICBM








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                 Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:31:19 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:22:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Deardorff


 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:36:56 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

Bob Young wrote:

 >>...It is virtually impossible to acquire a fast
 >>object in a telescope. I think the newspaper article probably
 >>explains what he "saw".

Bruce wrote:

 >This is not a "smart" statement. The witness said he saw the
 >objects through a telescope. He could track them with the
 >telescope. I suspect they were farther away than he thought, but
 >with distance comes lower angular rate of speed.

 >You have only the vaguest idea of the conditions under which he
 >made his observations, so there is really little or no
 >justification for your outright rejection ("Virtually
 >impossible") of his claim to have seen one (or more) of these
 >objects through his telescope (We don't even know the power of
 >the telescope or the type).

Additionally, it's worth pointing out that it's a lot easier to
locate a moving object in a telescope if it's one of 9 objects
along a line, in all occupying a much greater angular width than
just one object alone.


Jim D.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 12

               Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:35:19 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:25:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Gates


 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:26:30 +0000
 >From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'?

 >For all of you out there who are convinced that Ray Santilli
 >and/or his associates/company faked the 'alien autopsy film'
 >purely for financial gain, may be interested to know that I have
 >recently interviewed a new witness who could scupper all such
 >ideas.

 >The full facts surrounding this new witness will eventually be
 >used in the new book I am co-authoring with Tim Matthews
 >(entitled Alien Autopsy Inquest).

 >Basically the witness in question (full name etc will be used in
 >the book) was shown the alien autopsy film in the USA in the
 >l970's. The witness in question is a professional, award winning
 >photographer, and many years ago he even qualified as a
 >mid-wife.

Phillip

Do you know for an absolute fact that this witness saw the same
"film" that Ray was unloading? Answer is no. We know that the
alleged camerman claimed that he kept the film in his possession
for 50 years so your witness could not have seen that exact film
in the 70s. Now on the other hand your witness could have seen a
"similar" looking autopsy film but not _the_ AA film that is so
well known.

Just because an individual comes forward and "claims" to have
seen an alien autopsy film does not equate to "this proves that
Ray's AA film is real."

This is similar to the Roswell crash. Many people would have us
mix and co mingle the alleged MJ-12 briefing document and the
Roswell crash. The fact of the matter is they are two distinct
and seperate items and should only be considered seperately not
co mingled.

 >I have interviewed this person twice now and I am literally in
 >the process of transcribing the second interview.

While you may have interviewed this person twice, this person
may not survive being under scrutiny of others. For example
supporters of Phil Corso were essentially he was claiming that
he was the tell all witness of the century. Corso himself
claimed that he was the head of Army FTD for two or four years.
When his military records were un earthed, he was only head of
FTD for months.

 >I just wondered what those individuals out there who made such
 >accusations against Ray Santilli will have to say once this part
 >of the story is published in our book. I'm not saying this in
 >any proves the film to be authentic, but surely such a highly
 >credible witness might well put pay to the ideas that Santilli
 >faked it for money ? If this is so then there are quite a few
 >'ufologists' out there who could well have egg on their faces,
 >would you not agree ?

Bottom line is your witness may have seen something "similar" he
did not see the film brought forth by the alleged camerman, to
Ray, unless of course Ray or the camerman lied when they claimed
it had been kept hidden for 50 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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:39:03 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:29:57 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Kaeser


 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:39:07 +0100
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

 >>Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
 >>>From: Rebecca Keith <xiannekei@yahoo.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Gates
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >><snip>

 >>>Last time I checked, no one had seen actual film that had the
 >>>"alien" carcass on it.

 >>>I think that Phil Mantle was shown some film but he does not
 >>>recall the alien being visible.

 >>The shred of actual film that circulated showed a door. I've
 >>seen the same thing on the CDs, saved under "Fragments". The
 >>problem, of course, is that the "door footage" could be from
 >>_any_ filmstrip and does nothing to verify claims that the AA
 >>originated in the 40s.

 >>(Inside the doorway is a table with a sheet on it, but it
 >>doesn't appear to be the operating table from the AA. It looks
 >>like someone's basement, frankly.)

 >Mac, Rebecca,

 >At the time it was reported (though I have never seen images
 >from) that Bob Kiviat, producer of Alien Autopsy-Fact or Fiction
 >had a couple of 16mm film fragments, one like Bob Shell's
 >showing the "doorway" (that one I have seen) but also a further
 >fragment showing the autopsy table _without_ the body. Neil.

Neil-

I recall the film fragment with the doorway, but not a second
fragment that involved the autopsy table.

There's a long story about the fragment that Kiviat had, but
it's significant that none of the fragments showed any edge code
that would help to confirm the age of the fragment. Indeed, it
appears that this was by design, since all fragments that I've
seen were torn lengthwise, removing one edge.

Another factor that I believe comes into play here is the fact
that the fragments were all apparently made with a film copier,
and weren't original stock. According to Ray, he had been given
original film by the cameraman. But the only samples he gave out
were copies, and I'm not sure that he's really explained this
discrepancy (among many others).

While Kiviat and Shell were sent small segments, I believe that
the British Producer of the original Channel 4 program on the AA
"film" was given a number of film pieces. Some of those were
shown during the show, and I've attempted to find out if there
was any analysis of them. My understanding is that the Producer
was very skeptical of the entire story and he may not have felt
that they were worth looking into further.

A few thoughts.

Steve









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:00:08 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:32:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:31:07 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Welcome to the Ufologists' Waffle House, where the menu changes
 >daily, there's always far too many cooks in the kitchen and
 >everyone is entitled to a little waffle, now and then. Everyone,
 >that is, except skeptics.

 >I hear the Waffle House is serving crow this week. ;)


There's a large skeptical UFO literature, published during the
past 30 years or so. I haven't read all of it, but I've read a
lot of it, and never found one UFO skeptic criticizing another.
Things may be changing, if the recent items in Magonia establish
any trend, and I'd welcome the change. But until those Magonia
items, the 30-year record of published UFO skepticism doesn't,
to the best of my knowledge, include skeptics criticizing each
other.

I don't know how to make my point any more simply or clearly.
Though of course anyone who wants to misunderstand me is free to
do so.

And with that I take my leave of the very silly Mr. Evans.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

              Re: Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:45:54 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:34:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 05:53:25 EDT
 >Subject: Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Recently on this List there has been a lot of comment on the
 >alleged accuracy or ianccuracy of eyewitnesses.

 >As much as they like Condon's conclusions about the alleged
 >unreliability and inaccuracy of eyewitnesses, debunkers have
 >never done any in-depth study of the data on witness accuracy
 >that is contained in the Condon Report. The Condon Committee
 >itself suppressed any statistical analysis of the witness
 >accuracy data that its own project investigators had compiled.
 >Instead they left the data sitting undigested, some of it in the
 >final report, much of it left unpublished.

<snip>

 >Case 18 -- approx. 99% accurate (about 150 data points).
 >Case 23 -- approx. 99% accurate (about 66 data points).
 >Case 36 -- approx. 90% to 98% accurate (about 42 data points).
 >Zond 4 Rocket Re-entry -- approx. 97% accurate (about 86 data
 >points).

 >TOTAL: Approx. 97% to 98% accurate (about 344 data points total).

Brad:

Thank you for doing this analysis, which provided food for
thought. On the Zond 4 reentry, are the witness points
describing the debris fragments as "windows" included?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:09:52 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:39:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randle


 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:12:31 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

Hello, all -

John Rimmer wrote:

 >but I'd be
 >more interested to hear, for example, of any prominent
 >abductologist who has criticised another such, despite them
 >often holding views which are mutually contradictory.

This is just too easy.

When John Mack sat down for his interview with Russ Estes and
Bill Cone, he suggested that other abduction researchers seemed
to pull from their experiencers what they want to see. Asked
about this not too long ago, he denied that he had said it out
loud, though he had often wondered about it. However, in CDB
Bryant's book, 'Close Encounters Of The Forth Kind' he reported
on page 271 that Mack said, "It seems to me that Jacobs,
Hopkins, and Nyman may pull out of their experiencers what they
want to see.


In 'The Threat', David Jacobs wrote, "While Mack does not 'lead
the witness' in the classic meaning of the phrase, he embraces
the 'positive' therapeutic technique that leads to mutual
confirmational fantasies and easily steers the abductee into
dissociative channeled pathways."

Dr. Richard Neal, writing in UFO Magazine, about cases of
missing fetus, suggested, "Many researchers have claimed that
they have several of Missing embryo/Fetus Syndrome in their
files. Yet during my research into this phenomenon over the past
three years, all have failed to produce one verified case. Why?"

Writing of abduction in general, Eddie Bullard noted, "The case
for abduction means anecdotal evidence and little else. A
physical phenomenon carried out on an extensive scale for
decades by none-too-careful aliens has nevertheless left behind
no convincing physical residue."

And who can forget the scathing reviews of the work of he-who-
shall-remain-nameless? The abduction community, as well as those
on the skeptical side of the aisle, have lined up to take shots
at him.

I put all this together in a matter of minutes from widely
available sources. Had a taken time, I could have found
additional examples. What that means is that the abduction
researchers do criticize one another, do point out many of the
contradictions, and do argue among themselves.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:51:50 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:47:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Jones


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:54:22 -0400

 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:12:31 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

Greg, John

Just my tuppence worth.

 >>but I'd be
 >>more interested to hear, for example, of any prominent
 >>abductologist who has criticised another such, despite them
 >>often holding views which are mutually contradictory.

 >Budd really is, as a human being, as good as they come. I love
 >him, too.

I have only met Bud the once, when he was over here in the UK a
few years ago, and I found him a genuine guy. Thoroughly
likeable, earnest and a sweet gentleman.

Having spoken with a few people (via email) I have yet to hear
anyone say a bad word about him. Wish I could say the same about
others here on the List.

<snip>

 >This is all I can come up with off the top of my head. If I did
 >some research, I'd come up with more.

Not abduction researchers per-se but how about Chris Rutkowski's
book' Abduction & Aliens', was a critical look at abduction. An
even more critical look at abductions was Kevin Randle's book,
'The Abduction Enigma'.

Do they count?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                          Re: Data Exchange - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:20:50 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:50:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Data Exchange - Jones


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Data Exchange
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:37:40 -0000

 >To John Rimmer and whomever else it may concern in the UK:

 >Something that is becoming evident to me in the often
 >acrimonious exchanges in regard to internal criticism by
 >advocates as compared to doubters, is that we apparently do not
 >know each others' UFO literature very well. I was formerly
 >well-acquainted with Flying Saucer Review, but it ain't what it
 >used to be. I rarely see any other UK publications these days,
 >but did have a (possibly nonrepresentative) free subscription to
 >Fortean Times for a while.

 >I have been outspokenly critical of both the methods and
 >findings of many pro "ufologists" and my comments have been
 >widely published in our mainline publications. And I'm not the
 >only one. The Fund for UFO Research took on Steven Greer (of
 >CSETI infamy). Jerry Clark has been critical of many ufologists
 >in his excellent works and has exposed hoaxes, etc. Strong peer
 >review critiques have been published in IUR and the MUFON UFO
 >Journal.

 >I would be delighted to have, say, a couple of years back issues
 >of Magonia, and a current complimentary subscription, for my
 >Donald E. Keyhoe Archives where they would be available to
 >scholarly researchers and news media types, as well as to my
 >closest colleagues. In return, I would be willing to send
 >something of equivalent value from my holdings (Perhaps some of
 >the critical articles mentioned above)or to arrange for some
 >complimentary copies of Fund for UFO Research publications,
 >which are numerous.

 >Shall we have some "cultural exchange?"


Dick

I am one of four co-editors of the UK-UFO_Network's Ezine. It's in
a bit of a hiatus at the moment, but if you want you can download
all 110 previous issues free of charge from

http://www.ukufonw.org.uk/download.shtml

The Ezine is provided free of charge to anyone with an email
address.

--

    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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                 Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:40:12 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:52:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Bowden


 >Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 16:22:48 -0700
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really

 >The fact is, until science invents a machine which can place
 >another person in my or any other experincers body, we will have
 >to run the gauntlet of unacceptance of such experiences by other
 >humans who cannot even begin to relate what it is that has
 >occured.

 >I stopped trying to please other peoples hang-ups some years
 >back.

Hi Roy,

I've been following this thread with some interest, would you be
willing to share with us publicly your experience?

I would really like to know in some detail what happened to make
you decide your encounter was real.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                 Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:50:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:55:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Salvaille


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:10:51 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >By the way, I've recently seen a posting somewhere claiming that
 >Johnson's story was first reported in a newspaper as early as
 >June 25 or 26?, 1947. I'd like to see confirmation of this as
 >would be important early evidence confirming Johnson's story.

At:

http://foia.fbi.gov/ufo/ufo3.pdf

On page 27, you will find the September 17, 1947, FBI memorandum
concerning the Johnson sighting. Titled:

Subject: Reports of Flying Disks
          Security Mater - X

...

Where it is related that Johnson "placed his telescope to his
eye". This would make Johnson's telescope a _monocular_, e.g. a
field telescope. The use of a monocular would be consistent with
Johnson's 40-year experience as a prospector.

Bob's argument may be valid in the case of astronomical
telescopes: their magnification factor make it extremely
difficult to follow a moving object. But a field telescope, or
monocular, is suited for the job.

The FBI paper negates a June 25 or 26 newspaper article:

"According to XXXXXXX he remained in the vicinity of the
Cascades for several days and then returned to Portland and
noted an article in the local paper which stated in effect that
a man in Boise, Idaho, had sighted a similar object but that
authorities had disclaimed any knowledge of such an object. He
said he communicated with the army for the sole purpose of
attempting to add credence to the story furnished by the man in
Boise."

An interesting aspect of Johnson's testimony in the same FBI
document:

"XXXXXXXX also related that on the occasion of his sighting the
objects on June 24, 1947 he had in his possession a combination
compass and watch. He noted particularly that immediately before
he sighted the disc the compass acted very peculiar, the hand
waving from one side to the other, but that this condition
corrected itself immediately after the discs had passed out of
sight."

Johnson's letter to the USAF is dated August 20th, 1947. Was
this the first UFO report to mention electromagnetic effects?










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                 Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Skavhaug

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:50:54 +0200
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:05:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Skavhaug


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:01:43 -0400
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:46:27 -0400

 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee

<snip>

 >JUNE 24, 1947: HOW IT ALL BEGANThe Story of the Arnold Sighting
 >byBruce Maccabee

 >PRESENTED AT THE 1997 SYMPOSIUM OF THE MUTUAL UFO NETWORK

 >Grand Rapids, Michigan, July 12, 1997(UPDATED to Sept. 1999)

 >INTRODUCTION

 >June 24, 1947. You will not find any conventional history book
 >that even so much as mentions that on that date there began the
 >public awareness of a phenomenon of such importance that it
 >could well be the most important phenomenon discovered in this
 >century, or even in the history of mankind. The important event
 >of that date was the sighting, by Kenneth Arnold, of a group of

<snip>

 >perspective). Of course, these birds would not cause bright
 >mirror-like reflections of the sun but, as skeptics often do,
 >they ignored that "minor" detail or tried to imagine that Arnold
 >incorrectly reported the bright "flashing" of these objects
 >(perhaps assuming that Arnold got it wrong or simply lied about
 >it).

<snip>

Bruce & List:

I would just like to mention that I - rather surprisingly, and
for the first time in my life - suddenly observed a mirror-like,
bright, colourless flash from some birds, or just one bird --
crows or seagulls (but most likely seagulls) - that were flying
above a snow-covered field near my hometown this winter. The
birds were flying approx 50 meters above the ground, between the
sun and myself.

The short-lasting flash was "fairly strong" - possibly just like
when the sun - at an instant - was reflected from a small mirror
at that distance.

The birds were approx. 150-200 meters from the place I was
standing.

Then I realised that the flashes Arnold saw _could possibly_ be
flashes from birds - but the flashes _I saw_ were _not blue_ in
colour - like Arnold described the flashes _he_ saw - but
bright, colourless.

I guess the flash was due to reflections from the oily feathers
of those birds (seagulls). And, I guess that _blue_ reflections
are not likely to be reflected from oily feathers on _white_
birds, but rather from some kind of polished, blue-coloured
metal.

Regarding Johnson's ten miles "telescope", as, e.g., noted here:

http://www.the-templars.com/avvistamenti/kennetharnold/immagine2.htm

I would assume that it was a some kind of "mono/single/singular
nocular" (and not bi(/double)noculars), to be pulled out - which
was more common in those days - and of regular field power
(10x24; 7x40?); and thus not a telescope for astronomic
observations.

And, by the way; anyone knows if the editor of Idaho Daily
Statesman, David Johnson, was related to prospector Fred
Johnson? (A possible relationship could have an effect on the
credibility of Fred Johnsons observations...) Check out:

http://www.violations.dabsol.co.uk/confusion/confusionpart2.htm

with excerpts:

"(...)Palmer subsequently wrote to Kenneth Arnold (whose friend
Colonel Paul Wieland had just returned from Germany as a judge
at the Nuremberg trials) and asked him to investigate the story.
He gave Arnold $200 to cover his expenses � no small amount in
1947. Indeed it was such a large amount that Arnold went on to
boast about it at the office of the �Idaho Daily Statesman�
whose editor, David Johnson, promptly sent a telegram to Air
Force Intelligence to advise them of Arnold�s pending
investigation (12). (We now know that Johnson was habitually
supplying information to the Air Force and other arms of
government on a range of matters. His name also appears on the
bottom of a document released in 1969 when the Air Force
terminated Project Blue Book.)(...)"


Best Regards,

Asgeir








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:00:06 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:10:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:48:03 -0500

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:44:06 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:27:45 -0500

 >>>>From: Robert Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:18:27 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>I'm surpised that after using old Uncle Phil's name in vain for
 >>>>at least a decade, you didn't know that he has a graduate degree
 >>>>in electrical engineering and for many years has been a senior
 >>>>editor for avionics for Aviation Week and Space Technology
 >>>>magazine.

 >>>Wow. You're not even close on this one. No one has disputed that
 >>>Klass is trained as an engineer.

 >>Since when do engineers with graduate degrees have "only one or
 >>a small number of undergraduate [science] courses, if that?"
 >>Perhaps on the planet Clarion. "If that?" means maybe he has
 >>never taken even an undergraduate science course, Jerry.

 >I'm sure Klass and Sheaffer took one or two or three
 >undergraduate science courses. That doesn't make them
 >scientists, or even scientifically trained, by any but a
 >grasping debunker's definition.

<snip>

 >... So far we have established that
 >the practice of debunkers openly criticizing debunkers has
 >occurred twice in Magonia (not ordinarily considered a journal
 >of the debunking movement, and certainly barely known to the
 >bulk of American true disbelievers), once in another British
 >publication. Wow. I _am_ impressed.

 >Jerry Clark


Hello Jerry, Bob ..

I don't want to get mixed up in the debunker self-criticism
matter, but rather to add some notes to the scientific training
of engineers.

General education requirements aside, the engineering curriculum
in this country is almost all science .. and of the most
difficult and rigorous sort. General science, survey of Chem
etc. is/was for the arts majors.

My first-quarter physics class at a junior college here filled
an auditorium... jammed to the doors with would-be scientists,
engineers etc. This number fell nearly in half sometime just
after the first mid-term exam. By the third quarter, the few
that were left had room to spare in a small classroom, and were
all on a first name basis.

There were 5 quarters of physics, right up to quantum and
relativity studies. Chemistry was similar, and I should at least
mention the Math... definitely not for dim bulbs. All of this
was lower division mind you, prior to the undergraduate Junior
year, and about as far as I got before this long-legged brunette
interfered.

General science, Survey of Chem etc. etc. were for the
arts/humanities people. (I used to be one of those too.) but
will _not_ fulfill the requirements of any engineering major,
most especially EE.

I suppose the difference is the degrees. To me, a "scientist" is
usually someone at the Ph.D level, although some notable
scientists were awarded honorary doctorates, after the fact, if
at all!

If Phil Klass has a post-graduate degree in Electrical
Engineering (MSEE perhaps? I don't really know) I would not
belittle his scientific training by a long, long shot! Whatever
shortcomings he has would have to lie elsewhere.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

              Eras News: 04-11-01 - The Polar Mysteries of Mars

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:49:05 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:14:00 -0400
Subject: Eras News: 04-11-01 - The Polar Mysteries of Mars


ERAS NEWS
The E-News Service of The Eras Project

http://www.geocities.com/erasproject

April 11, 2001

____________________________


The Mars Initiative:

THE POLAR MYSTERIES OF MARS


Following is a brief wrap-up of some of the latest information
regarding two quite different, but equally fascinating
formations on Mars for which there are as yet no satisfactory
explanations. The 'monoliths' near the north pole are some of
the most artificial-looking artifacts yet imaged by any of the
Mars probes, resembling partially buried blocks or structures.
Their similarity in size and shape and overall distribution is
amazing. What are they? The 'forest' region near the south pole
looks very  much like wide-spread vegetation. Or is it just
melting ice / frost? As the 2001 Mars Odyssey probe heads toward
an October rendezvous with the red planet, The Mars Initiative
will continue to investigate these and other anomalies on our
planetary neighbour, providing the latest news updates and
special research reports. Go Odyssey!


North Pole: The 'Monoliths'

The Monolith Graveyard - Update

http://209.196.158.209/mars/monolith_graveyard.html


Polar 'Monoliths' Revisited

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/imperative16.html


South Pole: The 'Forest'

The "Forests of Mars': Biology or Exotic Geology?

http://www.geocities.com/erasproject/marsforest.html


A Martian Southern Hemisphere Mystery - What Are These?

http://www.earthfiles.com/earth225.htm


Vegetation on Mars?

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/imperative15.html


More Arthur C. Clarke Comments Regarding 'Vegetation on Mars'

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_251806,00.htm
l


THE MARS INITIATIVE

The Mars Initiative is a special research project of The Eras
Project, advocating the continued exploration of Mars, including
a manned mission and eventual colonization as part of mankind's
next steps outward into the solar system and beyond; a major
focus of TMI is the search for and examination of evidence for
life, past or present, on this the most earthlike of the nearby
worlds

____________________________


Eras News is the e-news service of The Eras Project, providing the latest news
and reports relating to the leading-edge issues of our time in science and
technology and their possible present and future implications as we enter the
21st Century and a new Era, as well as other periodic information and updates
on TEP-related news, projects and events. Eras News is available free by
subscription:

To subscribe to Eras News, send your e-mail address to:
erasnews-subscribe@listbot.com

You can also subscribe or unsubscribe from the TEP web site:
http://www.geocities.com/erasproject/erasnews.html

Eras News Archive:
http://www.listbot.com/archive/erasnews

See also The Eras Project web site for all the latest news and updates (updated
frequently):
http://www.geocities.com/erasproject


THE ERAS PROJECT

Suite 202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC  V5T 2M9  Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/erasproject


� The Eras Project, 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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:46:57 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:16:30 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Balaskas


 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:39:07 +0100
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp

<snip>

 >At the time it was reported (though I have never seen images
 >from) that Bob Kiviat, producer of Alien Autopsy-Fact or Fiction
 >had a couple of 16mm film fragments, one like Bob Shell's
 >showing the "doorway" (that one I have seen) but also a further
 >fragment showing the autopsy table _without_ the body. Neil.


Hi Neil, Mac, Rebecca, Philip, Bobbie and List

In 1997 Reg Presley arranged for Derrel Sims and Dr. Roger Leir
to meet with Ray Santilli in London. Sims and Leir proposed to
help Santilli authenticate the Alien Autopsy film if he could
provide them with a few frames of the original film. Months
later when Sims was back in London, Presley gave him a letter
from Santilli with several pieces of film! Details can be found
in Chapter 12 'Secret Analysis' of Leir's book 'The Aliens and
the Scalpel'.

After a meeting with several MUFON Ontario members in Toronto,
Leir gave me the letter from Santilli and four film fragments
for independent analysis. The analysis of these film fragments
(which contained images other than the "creature", as Santilli
called it, or the "doorway") were done by top local experts
including Ed H. Zwaneveld with the National Film Board of Canada
for Technical Research and Development. Some of Zwaneveld's 11
findings and comments in his letter to me dated April 6th, 1998
include:

2) The largest fragment of black and white positive print film
has been coated, probably with a polyerized silane protective
coating, such as Photogard (a 3-M product). This protective
coating cannot be removed. The coating can influence acidity
measurement

3) All samples are cellulose triacetate film based, but are not
['not' was underlined - Nick] camera-originals.

5) The fragments do not exhibit signs of cellulose triacetate
film base acidity associated with aging, which may be a result
of very good storage or a relatively recent origin.

6) If these samples were stored at room temperature and
prevailing relative humidity in the UK as is likely to have been
the case with prints, a 1947 vintage film element can be
expected to have a level 2-3 film base acidity, as measured with
Acid Detection indicator strips. Actually, the readings indicate
level 0, which indicates that the samples are probably not older
than the late 1960s.

8) No manufacturer identification was present, except for the
name Eastman, for Eastman Kodak. From earlier conversations we
noted that there are markings on the camera negative film edges
that enable identification of the year of manufacture during any
period of 20 years, the life-cycle of such manufacturer codes.

10) For the record, it should be pointed out that none of these
film fragments represent camera negative materials ['camera
negative materials' was underlined - Nick], they are prints
['prints' was underlined - Nick]. Hence they cannot and should
not be used to establish a date for the capture of the original
images concerned, as prints can be made at any time after the
original shooting of the story.

I cannot make out what is depicted in the frames in two of the
four film fragments. The two images which I can make out show a
closeup of a group of "military officers or cadets" and
"American football players". Does anyone know anything about
these two images which were allegedly part of Santilli's alien
autopsy films?

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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                  Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:38:07 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:20:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Sparks


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:58:29 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:35:22 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:10:51 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:19:11 EDT
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young

 >>>>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >>>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question

 >>><snip>

 >>>>I came across the letter from prospector Frank Johnson to
 >>>>the Air Force, on the web, dated August 20th 1947:


 >>>His claim that he had a credible. It is virtually impossible to
 >>>acquire a fast object in a telescope. I think the newspaper
 >>>article probably explains what he "saw".

 >>Bob,

 >>Fred Johnson didn't say he "acquired" the objects through the
 >>telescope. He saw them with the naked eye first then trained the
 >>telescope on them.

 >>In the part of the Fred Johnson FBI interview you snipped out he
 >>alludes to a 10-mile distance in conjunction with his 1,000-foot
 >>altitude level above his own on Mt. Adams (where he was at the
 >>5,000-foot level).

 >He says he could "pick up an object" (see an object) at 10 miles
 >with his telescope/. H did not say the objects of interest were
 >10 miles away.

Hi Bruce,

In your posting yesterday you said you suspect the objects were
even "farther away" than Johnson thought.  See your posting on
UpDates (which posted it today):

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m11-003.shtml

I interpret Johnson's remark about the 10-mile distance to be
alluding to the objects otherwise it would be irrelevant even to
bring it up.  Isn't it strange that using the 10-mile distance
together with the 1,000-foot greater height that the ratio
yields a 2� elevation above the apparent horizon that is so
amazingly close to Arnold's 2� elevation above the horizon?

 >His brief descriptions in the Air Force letter
 >and the FBI interview (see my recently posted Arnld paper for
 >complete details) lead me to believe that th objects were at a
 >large angular elevation/. Perhaps they did not go exactly over
 >his head, but at an elevation of 45 degrees or mre.

Witnesses are notoriously unreliable in estimating elevation
angles and almost always greatly overestimate them, especially
when near the horizon the "Moon Illusion" causes a great
exaggeration of size and elevation.  By carefully analyzing and
coaxing details out of a case one might get a better estimate as
I think we can in Fred Johnson's case.

The fact is that Bob has a point about the narrow field of view
of any pocket telescope Johnson could have carried.  Had the
objects been overhead or some large elevation angle such as 45�
he would have had no nearby reference frame by which to hold the
telescope steady on the fast-moving fluttering objects, and the
position itself is physically awkward.  But if the objects were
close to the horizon the horizon would give Johnson a reference
frame by which to keep the telescope trained on the speedy
objects, and it is not physically awkward to hold a telescope
out at a level angle.

 >>I take the two indicators together to point
 >>to an elevation angle of roughly one degree above his level or
 >>about 2� above the horizon.

 >I don't think so. See above.

 >>What is interesting is that this is
 >>exactly the same elevation above the horizon indicated by
 >>Arnold, about 2�, because when Arnold put the objects at about
 >>his own height level that is the angle above his apparent
 >>horizon from his higher altitude (near 10,000 feet).>

 >I think the objects were loer than Arnold, not higher, with
 >perhaps a 2 degree depression angle (to the level of the
 >mountain tops south of Mt. Rainier... the peak of which was abou
 >2 degrees above Arnold)

The problem is that Arnold always consistently stated that the
objects were at his altitude level or slightly _above_ him and
_never_ said they were lower than him.  At least on the issue of
flying behind or in front of Mt. Rainier Arnold's statements are
about evenly split with him sometimes saying they went behind,
sometimes in front, sometimes he would say both things in the
same article or interview.  Here, as to flight level Arnold was
100% consistent so far as I have ever seen.  See Arnold's
statements from day one (keeping in mind he had been at about
9,200 to 9,500 feet and if the objects were at 10,000 feet
that's even _higher_ elevation level than he was at):

Arnold to Pendleton East Oregonian, June 25, 1947:

     "He estimated they were at an altitude between 9,500 and
     10,000 feet."

Arnold to Chicago Tribune, June 25 (published June 26), 1947:

     "He said he was flying at 9,200 feet altitude and that the
     objects, an estimated 25 miles from him when he first saw
     them, were traveling almost due south at about 10,000 feet
     altitude."


Arnold to Pendleton EO, June 26, 1947:

     " 'Ten thousand [10,000] feet is very low for anything going
     at that speed.'

     Mr. Arnold was flying a three-passenger, single-engined
     plane at 9200 feet at the time, he reported."

Arnold to UP, Pendleton, Ore., June 26, 1947:

     "He landed here, slightly bug-eyed, Wednesday and told how
     he spotted the 'extremely shiny nickle-plated aircraft'
     skimming along at 10,000 feet on Tuesday."

Arnold to AP, Pendleton, june 27, 1947:

     "Arnold said he saw the objects flying in 'weaving
     formation' in a line at 10,000 feet as he piloted his own
     small private plane over Mineral, Wash."

Arnold's letter to AAF, ca. July 8-10, 1947:

     "... I observed a chain of nine peculiar looking aircraft
     flying from north to south at approximately 9,500 foot
     elevation and going, seemingly, in a definite direction of
     about 170 degrees."

     "I would estimate their elevation could have varied a
     thousand feet one way or another up or down, but they were
     pretty much on the horizon to me which would indicate they
     were near the same elevation as I was."

Arnold (above) explains that what he means by "horizon" is not
the apparent horizon in the distance but _horizontal_ level with
himself as he put it "the same elevation as I was."  See again
below.

Arnold to First international UFO Congress (Fate Symposium),
June 24, 1977, tape transcript:

     "These craft seemed to be climbing a little bit as they were
     following this 170 degree heading and I knew that I was on a
     level with them because they were on a horizon with me, so
     my altimeter showed a little over 9200 feet, so they were
     flying at an elevation of about 9200, probably a little less
     or a little more as they sort of undulated, if you want to
     call it that, as they flew."

Again, "a horizon with me" meant his own horizontal level, not
the horizon in the distance, as he explained in his letter to
the AAF.

 ><snip>

 >>By the way, I've recently seen a posting somewhere claiming that
 >>Johnson's story was first reported in a newspaper as early as
 >>June 25 or 26?, 1947. I'd like to see confirmation of this as
 >>would be important early evidence confirming Johnson's story.

 >The FBI interview says Johnson claimed he stayed in the Cascade
 >range a few more days after the sighting and it wasn't until he
 >got back home that he read abou Arnold's sghting. Hence any
 >newspaper article would be perhaps 5 days or more after Arnold's
 >sighting. N such article has turned up, so far as I know.
 >Perhaps Johnson reported only to the Air Force and then was
 >interviewed by the FBI ("security matter -x, the "REAL X-files")

I recall that the claim was that prospecter F. Johnson of
Portland reported his sighting, and the story was printed in a
remote newspaper somewhere like Baltimore or Phoenix or
Philadelphia.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

               Re: The Truth May Finally Be Out There - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 03:21:32 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:21:56 -0400
Subject: Re: The Truth May Finally Be Out There - Easton


Regarding:

 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:50:47 -0400
 >From: Kelly <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: The Truth May Finally Be Out There

Kelly wrote:

 >The Scotsman - 11 April 2001

 >The truth may finally be out there
 >David Montgomery Science Correspondent

 >POWERFUL new telescopes and planned space missions will reveal
 >within 20 years whether there is life elsewhere in the universe,
 >a leading astronomer claimed yesterday.

 >The quest for extraterrestrials has so far failed to find other
 >planetary systems with traces of water, oxygen or ozone, which
 >are necessary for life to survive.

 >But Anneila Sargent, the Scots-born director of the Owens Valley
 >Radio Observatory in California and professor of astronomy at
 >the California Institute of Technology, said that didn't
 >necessarily rule out the existence of other lifeforms.

<snip>

 >Prof Sargent's lecture is being held today at George Square
 >Theatre in Edinburgh at 8pm.

Kelly,

I had an invitation (absolutely non 'UFO' related!) to the
Professor's lecture and regrettably couldn't be there.

 >However the astronomer cast doubts on the likelihood of
 >Unidentified Flying Objects, or UFOs, ever being discovered.

I think we can conclude she is referring to 'alien spaceships'.

 >"I know people who sit all night on mountains and look up in the
 >sky, but they have never seen a UFO yet," she said.

If I had been able to attend, I would certainly have pointed out
why, as we know, 'UFOs are real'.

Doubtless such a heinous act would have resulted in a crescendo
of boos and cries of 'shame'... forever to be castigated as a
believer.

Well, maybe not. ;)

Interesting 'Scotsman' article though and thanks for highlighting
it. The 'Scotsman' is a 'serious', non-tabloid, newspaper and
Scotland's equivalent to, say, the 'Washington Post'.

Overall, it typically emphasises how 'ufology' is an utter
irrelevance so far as science and the media are concerned.

With few exceptions, we never have to look far to understand
why, and assertions of 'professional ufologists' are duly placed
in context.

Ridicule is some serious accomplishment after 50 years endeavours
otherwise.


People sitting all night on mountains and looking up at the sky?

Ugh...

And if the most 'credible' retort is to wave 'flying saucer'
photographs and... here's one Billy Meier or Ed Walters made
earlier...

No wonder.


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk

Join UFO Skeptics or read the list archives at:

http://debunk.listbot.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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                          Re: NOVA/UFOs & The Media

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:20:16 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:25:19 -0400
Subject: Re: NOVA/UFOs & The Media


 >Date: 11 Apr 2001 07:11:22 -0700
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Subject: Re: NOVA/UFOs & The Media

<snip>

 >>Enjoy the excerpt.

 >>'The Missing Times: News Media Complicity In The UFO Coverup'

 >>Author: Terry Hansen

 >>Published by Xlibris Corporation
 >>www.Xlibris.com

 >>ISBN: 0-7388-3612-5

 >>pages 256-262

 ><snip>

 >>In the case of the commercial TV networks, though, the source of
 >>bias in UFO-related coverage often seems to be corporate policy,
 >>however that is formulated. John Mack, who has had considerable
 >>experience with the elite media, said network reporters often
 >>have little choice about how the subject is portrayed. They're
 >>kept on a short leash and pulled back into line if they wander
 >>too far from the officially approved position on UFOs.

 >I found that shows like "Sightings" and the now defunct 'Strange
 >Universe' sometimes treated UFO reports with more factuality
 >than the Discovery Channels, Discovery and TLC.

 >In the case of the Phoenix Lights I found that none of the
 >Discovery channels reported the full breadth of the incidents
 >reported and deliberately pared them down to only two, ignoring
 >two other significant events with multiple witnesses.

 >I found this bias and distortion common in television specials
 >and have became disillusioned with these shows for that reason.
 >It has also caused me to question whether other specials
 >depicting factual information in other subject areas are to be
 >accepted as factual. The producers definitely put a slant on
 >these programs.

Hi Bill,

Some years ago I recall somebody that was interviewed for 60
minutes or a like news show. Out of 7 or 8 hours of interview
footage, the show only aired 10-15 minutes of the interview. The
person said that because of the editing, he was taken out of
context, etc etc.

The point being is all TV is subjective to one point or another.
For example with a so called "1 hour" television show, which
takes 7 - 14 days to shoot, you cut that down to 45-47 minutes
including the credits and so on. Somebody along the vine has to
make a decision as to what is "important" and what is not.

Same thing happens with your local newspaper. When I was in the
business you could have anywhere from 2000 - 14000 news storys
from all over the world coming in. Out of that you cull the
storys down 20-40 to include in the daily paper. An editor makes
the decision on what is "important to the readers" and what
isn't.

I am sure the same thing happens in TV news. Naturally what
facts and information you or I think should be included probably
wouldn't be the same that some line producer thinks is
important.

Not to mention institutional bias of print and broadcast media
and storys and areas that reporters are told or suggested to
stay away from.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

              Re: NOVA/UFOs & The Media - NOVA/UFOs & The Media

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 04:34:24 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:32:24 -0400
Subject: Re: NOVA/UFOs & The Media - NOVA/UFOs & The Media


 >Date: 11 Apr 2001 07:11:22 -0700
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Subject: Re: NOVA/UFOs & The Media

 >>Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:26:33 -0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: NOVA/UFOs & The Media

 >>Following is an excerpt from Terry Hansen's book, 'The Missing
 >>Times' about news media complicity in the UFO cover-up.

 ><snip>

 >>In the case of the commercial TV networks, though, the source of
 >>bias in UFO-related coverage often seems to be corporate policy,
 >>however that is formulated. John Mack, who has had considerable
 >>experience with the elite media, said network reporters often
 >>have little choice about how the subject is portrayed. They're
 >>kept on a short leash and pulled back into line if they wander
 >>too far from the officially approved position on UFOs.

 >I found that shows like "Sightings" and the now defunct 'Strange
 >Universe' sometimes treated UFO reports with more factuality
 >than the Discovery Channels, Discovery and TLC.

 >In the case of the Phoenix Lights I found that none of the
 >Discovery channels reported the full breadth of the incidents
 >reported and deliberately pared them down to only two, ignoring
 >two other significant events with multiple witnesses.

 >I found this bias and distortion common in television specials
 >and have became disillusioned with these shows for that reason.
 >It has also caused me to question whether other specials
 >depicting factual information in other subject areas are to be
 >accepted as factual. The producers definitely put a slant on
 >these programs.


Hello Mr. Bill, hi All,

The _only_ times I have consented to do media of any kind was
because Budd had asked me to. I've been burned by producers more
times than a veteran Polish fireman. I quickly developed the
habit of asking (upon being invited to participate) if the
program they are making is being presented as "news" or
"entertainment". I have turned down everything where the
response to my question was, "entertainment". It's a terrific
way to weed out many of the ones who are only interested in
milking a 'hot topic' for ratings.

I eventually got to the point where I started turning down
anything that wasn't part of a newscast. TV, radio, you name it,
it's all just a business. A way for some folks to make really
big bucks. I have found that 'subject matter' and even the
'subjects' themselves are _secondary_ to their purpose of
putting asses in the seats. All these guys care about is racking
up some Neilson numbers so they can justify charging their
advertisers the highest rates that the market will bear.

Broadcasting has "little" (if anything at all) to do with
telling the truth, providing any kind of public service, or
conscientiously investigating anything. It's why you won't see
my face on TV or hear me on the radio, (unless it's with EBK on
Strange Days... Indeed) any more. As soon as I figured out that
I was just a pawn in somebody else's game, I got out of that
business. I'll "spread the word" here on this List and on SDI
where I know I can count on being given a fair hearing by some
folks I have grown to care about personally and to respect.
Whether they are on 'my side' of the fence or not. Some of the
best friends I have made here are among the honest skeptics.
Although it is from opposite sides of the ufological fence, we
both speak the same language.

I have recommended to all on several occasions that we
collectively boycott any programs we suspect are going to
present a biased view of the phenomenon (whether fer or agin.)
What counts is _honesty_ and _truth_, not increased book sales
and notoriety.

Make them do it right by sending out the strong message that we
refuse to participate in anything 'slanted' or dishonest.
Without us, these landsharks have no "experts" or "witnesses" to
put in front of their cameras and microphones. We do have some
say in it. We only need to flex our muscles when they come
calling. Ask them, "is this intended as news or entertainment?"
Make your participation conditional on their response to your
question.

"Don't call me... I'll call you" seems like an appropriate
Hollywood way to respond to the 'ratings' whores who only wish
to capitalize on the more sensational aspects of the phenom. And
who thereby 'cheapen' ufology and ufologists.


Regards,

John "I don't turn tricks for nobody" 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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:14:57 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:37:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Mortellaro


 >From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:50:54 +0200

 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:01:43 -0400
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:46:27 -0400

 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee

 ><snip>

 >>JUNE 24, 1947: HOW IT ALL BEGANThe Story of the Arnold Sighting
 >>by Bruce Maccabee

 >>PRESENTED AT THE 1997 SYMPOSIUM OF THE MUTUAL UFO NETWORK

 >>Grand Rapids, Michigan, July 12, 1997(UPDATED to Sept. 1999)

<snip>

 >Bruce & List:

 >I would just like to mention that I - rather surprisingly, and
 >for the first time in my life - suddenly observed a mirror-like,
 >bright, colourless flash from some birds, or just one bird --
 >crows or seagulls (but most likely seagulls) - that were flying
 >above a snow-covered field near my hometown this winter. The
 >birds were flying approx 50 meters above the ground, between the
 >sun and myself.

<snip>

Dear All;

Here come them birds again!
There's the old saw which goes:

"Do you know Latin? Well, translate this:
'Lucit bene
der dego
hunert busis inero
honomo
demis
tux'"

Which loosly translated from the pig Latin goes something like
this:

Lookit Benny, dere day go
hunnert buses in a row.
Oh no Mo. Dem is trucks

Which brings me to my point. Birds. Birds. Like a freaking
horror movie. Birds. Think I'll invent a fresh wine with a
bird's name on it. How about, "Dummy Dimbulb Gripple?"

(hgis)

I'm also dislexic.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                          Re: Data Exchange - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:20:50 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:00:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Data Exchange - Jones


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Data Exchange
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:37:40 -0000

 >To John Rimmer and whomever else it may concern in the UK:

 >Something that is becoming evident to me in the often
 >acrimonious exchanges in regard to internal criticism by
 >advocates as compared to doubters, is that we apparently do not
 >know each others' UFO literature very well. I was formerly
 >well-acquainted with Flying Saucer Review, but it ain't what it
 >used to be. I rarely see any other UK publications these days,
 >but did have a (possibly nonrepresentative) free subscription to
 >Fortean Times for a while.

 >I have been outspokenly critical of both the methods and
 >findings of many pro "ufologists" and my comments have been
 >widely published in our mainline publications. And I'm not the
 >only one. The Fund for UFO Research took on Steven Greer (of
 >CSETI infamy). Jerry Clark has been critical of many ufologists
 >in his excellent works and has exposed hoaxes, etc. Strong peer
 >review critiques have been published in IUR and the MUFON UFO
 >Journal.

 >I would be delighted to have, say, a couple of years back issues
 >of Magonia, and a current complimentary subscription, for my
 >Donald E. Keyhoe Archives where they would be available to
 >scholarly researchers and news media types, as well as to my
 >closest colleagues. In return, I would be willing to send
 >something of equivalent value from my holdings (Perhaps some of
 >the critical articles mentioned above)or to arrange for some
 >complimentary copies of Fund for UFO Research publications,
 >which are numerous.

 >Shall we have some "cultural exchange?"


Dick

I am one of four co-editors of the UK-UFO_Network's Ezine. It's in
a bit of a hiatus at the moment, but if you want you can download
all 110 previous issues free of charge from

http://www.ukufonw.org.uk/download.shtml

The Ezine is provided free of charge to anyone with an email
address.

--

    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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                         Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:43:10 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Tonnies


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:39:03 -0400

<snip>

 >Another factor that I believe comes into play here is the fact
 >that the fragments were all apparently made with a film copier,
 >and weren't original stock. According to Ray, he had been given
 >original film by the cameraman. But the only samples he gave out
 >were copies, and I'm not sure that he's really explained this
 >discrepancy (among many others).

I'd be really surprised if Ray was telling the truth. I think
the footage's origin is worth looking into, but only if we
relegate all of Ray's statements to the gray basket--up to and
including the "cameraman" fiction.


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

              Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:44:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Tonnies


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:35:19 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Bottom line is your witness may have seen something "similar" he
 >did not see the film brought forth by the alleged camerman, to
 >Ray, unless of course Ray or the camerman lied when they claimed
 >it had been kept hidden for 50 years.

I pretty much take it was a _given_ that the "cameraman" is a
fictional character. Sadly enough, the only voice in this
confusion is the AA itself.


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                      Re: NOVA/UFOs & The Media - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:05:40 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:46:32 -0400
Subject: Re: NOVA/UFOs & The Media - Hall


 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 04:34:24 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: NOVA/UFOs & The Media


<snip>

 >"Don't call me... I'll call you" seems like an appropriate
 >Hollywood way to respond to the 'ratings' whores who only wish
 >to capitalize on the more sensational aspects of the phenom. And
 >who thereby 'cheapen' ufology and ufologists.

John,

Well said! After many years of trying to accommodate news media
and alleged documentarians, I got burned badly by CNN Morning
News, NBC Evening News, and several trashy pop programs all
within the space of about a year. That was it for me.

I won't go on news programs anymore (unless something very
special occurs) and the "documentarians" who still call me
regularly always get an earful from me about their total lack of
imagination and apparent lack of principles. "Hodgepodge"
apparently is their guiding principle. Any fake photos will do;
they make such neat visuals. I refuse to be interviewed by them
anymore.

We may sound cynical, folks, but the news media (by and large)
are insensitive sheep. The Sightings program, in fact, used to
be among the best and fairest in their presentations. NOVA,
Discovery, The Learning Channel and the major networks are among
the worst. I agree that we should boycott all "entertainment"
but also all fake "documentaries" as well.


Dick










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                 Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:39:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:48:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:50:18 -0400


<snip>

 >An interesting aspect of Johnson's testimony in the same FBI
 >document:

 >"XXXXXXXX also related that on the occasion of his sighting the
 >objects on June 24, 1947 he had in his possession a combination
 >compass and watch. He noted particularly that immediately before
 >he sighted the disc the compass acted very peculiar, the hand
 >waving from one side to the other, but that this condition
 >corrected itself immediately after the discs had passed out of
 >sight."

 >Johnson's letter to the USAF is dated August 20th, 1947. Was
 >this the first UFO report to mention electromagnetic effects?


I believe so.

Also the first Blue Book unexplained case.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                 Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:43:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:50:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee


 >From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:50:54 +0200


 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:01:43 -0400
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question

<snip>

 >?>perspective). Of course, these birds would not cause bright
 >>mirror-like reflections of the sun but, as skeptics often do,
 >>they ignored that "minor" detail or tried to imagine that Arnold
 >>incorrectly reported the bright "flashing" of these objects
 >>(perhaps assuming that Arnold got it wrong or simply lied about
 >>it).

<snip>

 >Bruce & List:

 >I would just like to mention that I - rather surprisingly, and
 >for the first time in my life - suddenly observed a mirror-like,
 >bright, colourless flash from some birds, or just one bird --
 >crows or seagulls (but most likely seagulls) - that were flying
 >above a snow-covered field near my hometown this winter. The
 >birds were flying approx 50 meters above the ground, between the
 >sun and myself.

 >The short-lasting flash was "fairly strong" - possibly just like
 >when the sun - at an instant - was reflected from a small mirror
 >at that distance.

 >The birds were approx. 150-200 meters from the place I was
 >standing.

 >Then I realised that the flashes Arnold saw _could possibly_ be
 >flashes from birds - but the flashes _I saw_ were _not blue_ in
 >colour - like Arnold described the flashes _he_ saw - but
 >bright, colourless.

 >I guess the flash was due to reflections from the oily feathers
 >of those birds (seagulls). And, I guess that _blue_ reflections
 >are not likely to be reflected from oily feathers on _white_
 >birds, but rather from some kind of polished, blue-coloured
 >metal.


Again I point out that "bright" flashes could happen it the
birds are in roughly the same direction as the sun... bright
forward "gloss" or glint.

But in Arnolds case the sun was behind him (west) and he was
looking east, away from the sun. No forward gloss or "glint" possible
in this case.....









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 12

              Re: Eras News: 04-11-01 - The Polar Mysteries of

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:46:18 +0200
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:52:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Eras News: 04-11-01 - The Polar Mysteries of


 >From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:49:05 -0700
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:14:00 -0400

 >Subject: Eras News: 04-11-01 - The Polar Mysteries of Mars

 >The E-News Service of The Eras Project
 >http://www.geocities.com/erasproject
 >April 11, 2001

 >The Mars Initiative:

 >THE POLAR MYSTERIES OF MARS

 >Following is a brief wrap-up of some of the latest information
 >regarding two quite different, but equally fascinating
 >formations on Mars for which there are as yet no satisfactory
 >explanations. The 'monoliths' near the north pole are some of
 >the most artificial-looking artifacts yet imaged by any of the
 >Mars probes, resembling partially buried blocks or structures.
 >Their similarity in size and shape and overall distribution is
 >amazing. What are they? The 'forest' region near the south pole
 >looks very  much like wide-spread vegetation. Or is it just
 >melting ice / frost? As the 2001 Mars Odyssey probe heads toward
 >an October rendezvous with the red planet, The Mars Initiative
 >will continue to investigate these and other anomalies on our
 >planetary neighbour, providing the latest news updates and
 >special research reports. Go Odyssey!


Paul & List:

As mentioned before:

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m09-030.shtml

The rocky features seen on your images -- i.e., 'the forest' --
can either be popped-in (concave), or popped-out; I, personally,
after studying the larger photos, tend to believe the features
might be _both_ here, and that we see both frosty grooves 'down'
from the sides of the 'pits', being lower than the terrain
around, and/or 'down' from the ('small') mountain peaks, rising
above the flat, bright landscape; and thus, no 'vegetation' I'm
afraid...and certainly not at the south pole...


Regards,

Asgeir









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:50:47 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:54:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:00:08 -0400

 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:31:07 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>Welcome to the Ufologists' Waffle House, where the menu changes
 >>daily, there's always far too many cooks in the kitchen and
 >>everyone is entitled to a little waffle, now and then. Everyone,
 >>that is, except skeptics.

Greg wrote,

 >There's a large skeptical UFO literature, published during the
 >past 30 years or so. I haven't read all of it, but I've read a
 >lot of it, and never found one UFO skeptic criticizing another.

Greg, Roger, List:

Perhaps the problem is, Greg, that you are only interesting in
who has "scored" on someone else, instead of what the scientific
issues are.

If Donald Menzel (I assume that you consider the great debunker
of the 1950s to be a skeptic) thought that the Arnold sighting
was a mirage, and Philip Klass now believes that the explanation
might be a meteor-fireball, has one skeptic offered an
explanation different from that offered by another? Or is it
only that Klass didn't take the opportunity to offer an ad
hominem argument, and hence was unable to get your attention?

If Robert Sheaffer and Klass thought that the Trent flying
saucer pix wasn't quite what it seemed, and William Hartmann
thought it might be a puzzle, does this represent two skeptics
offering a different, competing theory for the work of another
skeptic, or not? Or do you think that these three are really
pro-UFOlogists in disguise?

If E. U. Condon's committee didn't think much of Phil Klass's
ball lightning and electrical discharge explanation, as
presented in his first book, does this represent a skeptic, or
skeptics, disagreeing with or agreeing with another skeptic? Or
were any of these really flying saucer believers undercover?

A couple months ago on this list I commented on this first book
of Philip Klass's. I suggested that perhaps he had done what
many of us, naively, did when we first got interested in this
subject: we assumed that we had discovered the one main
explanation for UFOs, but later discovered the psychological
aspect is far more important. Did this represent one skeptic
"criticizing" another or did it represent what only happens when
flying saucer believers engage in "science talk"?

These are just a few incidents which come to mind, off the top
of my head. Are the issues important or only the "scores"?


Clear skies,

Bob Young

---------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the International House of Waffles
---------------------------------------------------------------






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 12

             Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:07:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:55:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Salvaille


 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:26:30 +0000
 >From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'?

<snip>

 >Basically the witness in question (full name etc will be used in
 >the book) was shown the alien autopsy film in the USA in the
 >l970's. The witness in question is a professional, award winning
 >photographer, and many years ago he even qualified as a
 >mid-wife.

 >I have interviewed this person twice now and I am literally in
 >the process of transcribing the second interview.

 >I just wondered what those individuals out there who made such
 >accusations against Ray Santilli will have to say once this part
 >of the story is published in our book. I'm not saying this in
 >any proves the film to be authentic, but surely such a highly
 >credible witness might well put pay to the ideas that Santilli
 >faked it for money ? If this is so then there are quite a few
 >'ufologists' out there who could well have egg on their faces,
 >would you not agree ?

<snip>

Have egg on their faces for a _single_ uncorroborated testimony
from a to-be-named witness?

We had the cloaked cameraman, now the masked photographer...

Of course, Philip, stay out of it and don't get wet. Keep up
with the small lettering provision: "I'm not saying this in any
proves the film to be authentic"

hmm...

Is the egg cooked, raw or rotten?










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:10:04 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:57:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young


 >From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:50:54 +0200

<snip>

 >Regarding Johnson's ten miles "telescope", as, e.g., noted here:

 >http://www.the-templars.com/avvistamenti/kennetharnold/immagine2.htm

 >I would assume that it was a some kind of "mono/single/singular
 >nocular" (and not bi(/double)noculars), to be pulled out - which
 >was more common in those days - and of regular field power
 >(10x24; 7x40?); and thus not a telescope for astronomic
 >observations.

Asgeir:

Thanks for clearing this up.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                    Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:14:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:59:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:55:53 -0000

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:06:13 -0500

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:16:42 -0500

<snip>

 >>From your above remarks I can only assume that::

 >>1) You either essentially agree with or support Maccabee's basic
 >>analysis of the GB photos as suggestive of the ETH -- or you
 >>don't. Which is it?

 >>2) Since Maccabee seems to think Ed's photos are the "real
 >>thing", we can only conclude that you do, too, given your
 >>deference to Maccabee's analytical magic (or expertise, if you
 >>prefer) in these matters.

 >>But we really don't care what Maccabee thinks about Gulf Breeze
 >>in this context: what do *you* think about it? (No dodging
 >>permitted.)

 >>And having thought about it, where are your internal ufology
 >>criticisms of Maccabee re same? Dick Hall can weign in here,
 >>too.

 >Dennis,

 >In the MUFON UFO Journal, by me, contemporaneously with the
 >MUFON investigation. You could look it up.

<snip>

Yeah, Dick, but what did you report in the MUFON UFO Journal?

Did you criticize Bruce, the whole Gulf Breeze affair?

What was/is your position?

I'm holding my breath.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                    Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:32:17 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:01:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille


 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:31:07 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:53:07 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:19:09 -0500
 >>>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

<snip>

 >Greg replied:

 >>Roger, you'll have to argue with Jerry on your own. I don't need
 >>-- and he doesn't need me -- to speak for him.

 >Really? Yet another unsubstantiated statement from the Ufology camp.

<snip>

Roger,

I do not consider Greg Sandow or Jerome Clark as spokesmen for
ufology. Nobody is.

And I don't see too many ufologists roasting marshmallows
together over a fire.

We should not loose the focus of this thread: this List
regularly sees opposing arguments between UFO proponents but
_never_ between the partisans of anti-ufology.

Do you agree on that?

And the next question: howcome?









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:31:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:05:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:51:50 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Not abduction researchers per-se but how about Chris Rutkowski's
 >book' Abduction & Aliens', was a critical look at abduction. An
 >even more critical look at abductions was Kevin Randle's book,
 >'The Abduction Enigma'.

Yes, these count very much, and thanks so much for citing them.

In both books, well-known ufologists take issue with many things
in abduction research. Not a demonstration of abduction
researchers criticizing each other, but certainly still more
evidence that ufologists in general do.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                 Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Bowden

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:45:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:08:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Bowden


 >From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:40:12 +0100

 >Hi Roy,

 >I've been following this thread with some interest, would you be
 >willing to share with us publicly your experience?
 >I would really like to know in some detail what happened to make
 >you decide your encounter was real.


Dave,

Hold on a sec what's this? Surely you are not telling me that
all the times I have spent around your place, and I having told
you what I have experienced over some years' 'In confidence'
(after your very in-depth questioning), that you haven't paid
any attention at all to what I have related ?

ET has been to this planet' at Rendlesham' right Dave?

The Very Best To You,


Roy.. (Disappointed)










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                          Re: AA Time Warp - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:47:50 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:11:08 -0400
Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Morris


 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:46:57 -0400
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Time Warp - Balaskas


 >Hi Neil, Mac, Rebecca, Philip, Bobbie and List

 >In 1997 Reg Presley arranged for Derrel Sims and Dr. Roger Leir
 >to meet with Ray Santilli in London. Sims and Leir proposed to
 >help Santilli authenticate the Alien Autopsy film if he could
 >provide them with a few frames of the original film. Months
 >later when Sims was back in London, Presley gave him a letter
 >from Santilli with several pieces of film! Details can be found
 >in Chapter 12 'Secret Analysis' of Leir's book 'The Aliens and
 >the Scalpel'.

 >After a meeting with several MUFON Ontario members in Toronto,
 >Leir gave me the letter from Santilli and four film fragments
 >for independent analysis. The analysis of these film fragments
 >(which contained images other than the "creature", as Santilli
 >called it, or the "doorway") were done by top local experts
 >including Ed H. Zwaneveld with the National Film Board of Canada
 >for Technical Research and Development. Some of Zwaneveld's 11
 >findings and comments in his letter to me dated April 6th, 1998
 >include:


<snip>

 >I cannot make out what is depicted in the frames in two of the
 >four film fragments. The two images which I can make out show a
 >closeup of a group of "military officers or cadets" and
 >"American football players". Does anyone know anything about
 >these two images which were allegedly part of Santilli's alien
 >autopsy films?


Nick,

As I recall Ray often refered to the "scraps" reel and I further
recall at some point he allegedly returned some "personal"
footage from this reel to the cameraman, that footage again, as
I recall included "football game" and other "military personel"
footage and was in no way connected with the AA footage, it had
been included in error. It sounds like Ray might have forwarded
some fragments from this footage on to Sims and Leir, if he did
those results are quite worthless as they're not from the same
batch of film stock.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                     'Spots' On Mars From Meta Research

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:46:10 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:15:25 -0400
Subject: 'Spots' On Mars From Meta Research


Dear List:

On Thursday, April 5, 2001 at 9 a.m., Meta Research

http://metaresearch.org

scheduled a press conference at the National Press Club,
Washington, DC, to present their new findings that provide what
they say is "compelling evidence" for the presence of artificial
structures on Mars.

Details of this presentation may be found at:

http://metaresearch.org/asom/artifact_html/default.htm

Go to Slides - "artifacts" presentation [click] "here"

Go to,
#21 Spots-seasons

Notice the outher "border" of dark spots in a row.  This
looks to me like boulders which have been deposited by
melting or sublimation of the surface, or perhaps by
sand being wind-blown away.  This could be similar to
a glacial morraine.  One example which comes to mind
is that of the "petrified forest" in Arizona, where the earth
has washed away, leaving the tree stumps all at the same
level.

Incidentally, this is a fascinating series of pictures.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                  Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:58:11 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:18:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Rudiak


 >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:36:56 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:19:11 EDT
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:09:57 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young

Bob Young wrote:

 >>...It is virtually impossible to acquire a fast
 >>object in a telescope. I think the newspaper article probably
 >>explains what he "saw".

Bruce wrote:

 >This is not a "smart" statement. The witness said he saw the
 >objects through a telescope. He could track them with the
 >telescope. I suspect they were farther away than he thought, but
 >with distance comes lower angular rate of speed.

 >You have only the vaguest idea of the conditions under which he
 >made his observations, so there is really little or no
 >justification for your outright rejection ("Virtually
 >impossible") of his claim to have seen one (or more) of these
 >objects through his telescope (We don't even know the power of
 >the telescope or the type).

Amen. To this I would like to add that it isn't all that
difficult to acquire and follow objects through low-power
telescopes with a little experience. The purpose of low-power
"finder telescopes" attached to larger, high-power telescopes is
exactly this. If anything, it is more difficult than prospector
Johnson's job because one has to crane one's neck into awkward
positions and then look through scope that has everything
inverted.

The trick to using these finder scopes is to simultaneously look
through the scope with one eye and use the unaided eye to
"point" to the object or region one wants to look at.

These small scopes usually have powers down around 6x. I have
even followed jets through the larger scope at powers of 50x
(everything still inverted and with everything on an equatorial
mount). It's not easy, but it can be done. (Think also how
military observers follow jets through binoculars.)

A lot depends on angular speed, not absolute speed. The Johnson
report is unfortunately devoid of such details. If he had
initially seen fast moving objects of in the distance headed
directly for his position, they would have loomed but had little
angular velocity at first until they got relatively close and
zoomed overhead.

This is also assuming that the speed was constant, the objects
didn't slow down, circle overhead, etc., which would have
simplified Johnson's observation.

As to Bob Young's statement that the "newspaper article probably
explains what he 'saw'", one wonders why Johnson didn't make his
sighting details agree more closely with Arnold's if he got his
story out of the newspaper. If his purpose was to corroborate
Arnold's story (as he told the AF investigator) then why not
make the number of objects, e.g., agree precisely? That detail
was in all the newspaper stories.

For a faker, Johnson also demonstrated remarkabe prescience with
his little sighting detail that his compass needle wobbled when
the objects passed nearby. One again wonders where he dreamed
this up, perhaps the first report mentioning magnetic effects.
In doing so, he anticipated future reports of compass
interference or other magnetic or electromagnetic effects,
particularly from pilots.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 12

                          Re: Data Exchange - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:25:36 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:21:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Data Exchange - Hall


 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:20:50 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Data Exchange

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Data Exchange
 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:37:40 -0000

 >>I would be delighted to have, say, a couple of years back issues
 >>of Magonia, and a current complimentary subscription, for my
 >>Donald E. Keyhoe Archives where they would be available to
 >>scholarly researchers and news media types, as well as to my
 >>closest colleagues. In return, I would be willing to send
 >>something of equivalent value from my holdings (Perhaps some of
 >>the critical articles mentioned above)or to arrange for some
 >>complimentary copies of Fund for UFO Research publications,
 >>which are numerous.

 >>Shall we have some "cultural exchange?"

 >Dick

 >I am one of four co-editors of the UK-UFO_Network's Ezine. It's in
 >a bit of a hiatus at the moment, but if you want you can download
 >all 110 previous issues free of charge from

 >http://www.ukufonw.org.uk/download.shtml

 >The Ezine is provided free of charge to anyone with an email
 >address.

Sean,

Thanks for this. I'll take a look.


Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 13

              Re: 'Spots' On Mars From Meta Research - Anderson

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:49:59 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:14:43 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Spots' On Mars From Meta Research - Anderson


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:46:10 EDT
 >Subject: 'Spots' On Mars From Meta Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >On Thursday, April 5, 2001 at 9 a.m., Meta Research

 >http://metaresearch.org

 >scheduled a press conference at the National Press Club,
 >Washington, DC, to present their new findings that provide what
 >they say is "compelling evidence" for the presence of artificial
 >structures on Mars.

 >Details of this presentation may be found at:

 >http://metaresearch.org/asom/artifact_html/default.htm

 >Go to Slides - "artifacts" presentation [click] "here"

 >Go to, #21 Spots-seasons

 >Notice the outher "border" of dark spots in a row. This
 >looks to me like boulders which have been deposited by
 >melting or sublimation of the surface, or perhaps by
 >sand being wind-blown away. This could be similar to
 >a glacial morraine. One example which comes to mind
 >is that of the "petrified forest" in Arizona, where the earth
 >has washed away, leaving the tree stumps all at the same
 >level.

 >Incidentally, this is a fascinating series of pictures.


List,

There are now many examples being found in the Global Surveyor
images of these kinds of 'spots' other than what Van Flandern
showed. Some look more 'organic' than others. They _may_ be a
form of primitive plant life in at least some cases; many of
these clusters are found in the bottoms of craters, etc. where
there may be more moisture available at least temporarily, and
where they may be sheltered. I thought the ones referenced by
Bob Young (in Van Flandern's presentation) do look more like
boulders possibly in that case.

Now...

I came across this image showing more 'fungus' type terrain
featuring many dark spots and rings all over the place inside
the centre of the crater. Biology? Wind-blown material?
Defrosting? This is in southern, high-latitude terrain. I
uploaded a direct link on my web site to a cropped picture (from
the non- mapped version) of this feature for quick viewing
convenience:

http://www.geocities.com/erasproject/M0800063fungus.gif

The original high-rez non-mapped photo is very detailed (better
than my quick crop, see original image page link below). This
feature is about halfway down the narrow-angle image. The
wide-angle context image also shows a long, winding linear
feature nearby which I dubbed 'The Great Wall of Mars'. A
natural ridge or fault line or something else?

Original image page:

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M08/M0800063.html

I've yet to hear a good explanation for those 'monoliths' as
they've been called near the north pole. Their similarity in
size, shape (distinctly 'geometric' with sharp edges and flat
surfaces) is certainly worth looking at more closely, especially
given how they are all 'arranged' in the manner they are on an
otherwise mostly smooth, sandy plain:

http://209.196.158.209/mars/monolith_graveyard.html

Just food for thought!

Paul Anderson

________________________


Paul Anderson

THE ERAS PROJECT
http://www.geocities.com/erasproject

THE MARS INITIATIVE
(a special research project of The Eras Project)
http://www.geocities.com/erasproject/tmi.html

CANADIAN CROP CIRCLE RESEARCH NETWORK
http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

Suite 202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5T 2M9 Canada
Tel / Fax (Office) : 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca

The Air is Full of Spin!
- The Spin Room
















   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 13

               Re: Dick Cheney Questioned On UFOs - 04-11-01 -

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:03:28 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:18:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Dick Cheney Questioned On UFOs - 04-11-01 -


 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 11 Apr 2001 09:44:43 -0700
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:56:18 -0400
 >Subject: Dick Cheney Questioned On UFOs - 04-11-01


 >This morning on the Diane Rehm show

 >http://www.wamu.org/dr/

 >I asked a UFO question of Vice-President Dick Cheney. A rough
 >outline of the question:


 >Due to a statement made by George Bush last July there is a
 >vicious story going around the UFO community that you have been
 >"read into" the UFO program.

 >My question is, in the jobs that you have had with the
 >government have you ever been briefed on the subject of UFOs. If
 >so, when was it, and what were you told?


 >I was cut off before I could hear the answer but the first words
 >of Cheney answer were "If I had been briefed..."

 >The audio of this one hour show can be heard by going to the
 >archives at the Rehm home page. It should be up tomorrow April
 >12. My question is the first one 40 minutes into the interview.


Grant,

Thanks for the tip and putting the question to Cheney. The
question arises 26 minutes into the archived program for those
who want to go to the link and listen to it.

Here is the transcript:


Cameron: Since the statement made by George Bush last July,
          there is a vicious rumor circulating in the UFO
          community that you've been read into the UFO program.
          So my question to you is, in any of your government
          jobs, have you ever been briefed on the subject of
          UFOs, and if you have, when was it and what were you
          told?

Cheney:  Well, if I had been briefed on it, I'm sure it was
          probably classified and I couldn't talk about it.

Rehm:    Is there investigation going on within this
          administration, Mr. Vice President, as to UFOs?

Cheney:  I have not come across the subject since I've been back
          in government, oh like since January 20th.

Rehm:    All right.

Cheney:  I've been in a lot of meetings, but I don't recall one
          on UFOs.


As a reminder to people, Cheney was the Secretary of Defense
under George the Elder. In fact, when George the Younger was
questioned about this last July and said he would look into it,
he mentioned that Cheney had been Secretary of Defense and would
therefore know about it.

What is interesting in Cheney's reply to Grant Cameron is that
he does not outright deny being briefed when he was Sec. of
Defense. Instead he gives a typical evasive answer. "IF I had
been briefed...." Then to make it more interesting, he says he
couldn't talk about even if he had been briefed because the
subject would have been classified.

When you cut through the Washingtonian doubletalk, Cheney is
tacitly admitting that UFOs are still classified and he had
been briefed.

Those damned pelicans are getting more important all the time.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

              Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:13:08 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:22:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Morris


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'?
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:07:25 -0400

 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:26:30 +0000
 >>From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'?

 ><snip>

 >>Basically the witness in question (full name etc will be used in
 >>the book) was shown the alien autopsy film in the USA in the
 >>l970's. The witness in question is a professional, award winning
 >>photographer, and many years ago he even qualified as a
 >>mid-wife.

 >>I have interviewed this person twice now and I am literally in
 >>the process of transcribing the second interview.

 >>I just wondered what those individuals out there who made such
 >>accusations against Ray Santilli will have to say once this part
 >>of the story is published in our book. I'm not saying this in
 >>any proves the film to be authentic, but surely such a highly
 >>credible witness might well put pay to the ideas that Santilli
 >>faked it for money ? If this is so then there are quite a few
 >>'ufologists' out there who could well have egg on their faces,
 >>would you not agree ?

 ><snip>

 >Have egg on their faces for a _single_ uncorroborated testimony
 >from a to-be-named witness?

It's worth remembering this new witness is _not_ on their own.

In a 1996 interview Clifford Stone claimed to have seen the AA
while at Fort Belvoir VA. The previous year Japanese Researcher
Johsen Takano and Dr Hoang-Yung Chiang of the National Research
Centre for Biotechnology, Taipei also claimed to have seen the
AA footage, each separately in viewing sessions organised by the
CIA - Takano in Tokyo and Dr Chiang at CIA HQ, Langley, VA.

The interesting point in these other viewings of the AA is that
in all cases the parties claim the footage they saw was _not_
identical to the Santilli footage but was obviously consist ant
with it, in other words they saw a selection from "other" reels
not the ones Santilli held. Stone in particular makes a point of
this.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                NASA Cuts-Off Live Raw Space Station A/V Feed

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:31:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:31:45 -0400
Subject: NASA Cuts-Off Live Raw Space Station A/V Feed




From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

Thanks to Nick Balaskas for the heads-up on the following:

Source: space.com

http://www.space.com/news/spacestation/alpha_public_access_010412.html

Budget Restraints and ISS Log Editing Impact NASA's Open Access
Policy

By James Oberg
Special to SPACE.com
posted: 07:00 am ET
12 April 2001


NASA's Public Affairs Office is struggling to accommodate public
access to the deluge of information flowing down from the
International Space Station. But in some cases the policies
appear to be a retreat from the full and open access mandated in
NASA's charter, an access to which the public grew accustomed
during most shuttle missions over the past 20 years.

No longer will satellite and cable viewers worldwide be able to
tune in to the real-time voice downlink from the station crew.
Faced with resource constraints, NASA has opted to return to the
access policy used during its previous space station project,
Skylab, in 1973-74. Newspeople at NASA centers around the
country will have continuous access, but the public will not.

According to Rob Navias, a spokesperson at NASA�s Johnson Space
Center in Texas, due to recent funding restrictions "we don�t
have the resources to support distribution on NASA TV."

Sending the �Mission Audio� channel to NASA�s Web site provider
in Virginia for audio streaming over the Internet is an obvious
technical solution, Navias admitted, but it "requires a fairly
costly modification" to equipment. He would not estimate the
projected cost of such a modification.

Rebroadcast of air-to-ground conversations was conducted over
the �NASA TV� channel during Expedition One at night and on
weekends when other programming was not needed, Navias
explained. "It required resources at JSC and at Goddard," he
pointed out, and has since been canceled. Meanwhile, NASA
continues a one-hour daily summary of ISS operations, broadcast
on NASA TV at 11:00 Eastern Time.

Along with these audio transmission constraints, NASA has also
instituted a policy of "redaction" on the written logs sent down
to Earth by ISS crews.

The daily Ships Logs written by Expedition One commander Bill
Shepherd were posted in original form until early January. Then
NASA withdrew the logs without notice, citing concerns over
"privacy." The logs were then re-posted with about 20 percent of
their contents removed. Even though Shepherd insisted the
material was written with full public disclosure in mind, NASA
officials concluded that much of what he was writing was
unsuitable for release.


In a passage subtracted by NASA, Shepherd scolded the Russian
and American flight control centers for not seeing the ISS as
"more of a unified environment."



According to the NASA website "certain operational debriefing
material has been edited from the Expedition One ship's log.
This material is considered an integral and critically important
element of the ongoing, deliberative decisional process NASA is
undertaking related to long-duration International Space Station
missions."

"This process must include necessary give-and-take
communications about all aspects of crew and station
performance," the site continued. "To be effective, these
communications require absolute candor in discussion that would
not be available if parties to the exchange, including intended
recipients on the ground and future crew members, thought the
material might be released to the public."

Spaceflight operations experts agree that this is a valid theme.
"It's always difficult to strike a balance between the public's
right to know and NASA's need for candor," said Marcia Smith, a
space policy senior analyst at the Congressional Research
Service in Washington, DC.

Frederick Durant III, the former head of astronautics at the
National Air & Space Museum, told SPACE.com that he would prefer
NASA err on the side of openness.

"It seems to me that, generally, the flow of unedited and
uncensored communication from ISS is exciting to us on the
ground," he said in a telephone interview from his home in
Raleigh, North Carolina.

On previous U.S. manned space missions lasting up to two weeks,
crews could save up their most serious critical comments for
blunt discussions during post-flight debriefings whose
transcripts are not made public.

However while this may work for comparatively shorter, two-week
missions, those lasting upwards of four months could possibly
require a procedure that allows for in-flight debriefing-style
candor.

The uncensored logbook entries from Expedition One shows that
NASA's deletions from the officially released versions limits
the public awareness of the difficulties and frustrations
encountered by the astronauts and cosmonauts aboard what is
basically a new and ongoing space experiment.

A comparison of original entries with those released by NASA
shows that the deleted material dealt with specific hardware and
documentation problems. The crew described what wasn't working,
why it wasn't working and what had to be done to fix it.

The uncensored narratives provide insight into the everyday
workings of a space station still under construction. Among the
deleted materials is a crew complaint that the program designed
to log crew reports of malfunctions was itself malfunctioning.
"We have tried several times to get the 'crew squawk' tool
running," noted the original log entry. "We are able to log in,
but the program either locks up or won't launch when we try to
run it."

The entry then described what needed to be done. "We would like
to start documenting anomalies or things which need specific
tracking and we believe the squawk tool will be a good way to do
this if we can ever get it to behave," the text continued. "We
would like to 'squawk' the crew squawk for starters."

In another deleted passage, the astronauts described a software
problem familiar to millions of computer users back on Earth.
"Sergei and Shep both experiencing problems with print jobs,"
the redacted entry reported. "Shep is continually getting
half-page prints on some of his stuff. We are both getting
blocked from changing the printer job cue. Apparently we don't
have the right permissions. If the [Mission Control] folks could
help here, this would be greatly appreciated."

The crew often described major problems with the computerized
Inventory Management System (IMS), developed in response to
"lessons learned" on Mir operations. The system uses a bar code
reader to track the location of thousands of items (hardware,
consumables and so forth) as the station's contents are changed
by each resupply mission and by day-to-day usage. One striking
lesson from Mir was that crew members often spent hours, even
days locating materials needed for activities that were
scheduled to take only an hour or two to complete.

After spending half a day seeking a storage bag that should have
been found in two minutes, Shepherd complained that the database
had been corrupted by bad data from Earth. "All done by the
ground," he wrote. "And all, we think, talking about the �wrong�
bag and generating data that at best, is confusing."

In another passage subsequently subtracted by NASA, Shepherd
scolded the two flight control centers for not seeing the ISS as
"more of a unified environment." His main complaint: "We are
getting frequent words from both sides that �that's a Houston
problem,� or �it's up to Moscow to do that.� There are no
spectators here -- we are all on the team on this one."

Once the station�s Ku-band communication system is working,
there will be four channels of multiplexed video coming down to
control centers and payload operations teams. According to
Navias, "by policy of NASA Headquarters and the �NASA TV�
executive producer, there is too much other video to solely
dedicate �NASA TV� to ISS video." Instead, there will be a
weekly video highlights summary released every Wednesday.

Navias stressed that "real-time" video and audio remained
available to the news media that visit press centers or have
their own trailers on NASA sites. Unlike the Skylab days, when
all space conversations were manually transcribed, there are no
plans to transcribe ISS conversations to create hardcopies,
again due to financial limitations. As for written reports from
the Expedition Two crew, there have been none released in the
first month of flight, and NASA officials attribute this to
"crew choice."

"There is a thrill of participation that is lost if the message
is massaged, grammar corrected and strong feelings filtered
out," Durant said. "Ideally, redaction should be limited to
matters of security or personal privacy as opposed to 'C-Y-A' or
demonstrations of bureaucratic power."










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                 Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Skavhaug

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 22:51:37 +0200
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:33:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Skavhaug


 >From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:50:54 +0200
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question

<snip>

 >And, by the way; anyone knows if the editor of Idaho Daily
 >Statesman, David Johnson, was related to prospector Fred
 >Johnson? (A possible relationship could have an effect on the
 >credibility of Fred Johnsons observations...) Check out:

 >http://www.violations.dabsol.co.uk/confusion/confusionpart2.htm

 >with excerpts:

 >"(...)Palmer subsequently wrote to Kenneth Arnold (whose friend
 >Colonel Paul Wieland had just returned from Germany as a judge
 >at the Nuremberg trials) and asked him to investigate the story.
 >He gave Arnold $200 to cover his expenses � no small amount in
 >1947. Indeed it was such a large amount that Arnold went on to
 >boast about it at the office of the �Idaho Daily Statesman�
 >whose editor, David Johnson, promptly sent a telegram to Air
 >Force Intelligence to advise them of Arnold�s pending
 >investigation (12). (We now know that Johnson was habitually
 >supplying information to the Air Force and other arms of
 >government on a range of matters. His name also appears on the
 >bottom of a document released in 1969 when the Air Force
 >terminated Project Blue Book.)(...)"


Hi List:

More David (Dave) Johnson stuff:

"Description:

PDT. Witness: Idaho Statesman Aviation editor and former (AAF)
B-29 pilot Dave Johnson. Watched for more than 10 seconds from
an Idaho Air National Guard AT-6 while a black disc, which stood
out against the clouds, made a half-roll and then a stair-step
climb.

Source:
Blue Book 'Unknowns', compilation by Don Berliner"

Dave Johnson seemed to be the editor of _two_ newspapers in
Idaho: Idaho Daily Statesman and Idaho Statesman Aviation... and
in addition being a UFO witness and an AF informer and,
mentioned in Project Blue Book. (Just some observations from
_my_ side.)


Regards,

Asgeir










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                       Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:12:05 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:37:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:14:43 -0400

 >>>From your above remarks I can only assume that::

 >>>1) You either essentially agree with or support Maccabee's basic
 >>>analysis of the GB photos as suggestive of the ETH -- or you
 >>>don't. Which is it?

 >>>2) Since Maccabee seems to think Ed's photos are the "real
 >>>thing", we can only conclude that you do, too, given your
 >>>deference to Maccabee's analytical magic (or expertise, if you
 >>>prefer) in these matters.

 >>>But we really don't care what Maccabee thinks about Gulf Breeze
 >>>in this context: what do *you* think about it? (No dodging
 >>>permitted.)

 >>>And having thought about it, where are your internal ufology
 >>>criticisms of Maccabee re same? Dick Hall can weign in here,
 >>>too.

 >>In the MUFON UFO Journal, by me, contemporaneously with the
 >>MUFON investigation. You could look it up.

 >Yeah, Dick, but what did you report in the MUFON UFO Journal?

 >Did you criticize Bruce, the whole Gulf Breeze affair?

 >What was/is your position?

 >I'm holding my breath.


Serge,

Am I supposed to do your homework for you? Read what I wrote! I
will tell you that I expressed strong doubts and skepticism
about the Gulf Breeze photos, and criticized and disagreed with
Bruce's analysis though he knows far more about technical
photoanalysis than I do, which does give me some pause. (By the
way, Bruce and I remain friends and understand scientific
disagreement.)

Also read what I say about Gulf Breeze in my current
unmentionable book which cites the MUFON articles and others
(Section VII, Footnote 17), mention of which sends certain
debunkers/scoffers into frenzies of insults and accusations.

Please don't hold your breath; do some research instead.


Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                 Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:21:04 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:38:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Salvaille


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:58:11 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Amen. To this I would like to add that it isn't all that
 >difficult to acquire and follow objects through low-power
 >telescopes with a little experience. The purpose of low-power
 >"finder telescopes" attached to larger, high-power telescopes is
 >exactly this. If anything, it is more difficult than prospector
 >Johnson's job because one has to crane one's neck into awkward
 >positions and then look through scope that has everything
 >inverted.

 >The trick to using these finder scopes is to simultaneously look
 >through the scope with one eye and use the unaided eye to
 >"point" to the object or region one wants to look at.

 >These small scopes usually have powers down around 6x. I have
 >even followed jets through the larger scope at powers of 50x
 >(everything still inverted and with everything on an equatorial
 >mount). It's not easy, but it can be done. (Think also how
 >military observers follow jets through binoculars.)

 >A lot depends on angular speed, not absolute speed. The Johnson
 >report is unfortunately devoid of such details. If he had
 >initially seen fast moving objects of in the distance headed
 >directly for his position, they would have loomed but had little
 >angular velocity at first until they got relatively close and
 >zoomed overhead.

<snip>

Where is it written that Johnson used an astronomical telescope?

If he did use one, Bob is right: you can't follow an object with
a magnification factor which I would estimate to be a minimum of
40x.

If he did use a hypothetical finder on his telescope, I believe:

1. He would have said so, because a savvy astronomical user
would necessarily make the distinction;

2. Forget it: it's no piece of cake to follow anything with a
finder scope mounted on an astronomical instrument, even with
experience, because your experience is only pertinent to
pointing at motionless objects in the sky.

My take on this: as a prospector, Johnson used a _monocular_
field telescope; you know, the kind of thing used by Long John
Silver?

The object can be defined as: "A spotting telescope, which
resembles half a binocular. Monoculars are often hand-held, and
are used in much the same way, and for the same purposes, as
binoculars."









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 13

             Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:40:45 -0300
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:42:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Friedman


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:35:19 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:26:30 +0000
 >>From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'?

 >>For all of you out there who are convinced that Ray Santilli
 >>and/or his associates/company faked the 'alien autopsy film'
 >>purely for financial gain, may be interested to know that I have
 >>recently interviewed a new witness who could scupper all such
 >>ideas.

<snip>

 >>I just wondered what those individuals out there who made such
 >>accusations against Ray Santilli will have to say once this part
 >>of the story is published in our book. I'm not saying this in
 >>any proves the film to be authentic, but surely such a highly
 >>credible witness might well put pay to the ideas that Santilli
 >>faked it for money ? If this is so then there are quite a few
 >>'ufologists' out there who could well have egg on their faces,
 >>would you not agree ?

 >Bottom line is your witness may have seen something "similar" he
 >did not see the film brought forth by the alleged camerman, to
 >Ray, unless of course Ray or the camerman lied when they claimed
 >it had been kept hidden for 50 years.


I have concluded after two meetings and many conversations with
Ray that he lied a great deal about the footage as I spelled out
in TOP SECRET/MAJIC.

This doesn't mean I think he made the phony film.

He could well have purchased it from somebody who made it, found
it, bought it from somebody else, who bought it from somebody
else, etc.

Most Hollywood films never get distributed. The primary question
is whether the film is genuine, not whether Ray made it.

Stanton 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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:47:11 -0300
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:57:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Friedman


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:00:08 -0400

 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:31:07 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>Welcome to the Ufologists' Waffle House, where the menu changes
 >>daily, there's always far too many cooks in the kitchen and
 >>everyone is entitled to a little waffle, now and then. Everyone,
 >>that is, except skeptics.

 >>I hear the Waffle House is serving crow this week. ;)

 >There's a large skeptical UFO literature, published during the
 >past 30 years or so. I haven't read all of it, but I've read a
 >lot of it, and never found one UFO skeptic criticizing another.
 >Things may be changing, if the recent items in Magonia establish
 >any trend, and I'd welcome the change. But until those Magonia
 >items, the 30-year record of published UFO skepticism doesn't,
 >to the best of my knowledge, include skeptics criticizing each
 >other.

 >I don't know how to make my point any more simply or clearly.
 >Though of course anyone who wants to misunderstand me is free to
 >do so.

 >And with that I take my leave of the very silly Mr. Evans.


Before taking off on a 2 week vacation, I must jump in here to
note that selective choice of data is another hallmark of the
scoffers.

I know of 13 anti-UFO books which never mention the largest
study ever done for the United States Air Force, 'Project Blue
Book Special Report No. 14', even though all the authors were
aware of it.

The rule is what the public doesn't know, I will not tell it.


Stanton 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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

               Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 22:49:02 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:00:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Jones


 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:26:30 +0000
 >From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'?

Morning Philip, listers

 >For all of you out there who are convinced that Ray Santilli
 >and/or his associates/company faked the 'alien autopsy film'
 >purely for financial gain, may be interested to know that I have
 >recently interviewed a new witness who could scupper all such
 >ideas.

 >The full facts surrounding this new witness will eventually be
 >used in the new book I am co-authoring with Tim Matthews
 >(entitled Alien Autopsy Inquest).

 >Basically the witness in question (full name etc will be used in
 >the book) was shown the alien autopsy film in the USA in the
 >l970's. The witness in question is a professional, award winning
 >photographer, and many years ago he even qualified as a
 >mid-wife.

 >I have interviewed this person twice now and I am literally in
 >the process of transcribing the second interview.

 >I just wondered what those individuals out there who made such
 >accusations against Ray Santilli will have to say once this part
 >of the story is published in our book. I'm not saying this in
 >any proves the film to be authentic, but surely such a highly
 >credible witness might well put pay to the ideas that Santilli
 >faked it for money ? If this is so then there are quite a few
 >'ufologists' out there who could well have egg on their faces,
 >would you not agree ?

 >Philip.

Philip, all I can say, no matter that the Alien Autopsy film has
been "debated to death" it does not conclusively _prove_ that it
is fake. (Unless some people count this as peer review, thus,
_proven_).

I will look forward to your book.

By the way, how is Tim, I haven't heard from him since he became
a father?

--

   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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

               Re: Dick Cheney Questioned On UFOs - 04-11-01 -

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 12 Apr 2001 15:16:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:09:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Dick Cheney Questioned On UFOs - 04-11-01 -


The VP was asked if in any of his government jobs he ever been
briefed on UFOs, and if so, when was it, and what was he told?

Mr. Cheney answered that if he had been briefed it would
probably have been classified and he therefore could not talk
about it.

Then Diane Rehm asked if the current administration was
investigating UFOs and he said:

"I have not come across the subject since I have been back in
government, well I guess since January 20th. I have been in lots
of meetings but I don't recall one on UFOs."

END


A Couple Of Comments

"... it would probably have been classified" Really? I thought
Project Blue Book closed down in 1969 and all the material
collected was available at the National Archives.


Vice-President Cheney states that he has not come across the
subject since coming back to government January 20th. I have
learned since asking Cheney the question that there is, at this
moment, a Congressional Letter on Cheney's desk at dealing with
the subject of UFOs. The ignorance claimed by Cheney may be...
what's the word? A lie?

We just moved in and violated all the rules. We didn't have the
procedures. They (Congress) knew the bills would be paid, and if
one were asked to do something by Schiever's group - a company
say - they knew they were going to get paid and everything was
alright. They went ahead and did the job.

---

Q. The statutes weren't actually changed then?

A. No, no.....

Q. Just ignored?

A. That's right. That's right. Yes, we accomplished a great
    deal, I'll tell you.

    General Nathan Twining speaking about the development of the
    ICBM










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:28:53 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:14:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:50:47 EDT
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:54:18 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:00:08 -0400

 >>>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:31:07 -0500
 >>>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

<snip>

 >Greg wrote,

 >>There's a large skeptical UFO literature, published during the
 >>past 30 years or so. I haven't read all of it, but I've read a
 >>lot of it, and never found one UFO skeptic criticizing another.

 >Greg, Roger, List:

 >Perhaps the problem is, Greg, that you are only interesting in
 >who has "scored" on someone else, instead of what the scientific
 >issues are.

Bob,

The point is that there is no body of self-critical
skeptic/debunker literature on UFOs, no evidence of
self-policing and self-correction to eliminate errors, as a
scientific endeavor would do. Scientific study always begins
with literature search and literature review. One wants to find
out first what is already known. A taboo on criticism of one's
"side" is partisanship not science, an ideological crusade
employing propaganda tactics. Minor exceptions only prove the
general rule.

If one wants to cite an article or book there is no literature
at all from skeptics/debunkers criticizing other
skeptics/debunkers on anti-UFO positions or analyses. I cannot
pick up a book by Klass and expect to find any discussion or
criticism of Menzel's conflicting explanations of the same UFO
case even though Klass' explanation is totally different. For
example, Menzel explained the Socorro landing as a prank played
on Zamora by high school students with a balloon, but Klass
claimed it was a hoax by Zamora and the town of Socorro to
attract tourists, but one cannot find a critique of the other in
their books and articles written over a period of a decade.
Menzel explained the Father Gill case as astronomical with poor
vision due to Gill's supposed failure to wear glasses (he had
them on), but Klass insinuated it was a hoax staged to please
Gill's superior in the Anglican Church who was eager to get UFO
reports. But don't expect to find any discussion or criticism of
one by the other on the Gill case or any other.

But there are loads of pro-UFO literature criticizing other
pro-UFO publications or positions. Most of the Roswell
literature is filled with attacks on each other's pro-UFO
positions - Randle criticizing Moore & Friedman, Friedman
criticizing Randle, etc. etc. We all know this.

A skeptic criticizing a pro-UFO position by another skeptic
doesn't count as self-criticism within skepticism.

 >If Donald Menzel (I assume that you consider the great debunker
 >of the 1950s to be a skeptic) thought that the Arnold sighting
 >was a mirage, and Philip Klass now believes that the explanation
 >might be a meteor-fireball, has one skeptic offered an
 >explanation different from that offered by another? Or is it
 >only that Klass didn't take the opportunity to offer an ad
 >hominem argument, and hence was unable to get your attention?

The point is that scientific work refers to the past literature,
studies what has been learned previously and tries to explain
why it was in error in some way if a new explanation is proposed
that differs from what was given before. UFO skeptics and
debunkers never do that about their explanations for UFO cases
(I gave major examples above) because apparently they see it as
an ideological crusade, not a scientific effort, and any
criticism of one's own side is deemed an act of disloyalty to
the cause. Condon's management of the UFO project was very much
one of seeing things as loyalty versus disloyalty. Condon had no
criticism of Menzel on his overemphasis of mirage explanations
of UFO cases and neither does Klass. Hartmann in the Condon
Report agreed with Menzel that the Tremonton film should be
dismissed as birds but criticized Menzel's one minor comment
that the film was of poor quality in resolution; since they were
in 100% agreement on the explanation I don't see how that counts
for much. The problem comes when the skeptics and debunkers
conceal the existence of contradictory explanations offered by
others and do not offer scientific explanations as to why the
prior explanations are wrong.

For example you mention Klass now explains the Arnold sighting
as daytime fireball meteors. However Phil does not explain why
all of Menzel's previous explanations for the case were wrong
(sunlight reflections from ice or snow or haze, in 1953;
mountain-top mirages, in 1963; water droplets on Arnold's
aircraft window, in 1977) or why the AF's explanation of
multiple aircraft is wrong. Menzel never explained his own
shifting opinions.

 >If Robert Sheaffer and Klass thought that the Trent flying
 >saucer pix wasn't quite what it seemed, and William Hartmann
 >thought it might be a puzzle, does this represent two skeptics
 >offering a different, competing theory for the work of another
 >skeptic, or not? Or do you think that these three are really
 >pro-UFOlogists in disguise?

It's skeptic-debunkers attacking a pro-UFO position by Hartmann,
who reportedly then changed his mind to anti-UFO on the Trent
case. As I said, skeptics criticizing pro-UFO positions by other
skeptics doesn't count as generating an internal self-critical
literature of skepticism. Skeptics are not correcting skeptical
errors only pro-UFO errors.

 >If E. U. Condon's committee didn't think much of Phil Klass's
 >ball lightning and electrical discharge explanation, as
 >presented in his first book, does this represent a skeptic, or
 >skeptics, disagreeing with or agreeing with another skeptic? Or
 >were any of these really flying saucer believers undercover?

In the Condon Report, only Martin Altschuler made any criticism
of Klass, but it was based on pro-UFO physicist Jim McDonald's
original criticism, and it was only on a few points of Klass's
ball lightning theory while overall sounding favorable about
Klass' theory and putting in a plug for Menzel as well. (CR pp.
733, 748-9, 754-5) You do bring up a tougher example here
because Klass is largely pro-UFO (but anti-ETH) in his original
1966 Aviation Week articles and his 1968 book UFOs--Identified!
Explaining one unexplained phenomenon (UFOs) with another
unexplained phenomenon (ball lightning) doesn't sound like a
fully skeptical debunking position, but it is a closer call to
make. In the Condon Report Altschuler does not criticize Klass'
psychological and hoax explanations of the Hill and Socorro
cases in his 1968 book.

 >A couple months ago on this list I commented on this first book
 >of Philip Klass's. I suggested that perhaps he had done what
 >many of us, naively, did when we first got interested in this
 >subject: we assumed that we had discovered the one main
 >explanation for UFOs, but later discovered the psychological
 >aspect is far more important. Did this represent one skeptic
 >"criticizing" another or did it represent what only happens when
 >flying saucer believers engage in "science talk"?
<snip>

Ball lightning is not a conventional explanation for a UFO case.
Is a UFO really "explained" as an IFO if it is ball lightning?
So basically you are criticizing a quasi pro-UFO phase of Klass'
personal life and beliefs and you're not generating any
_scientific_ criticism here of specific UFO cases either - your
remarks are more in the nature of anecdotes and gossip. Nor are
you creating a normal literature for citation with postings here
on UpDates (the status of scientific citation of Web postings is
very much up in the air in part because they are much more
ephemeral than hard copy journals and books, they disappear
easily when a website closes down or an archive is lost).


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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                  Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:40:25 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:17:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Sparks


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:01:00 EDT
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:38:07 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:58:29 -0400
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question

 >>>>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >>>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >>>>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:50:54 +0200

 >>>>>From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >>>>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question

 >>>>><snip>

 >>>>>I came across the letter from prospector Frank Johnson to
 >>>>>the Air Force, on the web, dated August 20th 1947:

 >>Hi Bruce,

 >>In your posting yesterday you said you suspect the objects were
 >>even "farther away" than Johnson thought. See your posting on
 >>UpDates (which posted it today):

 >>http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m11-003.shtml

 >>I interpret Johnson's remark about the 10-mile distance to be
 >>alluding to the objects otherwise it would be irrelevant even to
 >>bring it up. Isn't it strange that using the 10-mile distance
 >>together with the 1,000-foot greater height that the ratio
 >>yields a 2� elevation above the apparent horizon that is so
 >>amazingly close to Arnold's 2� elevation above the horizon >>


 >Brad, Bruce,

 >Asgeir just pointed out in his post the letter from either the
 >Air Force or FBI.

 >>>>>Regarding Johnson's ten miles "telescope", as, e.g., noted here:

 >>>>>http://www.the-templars.com/avvistamenti/kennetharnold/immagine2.htm

 >Johnson seems to be referring, not to the objects being 10 miles
 >away, but that he could see objects up to 10 miles away in his
 >telescope, which probably was a monocular or some sort.


Bob, et al.,

You're still missing my point.

Johnson brought up the whole issue of how far he could see
"objects" in his telescope in an allusion to the distance at
which he saw _these_ objects, otherwise the point was irrelevant
to bring up and the FBI agents wouldn't have mentioned it
either. Certainly he was giving a clue to a ballpark estimate or
order-of-magnitude impression of the distance which alone might
not be directly observable but in a ratio with the height
impression he had would be a valid and observable quantity
(elevation angle = height/distance in radians approx.). And
Bruce still suspects the objects were even further than what
Johnson "thought" (see the URL for his posting I gave above) but
disagrees on my distance interpretation.

I notice no comment on the extraordinary match between this 2�
elevation angle derived from Fred Johnson's distance/height
impressions and Arnold's 2� elevation angle which I take as
confirmation of each other.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:12:58 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:23:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - McCoy


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:58:11 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:36:56 -0400
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:19:11 EDT
 >>>Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:09:57 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young

 >>>...It is virtually impossible to acquire a fast
 >>>object in a telescope. I think the newspaper article probably
 >>>explains what he "saw".

 >Bruce wrote:

 >>This is not a "smart" statement. The witness said he saw the
 >>objects through a telescope. He could track them with the
 >>telescope. I suspect they were farther away than he thought, but
 >>with distance comes lower angular rate of speed.

I wonder if it wasn't a rifle 'scope, maybe even still attached
to the rifle, I had an old family friend carry one in his pickup
glove box as it was easier to keep in the narrow confines of the
pickup. Also, the field of view is somewhat better (even back
then) than a mon- nocular or spotting 'scope.

 >>You have only the vaguest idea of the conditions under which he
 >>made his observations, so there is really little or no
 >>justification for your outright rejection ("Virtually
 >>impossible") of his claim to have seen one (or more) of these
 >>objects through his telescope (We don't even know the power of
 >>the telescope or the type).

With a rifle 'scope, especially a Leopould type 'scope, (the only
type my father would use and the only one I ever used.) The eye
relief is better than and has more light gathering capability
than the other type of 'scope(s) mentioned, there also the fact
that rifle 'scopes tend to be more forgiving in rugged
conditions.

 >Amen. To this I would like to add that it isn't all that
 >difficult to acquire and follow objects through low-power
 >telescopes with a little experience. The purpose of low-power
 >"finder telescopes" attached to larger, high-power telescopes is
 >exactly this. If anything, it is more difficult than prospector
 >Johnson's job because one has to crane one's neck into awkward
 >positions and then look through 'scope that has everything
 >inverted.

And if said 'scope was a relatively low power, say 3-4X, and was
oriented for terrestrial use, even easier.

 >The trick to using these finder 'scopes is to simultaneously look
 >through the 'scope with one eye and use the unaided eye to
 >"point" to the object or region one wants to look at.

 >These small 'scopes usually have powers down around 6x. I have
 >even followed jets through the larger 'scope at powers of 50x
 >(everything still inverted and with everything on an equatorial
 >mount). It's not easy, but it can be done. (Think also how
 >military observers follow jets through binoculars.)

Impressive! and not easy, personal experience speaking
here.

 >A lot depends on angular speed, not absolute speed. The Johnson
 >report is unfortunately devoid of such details. If he had
 >initially seen fast moving objects of in the distance headed
 >directly for his position, they would have loomed but had little
 >angular velocity at first until they got relatively close and
 >zoomed overhead.

Easy to track things with a small light 'scope made for tracking
things?

 >This is also assuming that the speed was constant, the objects
 >didn't slow down, circle overhead, etc., which would have
 >simplified Johnson's observation.

 >As to Bob Young's statement that the "newspaper article probably
 >explains what he 'saw'", one wonders why Johnson didn't make his
 >sighting details agree more closely with Arnold's if he got his
 >story out of the newspaper. If his purpose was to corroborate
 >Arnold's story (as he told the AF investigator) then why not
 >make the number of objects, e.g., agree precisely? That detail
 >was in all the newspaper stories.

 >For a faker, Johnson also demonstrated remarkable prescience with
 >his little sighting detail that his compass needle wobbled when
 >the objects passed nearby. One again wonders where he dreamed
 >this up, perhaps the first report mentioning magnetic effects.

This should be the capper guys, he couldn't have possibly faked
that part, he didn't know about magnetic effects,just
experienced them (oops, there that word again) this is as
important to the Arnold sighting and stands by itself, by the
way, as to be a verification of what Arnold saw.;

 >In doing so, he anticipated future reports of compass
 >interference or other magnetic or electromagnetic effects,
 >particularly from pilots.

Great post David, how could he know, also, here we have two
solid witnesses, with very similar stories, one on the ground
one in the air both having prescience of mind to note things in
their observation. seems solid to me but I guess I'm just one of
those Northwest Rustics, not knowing a nesting pelican flock
when I see it.Or not.

My rifle 'scope theory is just idle speculation on my part,
having actually used them over the years (I don't hunt any more
- too much trouble to kill something - and my wife really _hates_
Venison And Elk.)


GT McCoy

Blue Mountain Rustic








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                 Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:26:13 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:28:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really - Bowden


 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:45:22 -0700
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really

 >>From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Listen, I'm Important, Really
 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:40:12 +0100

 >>I've been following this thread with some interest, would you be
 >>willing to share with us publicly your experience?
 >>I would really like to know in some detail what happened to make
 >>you decide your encounter was real.

 >Hold on a sec what's this? Surely you are not telling me that
 >all the times I have spent around your place, and I having told
 >you what I have experienced over some years' 'In confidence'
 >(after your very in-depth questioning), that you haven't paid
 >any attention at all to what I have related ?

 >ET has been to this planet' at Rendlesham' right Dave?


Roy,

No need to be disappointed - I paid full attention to what you
told me 'In Confidence'. Based on what you told me I just can't
see why you will not tell the Listers.

It's not for me to give away the plot but what you revealed was
very interesting indeed.

I have noticed (on this and other Lists) that contactees and
abductees tend to bare their souls, your story is interesting,
yet you remain tight lipped. Whatever your reasons, the choice
is yours.

With regards to Rendlesham you're darned right, questions in the
House and comments at dinner parties mean diddly to me. The
evidence however does seem to point in the ET direction.


All the best,

Dave









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

From: Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:54:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:31:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:31:44 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:51:50 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

Previously, Sean wrote:

 >>Not abduction researchers per-se but how about Chris Rutkowski's
 >>book' Abduction & Aliens', was a critical look at abduction. An
 >>even more critical look at abductions was Kevin Randle's book,
 >>'The Abduction Enigma'.

Greg replied:

 >Yes, these count very much, and thanks so much for citing them.
 >
 >In both books, well-known ufologists take issue with many things
 >in abduction research. Not a demonstration of abduction
 >researchers criticizing each other, but certainly still more
 >evidence that ufologists in general do.


Hi, Greg!

Here's what I can't figure out:

You obviously understand the difference between discussing
differences of opinion on a topic as opposed to the flat out
criticizing of another person. Yet, for some reason beyond me,
you and Jerry find some sort of redeeming value in the latter.

If this is the distinction that you find absent from the skeptic
camp, then I'd say that skeptics are much better off quietly
disagreeing with each other's position than to engage in the
type of "hits" that you seem to feel are so vital to intelligent
discussion. And you can't say that this isn't what you really
mean.

You clearly make the distinction in your above post and feel
that such criticizing is absent from the skeptics and that they,
for whatever reason, are worse off for it. Worse, the inclusion
of such criticizing somehow makes Ufology a better place to
live?

Of course, what would I know. I am just silly, right?


Silly King 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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

              Re: Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:44:29 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:36:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses -


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:45:54 EDT
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses -

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 05:53:25 EDT
 >>Subject: Condon Report Proves Accuracy of Witnesses
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Recently on this List there has been a lot of comment on the
 >>alleged accuracy or ianccuracy of eyewitnesses.

 >>As much as they like Condon's conclusions about the alleged
 >>unreliability and inaccuracy of eyewitnesses, debunkers have
 >>never done any in-depth study of the data on witness accuracy
 >>that is contained in the Condon Report. The Condon Committee
 >>itself suppressed any statistical analysis of the witness
 >>accuracy data that its own project investigators had compiled.
 >>Instead they left the data sitting undigested, some of it in the
 >>final report, much of it left unpublished.

 ><snip>

 >>Case 18 -- approx. 99% accurate (about 150 data points).
 >>Case 23 -- approx. 99% accurate (about 66 data points).
 >>Case 36 -- approx. 90% to 98% accurate (about 42 data points).
 >>Zond 4 Rocket Re-entry -- approx. 97% accurate (about 86 data
 >>points).

 >>TOTAL: Approx. 97% to 98% accurate (about 344 data points total).

 >Brad:

 >Thank you for doing this analysis, which provided food for
 >thought. On the Zond 4 reentry, are the witness points
 >describing the debris fragments as "windows" included?

Bob,

You're welcome.

Yes, the data points include the witness observations underlying
their "windows" interpretations, but Hartmann states there were
only "two" such reports (CR p. 574) and, as explained
previously, I only count witness observational data not their
conclusions, interpretations or opinions.

"Windows" is an interpretation of manufacturing or construction
design whereas the observation is correctly that of multiple
discrete light sources.

My UFO UpDates posting you're responding to is at:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m11-030.shtml

Also note that Hartmann's data table contains egregious errors
in the numbers, padding with duplicate items, gross
contradictions in his analysis, etc., which were difficult to
resolve (I used data repeated in his text), e.g., in one place
he says the table represents 30 total reports complete enough to
be analyzed but in the next paragraph he indicates he used 17
reports.

His table claims there were 10 reports of angular size greater
than 7 arcminutes and were all in error, but has nothing listed
as correct angular size, yet his text states that the witnesses
were "fairly consistently" accurate in estimating angular size
as 3-4 arcminutes.

So I have had to correct such colossal mistakes as best I can.

There were 78 reports in the Blue Book file and apparently BB
did no investigation of any of the sightings.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 15

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:59:30 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:40:24 -0400
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 15

Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

    UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 6, Number 15
April 12, 2001
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/


RED UFO LANDS NEAR LOGAN, QUEENSLAND

A woman rancher saw a glowing red UFO land in a paddock close
to Beenliegh and Redland Bay Road near Logan, Queensland,
Australia the night of Wednesday, March 28, 2001.

According to the Logan, Qlnd. weekly newspaper, "Dogs barked,
birds squawked and horses bolted when a mysterious bright object
streaked across Logan's night sky, shining red light over a
rural property at Cornubia last week."

"Seeing the silent red UFO has frightened and mystified
property owner Tashma Hosking Who said she heard it hit the
ground minutes later after it disappeared over a hill."

""But her search of the area the next day found nothing."

"Mrs. Hosking said she had just walked inside her house after
tending a sick pony in the yard at 11:30 p.m. ob Wednesday,
March 28, 2001." when the object appeared like a fireball."

"'I was scared and first thought it would hit the house,' she
said, 'It did not make a sound and the paddock lit up in red
light. Then I heard a bang when it went over the hills.
Whatever it was, it did go down.'"

"Mrs. Hosking said the red object had an unidentifiable shape."

"Curious about what she saw that night, on the
Beenliegh-Redland Bay Road area " she searched the area the next
morning but found no trace of the mysterious red object.

"Mrs. Hosking is hoping someone else saw the light and can
offer a logical explanation."

"A nearby Hillside resident, Sue Webb, said she had watched two
mysterious pink-red glowing lights from the balcony of her house
that night. She said the objects remained there for several
minutes in the sky and then came down but could offer no
explanation as to what they were." (See the Logan, Qlnd. weekly
newspaper for April 4, 2001, "It's Out There," page 1. Many
thanks to Diane Harrison of the Australian UFO Research Network
for forwarding the newspaper article.)

THREE UFOs SIGHTED IN CONNECTICUT

Connecticut, one of the USA's six New England states, became
the site of a UFO flap at the end of March 2001.

On Wednesday, March 21, 2001, at 4 p.m., a woman and her young
son "saw a large bullet-shaped object" pass over a roadside
mini-mall in Hamden, Connecticut.

"As I left a small store in a small shopping plaza," the
witness reported, "I returned to my car, and my eight-year-old
son, who was in the car, pointed upwards to me. I entered my
car and discussed what we viewed. Then we both got out of the
car to witness a thick stream of pinkish smoke rise vertically
on the horizon."

"We saw a large, bullet-shaped object very shiny and silver
with one circular ring around the middle start to move
vertically. We saw it reach a certain altitude, then we saw it
start to fly horizontally to the left, toward us. There were no
flashing lights or sound to be heard. We then got in the car
and followed it but after we went one-tenth of a mile," the pair
lost sight of the UFO.

Two hours later, at 6 p.m., another Hamden woman reported,
"While I was on a long-distance phone call, my son heard a very
loud propeller sound., seeming to be above our house."

"He ran to the bay window" where "he said he saw a large
missile-shaped object. The object was hovering just above the
treeline. He was quite certain that the object was shaped like
an oblong thing, with two lights shining in an alternating
fashion, one blue, the other red."

"He further described the object itself as being green and
black, 'kind of like an Army' vehicle."

On Thursday, March 22, 2--1, at 4:30 a.m., a couple living on a
residential street in Hartford, the state capital of
Connecticut, "were awakened by a light that lit up the entire
house. This lasted for a minute, then suddenly they heard a
whooshing sound, and it was all over." (Many thanks to Rev.
Billy Dee and Peter B. Davenport of the National UFO Reporting
Center for these reports.)

(Editor's Note: The Hartford event is almost identical to the
Joshua Elderkin UFO case in Windham, Conn., which took place way
back in May 1758. For details, see the magazine UFO Updates for
Spring 1983. "Colonial Close Encounters," by Joseph Trainor.
The "Nutmeg State" has a long, long history of UFO incidents.)

MORE UFOs SIGHTED IN ARICA AND CALAMA

"Luis Herrera observed a strange phenomenon flying over the
skies of Arica," a city in northern Chile at 4 p.m. on Saturday,
March 24, 2001. "The event, which was caught on film, at
Chichorro Beach."

"Herrera was enjoying his vacation and was touring Arica when
his son drew his attention to the presence of an unidentified
object."

"'My son remarked that there was a ray of light in the sky that
moved slowly towards the southeast. The object's colors varied
from silver to red. At first I thought it was a balloon but the
object's characteristics led me to follow other
considerations.'"

"He added that the alleged UFO was seen at sunset and vanished
into the horizon as it became dark."

"He added that he viewed his videotape frame-by-frame that same
evening and noticed that its (flight) characteristics were
strangely elliptical."

"'I hadn't reported the sighting out of fear that it wouldn't
be believed,' he said."

On the city of Calama, a UFO was seen by five witnesses on the
south side of town, over the barrio Limon Verde (neighborhood).

"The sighting occurred between 1:40 and 2:15 p.m."

""Eyewitnesses Frederico L. and his father Jaime L. were on
their way back home when an intensely luminous object drew their
attention. It was so bright that it hurt their eyes and kept
them from seeing any further details," such as the shape of the
fuselage or any protuberances. "Frederico claims that this was
not the first time he had seen a bright light hovering over
that location."

"Two other witnesses, Patricio V. and Jaime M., who were
standing in the Parque El Loa in Calama's south side, saw 'an
oval, cream-colored object with an intense yellow-hued band
around the central section. They watched the object from a
distance of 300 meters (660 feet) as it made repeated triangular
movements.", with the object shooting upward very high after
each movement." (See the newspaper La Estrella de Arica for
Wednesday, March 28, 2001, "Tocapilla cameraman films UFO over
Arica." Also April 4, 2001 report by ufologist Jaime Ferrer of
the Centro Ovniologico de Calama. Muchas gracias a Scott
Corrales, autor de los libros Chupacabras and Other Mysteries y
Forbidden Mexico, y tambien Gloria Coluchi, para esas
informaciones.)

A VERY LARGE UFO SPOTTED OVER ORLANDO, FLORIDA

A very large dark UFO with two red lights hovered over the
Deseret Ranch, just east of the city of Orlando, Florida, on
Thursday night, March 28, 2001.

According to the eyewitness, "I observed two slow-flying red
lights that appeared to be hundreds of yards away, just above
the tree line. The two red lights were moving from east to west
and were moving very slowly."

"The lights moved in a very exacting detail, as if they were
connected to each other., which would have made it one extremely
big object if we could have seen the superstructure."

"The object made no sound as it passed. This was observed at
the Deseret Ranch, just east of the Orlando International
Airport."

The ranch is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of the
Latter-Day Saints, also known as the Mormons, and will become
the site of a new Mormon temple for Orlando. (Many thanks to
Rev. Billy Dee and Peter B. Davenport of the national UFO
Reporting Center for this report.)

(Editor's Comment: Once again, we have a UFO event associated
with a Mormon site. Two communities prominent in the early life
of the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith Jr.--his birthplace, Sharon,
Vermont, and the town in which he had his first angel
encounters, Palmyra, New York--are both hotspots of UFO
activity.)

ODYSSEY LIFTS OFF FOR A TRIP TO MARS

NASA's robot spacecraft Odyssey lifted off from Cape Canaveral,
Florida on Saturday, April 7, 2001.

"The spacecraft rocketed away on a 286 million mile (457
million kilometer) journey to the red planet where it will
search for signs of water."

"NASA hopes that it will be a mission of redemption after a
pair of humiliating failures in 1999."

"The mission's cost is $287 million."

Odyssey "will study minerals in Martian rocks and measure
chemical elements in a search for water. NASA says water could
point to life on Mars."

The two previous Mars missions, the Mars Climate Observer and
the Mars Polar Lander, vanished during their final approach to
the red planet. NASA believes "the Mars Climate Observer
cracked up in pieces because engineers mixed up English and
metric measurement units The Mars Polar Lander crash-landed on
Mars two months later." (See the Duluth, Minn. News-Tribune for
April 8, 2001, "Mars probe on its way," page 17A and USA Today
for April 9, 2001, "NASA Odyssey races toward Mars," page 3A.)

FIRST CROP CIRCLE OF 2001 APPEARS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Canada's first crop circle of the year 2001 has appeared in a
meadow in Dawson Creek, British Columbia.

The formation, which consists of two large circles with
matted-down stalks, was found on Sunday, March 25, 2001 on a
rural property near Dawson's Creek. The circles were described
as "very large" and were found in a field of wild rye grass.

The case is being investigated by the Canadian Crop Circle
Research Network. (Many thanks to Paul Anderson of CCCRN for
this report.)

ANOTHER MASS BIRD DEATH IN LOUISIANA

For the past week, dead birds have been falling out of the sky
or been found in fields and along roadsides in parishes
(counties) south of Baton Rouge, the state capital of
Louisiana.

"Hundreds of dead birds have been found" in the Baton Rouge
vicinity, including cowbirds, sparrows, grackles and blackbirds.
The cause of the bird deaths is not known, but sample tissues
are being studied at the laboratories at Louisiana State
University (LSU).

The birds appear to have died from blood poisoning. Analysis
reportedly found traces of an unusual bacteria in the air sacs,
blood vessels and other internal organs of the birds examined.
(See the Baton Rouge, La. Advocate for April 10, 2001, ""Surge
in dead birds confounds and confuses bird specialists.")

(Editor's Comment: This one sounds a lot like the case in
Bridgehampton, N.Y. a month ago. Younger readers, if you see
dead birds falling from the sky or a lot of dead birds on the
ground, don't let your little brothers and sisters touch the
birds. Tell your parents immediately. If your parents aren't
home, pick up the phone, call 911 and tell the dispatcher what
happened. They will investigate the scene.)

TURKISH UFOLOGISTS LAUNCH PROJECT PULSAR

Ufologists in Turkey have launched a two-year research project,
under the auspices of TUVPO, :to examine, classify and publish
UFO reports received from around different cities and regions
in Turkey."

Reports submitted to Project Pulsar will be compiled and
printed on a periodic basis. The reports will appear in Turkish
at their website. However, some reports will be translated into
English for dissemination to foreign researchers.

According to ufologist Erol Erkmen, "The project will last for
two years and UFO reports will be sent out periodically to the
institutes supporting our project, and at the end of the
period, all of the results will be published in tables on our
web page and in a book."

UFO Roundup readers can access TUVPO's Project Pulsar website
at http://www.tuvpo.com/proje/ (Many thanks to Erol Erkmen for
this news release.)

READER FEEDBACK:

TRAVERSE CITY--GROUND ZERO FOR THE "GREAT LAKES DISASTER?"

John C. writes, "In the March 29 set of stories, (See UFO
Roundup, volume 6, number 13 for March 29, 2001, Predictions,
old and new, hold surprises.") and the gentleman's dream about
the waves crashing down on a gray-colored convention
center...McCormick Place in Chicago rings true, as does the
Grand Traverse Resort in Traverse City, Michigan. That 'spit'
of land could be a peninsula, and if so, Traverse City would fit
the bill better."

(Editor's Comment: I visited Petoskey and Ludington on that
stretch of Lake Michigan shore back in June 1982. But I've never
been to Traverse City. As soon as I get some time out of work,
I'm going to go there and see this resort for myself.)


 From the UFO Files...

1793: SINISTER CITIZEN

April 8 marks an important date in conspiracy history--the
arrival of Citoyen (Citizen) Genet in Charleston, South
Carolina.

Genet was born on January 8, 1763 at Versailles in France, the
son of Marie Anne Louise Cardon de Genet and Edme Jacques Genet,
a high-ranking bureaucrat in the French Foreign Office who
specialized in Anglo-American relations. The Genets were
friends of Benjamin Franklin, active in Freemasonry and moved in
philosophy circles.

Edmond had a gift for languages, easily mastering Spanish,
English, German and Russian. After graduating from the
university, he took over his father's job at the Foreign Office
and soon came to the attention of the former prime minister, the
Comte (Count) de Vergennes

Like Dr. Franklin, the UK's Sir Francis Dashwood and Lord
Dalrymple, Vergennes seems to have been part of an informal
"International Party" that was talking about a "New Europe" at
a time when Illuminati founder Adam Weishaupt was still teaching
college courses and Anacharsis Clootz was still wandering around
the Middle East. (For more on Clootz, the self-styled
"Secretary-General and Orator of the Human Race," see UFO
Roundup, volume 5, number 16 for April 29, 2000, "Unforgettable
Anacharsis Clootz," page 6.)

Through Vergennes, Genet was introduced to Charles Francois
LeBrun and Philippe, Duc (Duke) d'Orleans, younger brother of
King Louis XVI, and became a regular at the Lodge of the Nine
Sisters, a favorite hangout of the Illuminati. In 1786,
Weishaupt suggested to LeBrun that the order send Genet to
Russia, to help foment revolution there.

So Genet became charge d'affaires at the French embassy in St.
Petersburg. Here he worked with the Sicilian Illuminatus Joseph
Balsamo, also known as the magician Cagliostro, in recruiting
Russian nobles into the Illuminati.

Genet was a big success in Russia. He spoke the language so
well that people thought he was from Voronezh. Among the
Illuminati he worked with in Russia were Nicholas Novikov,
editor of the newspaper The Wasp, and Prince Pavel Dolgorukii,
who, by the way, was the maternal grandfather of Theosophy
founder Elena Petrovna von Hahn Blavatsky.

By 1790, there were 165 Masonic lodges in Russia, all reporting
to the Grand Lodges of St. Petersburg and Moscow. Many of the
lodges had been "Illuminized" by Genet and Novikov.

Alarmed by the violent turn the French Revolution took in
August 1792, and by the arrest of the royal family, Tsaritsa
Ekaterina (also known as Catherine the Great) asked her trusted
advisor, Count Platon Subtov, to investigate the "Martinists,"
as the Illuminati were called in Russia. As a result, Genet was
arrested and sent home to Paris.

Weishaupt and his inner circle decided to try their luck
elsewhere. Brissot, another friend of Genet's and LeBrun's from
the Foreign Office, was on the verge of becoming France's prime
minister. He arranged for the Convention to send Genet to the
USA as the new French ambassador.

Publicly, Genet's diplomatic mission was to persuade President
George Washington to honor the Treaty of 1778 and enter the new
European War on the French side. But Genet had a hidden agenda,
as well, to carry out a bizarre scheme hatched by Weishaupt and
"Secretary-General" Clootz.

Governor Moultrie and the people of Charleston welcomed Genet
on April 8, 1793 with a great "civic feast" and much fanfare.
Women baked cakes in the shape of royal coats-of-arms and the
partygoers had fun slicing them up and gobbling down the pastry.
Genet was even more popular in the new territories of Kentucky
and Tennessee.

But President Washington wasn't so thrilled with the new
ambassador. Washington had originally approved of the French
Revolution. But the arrest of the king, to whom he had written
on several occasions, troubled him, and the arrest and exile of
his old comrade-in-arms, the Marquis de Lafayette, angered him,
as did the massacre of Lafayette's mother's family, the de
Noailles.

No sooner had Genet arrived in Philadelphia (then capital of
the USA--J.T.) than trouble began. Genet organized a Democratic
Society of Philadelphia, an organization designed to agitate
for "a new republic," and to elect candidates more favorable to
France. The society eventually gave its name to the political
faction around Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, which
became the Democratic-Republican Party, and in the next century,
the Democratic Party.

Jefferson defended the French Revolution and its ideals.
Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and John Jay were
pro-British and looked on les Brissotins like Genet as
"murderers, criminals and mad dogs." Hamilton complained, "He
(Jefferson) has a womanish attachment to France."

Genet grew bolder. Soon he was acting like he was the
president, not George Washington, recruiting troops in Kentucky,
outfitting privateers and writing columns in the Gazette of the
United States, calling for an armed invasion of Alta Louisiana.

(Editor's Note: At the end of the War of the American
Revolution in 1783, the Louisiana Territory, which had been
owned by UK for 20 years, was equally divided. Everything east
of the Mississippi River went to the USA; everything west of the
river went to Spain, becoming La Colonia de Alta Louisiana with
its capital at San Luis de Ylinois, i.e. modern St. Louis.)

The city of New Orleans was the key to the fantastic plan of
Weishaupt and Clootz to turn North America into a "federated
continent." In short, they were going to do to Tunkashila
(Lakotiya for North America). Here was Genet's secret mission,
as given to him by the Illuminati.

Step One: Raise an army, capture St. Louis, then sweep down the
Mississippi and take New Orleans. Here Genet would proclaim the
birth of a new nation, the "American Union."

Step Two: Gather more troops, land at Vera Cruz, retrace the
steps of Cortes and capture Mexico City. The Viceroyalty of
Nueva Espana (New Spain, or modern Mexico--J.T.), adding it to
the American Union.

Step Three: Back to New Orleans with three Mexican armies. One
lands at Mobile Bay and marches into Georgia. Another strikes
from Kentucky east into Maryland and Virginia. The third goes
up the Ohio River and takes Pittsburgh, then marches on
Philadelphia.

Step Four: A short campaign to mop up New York, the Carolinas
and the New England states.

Step Five: The invasion of Canada, with the Illuminati armies
marching on Halifax, Montreal, Quebec, and York (modern
Toronto--J.T.)

Voila, Edmond Genet is absolute ruler of the "federated
continent" of North America, beholden to the Illuminati for his
new throne.

(Editor's Comment: As wacky as it sounds, this plan was much
less grandiose than Clootz's bizarre doctrine of "universal war"
and a "Sherman's March" across Europe.)

Although France was broke at the time, Genet had tons of money
to spend on his proposed fleet of privateers. The funds were
coming from Jacob and Daniel Frey, two Jewish financiers from
Austria-Hungary, who were bankrolling Clootz, as well. But the
source of the money is still a mystery.

Genet received visits from fellow European Illuminati, such as
Julien DePestre and Harman Blennerhasset. With those three in
the same room together in Chester, Pennsylvania, a Parisian
visitor might have thought he was at Nicholas de Bonneville's
Cercle Social (Social Circle), another Illuminati hangout.

But the tide of American popular opinion was gradually turning
against Genet. The Roman Catholics of Pennsylvania and Maryland
were incensed by the atrocities carried out in France by
Illuminati commissars, such as Joseph Carriere in Nantes and
Joseph LeBon in Arras. Priests and nuns murdered by the score;
churches and shrines desecrated. But Genet wasn't worried. The
USA was a Protestant country; Catholics were only a small
minority and of no consequence.

What Genet didn't count on was vociferous opposition from the
"black brigades"--the fiery preachers from Puritan New England
and Baptist Dixie. Soon the envoy was under attack from every
pulpit, his name linked with such infamous people as Voltaire,
Rousseau and Adam Weishaupt.

"I have nothing against your religion," Genet responded.

But in private he was singing a different tune to his aides,
vowing to "drench their Geneva gowns in blood."

Genet was losing support among the Jefferson party, too. Future
president James Monroe complained, "He (Genet) is trying to
laugh us into war."

Americans were tuning him out., Genet told subordinates, "There
is a marked lack of republican fervor in this country."

(Editor's Note: Here Genet is using republican in the Clooyzian
sense, i.e. a partisan of Clootz's "Universal Republic," or
one-world government. Genet's "republican fervor" would be
called internationalism or globalism today.)

In early July 1793, Jefferson met privately with Genet. In a
letter to his good friend and future president, James Madison,
the Secretary of State wrote, "I told him (Genet) that his
enticing (American) officers and soldiers from Kentucky go
against Spain was really putting a halter )noose_ around their
necks for they assuredly would be hung if they commenced
hostilities against a nation at peace with the United States."

But Jefferson left unmentioned what Genet said to him. The
envoy continued with his invasion plans, certain that Jefferson
would not oppose him. Why?

My theory--Genet knew Jefferson wanted to be USA president and
was blackmailing him. Jefferson had served as the USA's
ambassador to France a few years earlier. Jefferson at that
time was a widower in his 40s, the father of two teenaged girls,
and as ambassador he had all these beautiful women throwing
themselves at him. He had mistresses in Paris, and a few of
them still had live husbands from whom they were separated. Such
behavior would not raise an eyebrow in Paris, but it would be a
different story in Eighteenth Century America. A scandal could
wreck his shot at the White House. And the Illuminati, with
their legions of informers, knew all about his "indiscretions."

For five days, Jefferson mulled it over, then he went to George
Washington and told him that Genet was planning to send out his
first privateer, the Little Sarah, which Genet had renamed La
Petite Democrate.

On July 12, 1793, President Washington called a Cabinet meeting
to discuss the problem. Hamilton, Jefferson and Secretary of War
Henry Knox were there. The problem was a thorny. If the Little
Sarah attacked a British ship, it could start a shooting war
with the Royal Navy. But if the USA siezed the ship, Genet would
call on the French Navy squadron, 20 warships in all, to attack
Philadelphia.

(Editor's Note: This was a very real concern. The USA's only
navy at that time consisted of ten revenue cutters, about
one-quarter the size of Denmark's navy.)

Knox had two words of advice: "Sink her!" Hamilton assured the
president that his revenue cutters could overtake and capture
the Little Sarah if she put to sea. But it was Jefferson who
came up with the ideal solution.

Knock the pedestal out from under Genet's feet, the Virginian
suggested. Inform the French Convention that the USA rejects
Genet's credentials and request another ambassador. This would
instantly transform Genet into a private citizen and not an
ambassador protected by diplomatic immunity. If he sent out the
Little Sarah, he could be arrested for piracy.

When asked what they were going to do about Gebnet's private
army in Kentucky, Washington said it was nothing the marines
couldn't handle and they would deal with that problem when the
time came.

The time never came. Fate intervened in a surprising way. A
ship from France arrived in Philadelphia with a new French
ambassador aboard. The envoy presented Genet with a letter from
the new prime minister, Maximilien Robespierre, inviting him
home for "a consultation."

The same ship brought letters from his Illuminati superiors.
Nothing but bad news. Brissot defeated in the Convention,
Robespierre on the ascendant. Clootz and the Frey brothers
under suspicion. LeBrun and Joseph Fouche in hiding.

So Robespierre wants "a consultation," does he? Genet was no
fool. He knew how that conversation would go. A two-minute chat
with "The Incorruptible," followed by a tumbril ride to the
Place de la Guillotine.

So Genet mailed in his resignation and fled to New York state,
seeking sanctuary from his friend, Gov. George Clinton (no
relation to our former president--J.T.) President Washington
returned the arrest warrant to the new French ambassador and
allowed Genet to take "early retirement."

Genet bought a farm and married Cornelia Clinton, the
governor's daughter, and settled down near Albany, N.Y. After
his young wife died, he married another heiress, Martha Brandon
Osgood.

(Editor's Comment: Knowing the Illuminati penchant for poisons,
it might be interesting to do a forensic analysis of Cornelia's
remains. I have a feeling this Illuminatus murdered his wife to
obtain her money.)

In 1816, his fellow Illuminatus, Jacques Billaid-Varenne, was
released from prison in French Guiana and came to New York City.
Genet rushed down the Hudson River to meet with him.

"I want to talk to you," Genet said, "I've been stuck in this
country for over twenty years. What the hell happened over there
in Paris?"

"Well, in a nutshell, Marat and Robespierre turned on us,"
Billaud-Varenne replied, "Between them, those two idiots wrecked
our New World Order."

Edmond Genet, the man selected by Weishaupt to become the
dictator of a "federated" North America, lived out the rest of
his life in upstate New York, dying on his far, in Schodak,
N.Y. on July 15, 1834.

He was the grumpy old guy who never said much. But if you ever
wanted to drive him into a screaming rage, all you had to do was
utter the magic word...Jefferson!

So ended the Illuminati's first attempt to subvert and destroy
the USA.

But the idea of the "American Union" was too attractive to the
Illuminati for them to dump it. They would try again.

One thing about Weishaupt and crew--they did learn from their
mistakes. If the American people would not follow a "foreigner."
then they would have to find a charming and charismatic
American to serve as their front man.

Ten years later, they found him. His name was Aaron Burr. (See
the books George Washington: First in Peace by John Alexander
Carroll and Mary Wells Ashworth, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1957,
pages 39, 40, 60 through 85, 129 through 138 and 150 through
160; Thomas Jefferson by William Sterne Randall, Henry Holt Co.,
New York, N.Y. 1993, pages 314 through 316; Jefferson: Champion
of the Free Mind by Phillips Russell, Dodd, Mead and Co, New
York, N.Y., 1956, pages 200 through 209 and 259; Fourth
President: A Life of James Madison by Irving Brant,
Bobbs-Merrill Co., New York, N.Y., 1970, pages 272, 273, 280,
290 and 296; James Monroe by W.P. Cresson, University of North
Carolina Press, Durham, N.C., page 119; and Genet: The Outline
of his Mission to America by Frederick A. Shimke, 1939.)

(Editor's Comment: And that, boys and girls, is why the
Illuminati hate Thomas Jefferson's ass with a vengeance. And
also why the USA's third president always gets badmouthed on TV
and in the movies. Still, he put his political future on the
line to ensure the survival of the USA, and that makes him a
hero in my book.)

That's it for this week. Join us in seven days 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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:54:20 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:43:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:51:50 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:54:22 -0400

 >>>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:12:31 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Greg, John

 >Just my tuppence worth.

 >>>but I'd be
 >>>more interested to hear, for example, of any prominent
 >>>abductologist who has criticised another such, despite them
 >>>often holding views which are mutually contradictory.

 >>Budd really is, as a human being, as good as they come. I love
 >>him, too.

 >I have only met Bud the once, when he was over here in the UK a
 >few years ago, and I found him a genuine guy. Thoroughly
 >likeable, earnest and a sweet gentleman.

 >Having spoken with a few people (via email) I have yet to hear
 >anyone say a bad word about him.

Well here goes.....

The only time I encountered Hopkins was at a Fortean Times
UnConvention a few years ago when he was supposed to be talking
about the Linda Napolitano case.

In fact his presentation was a general account of UFOs and
abductions which disappointed most of the audience, and he
carefully avoided taking any questions at the end of his talk.

I suspect he was unaware of the level of sophistication and
rational thinking present amongst Fortean Times readers, and was
rather frightened off by the critical reception they gave to
some previous speakers who thought they were going to have an
easy ride with the 'rubes'.

This may also be the reason why, after it was advertised that he
would be answering questions at a 'Brians Trust' session at the
end of the UnConvention, he suddenly found some urgent business
examining paintings at the National Gallery.

As I recall, his place on the platform was taken by a rubber
alien's head!


--
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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:44:59 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:47:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:09:52 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:12:31 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>but I'd be
 >>more interested to hear, for example, of any prominent
 >>abductologist who has criticised another such, despite them
 >>often holding views which are mutually contradictory.

 >This is just too easy.

You make some good points here, and it's clear that there is some
disagreement between abduction researchers, but...

 >When John Mack sat down for his interview with Russ Estes and
 >Bill Cone, he suggested that other abduction researchers seemed
 >to pull from their experiencers what they want to see. Asked
 >about this not too long ago, he denied that he had said it out
 >loud, though he had often wondered about it. However, in CDB
 >Bryant's book, 'Close Encounters Of The Forth Kind' he reported
 >on page 271 that Mack said, "It seems to me that Jacobs,
 >Hopkins, and Nyman may pull out of their experiencers what they
 >want to see.

... it sounds a little bit as though Mack's trying to backtrack here.

 >In 'The Threat', David Jacobs wrote, "While Mack does not 'lead
 >the witness' in the classic meaning of the phrase, he embraces
 >the 'positive' therapeutic technique that leads to mutual
 >confirmational fantasies and easily steers the abductee into
 >dissociative channeled pathways."

These seem rather muted criticisms of methodology and not the
sort of dismantling of basic principles that ufologists/sceptics
adopt against each other. Of course it would be difficult for
Mack, Jacobs, et al to take each other too much to task for
their hypnotic regression methods, as their own invesigative
techniques might start to crumble as well.

 >Dr. Richard Neal, writing in UFO Magazine, about cases of
 >missing fetus, suggested, "Many researchers have claimed that
 >they have several of Missing embryo/Fetus Syndrome in their
 >files. Yet during my research into this phenomenon over the past
 >three years, all have failed to produce one verified case. Why?"

Neal makes a valid criticism of the abductionists case and has
never been adequately answered, but he is hardly a mainstream
figure - I suspect he is probably as obscure as John Harney, as
he does not feature in Jerome Clark's encyclopaedia!

 >Writing of abduction in general, Eddie Bullard noted, "The case
 >for abduction means anecdotal evidence and little else. A
 >physical phenomenon carried out on an extensive scale for
 >decades by none-too-careful aliens has nevertheless left behind
 >no convincing physical residue."

Bullard is not, in my opinion, either an abduction researcher or
a ufologist in the usual way that word is used. He is a
historian and folklorist, and has never been afraid to challenge
assumptions on both sides of the fence.

 >And who can forget the scathing reviews of the work of he-who-
 >shall-remain-nameless? The abduction community, as well as those
 >on the skeptical side of the aisle, have lined up to take shots
 >at him.

Well, who wouldn't?

 >I put all this together in a matter of minutes from widely
 >available sources. Had a taken time, I could have found
 >additional examples. What that means is that the abduction
 >researchers do criticize one another, do point out many of the
 >contradictions, and do argue among themselves.

I'm sure you're right, and others have pointed out similar
examples in other posts over the past day or two.

I'm happy to agree that there is a degree of self-criticism
within the 'ufological community'. However a lot of this is
because people are defending their own take on a particular
issse, as in the Mack/Jacobs disagreements you quote above. But
this cannot go too far.

Mack and Jacobs may think the other is leading witnesses, but
neither can challenge the others research too deeply as it will
bring the whole abduction edifice crumbling to the ground.

It is reassuring to see that abductionist are willing to
criticism some aspects of their colleagues/rivals work, and they
should be pressed to explain how these criticisms do not equally
apply to their own work.


--
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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 03:45:15 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:50:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Hatch


 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:39:25 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:50:18 -0400

 ><snip>

 >>"XXXXXXXX also related that on the occasion of his sighting the
 >>objects on June 24, 1947 he had in his possession a combination
 >>compass and watch. He noted particularly that immediately before
 >>he sighted the disc the compass acted very peculiar, the hand
 >>waving from one side to the other, but that this condition
 >>corrected itself immediately after the discs had passed out of
 >>sight."

 >>Johnson's letter to the USAF is dated August 20th, 1947. Was
 >>this the first UFO report to mention electromagnetic effects?

 >I believe so.

 >Also the first Blue Book unexplained case.


Hello Bruce and Serge:

I found a few EME cases prior to the Johnson sighting in June
1947. These are of highly variable merits of course.

The Electromagnetics aspect may not be apparent in my one-line
summaries, thus the sources:


#74:  1809/8/10  0:0  10  0:05W  51:31N  3331  WEU GBI ENG
LONDON:SCIENTIST STAVELEY:MANY NLTS MNVR/DARK CLOUD COVER:
NFD:/r2p14 + /R210 The APRO BULLETIN. Volume 33 Issue 7

#276: 1909/5/19 23:30 1:24:20E 52:42N  3333  WEU GBI ENG
WROXHAM,NORFOLK:GLOBE/LITE >OVHD:MOTORCYCLE HEADLITE EMES:
OK AFTER:/FSR v17#1+ /R79 RODEGHIER,Mark:UFO
RPTS/VEH.INTF.Pg1

#334: 1916/1/31 20:50 0:43E  51:33N  3333  WEU GBI ENG
ROCHFORT,ENGL:RAF PILOT:ROW/WINDOWS in sky:UP+AWAY as PILOT
SHOOTS:EME:/r150 + /r65 HALL,Richard: AIRSHIPS to ARNOLD
Pg10

#399: 1932/12/8 23:50 6:24:40W  38:01:20N 3333  WEU SPN HLV
ARROYOMOLINOS DE LEON,SP:FBL EXPLODES W/DAMAGE:2ND FBL MNVRS
Ref# 194 LUMIERES dans la NUIT. Issue No.122 + /r50 p1
(Olmos)

#426: 1935/10/15 1500h 94:14:20W  34:35:20N 3331 NAM USA ARK
MENA,ARK:WOMAN ON PORCH TEMP.PARALYZED AS SCR HVRS 30M AWAY:
FEELS COLD. : Ref# 160 MUFON UFO JOURNAL  Issue No.171

#433: 1936/11/17 1800h 19:00E  69:38N  3331  WEU SCN NRW
nr TROMSO,NORWAY:SVRL RPTS:NLTS+MYSTERY FLYERS:BEAMS+RADIO
SIGNALS:NFD.  /R203 KEEL,John: OP.TROJAN HORSE.   Pg 135

#447: 1939/8/0  ??h 10  6:59E  51:26N  3311  WEU GER NRW
ESSEN,GER:EVERYTHING MECH+ELECTRIC STOPS/10min:EVEN CAR
HORNS
NO UFO SEEN.  /R176 STRINGFIELD,Leonard: SITUATION RED Pg.94

#466: 1942/04/?? ??h  17:54E  66:03N  3311  WEU SCN SWD
ARJEPLOG,SWEDEN:OBS=Thorander:UFO+HUMANOID SEEN:EME:NFD:
/S.Aggestad 1981: /R171 ALDRICH,J: PROJ.1947 (rsrch papers)

#481: 1942/11/??  ??h 4:00W  46:00N  3311  OCN ATL BSC
LOC.UNK/BAY of BISCAY:MIL-AIR CREWS:BIG WINGLESS OBJ:RFI:
180TURN AWAY:/CRIFO+ ALDRICH,Jan: PROJ.1947 (rsrch papers)

#497: 1943/12/?  22:30 10:35E  59:40N 3313 WEU SCN NRW
OSLO FJORD,NRW:4 OBS:ORG BELL SCR:3 CARS EME:HVRS+AWAY:
1.5M DENT/SNOW:/r65p22+/r180 PHILLIPS,Ted: PHYS.TRACES: Pg5

#500: 1944/2/?  0230h  145:40E  39:40S 3313 OCN AUS VCT
BASS STRAIT,AUSTR:OBJ TAILS BOMBER/20min:INSTRUMENTs EME:
AWAY/700mph:/APRO v30#10 +/r174 CHALKER,BILL: OZ FILES. Pg35

#515: 1944/8/8  ??h 88:22:20W  39:29:00N  3331  NAM USA ILN
MATTOON,IL:PSH LOOKS THRU WINDOWS:AIMS DEVICE+PEOPLE FAINT:
ODD SMELL: /R8 VALLEE,Jacques: PASSPORT/MAGONIA. Case No.51

#530: 1944/11/27 ??h 8:26E  49:18N  3331  WEU GER RHP
SPEYER,GERM:2/FIGHTER CREW:HUGE ORG.SPHERE:INSTR'S
EME:250mph
at 450M alt: /r2p33+ /R226 PHENOMENA bimnthly/SOS-OVNI No.12

#531: 1944/12/15  ??h 9:21E  49:19N  3331  WEU GER RHP
ERNSTEIN,GER:415th BOMBER SQDR:BRILL.FBL/2K'alt:200mph:RDR
EMEs: /r153p16 + /R226 PHENOMENA bimonthly/SOS-OVNI, No.12

#533: 1944/12/22  1730h 7:46E  48:47N  3333  WEU FRN BRH
HAGUENAU,FR:NLTS PACE USAF FIGHTERS:RDR EMEs:UP+GONE:/r150
/r226#12p18 +/R106 WILKINS,H.: F.S. ON THE ATTACK! Pg.23

#565: 1945/8/28  ??h 139:50:0E  33:0:0N  3331  ASP JPN IWJ
nr IWO JIMA,JAPAN:L.STRINGFIELD+12:3 WHT TEARDROPS PACE C46:
/r215p52+ /R176 STRINGFIELD,L.: SITUATION RED   Pg.25

#573: 1946/5/18 1800h? 12:51:20E  56:14:40N  3331  WEU SCN
SWD
ANGELHOLM,SWD:DOME-SCR/GND:11 PSH FIX WINDOW:OBS
HALTED/GESTURES
/FSRv18#2 + /R65 HALL,Richard: AIRSHIPS to ARNOLD Pg.27

I hope I edited these down to the required line length!

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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

              Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Mantle

From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:56:32 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:10:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Mantle


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'?
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:07:25 -0400

 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:26:30 +0000
 >>From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'?

 ><snip>

 >>Basically the witness in question (full name etc will be used in
 >>the book) was shown the alien autopsy film in the USA in the
 >>l970's. The witness in question is a professional, award winning
 >>photographer, and many years ago he even qualified as a
 >>mid-wife.

 >>I have interviewed this person twice now and I am literally in
 >>the process of transcribing the second interview.

 >>I just wondered what those individuals out there who made such
 >>accusations against Ray Santilli will have to say once this part
 >>of the story is published in our book. I'm not saying this in
 >>any proves the film to be authentic, but surely such a highly
 >>credible witness might well put pay to the ideas that Santilli
 >>faked it for money ? If this is so then there are quite a few
 >>'ufologists' out there who could well have egg on their faces,
 >>would you not agree ?

 ><snip>

 >Have egg on their faces for a _single_ uncorroborated testimony
 >from a to-be-named witness?

 >We had the cloaked cameraman, now the masked photographer...

 >Of course, Philip, stay out of it and don't get wet. Keep up
 >with the small lettering provision: "I'm not saying this in any
 >proves the film to be authentic"

 >hmm...

 >Is the egg cooked, raw or rotten?

Hi there,

For the sake of my book I have kept the photographers name out
of it for now, although I do have his permission to use his full
name which I will do in due course.

This is not uncorroborated testimony as a number of others have
also gone on the record in a similar manner. Some of these were
featured in our book, 'Beyond Roswell', while another witness
contacted Linda Moulton Howe. The latter was published in one of
Linda's books and is also featured in the Alien Autopsy Archive
on our web site:

www.beyondroswell.com

The photographer in question is _the_ most decorated (amount of
awards) in the UK, is known internationally for his work and
his testimony on the AA film is already known to a few close
associates in the UK and the USA.

Added to this, you should also be aware that I have also twice
interviewed the technician who transferred the original 16mm
film onto video. Again, his full name will be used in our book.
The name of this technician and copies of the two interviews are
also known to a few close associates in the UK and the USA.

What say those who claimed that the film was a contemporary fake
filmed on video ?

Again, none of this shows the film to be authentic but rather it
might go a long way to show that if the film is indeed a fake,
it was nothing to do with Santilli as it was around (on 16mm) at
least 20/30 years before he obtained it.

I can already see the egg dripping on certain faces, and it's
not mine I can assure you.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

               Re: Dick Cheney Questioned On UFOs - 04-11-01 -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:18:08 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:14:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Dick Cheney Questioned On UFOs - 04-11-01 -


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:03:28 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Dick Cheney Questioned On UFOs - 04-11-01
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >>Date: 11 Apr 2001 09:44:43 -0700
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:56:18 -0400
 >>Subject: Dick Cheney Questioned On UFOs - 04-11-01

 >>This morning on the Diane Rehm show

 >>http://www.wamu.org/dr/

 >>I asked a UFO question of Vice-President Dick Cheney. A rough
 >>outline of the question:

 >>Due to a statement made by George Bush last July there is a
 >>vicious story going around the UFO community that you have been
 >>"read into" the UFO program.

 >>My question is, in the jobs that you have had with the
 >>government have you ever been briefed on the subject of UFOs. If
 >>so, when was it, and what were you told?

 >>I was cut off before I could hear the answer but the first words
 >>of Cheney answer were "If I had been briefed..."

 >>The audio of this one hour show can be heard by going to the
 >>archives at the Rehm home page. It should be up tomorrow April
 >>12. My question is the first one 40 minutes into the interview.

 >Thanks for the tip and putting the question to Cheney. The
 >question arises 26 minutes into the archived program for those
 >who want to go to the link and listen to it.

 >Here is the transcript:

 >Cameron: Since the statement made by George Bush last July,
 >    there is a vicious rumor circulating in the UFO
 >    community that you've been read into the UFO program.
 >    So my question to you is, in any of your government
 >    jobs, have you ever been briefed on the subject of
 >    UFOs, and if you have, when was it and what were you
 >    told?

 >Cheney: Well, if I had been briefed on it, I'm sure it was
 >    probably classified and I couldn't talk about it.

 >Rehm:  Is there investigation going on within this
 >    administration, Mr. Vice President, as to UFOs?

 >Cheney: I have not come across the subject since I've been back
 >    in government, oh like since January 20th.

 >Rehm:  All right.

 >Cheney: I've been in a lot of meetings, but I don't recall one
 >    on UFOs.

 >As a reminder to people, Cheney was the Secretary of Defense
 >under George the Elder. In fact, when George the Younger was
 >questioned about this last July and said he would look into it,
 >he mentioned that Cheney had been Secretary of Defense and would
 >therefore know about it.

 >What is interesting in Cheney's reply to Grant Cameron is that
 >he does not outright deny being briefed when he was Sec. of
 >Defense. Instead he gives a typical evasive answer. "IF I had
 >been briefed...." Then to make it more interesting, he says he
 >couldn't talk about even if he had been briefed because the
 >subject would have been classified.

 >When you cut through the Washingtonian doubletalk, Cheney is
 >tacitly admitting that UFOs are still classified and he had
 >been briefed.

 >Those damned pelicans are getting more important all the time.

 >David Rudiak

Dear David, Listers and EBK,

It has not yet been determined that these are Pelicans, David.
All this time, people have been saying, "Pelicans, Pelicans!"
Well, maybe prehistoric, previously thought extinct, flying
tyrannosaurus thingies. Or even maybe just regular planets, like
Venus. Possibly nothing more than swamp gas. Or that bit if
undigested boef... beef, even. But not necessarily Pelicans.

I know this bird theory is popular, Dave. But you know, maybe...
just _maybe_, these are... you are not gonna believe this, I
just know it... but they may actually be... intelligently driven
contrivances from another place or dimension or time. Maybe.

I realize this is a radical departure. But hey, somebody's gotta
say it.

UFO!

Gesundt

PS: Just kidding, David. One of the voices in my head made me do
it.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                       Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 14:39:11 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:14:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall


 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:44:59 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:12:31 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>but I'd be
 >>>more interested to hear, for example, of any prominent
 >>>abductologist who has criticised another such, despite them
 >>>often holding views which are mutually contradictory.

Kevin Randle's reply to Rimmer, and Rimmer's comments on same:

 >>This is just too easy.

 >You make some good points here, and it's clear that there is some
 >disagreement between abduction researchers, but...


John,

While waiting patiently for Bob Young to engage me in debate
about the merits of the agreed-upon UFO cases, I'll take a crack
at debating you here. It's good to see some rational thinking
and a willingness to concede a point (sort of). See my comments
following.

 >>In 'The Threat', David Jacobs wrote, "While Mack does not 'lead
 >>the witness' in the classic meaning of the phrase, he embraces
 >>the 'positive' therapeutic technique that leads to mutual
 >>confirmational fantasies and easily steers the abductee into
 >>dissociative channeled pathways."

 >These seem rather muted criticisms of methodology and not the
 >sort of dismantling of basic principles that ufologists/sceptics
 >adopt against each other. Of course it would be difficult for
 >Mack, Jacobs, et al to take each other too much to task for
 >their hypnotic regression methods, as their own invesigative
 >techniques might start to crumble as well.

Muted? Sounds like a pretty strong criticism to me. I have also
criticized Mack along similar lines. Their hypnotic regression
methods or techniques are all pretty similar; it's their
"filtering" mind sets and the attitudes and world views they
convey to their "clients" that tend to differ. For you to
suggest that they avoid criticizing each others methods for fear
of it backfiring on themselves amounts to a personal attack on
them. Why can't they honestly disagree?

 >>Dr. Richard Neal, writing in UFO Magazine, about cases of
 >>missing fetus, suggested, "Many researchers have claimed that
 >>they have several of Missing embryo/Fetus Syndrome in their
 >>files. Yet during my research into this phenomenon over the past
 >>three years, all have failed to produce one verified case. Why?"

 >Neal makes a valid criticism of the abductionists case and has
 >never been adequately answered, but he is hardly a mainstream
 >figure - I suspect he is probably as obscure as John Harney, as
 >he does not feature in Jerome Clark's encyclopaedia!

Dr. Neal was an active member of MUFON and often attended and
spoke at its conventions.

 >>Writing of abduction in general, Eddie Bullard noted, "The case
 >>for abduction means anecdotal evidence and little else. A
 >>physical phenomenon carried out on an extensive scale for
 >>decades by none-too-careful aliens has nevertheless left behind
 >>no convincing physical residue."

 >Bullard is not, in my opinion, either an abduction researcher or
 >a ufologist in the usual way that word is used. He is a
 >historian and folklorist, and has never been afraid to challenge
 >assumptions on both sides of the fence.

Eddie Bullard is a Board Member of the Fund for UFO Research,
and I believe also of the Center for UFO Studies, and
contributes regularly to U.S. UFO publications.

 >I'm happy to agree that there is a degree of self-criticism
 >within the 'ufological community'. However a lot of this is
 >because people are defending their own take on a particular
 >issse, as in the Mack/Jacobs disagreements you quote above. But
 >this cannot go too far.

No, it tends to stop short of ad hominem attacks. However, the
behavior you attribute to them is typical of scientific
give-and-take. I see it all the time in my work abstracting
scientific journals. Scientist A says his view is right
because... and Scientist B says Scientist A's view is wrong
because... They go round and round and others chime in. It's
called peer review.

I suspect one of the reasons scoffers/debunkers tend not to
engage in peer review is that they don't view themselves as a
"community". Our U.S. brand clearly view themselves as the
"defenders of science against human irrationality". It is a
crusade on their part.

Or could the reluctance on their part be due to a realization
that if they are too critical of each other, their own methods
and techniques may begin to crumble? Hmmm!

 >Mack and Jacobs may think the other is leading witnesses, but
 >neither can challenge the others research too deeply as it will
 >bring the whole abduction edifice crumbling to the ground.

This clearly implies that you think the "abduction edifice" is
totally dependent on testimony obtained using hypnotic
regression. I have worked with something like 150 abductees and
never once used hypnotic regression. Yet, I obtained typical
stories from them. And, again, it implies that the investigstors
are somehow being dishonest rather than honestly disagreeing.

 >It is reassuring to see that abductionist are willing to
 >criticism some aspects of their colleagues/rivals work, and they
 >should be pressed to explain how these criticisms do not equally
 >apply to their own work.

If you had read their respective writings, you would have the
answer to this.


Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:53:41 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:19:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:50:47 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:00:08 -0400

 >Perhaps the problem is, Greg, that you are only interesting in
 >who has "scored" on someone else, instead of what the
 >scientific issues are.

Not at all. And I'd be surprised if my posts here, or my
published work on UFOs (some of it's at www.gregsandow.com/ufo )
or music (some of it's at www.gregsandow.com) showed even a hint
of any such pattern. Not that there are scientific issues in
music, or at least not in music reviews, but there's an
equivalent - does a critic care mainly about scoring points,
who's good and who's bad, or does the critic raise larger
issues? I'm so much a larger-issue kind of guy, in most of my
public work, that this latest from Bob is rather comical.

The larger issue Bob doesn't refer to here - the one I've been
trying to discuss - is the intellectual climate of work on UFOs.
Where do we find UFO writing that looks like genuine intellectual
discourse? Where do we find UFO writing with genuine give and
take?

And, looming behind that, what kind of intellectual climate do we
find among published skeptics?

It's possible - easy, in fact - to raise that question without
confusing it with purely ufological issues, like the ETH. Even
if we all agreed that published skeptics showed every sign of
having closed minds, that wouldn't even be a tiny step toward
proving the ETH. (And, similarly, the existence of credulous
nonsense here on UpDates, and elsewhere in the UFO literature,
doesn't prove that aliens aren't here.)


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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:29:33 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:49:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow



 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:54:20 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>Having spoken with a few people (via email) I have yet to hear
 >>anyone say a bad word about him.

 >Well here goes.....

 >The only time I encountered Hopkins was at a Fortean Times
 >UnConvention a few years ago when he was supposed to
 >be talking about the Linda Napolitano case.

 >In fact his presentation was a general account of UFOs and
 >abductions which disappointed most of the audience, and he
 >carefully avoided taking any questions at the end of his talk.

 >I suspect he was unaware of the level of sophistication and
 >rational thinking present amongst Fortean Times readers, and was
 >rather frightened off by the critical reception they gave to
 >some previous speakers who thought they were going to have an
 >easy ride with the 'rubes'.

 >This may also be the reason why, after it was advertised that he
 >would be answering questions at a 'Brians Trust' session at the
 >end of the UnConvention, he suddenly found some urgent business
 >examining paintings at the National Gallery.

I wasn't at this event, and I don't know anything about who
planned what, or what Budd's side of the story might be. So I
won't attempt to defend him against John's conjectures about his
motives -- except on one point.

To anyone who knows Budd well, it's not at all surprising that
he had "urgent business" at the National Gallery. We're talking
here about a professional painter who for years has made regular
visits to his own hometown museum, the Metropolitan Museum in
New York, sometimes once each week. It's as necessary to him as
breathing. When he booked his trip to London for the
Unconvention (and whatever other UFO business might have paid
his way), the most exciting part, I'm sure, was the chance to
visit the National Gallery and other art spots.

Maybe this seems odd to some people. But it would't seem strange
to artists. Budd talks about UFOs every day; he sees the art in
the National Gallery only on the rare occasions when he's in
London. He can't afford to travel on his own, so the chance to
visit the National Gallery would -- with no disrespect to the
Unconvention -- inevitably be a great highlight of his trip.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:43:41 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:53:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 14:39:11 -0000

 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:44:59 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:12:31 +0100
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

<snip>

Dick and John,

Whereas this thread concerns the reluctance of skeptics to
crticize one anothers' stands and viewpoints I take issue with
John's following statement:

 >>These seem rather muted criticisms of methodology and not the
 >>sort of dismantling of basic principles that ufologists/sceptics
 >>adopt against each other.

John has lumped skeptics in with the ufologists constant review
of one anothers' stands and viewpoints. Since it is the basic
tennant of this thread that skeptics do not indulge in the
[dismantling of basic principles] that ufology does I'm curious
as to why you tried to inject that idea here.

I applaud your contention and your agreement that ufology does,
but think it ludicrous that you would suggest the same occurs in
skept-ology.

Let's see the examples.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:47:59 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:54:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 14:39:11 -0000

 >>Neal makes a valid criticism of the abductionists case and has
 >>never been adequately answered, but he is hardly a mainstream
 >>figure - I suspect he is probably as obscure as John Harney, as
 >>he does not feature in Jerome Clark's encyclopaedia!

 >Dr. Neal was an active member of MUFON and often attended and
 >spoke at its conventions.

I think it's also important that Neal gave his paper about
alleged missing fetuses at the 1992 abduction conference at MIT.
This conference was co-chaired by John Mack and David Pritchard.
(He's an MIT physicist who, I believe, has dropped out of
ufology, in part, I think, because of potential ridicule that
might have threatened his mainstream physics work. Certainly
he'd spoken to me about his worries about that.)

So the conference was a serious abduction event, attended not
just by Mack, but by Hopkins, Jacobs, and other big abduction
names. Neal (whose paper is published in the conference
proceedings) delivered his remarks directly to the people who'd
be most criticized by them. And the conference was set up to
make things like that happen.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:01:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:09:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:53:41 -0400

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:50:47 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:00:08 -0400

 >>Perhaps the problem is, Greg, that you are only interesting in
 >>who has "scored" on someone else, instead of what the
 >>scientific issues are.

Bob,

Greg can defend himself better than I can but you would be hard
pressed to find anyone on this list who lends himself to the
invictive less than Greg. He is always the gentleman and bends
over backwards to see your point of view.

Lately Bob I've noticed that you do not seem to be as well
grounded or versed in this area as I had first thought. Some of
your postings seem to imply an ignorance [I mean that in a good
way] of specific cases and the positions of certain listers.You
recent discourses on the Arnold sighting is just one example.
Your slur attached to Greg is another.

Greg is well grounded and well researched in the phenomenon.
Many of those espousing science are not. Ignorance is bliss.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:29:36 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:41:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:54:28 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


 >Here's what I can't figure out:

 >You obviously understand the difference between discussing
 >differences of opinion on a topic as opposed to the flat out
 >criticizing of another person. Yet, for some reason beyond me,
 >you and Jerry find some sort of redeeming value in the latter.

UFO discussions on the Internet can be a shock, I think, to
people used to intellectual life elsewhere. (Except maybe in and
around politics.) For one thing, the ease of posting creates a
sense of rough equality, in which respect for experience and
expertise can tend to disappear. (I can't believe I'm sounding
so conversative!) Thus, Jerry and Dick Hall, who've been working
in the field for decades, are challenged to provide lists of
cases, as if they hadn't already done that in well known
published work.

I'd be just as amazed by this if the target was a widely
published skeptic. If Phil Klass or Robert Sheaffer were on this
list, I'd object to anyone who said, "OK, Phil, OK, Bob, give us
ten reasons why you think UFOs aren't alien." They've already
done that in their books, and deserve respect for that. People
should pose questions with respect, and with apologies, if
necessary, for not having read their work. I can't hold myself
up as any paragon of virtue - in my time on the Net I'm sure
I've done everything I complain about --but certainly when I
interviewed Klass, I didn't come at him with any challenge like,
"Prove to me that UFO sightings are explainable!" I'd read two
of his debunking books (to my embarrassment, not the third), and
asked him questions based on what he'd written. "In your book,
you raise this objection to a famous case. But it seems to
me...."

I'll grant that, unfortunately, some of the most serious pro-UFO
books are expensive and perhaps not easy to find in libraries.
I'm thinking, for instance, of Richard's two editions of "The
UFO Evidence," or Jerry's encyclopedia, or Eddie Bullard's 1987
FUFOR study on abductions, or issues of JUFOS. There's also
quite a large literature on UFO history - especially of early
government and military involvement - that you're not going to
find at your local bookstore. But still we should conduct
ourselves with respect for the work that's already been done. We
should (this includes me) be asking about it, rather than acting
as if it doesn't exist, or is somehow irrelevant. (Or, for that
matter, writing in apparent ignorance of what's in the UFO
literature, as I've seen some active participants do here.)

Secondly, there's a lot of confused and, I think, dishonest
debate. If I find myself grossly misrepresented, I'm going to
say so. Sorry if that offends anyone. I'm especially going to do
it if the misrepresentation includes nonsense about my motives.
I might add that I wrote a post some time ago about the tone
skeptics often adopt - a tone of ridicule, in it appears to be
taken for granted that people on the other side of the debate
are stupid, unscientific, self-contradictory, ingenuous, you
name it. I experimented with taking that tone a few times
myself, in return, just to see how it would look. I'm not crazy
about continuing that, but I'm not happy with an atmosphere in
which people on one side of the debate are allowed to engage in
ridicule, and others are rapped on the knuckles for responding
with even a fraction of the venom that's routinely sprayed their
way.

The best I can say for skeptics in this regard is that some of
them seem genuinely to think that people who favor the ETH are
credulous believers. These skeptics also seem to think that
people with sympathy for the ETH come to that position out of
some deep-seated emotional need, and that everything they say
is, in the end, either an attempt to argue for the ETH or a yelp
of pain, a scream of frustration because the arguments for the
ETH aren't good enough. That's clearly not true of Jerry,
Richard Hall, or myself (or of people who often take our side in
some of these debates, like Brad Sparks and Mark Cashman, who
are inclined to believe that UFOs represent something unknown,
but don't argue for the ETH). And even though I think I
understand the skeptical position here, I think it's wrong, and
won't apologize for my frustration when I'm treated like a child
by someone who ignores what I'm clearly trying to say.

 >If this is the distinction that you find absent from the skeptic
 >camp, then I'd say that skeptics are much better off quietly
 >disagreeing with each other's position than to engage in the
 >type of "hits" that you seem to feel are so vital to intelligent
 >discussion. And you can't say that this isn't what you really
 >mean.

Brad Sparks has stated my position very well. It's a question of
scientific debate and peer review, not personal or even
intellectual "hits."


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 >
   Apr > Apr 13

             Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:37:57 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:46:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Bourdais


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:35:19 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


Robert,

 >Bottom line is
 >unless of course Ray or the camerman lied when they claimed
 >it had been kept hidden for 50 years.

 >Cheers,

 >Robert


I am glad that you open this possibility at the end of your
message.

A basic question!


Cheers too,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                  Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:48:39 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:21:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Rudiak


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:21:04 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Salvaille

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:58:11 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Amen. To this I would like to add that it isn't all that
 >>difficult to acquire and follow objects through low-power
 >>telescopes with a little experience. The purpose of low-power
 >>"finder telescopes" attached to larger, high-power telescopes is
 >>exactly this. If anything, it is more difficult than prospector
 >>Johnson's job because one has to crane one's neck into awkward
 >>positions and then look through scope that has everything
 >>inverted.

 >>The trick to using these finder scopes is to simultaneously look
 >>through the scope with one eye and use the unaided eye to
 >>"point" to the object or region one wants to look at.

 >>These small scopes usually have powers down around 6x. I have
 >>even followed jets through the larger scope at powers of 50x
 >>(everything still inverted and with everything on an equatorial
 >>mount). It's not easy, but it can be done. (Think also how
 >>military observers follow jets through binoculars.)

 >>A lot depends on angular speed, not absolute speed. The Johnson
 >>report is unfortunately devoid of such details. If he had
 >>initially seen fast moving objects of in the distance headed
 >>directly for his position, they would have loomed but had little
 >>angular velocity at first until they got relatively close and
 >>zoomed overhead.

 >Where is it written that Johnson used an astronomical
 >telescope?

 >If he did use one, Bob is right: you can't follow an object
 >with a magnification factor which I would estimate to be a
 >minimum of 40x.

Sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say that
he was using an astronomical telescope. I pointed out that with
the low-power finder scope (mine was 6x), it was quite easy to
acquire objects, even moving ones like jet planes and
satellites. Then I could switch to the regular scope and follow
the moving objects at an even higher power (50x).

 >If he did use a hypothetical finder on his telescope, I believe:

 >1. He would have said so, because a savvy astronomical user
 >would necessarily make the distinction;

 >2. Forget it: it's no piece of cake to follow anything with a
 >finder scope mounted on an astronomical instrument, even with
 >experience, because your experience is only pertinent to
 >pointing at motionless objects in the sky.

Again, I didn't mean literally that he used an astronomical
telescope fitted with a finder scope. It was just an example
from my own experience.

In fact, I was assuming, like you do below, that Johnson used a
low power telescope similar to the low power finder scope. If
you are experienced, it is quite easy to acquire moving objects
and follow them (assuming the angular speed isn't too
outrageous, like for a shooting star).

 >My take on this: as a prospector, Johnson used a _monocular_
 >field telescope; you know, the kind of thing used by Long John
 >Silver?

 >The object can be defined as: "A spotting telescope, which
 >resembles half a binocular. Monoculars are often hand-held, and
 >are used in much the same way, and for the same purposes, as
 >binoculars."

Right, I agree. Or it could have been a mounted, low-power
theodolite scope used in surveying.

Another point I was trying to make is that such a scope wouldn't
be handicapped with inverted images on the astronomical finder
scope or main scope and be attached to a clunky,
hard-to-maneuver mount. Despite these obstacles, I followed
many a satellite and jet plane through my main scope after
locating them with the finder scope.

Johnson should have had an easier time of it. The primary
question in my mind is not whether he could possibly acquire a
moving object and follow it with such a scope. He could if the
angular speed wasn't too great. Bob Young, on the other hand,
proclaimed flatly that is was "impossible" under all
circumstances.

The main question in my mind would be the angular speeds. If
they were too great then Bob Young has a point. Unfortunately,
Johnson's report lacks the necessary detail to determine what
the angular speeds might have been.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                    Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:56:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:23:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:12:05 -0000

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:14:43 -0400

<snip>

 >Am I supposed to do your homework for you? Read what I wrote! I
 >will tell you that I expressed strong doubts and skepticism
 >about the Gulf Breeze photos, and criticized and disagreed with
 >Bruce's analysis though he knows far more about technical
 >photoanalysis than I do, which does give me some pause. (By the
 >way, Bruce and I remain friends and understand scientific
 >disagreement.)

 >Also read what I say about Gulf Breeze in my current
 >unmentionable book which cites the MUFON articles and others
 >(Section VII, Footnote 17), mention of which sends certain
 >debunkers/scoffers into frenzies of insults and accusations.

 >Please don't hold your breath; do some research instead.

<snip>

Richard,

Having a bad day?

I mean, for all the postings you've done lately on the List, I
am sure that this kind of response would have saved you more
than a couple hundred lines. We could even reach the thousands
if you push the pedantry to the point of referring to your own
posts in the last years.

In case you haven't noticed, this is a forum.

I issued my post because you did not answer a simple and direct
question.

Your dodging of the issue surprised me.

Now, if I skip the unneeded patronizing remarks, I'll say that
your criticizing of Bruce just proves that a healthy debate is
the trademark of true ufologists.

Ultimately you gave the answer you should have given in the
first place.

Nice.

No reason to be impolite.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:52:20 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:24:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


Lest we forget....

This long and entertaining "Debunkers' Guidebook" thread started
when I asked Jerome Clark if he could present any example of a
"debunker" claiming that eyewitness testimony could be
disregarded as worthless.

We've heard a lot from Mr Clark on other topics but not, I fear,
an answer to this simple question.

Why am I not surprised?


--
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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:48:09 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:27:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 14:39:11 -0000

 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:44:59 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Kevin Randle's reply to Rimmer, and Rimmer's comments on same:

 >>>This is just too easy.

 >>You make some good points here, and it's clear that there is some
 >>disagreement between abduction researchers, but...

 >John,

 >While waiting patiently for Bob Young to engage me in debate
 >about the merits of the agreed-upon UFO cases, I'll take a crack
 >at debating you here. It's good to see some rational thinking
 >and a willingness to concede a point (sort of). See my comments
 >following.

 >>>In 'The Threat', David Jacobs wrote, "While Mack does not 'lead
 >>>the witness' in the classic meaning of the phrase, he embraces
 >>>the 'positive' therapeutic technique that leads to mutual
 >>>confirmational fantasies and easily steers the abductee into
 >>>dissociative channeled pathways."

 >>These seem rather muted criticisms of methodology and not the
 >>sort of dismantling of basic principles that ufologists/sceptics
 >>adopt against each other. Of course it would be difficult for
 >>Mack, Jacobs, et al to take each other too much to task for
 >>their hypnotic regression methods, as their own invesigative
 >>techniques might start to crumble as well.

 >Muted? Sounds like a pretty strong criticism to me. I have also
 >criticized Mack along similar lines. Their hypnotic regression
 >methods or techniques are all pretty similar; it's their
 >"filtering" mind sets and the attitudes and world views they
 >convey to their "clients" that tend to differ. For you to
 >suggest that they avoid criticizing each others methods for fear
 >of it backfiring on themselves amounts to a personal attack on
 >them. Why can't they honestly disagree?

I'm sure they do honestly disagree, and I don't see that my
comments could be construed as a personal attack. But obviously
both have investigated many - certainly not all - of their cases
using hypnotic techniques. They will disagree with certain
aspects of interpretation, but it is no none of their interests
to denounce any particular technique too strongly. I think
Jacob's comment quoted above *is* rather muted, as he takes
pains to assure us that Mack does not lead the witness "in the
classic meaning of that phrase".

 >>>Dr. Richard Neal, writing in UFO Magazine, about cases of
 >>>missing fetus, suggested, "Many researchers have claimed that
 >>>they have several of Missing embryo/Fetus Syndrome in their
 >>>files. Yet during my research into this phenomenon over the past
 >>>three years, all have failed to produce one verified case. Why?"

 >>Neal makes a valid criticism of the abductionists case and has
 >>never been adequately answered, but he is hardly a mainstream
 >>figure - I suspect he is probably as obscure as John Harney, as
 >>he does not feature in Jerome Clark's encyclopaedia!

 >Dr. Neal was an active member of MUFON and often attended and
 >spoke at its conventions.

I'm sure Neal was a dilligent researcher. My comment was aimed
at Jerome Clark, who seemed to imply in an earlier posting that
because John Harney did not command as high a profile as some
other researchers, then his critical comments on Klass need not
be given too much weight.

 >>>Writing of abduction in general, Eddie Bullard noted, "The case
 >>>for abduction means anecdotal evidence and little else. A
 >>>physical phenomenon carried out on an extensive scale for
 >>>decades by none-too-careful aliens has nevertheless left behind
 >>>no convincing physical residue."
 >
 >>Bullard is not, in my opinion, either an abduction researcher or
 >>a ufologist in the usual way that word is used. He is a
 >>historian and folklorist, and has never been afraid to challenge
 >>assumptions on both sides of the fence.

 >Eddie Bullard is a Board Member of the Fund for UFO Research,
 >and I believe also of the Center for UFO Studies, and
 >contributes regularly to U.S. UFO publications.

I know this, but his writings have always seemed to me to be
those of an informed, neutral observer of the scene. I wonder if
Bullard considers himself a ufologist?

 >>I'm happy to agree that there is a degree of self-criticism
 >>within the 'ufological community'. However a lot of this is
 >>because people are defending their own take on a particular
 >>issse, as in the Mack/Jacobs disagreements you quote above. But
 >>this cannot go too far.

 >No, it tends to stop short of ad hominem attacks. However, the
 >behavior you attribute to them is typical of scientific
 >give-and-take. I see it all the time in my work abstracting
 >scientific journals. Scientist A says his view is right
 >because... and Scientist B says Scientist A's view is wrong
 >because... They go round and round and others chime in. It's
 >called peer review.

I cannot agree that critical comment in the UFO 'community'
stops short of ad-hominem attacks! I do agree that within
ufology arguments go round and round - Rendlesham comes to mind,
for some reason - but I wonder if we are any the better off for
that!

 >I suspect one of the reasons scoffers/debunkers tend not to
 >engage in peer review is that they don't view themselves as a
 >"community". Our U.S. brand clearly view themselves as the
 >"defenders of science against human irrationality". It is a
 >crusade on their part.

I think you have a good point here, but I both sides are engaged
in a crusade. I suppose that as ufologists are to some extent
"outsiders" from the consensus scientific view, they are likely
to have a stronger sense of "community" - like any minority
group. While this may lead to a banding together to form a
common front against external criticism, it may also promote a
stronger "self-policing" against errant views within the
community in order to present a clearer, more focussed image to
the outside world. Thus people whose viewpoints and methods are
generally unacceptable, such as he-who-must-not-be-named, come
under sustained critical attack.

With the sceptics, there is no such imperative to present a
united front. If Phil Klass's explanation for Case A differs
from Robert Scheaffer's this is not going to challenge their
consensus world view, and they can afford to shrug shoulders and
say "whatever". Differing as to whether Socorro was a hoax by
kids or a hoax by Zamarro does not mean that either of them has
to accept instead that it was an extraterrestrial spacecraft, so
there is no particular benefit for them in arguing the toss.
However, accepting either of those explanations does challenge
those who are promoting the idea of the ETH.

 >Or could the reluctance on their part be due to a realization
 >that if they are too critical of each other, their own methods
 >and techniques may begin to crumble? Hmmm!

I don't think this is the reason. I think the primary reason
that there is less sceptic-on-sceptic criticism than there is
ufologist-on- ufologist criticism (and yes, I do agree that this
is so, I am merely challenging Jerry's assumption that there is
*none* of the former) is that the sceptics are starting their
argument from a consensus position - UFO reports do not
represent extraterrestrial spacecraft - and have no particular
need to get involved in long and acrimonious, and it must be
said sometimes boring, debates. ETH ufologists, on the other
hand, are proselytising a contentious hypothesis and have a
stronger incentive to take on any viewpoints which challenge it,
whether they come from sceptics or other ufologists.

 >>Mack and Jacobs may think the other is leading witnesses, but
 >>neither can challenge the others research too deeply as it will
 >>bring the whole abduction edifice crumbling to the ground.

 >This clearly implies that you think the "abduction edifice" is
 >totally dependent on testimony obtained using hypnotic
 >regression. I have worked with something like 150 abductees and
 >never once used hypnotic regression. Yet, I obtained typical
 >stories from them. And, again, it implies that the investigstors
 >are somehow being dishonest rather than honestly disagreeing.

I don't think that the abduction phenomenon is totally dependent
on hypnotically regressed evidence (many of the cases summarised
in my book "Evidence for Alien Abductions" [Thorson, 1984] are
non-hypnotic) but much of the evidence presented by the leading
abduction researchers does depend quite heavily on hynotic
methods, and the phenomenon would be quite different if these
were not used - look for example at the position in Britain,
where little if any hynotic regression work is undertaken.

As I say above, I am not implying dishonesty to either Mack or
Jacobs, but they have developed theories from their research
which are in almost total contradiction to each other. If Mack
is right, then Jacobs has to be wrong, I can see no other
conclusion. Yet the most they can do in criticisng each other is
to make some carefully phrased comments about the other's
regression techniques, which Mack seems to have withdrawn almost
immediately.

 >>It is reassuring to see that abductionist are willing to
 >>criticism some aspects of their colleagues/rivals work, and they
 >>should be pressed to explain how these criticisms do not equally
 >>apply to their own work.

 >If you had read their respective writings, you would have the
 >answer to this.

I have, and I don't.



--
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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                    Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:55:01 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:28:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer


Lest we forget... II

Another thread which seems to have taken wings without answering
the simple original question.

Examples please (preferably within the past, oh, thirty years)
of a UFO case being dismissed as "mass hysteria" by sceptics.

--
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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                         Re: Data Exchange - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:59:56 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:29:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Data Exchange - Rimmer


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Data Exchange
 >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:37:40 -0000

 >I would be delighted to have, say, a couple of years back issues
 >of Magonia, and a current complimentary subscription, for my
 >Donald E. Keyhoe Archives where they would be available to
 >scholarly researchers and news media types, as well as to my
 >closest colleagues. In return, I would be willing to send
 >something of equivalent value from my holdings (Perhaps some of
 >the critical articles mentioned above)or to arrange for some
 >complimentary copies of Fund for UFO Research publications,
 >which are numerous.

Send me a postal address and I'll add you to the mailing list
and send a bundle of back issues. I'd be happy to have your
choice of FUFOR publications in exchange (I already have Jerry
Clark's "Demons Spacemen and Conspiracies).


--
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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                          Secrecy News -- 04/13/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:49:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:32:26 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 04/13/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
April 13, 2001

**DOE IG FINDS NO RACIAL PROFILING
**GAO PUSHES FOR ACCESS TO NSC RECORDS


DOE IG FINDS NO RACIAL PROFILING

A limited investigation conducted by the Department of Energy
Inspector General (DOE IG) in the aftermath of the Wen Ho Lee
case found no evidence that racial profiling is a factor in the
granting, denial or revocation of security clearances by DOE.

"Information reviewed by the Office of Inspector General did not
support concerns regarding unfair treatment based on national
origin in the security processes reviewed," wrote Gregory H.
Friedman, the DOE IG, in an April 3 memorandum to the Secretary
of Energy.

Mr. Friedman carefully noted, however, that his review did not
encompass the "strong and continuing allegations about bias and
profiling" reported by the DOE Ombudsman. The Ombudsman
declined to provide the underlying data, citing the
confidentiality of the complaints he had received.

Mr. Friedman also said that the Department had not adequately
implemented the recommendations of a 1994 General Accounting
Office report which found that the clearances of certain racial
or ethnic groups in certain offices were suspended more often
than would be statistically expected.

Finally, Mr. Friedman noted that his review did not include an
examination of the Wen Ho Lee case itself since that is the
subject of a review by the Department of Justice.

The Justice Department investigation of the Lee case, announced
by then-Attorney General Janet Reno on September 22, is still
ongoing, a Department official said on March 22.

Mr. Friedman's "Special Review of Profiling Concerns at the
Department of Energy" is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/ig_profiling.html


GAO PUSHES FOR ACCESS TO NSC RECORDS

Over the past year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) of the
U.S. Congress has engaged in a remarkable tug of war with the
National Security Council (NSC) over access to records
concerning U.S. support for U.N. peacekeeping operations.
Details of the struggle for access were provided in a GAO report
to Congress that was published last month "by mistake" and
withdrawn from circulation.

At the request of the House Committee on International
Relations, the GAO began an investigation in 1999 into how the
Clinton Administration determined whether to support
peacekeeping activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
East Timor, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone. The GAO project required
access to records held by the State Department, the Defense
Department and the National Security Council.

"We have been unable to complete the study because of
difficulties in getting access to some of these records," GAO
officials wrote in a March 6, 2001 report to Congress.

"Our [unsuccessful] experience in trying to obtain access to
executive branch records concerning U.S. decisions to support
new or expanded U.N. peacekeeping operations has impaired our
ability to conduct meaningful oversight work for Congress that
is timely, independent, objective, fact-based, accurate, and
complete," the officials wrote last month.

The March 6 report to Congress provides a rather gripping
account -- if quarrels over access to government information can
be gripping -- of the clash between executive branch
policymakers and congressional overseers. The GAO report and
attachments, totaling 28 pages, document the escalating conflict
between GAO and the executive branch, leading all the way up to
a notice to the President informing him of an intent to seek
"judicial enforcement" of its demand for access.

The report was published "by mistake" on the GAO web site, a
GAO official said, and it has been removed. "Ordinarily,
documents reporting the status of ongoing jobs are not supposed
to be posted on the web," the official said.

However, the withdrawn report and attachments, entitled "U.N.
Peacekeeping: GAO's Access to Records on Executive Branch
Decision-making" (GAO-01-440R) were acquired by FAS and are now
posted here:

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao-01-440r.htm

Despite the change of Administrations, the dispute with the NSC
continues, an official said today. "Their concern is the same,"
the official said. "They want to avoid a chilling of the
deliberative process in the executive branch."

The GAO official expressed cautious optimism today that the
conflict would be satisfactorily resolved. "I think we'll get
what we need." A related dispute with the Defense Department
was settled last month without the threatened need for
litigation. State Department cooperation was achieved late last
year. A final GAO report on the subject could be published in
"a couple of months."

******************************

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]


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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:22:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:43:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:29:33 -0400

<snip>

 >Maybe this seems odd to some people. But it would't seem strange
 >to artists. Budd talks about UFOs every day; he sees the art in
 >the National Gallery only on the rare occasions when he's in
 >London. He can't afford to travel on his own, so the chance to
 >visit the National Gallery would - with no disrespect to the
 >Unconvention - inevitably be a great highlight of his trip.


Greg,

No offense to you or Hopkins, but I can't believe that Budd
"can't afford to travel on his own." Some or another airline is
always offering bargain basement fares from NY to London every
other week.

During my days as a freelance writer, I was regularly poor as a
church mouse, and still managed to make it over to England
(twice) to look into those crazy crop circles, no less. Where
there's a will, there's a way... or something like that.

Anyway, if I have this particular event down right, I think I
was there. You or John the Rimmer can correct me, but I seem to
recall that Budd absented himself from the Q & A session in
question because he refused to appear on the same stage with
Klass, allegedly because of the latter's treatment of abductees
or remarks re same. And hied himself to the National Gallery
instead.


FWIW...

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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:41:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:45:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:29:36 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

 >>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:54:28 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


Previously, I had written:

 >>You obviously understand the difference between discussing
 >>differences of opinion on a topic as opposed to the flat out
 >>criticizing of another person. Yet, for some reason beyond me,
 >>you and Jerry find some sort of redeeming value in the latter.

Greg replied:

 >Thus, Jerry and Dick Hall, who've been working
 >in the field for decades, are challenged to provide lists of
 >cases, as if they hadn't already done that in well known
 >published work.

<snip>

 >I'll grant that, unfortunately, some of the most serious pro-UFO
 >books are expensive and perhaps not easy to find in libraries.
 >I'm thinking, for instance, of Richard's two editions of "The
 >UFO Evidence," or Jerry's encyclopedia, or Eddie Bullard's 1987
 >FUFOR study on abductions, or issues of JUFOS. There's also
 >quite a large literature on UFO history - especially of early
 >government and military involvement - that you're not going to
 >find at your local bookstore.

Hi Greg!

If you know this to be true, then how can you chastise someone
or hold them accountable for not having access to these
materials? It is an assumption you make that skeptics either
haven't read the materials or have read them and have ignored
them. What is amazing to me is that skeptics should be held to a
higher standard than Ufologists. I refer to Richard Hall's
recent post where he lamented:

 >Something that is becoming evident to me in the often
 >acrimonious exchanges in regard to internal criticism by
 >advocates as compared to doubters, is that we apparently do not
 >know each others' UFO literature very well.

In the end, it is not the skeptics' duty to prove the ETH, but
rather, the duty of those that feel the ETH is the most
reasonable explanation for the best of the UFO casefiles. When a
skeptic asks to see "evidence" or "proof", Ufologists recoil
into a well worn routine of referral to previous works;
information that you and Richard both admit is not that readily
available or well known. This would not be so bad if not for the
feigned indignation and artificial importance attached.

Again, the double standard runs straight and true. You claimed
that skeptics don't criticize each other's work and offer up Bob
Young's lack of response in providing examples as some sort of
proof of your position. You then follow up with examples that
show skeptics do, in fact, criticize each other though not as
often as would satisfy Ufologists. You chastise those demanding
proof of your position for not reading materials that, by all
accounts, are not that well known or available. Ultimately, it
would appear from Richard's post that being ill acquainted with
some Pro-UFO literature is considered only an unfortunate
oversight, as long as Ufologists are involved. But let a skeptic
make the same transgression, and suddenly it is inexcusable
ignorance.

And let's be clear about this: Just what is it that skeptics
might be ignorant of? In the end, until ET life and ET
visitation has been proved, then something as impressive as
Jerry's Big Book of UFOs is really nothing more than a
collection of folk lore. As such, anyone's papers relating to
said cases are nothing more than opinions on folk lore.
Interesting opinions, maybe, but nothing anywhere close to proof
or even convincing evidence. Just guesses.

Regarding these opinions, Greg wrote:

 >But still we should conduct
 >ourselves with respect for the work that's already been done. We
 >should (this includes me) be asking about it, rather than acting
 >as if it doesn't exist, or is somehow irrelevant. (Or, for that
 >matter, writing in apparent ignorance of what's in the UFO
 >literature, as I've seen some active participants do here.)

I couldn't agree more. The only thing that I would add is that
Ufologists also shouldn't act as if questions don't exist or are
somehow irrelevant to the discussion at hand. (Or, for that
matter, writing in apparent ignorance of what's in the UFO
UpDates archives, as I've seen some active participants do
here.) I believe in the probability of ET life and ET visitation
but I believe that the Ufology camp has become a little too
cocky in their position and a reality check is badly needed.
There is no proof; they have proved nothing and demanding that
skeptics "disprove" folklore is childish. To demonize skeptics
for asking unpopular questions that should, by all accounts, be
easily accounted for is a really poor substitute for actually
answering the questions. If skeptics ask questions out of
ignorance, then Ufologists should enlighten them with a good
answer as opposed to the Waffle House special of avoidance,
ridicule and selective memory.

Finally, you wrote:

 >Brad Sparks has stated my position very well. It's a question of
 >scientific debate and peer review, not personal or even
 >intellectual "hits."

If that's the case, then I don't see what the problem is. As you
have already pointed out, skeptics have been known to disagree
with each other's positions in the past; you even pointed out
the very literature. If it's not enough to satisfy Ufologists,
then that is really just too bad, frankly. Again, it is not the
job of skeptics to prove the ETH. If skeptics chose to do
absolutely _nothing_ but sit at their computers and do no
research what so ever, it doesn't change the responsibility of
the Ufology campers to prove their case. If Ufologists get to
decide if something has been debunked, then it is only fair that
skeptics get to decide if something is convincing.

What's convincing to you and me might not be the same as what's
convincing to them. But who's fault is that, really?

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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:52:10 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:47:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Jones


 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:54:20 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

Evening John

 >Well here goes.....

 >The only time I encountered Hopkins was at a Fortean Times
 >UnConvention a few years ago when he was supposed to be talking
 >about the Linda Napolitano case.

 >In fact his presentation was a general account of UFOs and
 >abductions which disappointed most of the audience, and he
 >carefully avoided taking any questions at the end of his talk.

 >I suspect he was unaware of the level of sophistication and
 >rational thinking present amongst Fortean Times readers, and was
 >rather frightened off by the critical reception they gave to
 >some previous speakers who thought they were going to have an
 >easy ride with the 'rubes'.

 >This may also be the reason why, after it was advertised that he
 >would be answering questions at a 'Brians Trust' session at the
 >end of the UnConvention, he suddenly found some urgent business
 >examining paintings at the National Gallery.

 >As I recall, his place on the platform was taken by a rubber
 >alien's head!

Well it seems that we were both at the UnConvention. I wrote a
report of it for UFOMEK, a local group that has all but
disbanded in these quiet times.

You can read a copy of the report at:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/letter19.htm

I'm not sure why you say this:

 >I suspect he was unaware of the level of sophistication and
 >rational thinking present amongst Fortean Times readers,

Because there was the usual smattering of "weirdos" as well as
your intelligent person. By the way, this is the first time that
I met Jenny Randles in person as well.

If I remember correctly I crossed swords with Jim Moseley of
Saucer Smear fame and got threatened with being sued for my
comments about Paul Devereaux! What a whale of a time.

But anyway, back to the point, Budd, you have your opinion, I
have mine, shall we leave it there?

--

    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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                               'Military' UFOs

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:55:19 -0400
Subject: 'Military' UFOs


Hi All,

The 'talk' about the Nellis Craft being "made in the USA"
started me thinking. What bothers me is, military UFOs is one of
those situations where 1+1 never equals 2.

(If) the Nellis craft is one of ours, and it employs some kind
of miraculous anti-gravity drive, why does the military continue
to allow NASA to grab congressional $ and piss away billions in
tax-payer resources just to shoot live astronauts (who are
strapped inside of tin cans which are in turn strapped to costly
and dangerous bottle rockets) out into space? You'd think the
Pentagon would want all that moola for themselves. (Unless
NASA is already in the 'purview' of the Pentagon!)

One of my all time favorite movies is Dr. Strangelove. In it,
the Peter Sellers character (Dr. Strangelove) asks the Russian
ambassador why 'Premier Kissoff' hasn't made their "doomsday"
machine a matter of public knowledge. Strangelove reminds the
ambassador that the whole 'point' of such a device would be to
strike "Fear" into the heart of the enemy (deterrent value) and
cripple his ability to initiate aggression. (Checkmate)

The same is true of these alleged 'Military UFOs.' It would be a
coup for the US military. Whoever controls UFO technology
controls the world. The congress would allocate funds (by the
fistful) that would make past military wartime budgets look like
pocket change. Given the surplus in this country I'm sure we'd
want a 'fleet' of them. It's the American way.

Recently when I saw the aircraft that was being used for
"spying" I almost busted a gut laughing. That thing may be
"ultra-top-secret-state-of-the-art" inside... but outside it is
about as subtle as a Pink elephant. It was a big, clunky, four
engine plane. It had to be to carry all that crap and, 24 crew
members.

(If) the military is in possession of UFO technology they could
send a Nellis style craft over there in minutes, float it right
over the Chinese presidents private office in full view of all,
record whatever they want to, and leave without fear of ever
being discovered. The Chinese would think they're looking at a
UFO from Tralfamador for all they'd know.

Why risk our people and use clunky/detectable airplanes if we
have UFOs?  None of it makes sense.

Historically, every time the military types find a way to make
the "stick" they wield BIGGER, the first thing they do is to
wave it in everyone's face. (A little old fashioned sabre
rattling.) Man, they would score huge brownie points with the
American public, who would throw their support behind 'making
America invincible' in a New York minute.

(If you don't think that's true, come and talk to the
flag_waving morons that tied yellow ribbons around trees for our
captured _spies!_) They would not only throw their support
behind a fleet of American UFOs, they would throw their money at
it in precedent setting quantities. If these alleged military
UFOs were also capable of going beyond earth's atmosphere and
maneuvering in space then America would control the world, and
outer space.

Nope, something's wrong.

The _only_ reason I can think of for them to hide such a thing
(bigger than the news of the development of the atomic bomb by
several orders of magnitude) is if they are trying to hide
something _major_.

What would that 'something' be that they would work so hard to
keep it secret from us and the world?

My "guess" is, it's the "source" of the technology that they
need to hide. If the technology itself wasn't a dead give-away
they would be flaunting it in the faces of everyone. Otherwise,
I don't understand why they aren't flying these things openly.
(and worldwide.)

As Stangelove said, "It vout schtrike _FEAR_ into zee hearts uf
zee enemy mein Fuhrer!"  ;)

Anybody else care to speculate?


Regards,

John Velez

Wondering why the guy across the table is not putting down his
winning hand considering the huge pot that is staring him in the
face.  ;)



                      "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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 06:28:34 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 09:59:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch


 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:48:09 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 14:39:11 -0000

 >>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:44:59 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

<snip>


 >I think you have a good point here, but I both sides are engaged
 >in a crusade. I suppose that as ufologists are to some extent
 >"outsiders" from the consensus scientific view, they are likely
 >to have a stronger sense of "community" - like any minority
 >group. While this may lead to a banding together to form a
 >common front against external criticism, it may also promote a
 >stronger "self-policing" against errant views within the
 >community in order to present a clearer, more focussed image to
 >the outside world. Thus people whose viewpoints and methods are
 >generally unacceptable, such as he-who-must-not-be-named, come
 >under sustained critical attack.

 >With the sceptics, there is no such imperative to present a
 >united front. If Phil Klass's explanation for Case A differs
 >from Robert Scheaffer's this is not going to challenge their
 >consensus world view, and they can afford to shrug shoulders and
 >say "whatever". Differing as to whether Socorro was a hoax by
 >kids or a hoax by Zamarro does not mean that either of them has
 >to accept instead that it was an extraterrestrial spacecraft, so
 >there is no particular benefit for them in arguing the toss.
 >However, accepting either of those explanations does challenge
 >those who are promoting the idea of the ETH.

 >>Or could the reluctance on their part be due to a realization
 >>that if they are too critical of each other, their own methods
 >>and techniques may begin to crumble? Hmmm!

 >I don't think this is the reason. I think the primary reason
 >that there is less sceptic-on-sceptic criticism than there is
 >ufologist-on- ufologist criticism (and yes, I do agree that this
 >is so, I am merely challenging Jerry's assumption that there is
 >*none* of the former) is that the sceptics are starting their
 >argument from a consensus position - UFO reports do not
 >represent extraterrestrial spacecraft - and have no particular
 >need to get involved in long and acrimonious, and it must be
 >said sometimes boring, debates. ETH ufologists, on the other
 >hand, are proselytising a contentious hypothesis and have a
 >stronger incentive to take on any viewpoints which challenge it,
 >whether they come from sceptics or other ufologists.

Hello John:

You may have simplified matters here. (at long last...)

Suppose someone seriously took the position, admittedly
off-center, that Santa Claus and his helpers used reindeer
driven craft to distract people from huge toy purchases in
communist countries.

Further suppose that this view, with variations, gained some
sort of following. This following might split into various
camps:

a) Those who think the toys come from North Korea,

b, c, d, e) Ditto, but from other commie countries...

f) Those who suspect the involvement of Western governments...

g) Those who believe the new toys are made from stolen auto
    parts..

These groups a-g and above might loudly and publicly argue.
This is testimony to their sincerity, however misplaced.

Predictably, there would be hooters, nay-sayers and other
wet-blankets who think the entire idea was nonsense.

1) The rationalist who points out impossible logistic problems,
    like transportation in secrecy etc.

2) The economists who reason that Santa et. cie. would go broke.

3) The communists themselves who do not believe in Santa Claus.

4) Numerous others for "commonsense" reasons.

This _second_ group would be in no hurry to argue with one
another. As John pointed out, their differences are very minor
compared to the first assertion! They seldom squabble much over
perceived trifles; its hardly the point.

There is, however, a Third Group! I call them the cynical
SOBs.

The CSOBs know damned well Santa cannot be buying Xmas toys for
the kiddies, especially from the communists, but they don't
care. These are the folks who feed belief for profit!

w) The ones who invent new elves.

x) The ones who hold conventions in .. (name a place ..
    Start in Nevada..)

z) The ones who rely most heavily on the weak of mind.

These sorts _never_ disagree in public, no matter how badly they
hate one another, how hard they compete, nor how completely
their mutually exclusive assertions conflict.

Have radio listeners here noticed how nicely various scam
artists seem to dovetail their wildly convergent views,
especially on, say, the Art Bell show? Why! Its all part of the
"Quickening!" (profits-wise.)

What's the old Italian saying?

   "Prophets - profits .."?
   [I probably have that all wrong... its more like
   "Lazanyah - Lasagna" or whatever.]

Two 1920s style Chicago mobsters who would shoot each other up
like swiss cheese, will _publicly_ agree that you never outgrow
your need for beer. (burp!)


Yours truly

- 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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                     Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 07:42:04 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:00:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Connors


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:52:20 +0100
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:24:34 -0400

 >Lest we forget....

 >This long and entertaining "Debunkers' Guidebook" thread started
 >when I asked Jerome Clark if he could present any example of a
 >"debunker" claiming that eyewitness testimony could be
 >disregarded as worthless.

 >We've heard a lot from Mr Clark on other topics but not, I
 >fear, an answer to this simple question.

 >Why am I not surprised?

John,

You probably shouldn't be surprised. Dr. Donald Menzel certainly
expresses that eyewitness testimony should be disregarded as
worthless in many cases. His tape recorded lecture on UFOs at
Arricebo Observatory in 1973 certainly wasn't kind to
eyewitnesses or anyone other than himself and his penchant that
the world should revolve around him. Interesting lecture. It
tells a great deal about Menzel. Thank goodness he didn't get
into genetics... I shudder at what the world would be like if he
had.


Wendy Connors








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                      Strange Case Of NSA & Lake Vostok

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:28:00 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:28:00 -0400
Subject: Strange Case Of NSA & Lake Vostok




 From UFO UpDates - Toronto

Source: Rense.com

http://www.rense.com

The Very Strange Case Of The NSA And
Lake Vostok In Antarctica

 From Harry Mason
orbitx@ iinet.net.au (2-28-01)

4-13-1

--Original Message--
From: Nexus Magazine-UK
To: davidkingston@ cropcircles.screaming.net
2-26-01

Editor disclaimer: Yet unable to confirm authenticity of JPL
source

2/24/01 6:23:56 PM Pacific Standard Time

This was sent to me. Where it came from I don't know yet.

David E. Steitz
Nexus Magazine

-----

Headquarters, Washington, DC February 21, 2001 Phone:
202-358-1730)

Space-Mapping Mission Of Antarctica Aborted - Over-ruled By The
NSA

Contact: Rosemary Sullivant Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
CA Phone 818/354-0747

RELEASE: 01-24-01 In a brief announcment today, NASA and the JPL
terminated all further study of Lake Vostok in S. Antarctica. In
an apparent slip of confidentiality, spokeswoman Debra
Shingteller alluded to "National Security Issues" allowing the
NSA to assume full control of what had been an International
effort to explore a huge, under-ice lake near the Russian Vostok
research station. Ms. Shingteller was immediately led away from
the podium, and an aid responded to the many further questions
with the same answer: "the project has been halted due to
environmental issues", and that no further releases were
pending. The large crowd of press corp. were left clamoring as
the officials left the stage. Ms. Shingteller has not responded
to repeated attempts at contact.

The above is a report from an official JPL PR representative who
attended the announcement.

The following is part of a letter written to an editor of
Scientific American Magazine (who has requested anonymity). The
linked photo at the end was released by NASA in Jan 2001
seemingly by mistake. It is no longer available from the
official archive...

(See satellite mages of Lake Vostok here -ed)
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/antmag.html


Approximately 300 miles from the South Pole there is a lake, a
very large lake. It is Lake Vostok. It is also located over 3/4
mile beneath the Continental Ice Sheet. The best photos of Lk
Vostok are from space, where the outline is clearly visible.
Current ice-penetrating radar studies indicate that the water is
up to 2000 ft deep in places, and has an over-arching dome up to
1/2 mile high. Estimates for filtered light at the lake surface
indicate something like "continuous first morning light" during
Antarctica's summer months. Thermograph imaging proposes an
amazing 50-degree average water temperature with "hot spots"
near 65 degrees. This can only be attributed to subsurface
geothermal heat sources. At 300 miles long, and 50 miles wide,
the encapsulated atmosphere should have the ability to cleanse
itself through interaction with the lake, and possibly... plant
life.

Also proposed as a possible route for atmospheric interaction
with the lake's environment are what are being labeled
"geothermal boils". These are thousands of bubbles in the ice
sheet located in the some 200 sq. miles of "ice dunes"
discovered by the late Russian scientist Ivan Toskovoi who was
stationed at Vostok research base until his disappearance in
March 2000. The surveyed bubbles range from a few to several
hundred feet in diameter.

Quite possibly just as exciting as all of the data related so
far, is the discovery through Magnetic Imaging that there is an
extremely powerful source of magnetic energy located at the
North end of the lake's shoreline. As of this writing, no one
has suggested an explanation for the magnetic "anomaly".

As recently as February 2000, at least two international teams
were planning separate probes of the lake. Both consisted of
fairly similar robotic sensors that would have been lowered
through shafts(to be drilled). The team based at Cambridge
University, London were sponsored by the UK and US governments,
and backed by NASA technology. For reasons not clear, both
programs have been shelved indefinitely, with NASA going so far
as to deny any involvement, and both governments citing
"environmental concerns". An independent source that visited
Norway's research base some 150 miles to the East stated that a
large amount of new equipment and personnel have been arriving
at Russia's Vostok Station over the last six months. This is
interesting considering Russia's current financial situation.

A final note is a verified dispatch out of Casey Station(AU).
The pair of women adventurers who were attempting to ski across
the continent last month, and were extracted by plane during the
last leg of their trip, did NOT request the intervention. Over
the protests of the Australian crew at Casey, the two were
airlifted via an extraordinary 48 hour flight by a USN Special
Forces team out of American Samoa. According to the dispatch the
women were insistent on reporting something unusual they had
seen. The latest news reports have the pair resting in
"seclusion".


LAKE VOSTOK : A Curiosity or a Focus for Interdisciplinary
Study? The Lost World of Lake Vostok Radio Echo Sounding of Ice
Deciphering Mysteries of Past Climate From Antarctic Ice Cores
Antarctica's Lake Vostok Exploring Lake Vostok Scientists say
Antarctic lake worth a look-see WARM LAKE FOUND UNDER ANTARCTIC
ICE SHEET Frozen Time Capsule From Lake Vostok Arrives At
Montana State University Bacteria May Thrive in Antarctic Lake
The frosty plains of Europa

NEXUS MAGAZINE UK Office 55 Queens Road, East Grinstead, West
Sussex, RH19 1BG, UK. Tel: +44 (0)1342 322854; Fax: +44 (0)1342
324574 UK Office e-mail: nexus@ ukoffice.u-net.com Head Office
e-mail (Australia): editor@ nexusmagazine.com website:
www.nexusmagazine.com

Best regards, David Kingston U.K.


The following e-mail reflects Professor Thomas Gold's views on
the subject of the above Nexus Magazine Lake Vostock post data.
Professor Gold and I have entered into a long e-mail debate over
Martian Water & Palaeo Seas/planetary wide Ice sheets and have
discussed at length his theories of continuously renewed Earth
Core-Mantle derrived methane and oil - as opposed to the finite
volume squashed bug/plant theories of the origin of oil - extant
in western oil company dominated science. Prof Gold had
previously stated his belief to me that Lake Vostock could
contain large amounts of methane under pressure and that
drilling into same might represent a hazardous operation.....

See his various oil & gas papers (including reasons for
magnetite concentrations) at:

http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21


Dear Mr. Mason:

Thank you for this fascinating information.

I had previously considered informing the Vostok investigators,
Russian, UK, US, that there was a severe hazard that above the
water there would most likely be a large amount of methane, and
breaking into that would be very hazardous. It may of course be
so large an amount that letting it out would make a severe
change of atmospheric chemistry, and hence of climate.

The bubbles in the ice, the large dome, and the magnetic anomaly
all point to such a situation. Most permafrost regions have
methane underneath them, and this would be by far the largest of
them. May be the scientist who vanished crashed into a methane
ice bubble. Large deposits of magnetite are common in
methane-rich regions, being produced from iron oxides acting as
oxygen donor to microbes that live on the oxidation of methane.

If you have the contacts, feel free, or even encouraged, to
distribute this letter to other parties in this business,
together with my name. I don't wish to hide behind anonymity.

Yours sincerely, Thomas Gold 2-28-01

_____



(Here is the original story on rense.com about the exploration
of Lake Vostok. -ed)


Antarctic Lake Isolated 40 Million Years To Be Explored

                    By Roger Highfield
                 The Electronic Telegraph
                 http://www.telegraph.co.uk
                          9-21-99

Scientists are to explore one of the world's last uncharted
natural wonders, a lake trapped beneath the Antarctic ice.

Eighty scientists from 14 countries will meet in Cambridge next
week to discuss how to study the strange life expected to lurk
in Lake Vostok, a body of water the size of Lake Ontario resting
more than two miles under the East Antarctic ice cap. The lake
is one of the world's 10 largest and one of about 80 lakes that
underlie 10 per cent of the ice sheet of Antarctica.

Lake Vostok formed as a result of the combination of overlying
pressure of ice and heat from the Earth's core. It fascinates
scientists because it appears to have been isolated for millions
of years, providing an opportunity for life to develop along a
separate evolutionary path.

Micro-organisms that have been isolated for between one and 40
million years may be found in its sediments and water,
potentially yielding promising new enzymes or antibiotics, and
offering views of how ancient and contemporary microbes differ,
says Cynan Ellis-Evans, who is organising the conference at Lucy
Cavendish College.

Dr Ellis-Evans, a microbiologist with the British Antarctic
Survey, Cambridge, said the conditions in the lake are probably
too barren and cold - sub-zero - for larger organisms to evolve.
"It could be one of the most extreme, nutrient poor, permanently
pressurised, permanently cold, permanently dark environments on
the planet." This would lead to slow-growing microbes that are
adapted to a life of starvation. However, if a volcanic or hot
spring system pumped in energy, a greater diversity of creatures
may be present.

Lake Vostok is likely to be the oldest of all the "sub-glacial"
ice lakes because of its size. If it has been isolated for 40
million years, there would have been enough time for unique
creatures to evolve, as opposed to creatures that have adapted
to a new environment. The Antarctic studies may be a prelude to
similar missions elsewhere in our solar system, notably to
Jupiter's moon Europa. Nasa regards the Vostok mission as a
testbed for the search for alien life on the oceans thought to
exist on Europa.

The Vostok exploration would take place in the next five years.
The exploration of Europa would be in a series of missions
beginning in 2003 and lasting for 15 years. Dr Ellis-Evans said:
"All the Nasa people I am talking to are very enthusiastic about
an ice penetration mission in 2015. I have no problem with the
basic idea that there may be microbial life somewhere like
Europa as good life markers exist there, notably liquid water,
organic molecules and chemical energy sources."

The first entry of a probe into Lake Vostok will require
extraordinary precautions to ensure that the vehicle and its
instruments are clean, so as not to contaminate the pristine
lake. One suggestion is to use a Cryobot, a 10ft 6in
pencil-shaped device with a heated tip that unspools a cable
carrying power and a fibre-optic video and data cable.

The Cryobot splits into two under the ice and the top half stays
at the ice-water interface to hunt for life. The lower part (the
point of the pencil) continues down a smaller cable until it
hits the sediment at the bottom, where it will also search for
life and release a Hydrobot, a tiny submarine equipped with
sonar and a camera. The Hydrobot rises like a soap bubble,
reporting what it sees above and below it.












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                       Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:16:03 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:30:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:56:51 -0400

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:12:05 -0000

 >>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:14:43 -0400

 ><snip>

 >>Am I supposed to do your homework for you? Read what I wrote! I
 >>will tell you that I expressed strong doubts and skepticism
 >>about the Gulf Breeze photos, and criticized and disagreed with
 >>Bruce's analysis though he knows far more about technical
 >>photoanalysis than I do, which does give me some pause. (By the
 >>way, Bruce and I remain friends and understand scientific
 >>disagreement.)

 >>Also read what I say about Gulf Breeze in my current
 >>unmentionable book which cites the MUFON articles and others
 >>(Section VII, Footnote 17), mention of which sends certain
 >>debunkers/scoffers into frenzies of insults and accusations.

 >>Please don't hold your breath; do some research instead.

 ><snip>

 >Richard,

 >Having a bad day?

 >I mean, for all the postings you've done lately on the List, I
 >am sure that this kind of response would have saved you more
 >than a couple hundred lines. We could even reach the thousands
 >if you push the pedantry to the point of referring to your own
 >posts in the last years.

Serge,

I'm not sure what this means, but in any case I did not mean to
be impolite. We keep hearing from various people that we have
failed to answer some "simple and direct question," but if we
answer with citations of published litearture we are criticized
for that. And if we tell people that they should do research
before asking questions we are criticized for that. I just get
tired of this after a while. The questions often are not as
"simple and direct" as implied when it comes to trying to answer
them.

 >In case you haven't noticed, this is a forum.

 >I issued my post because you did not answer a simple and direct
 >question.

See above. Maybe I overreacted.

 >Your dodging of the issue surprised me.

I never dodge issues. That is your interpretation.

 >Now, if I skip the unneeded patronizing remarks, I'll say that
 >your criticizing of Bruce just proves that a healthy debate is
 >the trademark of true ufologists.

Yes, which is the point a number of us hve been trying to make
all along, but the questioners seem to be totally unaware of our
published criticisms. Maybe someone should compile a
bibliography. But then scoffers/debunkers come along and say,
"ufologists squabble among themselves all the time, how silly."
You can't win.

 >Ultimately you gave the answer you should have given in the
 >first place.

?

 >Nice.

 >No reason to be impolite.

True. As a frequent advocate of more civil debate and
discussion, I violated my own principles. My apologies for that.


Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 09:35:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:43:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Lehmberg


 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:55:01 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth

 >Lest we forget... II

 >Another thread which seems to have taken wings without answering
 >the simple original question.

 >Examples please (preferably within the past, oh, thirty years)
 >of a UFO case being dismissed as "mass hysteria" by sceptics.


I would guess that it was a smirkingly insulting and
complacently arrogant tone that is the major cause of any thread
taking angry wing, but to defuse this artless little dodge (and
last refuge of the strident skeptibunky), how about Robert E.
Bartholomew in the New England Journal of Skepticism Vol. 1
Issue 2 (Spring '98)... when he writes :


"Mass Delusions: A Brief Overview

Collective delusions and so-called mass hysterias take many
forms, of which there are at least four common types. For a
detailed discussion of each type, see my recent article in The
Skeptical Inquirer (May-June, 1997). I will next provide a brief
overview of each category, then briefly discuss two separate
delusions that occurred in various parts of New England between
1897 and 1910 and look at their characteristic features."


...at URL http://ufonline.oasi.asti.it/testi/airship1.htm

I would suggest that you already knew of this example and of
more besides, and that this is a further demonstration of the
skeptibunky mindset usually coming up short in a rational debate
on the subject of UFOs. I don't know why Hall and Clark even
waste time with you.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

~~~~
EXPLORE "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his HostPros URL.
http://www.alienview.net

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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                      Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:37:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 13:55:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Ledger


 >From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook
 >Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 07:42:04 -0600

 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:52:20 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook



 >You probably shouldn't be surprised. Dr. Donald Menzel certainly
 >expresses that eyewitness testimony should be disregarded as
 >worthless in many cases. His tape recorded lecture on UFOs at
 >Arricebo Observatory in 1973 certainly wasn't kind to
 >eyewitnesses or anyone other than himself and his penchant that
 >the world should revolve around him. Interesting lecture. It
 >tells a great deal about Menzel. Thank goodness he didn't get
 >into genetics... I shudder at what the world would be like if he
 >had.


Hi Wendy and John,

Let's not skirt around Menzel's deep association with the
American intelligence community. I suspect his contribution to
the field was one of the early attempts at dis-information. I'd
like to see some of his income tax returns for those days.
They'd be interesting reading I'll bet.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:53:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:31:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:22:32 -0500

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:29:33 -0400

Dennis,

 >No offense to you or Hopkins, but I can't believe that Budd
 >"can't afford to travel on his own." Some or another airline is
 >always offering bargain basement fares from NY to London every
 >other week.

Hell, I can't afford to travel on my own either, even with the
alleged bargain fares.  Hardly a character flaw, or at least I
hope not.

 >Anyway, if I have this particular event down right, I think I
 >was there. You or John the Rimmer can correct me, but I seem to
 >recall that Budd absented himself from the Q & A session in
 >question because he refused to appear on the same stage with
 >Klass, allegedly because of the latter's treatment of abductees
 >or remarks re same. And hied himself to the National Gallery
 >instead.

I always have known Budd to be a wise man. Good for him. He's a
man who knows the difference between productive time and its
wasted equivalent.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:05:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:33:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:52:20 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Lest we forget....

 >This long and entertaining "Debunkers' Guidebook" thread started
 >when I asked Jerome Clark if he could present any example of a
 >"debunker" claiming that eyewitness testimony could be
 >disregarded as worthless.

 >We've heard a lot from Mr Clark on other topics but not, I fear,
 >an answer to this simple question.

 >Why am I not surprised?

Well, John, I am not surprised. You just can't surprise me
anymore, I'm afraid.

I answered the question long ago. Please go back and reread the
archives of this thread, and particularly the post in which I
explained why the rejection of massive eyewitness testimony to
structured, craftlike UFOs is an innately necessary aspect of
debunking ideology.

I must say that your disingenuousness on this and matters is
getting tiresome and pointless, except to remind me again why I
am neither a debunker nor a psychosocial theorist (if there is a
difference).


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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                      Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:11:21 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:35:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Clark


 >From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook
 >Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 07:42:04 -0600

 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:52:20 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker's Guidebook

Wendy,

 >>This long and entertaining "Debunkers' Guidebook" thread started
 >>when I asked Jerome Clark if he could present any example of a
 >>"debunker" claiming that eyewitness testimony could be
 >>disregarded as worthless.

 >>We've heard a lot from Mr Clark on other topics but not, I
 >>fear, an answer to this simple question.

 >>Why am I not surprised?

 >You probably shouldn't be surprised. Dr. Donald Menzel certainly
 >expresses that eyewitness testimony should be disregarded as
 >worthless in many cases. His tape recorded lecture on UFOs at
 >Arricebo Observatory in 1973 certainly wasn't kind to
 >eyewitnesses or anyone other than himself and his penchant that
 >the world should revolve around him. Interesting lecture. It
 >tells a great deal about Menzel. Thank goodness he didn't get
 >into genetics... I shudder at what the world would be like if he
 >had.

Debunking icon Donald Menzel believed eyewitness testimony to be
inherently worthless, and he gave that as his reason for his
failure to interview witnesses to the cases he "solved" from his
armchair. It was Menzel's view that witnesses were the last
people you wanted to consult in the "solving" of a case. Perhaps
he was externalizing his own dishonesty, after lying brazenly
about his own sighting of puzzling unknowns.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                         Re: 'Military' UFOs - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:53:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:37:26 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Evans


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >Subject: 'Military' UFOs
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, John wrote:

 >(If) the Nellis craft is one of ours, and it employs some kind
 >of miraculous anti-gravity drive, why does the military continue
 >to allow NASA to grab congressional $ and piss away billions in
 >tax-payer resources just to shoot live astronauts (who are
 >strapped inside of tin cans which are in turn strapped to costly
 >and dangerous bottle rockets) out into space? You'd think the
 >Pentagon would want all that moola for themselves. (Unless
 >NASA is already in the 'purview' of the Pentagon!)

<snip>

 >Recently when I saw the aircraft that was being used for
 >"spying" I almost busted a gut laughing. That thing may be
 >"ultra-top-secret-state-of-the-art" inside... but outside it is
 >about as subtle as a Pink elephant.

<snip>

 >(If) the military is in possession of UFO technology they could
 >send a Nellis style craft over there in minutes, float it right
 >over the Chinese presidents private office in full view of all,
 >record whatever they want to, and leave without fear of ever
 >being discovered.

<snip>

 >Historically, every time the military types find a way to make
 >the "stick" they wield BIGGER, the first thing they do is to
 >wave it in everyone's face.

Hi, John!

Historically, this really isn't the case. If you look at World
War II, for example, there was a point where the Allied forces
had broken the German codes. However, the Allies really could
not let on that they were able to do so for fear that the
Germans would change the codes. Only after the war was that fact
publicized. Likewise, it was only after the Stealth technology
had been employed for quite a while that existence of such was
made public.

Look at it this way: If you were trying to eavesdrop on your
neighbors and they thought you were deaf, they'd be less likely
to lower their voices, right? Likewise, the "spy plane" may look
old and rustic, but as you pointed out, it was packed with high
tech listening devices. Now, the truth is that the plane chosen
was probably best for long distance runs but the side benefit is
still the same; if the "enemy" thinks we have run of the mill
surveillance equipment, then the measures they use to guard
their secrets will be run of the mill, as well. Tipping our hand
to having higher technology only makes the spying harder. The
longer they think old fashioned methods are being used, the
better for the spy business.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that something like the
Nellis craft could be real, just as conventional spy planes were
being used while Stealth technology was being developed and, in
fact, even flown successfully.

Does that mean that the Nellis craft is real? Who knows? But
from a security standpoint, I wouldn't be surprised if the US
spent millions on NASA flights as a cover for higher technology.
To stop doing so would be a red flag to the other side that
something major had changed in the equation. And notice that
NASA isn't really getting all the funding it wants...

My two cents.


Roger Evans









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                            Alfred's Odd Ode #344

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 12:49:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:40:53 -0400
Subject: Alfred's Odd Ode #344


I look into a starry sky with length, and breadth and depth
untried, and question (with my heart o'sleeve) what these things
ARE that soar and cleave. They ARE there, there IS no
question... moving past the quick suggestion that I'm quite mad
or just mistaking - or worse: that I've been lying... faking.
Oh, I see them (no great feat). I've proved them to myself at
least, and can't respect what one might think who ISN'T looking
(specious fink!).

Sucking on our wounded sphere (we're parasites that brood and
fear), our "specious fink" would make pronouncements - spout
denial and denouncement! Keeping council with his favorites,
pretending he's alone (the flavor!), he would turn his eyes away
from what might haunt our skies today. Oh, he's fearful. No
mistake. He's throwing on his drags and brakes! New ideas
threaten those that keep things as they are - foreclosed.

He does this to arrange distraction, provides for our INSANE
inaction, and keeps the subject tongue in cheek so he can sully
errant leaks. Remaining is the ink and stone (that he
discredits); we're not alone. Remaining is the anecdotal:
weighty, plain and calmly totaled. Remaining is the
photographic: ponderous and enigmatic. Remaining, there's the
evidence that one perceives with no pretence - no axe to grind,
no bill to fill, but has a brain and knows the drill!

And, yes, sometimes our 'science' friends (those filled with it
to length and brim) prefer their 'method' and 'assessment' to
live 'proud' lives of glad detachment... 'Light' shan't dance
and caper FOR them, speaks a language MUCH too foreign, so safe
beyond their instruments 'it' charms and glitters - ask Jeff
Rense. Stanton Friedman makes his CASE, but most who look
provoke disgrace... Science is not BAD (or friendly!), science
is a tool, comprende'? It can (too fast) be misused to further
evil ends abstruse!

Still others think some... WON'T... conspire to make their short
term goals transpire, when survey says it's one in ten would do
what they will DO, my friend. If their gain can be maintained
they'll do the worst - they won't refrain. I've studied them,
they know no bounds, to them "we" are as dumb as hounds; we're
shackled to our rules and codes and ethics bound to bear their
loads. We're mere 'objects', we're their CATTLE - they keep us
buying, taxed, and addled while they write their tickets free
and freeload from our pocket, see?

What we lack's the real deal that bunkies covet, own or steal.
What we lack's a base respect that we have lost for their
neglect. What's we lack's the cop to truth that's been
pretended, lost - refused. What's we lack's that money spent to
educate out future, friends! Still we waddle and we lather
contrived elitist lower standards - puling prayers that just
PRETEND to hold the high ground we won't win.

Look around, begin to 'see', and sense a new reality. Stealthy
wizards find new ways to fleece their flocks and make YOU pay.
They would trade your soul for power; holding court, they build
_your_ towers on these special clouds they'd claim would keep
you 'whole' or 'safe' and 'sane'. TV Preachers whine and pray
from billion dollar pulpits - crazed! They PRETEND their
persecution (spewing saccharine elocution), all the while sowing
hatreds they condone (to which we're fated!). See the 'moral'
politician, whining goals or mad positions, wearing mantles of
correctness he contrives to cloak his excess? He fronts the
jealous un-elected, sells YOUR soul (you're unprotected) - lives
a life of privileged power; secret men build, well, THEIR
towers!

YES, the sky's ALIVE with lights (that act most strangely in my
sight), and these belie pontification, discredit all the
obfuscation, and keep in me ALIVE the... need... to ask hard
questions, watch and read. Finks pretend, "alleged weirdness
warrants special proofs and clearance." Claims that are
'incredible' demand that 'proof's' infallible (?)... but then
RETREAT becomes the norm if cloaks like these are used or worn,
and proof's horizon just recedes ahead of fear we DO NOT NEED!

No, I see them - that's a fact. They don't conform to aircraft,
Jack (and I'm a _flyer_ too well versed for wishful thinking's
cloying curse). What I see will fly big circles, glitter like a
flash bulb hurtled, then slowing to a crawl they'll glow to
bursts of speed - away they go! I'm out there with my Mother,
friend, and I'll not lie, distort... pretend... (that they are
there if not) - you hear?

I'll watch the skies. You face your fear.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

Skywatching is not the very best in southeast Alabama. The humid
semi-tropical air sucks up the starlight like crooked
government, and the light pollution from even a small town is
reflected in the soupy murkiness like an ongoing and stillborn
dawn. None the less, peculiar lights thrive in that sky, still,
and fitfully flit about like busy wraiths on mysterious,
strangely purposed and enigmatic errands.

I've been seeing them for years, but in years past they were a
blue moon occurrence. And besides, they were just a another
light in the busy skies near a military reservation consumed by
all manner of regular aviation operations. I'd only see one (or
so) of the queerly moving nocturnal lights every few months.

Then, abruptly, I began seeing them more frequently. Interested,
I decided to start a written record of what and when I had been
seeing... whatever it was I had been seeing. So far, I've seen
them two days in March, nine days in April, an additional nine
days in May, and eight in the first eighteen days of June. Then,
from the nineteenth of June to the nineteenth of July (and
otherwise graced by a dark crystal sky of comparative stellar
brilliance in the isolated Roswell-like open spaces of Northern
California), I frankly saw (breathtakingly peculiar but
inexplicable)... wandering stars... . These starry wanderers
performed a panoply of mystifying aerial activities before my
astonished eyes. Many of the days would yield multiple
occurrences, but I saw something 'weird' every day.

Throughout these abutting halves of June and July I was treated
with these better skies - saw Cassiopeia on her side, Cygnus
stabbing west, I spied! I don't digress. Northern California, on
a visit to see my mother... such a sky. The Milky Way actually
spilling across the coal black firmament like a swung carton of
fluorescent, atomized cream. The little bear is clearly visible
for the first time in many years, and the skies are a black
felted jeweler's table festooned with a scatter of multicolored
diamonds . . . Jupiter and Saturn make their grand entrance to
the East. Then, some of the diamonds... move.

I had a witness. Soon, my Mom was picking them out better than I
was. Dazzled and energized by the experience, she is now quick
to point out that something... odd... is up there in her night
sky. Brave lady. All she did was tilt her head back.....
Apparently all that's required to keep the brain in its case
when one tries for that 'trouble-making' open mind.

We didn't make any special preparation to see these things,
these silently detached, and ambling stars of varying speed,
direction and magnitude. No chanting or crystal waving (with all
respect to chanters and crystal wavers).We simply go outside,
cradle warm cups of coffee in our sober hands, and look up. They
are there, appear also to others that go out with me to look,
and are seen at the same time. We describe the same thing to one
another. What are they?

I don't know.

Before I started seeing them in earnest I reasoned that these
strange lights I had been observing in the sky MUST have some
kind of prosaic explanation. City lights reflecting off the
temperature inverted material expelled from the voiding pore of
gassy pelicans - perhaps. Or Military flares dangerously and
illegally fired in controlled airspace - perchance. Jet powered
stealth balloons, chaotically rotating weather satellites, and
ball lightning were a WEALTH of ready explanation (contrived to
sooth one already distracted by the day to day grind of making a
living and trying to pay the meter down). Awash with (and dulled
by) this cognitive dissonance, I confess, _I_ used to reason
that these teasing spots of flirting brilliance must have SOME
kind of pedestrian justification - some prosaic qualification.
They must be something. They have to be something.

They have to be something... indeed.

The varying pace and course of these silent objects precluded
satellites - which favor direction, and traverse the sky at a
steady speed. The same with aircraft big and small. The
_deliberate_ inefficiencies of the peculiar accelerations and
wavy ground tracks I observe would get a transport pilot fired,
and get a military pilot a psych-eval. Moreover, they are
soundless in the quietest hours of a predawn sky while high
altitude aircraft are PLAINLY heard. Steady binoculars, if
available, reveal none of the familiar port and starboard
lights, anti-collision beacons, or position indicators of an
aircraft in flight. They make known only a glowing orb of the
inexplicable - pale BB sized points of flitting luminescence
wandering the inky backdrop of perfectly focused stars. Unaided,
they look like ANY star of any magnitude, some even brighter
than Sirius (or redder than Betelgeuse). It detaches from its
black felt billow of inky night sky and moves deliberately
across the star field like some kind of foraging cosmic
insect.....

I'd see them every morning in this mix of June and July. Bright
ones, dim ones - silent but flying fretfully. If I went out,
they were there, and they used up an entire FUND of ready
explanation, plausible elucidation, or well crafted explication.
Not satellites, planes, balloons, or birds. Not lightning
sheets, lightning balls, or lightning bugs. Not planets or
poltergeists, or portentous pie in the sky. Just quiet lights,
moving of their own volition and with some unguessed at (and
otherwise unfathomed) but _purposeful_ intelligence. What are
they?

Somebody knows.


~~~~
EXPLORE "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his HostPros URL.
http://www.alienview.net


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 scurrilous
skepti-bunkies.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                         Re: 'Military' UFOs - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:23:27 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:02:04 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Jones


 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: 'Military' UFOs

Evening John,

 >The 'talk' about the Nellis Craft being "made in the USA"
 >started me thinking. What bothers me is, military UFOs is one of
 >those situations where 1+1 never equals 2.

<snip>

Sorry about cutting the rest of your interesting email (I bet
you have some very interesting Sunday afternoon chats in your
house <g>) but I wanted to point a few obvious things out.

1) The SR71 Blackbird was flying back in '62 (before I was born)
it is still one of the fastest planes known about publicly. That
bird was built forty years ago!

2) The SR71 wasn't made public until the eighties, please
someone tell me when, because I bet the dates where different
both sides of the water.

3) The well known secret aircraft the F117A Stealth Fighter was
made public because of the Gulf war. I'm not an aviation buff to
know when it was made.

4) There is a physical limit to what the human body can
withstand.

The last one is the major bit. The SR71 was made forty years
ago, but if they aint figured a way to protect the pilot from
the G forces then it's pretty much useless making a faster
plane. But at the same time, if they could build the SR71 forty
years ago what can they build today??

I do not think that it is a given that to have anti-gravity
drives they _must_ be alien in origin. Because cutting edge
technology is nothing on the bleeding edge of technology.

This is not say that I am saying you are wrong, if Phil Corso's
claims are _anything_ to go by then Fibre Optics are alien in
origin.

The answer my friend is something our children will be using
when they go to work, and us old boys will be saying, back in my
day we only had infernal combustion engines.



--

    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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:40:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:04:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:52:20 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >This long and entertaining "Debunkers' Guidebook" thread started
 >when I asked Jerome Clark if he could present any example of a
 >"debunker" claiming that eyewitness testimony could be
 >disregarded as worthless.

 >We've heard a lot from Mr Clark on other topics but
 >not, I fear,
 >an answer to this simple question.

 >Why am I not surprised?

Probably because - as you've demonstrated a couple of times -
you appear not to know the UFO literature. (The derisive tone of
many of your posts opens you to derision in return.)

Of course, we do have to introduce one subtlety. Skeptics don't
say outright that eyewitness testimony is worthless. A blanket
statement like that wouldn't make any sense.

What they do, instead, is challenge eyewitness statements in
particular cases, with general comments on the unreliability of
eyewitnesses. For example, see the chapter on the Chiles-Whitted
sighting in Phil Klass's book "UFOs Explained." Phil thinks the
two airline pilots in that case saw a meteor, and only imagined
that the quickly-passing light in the sky was a craft with
windows. To support his case, he cites other cases in which
eyewitnesses made allegedly similar mistakes. (I'd question,
just in passing, how close the similarity is, since one of those
cases involved a satellite reentry in which the satellite broke
into several pieces. Witnesses, seeing these many pieces,
imagined they were seeing a single object with many points of
light, which they thought were windows. That's not quite - or
not at all - the same thing as somebody who sees a single large
light and imagines there are windows in it.)

It's quite possible, of course, that Chiles and Whitted made
exactly the mistake that Phil says they made. But Phil, in his
analysis (look at the last pages of his chapter), says there's
no doubt at all that this is what Chiles and Whitted did. His
sole piece of evidence, if I'm remembering correctly, is his
belief that witnesses are often wrong. So while he doesn't
assert the general proposition John is looking for - and which
I'd be curious to know whether Jerry actually said debunkers
assert - he leans very strongly on the idea of witness
unreliability when he has nothing else to go on.

When I discussed the case with him in person, he leaned on it
even more. It was very difficult to get him to address the
question of why he was "unequivocally" sure (that's his word,
from his book) that the sighting was a meteor. Instead, he'd
explain to me in great ponderous detail, with many examples,
that eyewitnesses are often wrong. It was clear that this
assertion was the main support of his argument.

We've seen that elsewhere. For another instance, consider Robert
Sheaffer's analysis of the Barney and Bettey Hill abduction
case. Betty Hill said she saw a UFO in the sky, and also saw the
planet Jupiter. Robert says she actually saw Jupiter and Saturn,
mistaking Saturn for a UFO - but to make that work, he has to
assume that the two objects weren't located where she shows them
in her drawing. He has no evidence that her drawing is wrong. He
just assumes it is, because, well, eyewitnesses are often wrong.

This subject, of course, has come up numerous times on UpDates,
right under John's nose. Again, it's in the form I've described
- skeptics asserting that eyewitnesses are unreliable, in order
to use that as ammunition against a UFO case, without any
evidence to show that the witnesses were mistaken in that
particular instance. We've even had a debate on the principle -
on what it means to cite witness unreliabilty as a general
principle.

If John wants to rephrase the discussion, so that we're looking
for a blanket statement no sensible person would ever make, then
of course he wins the argument. But if he's looking for
debunkers who assert witness unreliabilty when it's convenient
to do so, but with no other evidence that it's happening in a
given case, he can find abundant examples.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:49:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:06:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:22:32 -0500

 >Greg,

 >No offense to you or Hopkins, but I can't believe that Budd
 >"can't afford to travel on his own." Some or another airline is
 >always offering bargain basement fares from NY to London every
 >other week.

 >During my days as a freelance writer, I was regularly poor as a
 >church mouse, and still managed to make it over to England
 >(twice) to look into those crazy crop circles, no less. Where
 >there's a will, there's a way... or something like that.

Budd's financial position isn't happy. It wouldn't be seemly to
reveal details, Dennis, but I hope you'll trust me on this.

You also should consider Budd's age, his family situation, and
other factors (including medical things, and the amount of money
Budd puts into his abduction work). I agree that a single,
youthful freelance writer in good health, living cheaply with
relatively few obligations can probably scrape together money
for trips. That's not Budd's story.

 >Anyway, if I have this particular event down right, I think I
 >was there. You or John the Rimmer can correct me, but I seem to
 >recall that Budd absented himself from the Q & A session in
 >question because he refused to appear on the same stage with
 >Klass, allegedly because of the latter's treatment of abductees
 >or remarks re same. And hied himself to the National Gallery
 >instead.

That sounds like it could be right. I only wanted to put the
National Gallery visit in a larger perspective. In my view,
Budd's refusal to appear with Phil is self-defeating.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:31:53 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:08:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Salvaille


 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:55:01 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth


 >Lest we forget... II

 >Another thread which seems to have taken wings without answering
 >the simple original question.

 >Examples please (preferably within the past, oh, thirty years)
 >of a UFO case being dismissed as "mass hysteria" by sceptics.

Skeptics seldom if ever succeed in addressing specific UFO cases
in detail. This is understandable as they seek to smother the
UFO debate. As such, the widespread use of "mass hysteria" suits
them well: it makes the general public believe that UFO reports
are issued by weirdoes and "suspicious" people.

Another weapon of this arsenal would be "little green men".

I do not believe one could ever explain a single UFO case with
"mass hysteria".

But the buzzword serves the skeptic's agenda very well.

Following are a few references to spear you some work.

________________________________________

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n03/illinois-ufo-mania-of-1897.html
The Illinois UFO Mania of 1897
Why We Should be Leery of Modern-Day UFO Reports
by Robert Bartholomew

"While the episode in general has been examined as a case of
"mass hysteria," in this article I will document the airship wave
in Illinois, and suggest an explanation."


http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/s6chap03.htm
The Condon Report, p. 979-982
4. The Crowd Effect

"The above examples suggest some of the many sources of
distortion in the perceptions of individuals. Put two or more
individuals together, and the possibilities for distortion
multiply. "Mass hysteria" is a familiar concept. Charles Mackay
(1967) wrote a lengthy volume in 1841 entitled Extraordinary
Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds in which he
recounted many of the popular follies through the ages. Two
incidents are of particular interest to UFO investigators
because they show clearly the role of crowd psychology in times
of imminent disaster one is the great London panic of 1524..."

[...]

The possibility of hysterical contagion must be kept in mind in
the evaluation of some UFO sighting reports."

http://www.stevedewey.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/soc_analysis.htm
Chapter 11
Just One of the Crowd
by: Steve Dewey and John Ries, 1998


"As we are not believers in the ET hypothesis, and have our
doubts that the saucers are here, we are partly inclined to the
latter two hypotheses. However, we are also inclined rather more
to what we would consider "simpler" explanations - simple in
that their theoretical basis seem simple enough to understand,
even if their dynamics and vectors are invariably complex.

It has always been a glib assertion that UFO flaps are
sustained, if not caused, by mass hysteria. We usually have to
take it for granted that we - both the reader and the writer -
mutually understand what "mass hysteria" is, how it develops and
how it proceeds."


http://www.freep.com/news/nw/qufo9.htm
A UFO visited? No big deal
Frequent sightings spur plans for center
April 9, 1999
BY RICARDO SANDOVAL
Free Press Foreign Correspondent

"It's probably mass hysteria and a desire to be part of the hip
crowd, countered Mario Torres Lujan, a physicist who edits the
magazine Contacto OVNI. OVNI is the equivalent acronym in
Spanish to 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 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                         A Non-UFO Saturday Greeting

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:09:59 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:10:26 -0400
Subject: A Non-UFO Saturday Greeting


Dear List,

A non-UFO post -

Happy Easter to Christians and a belated Zeesen Passoch to our
Jewish friends.  To the rest, just have a great weekend.

It's a good time to celebrate and give thanks to whomever is
responsible for the return of our volunteer military from China.
Safe. Home.

As for them bastards (presumably) overhead ... "Eat bovine
excrement and die of hoof in Jacob's mouth disease ... "  or
whatever.

Jim and Rosemarie Mortellaro....
(Woof!) And Stupid, our beloved Yellow Lab...






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 14

                         A Non-UFO Saturday Greeting

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:09:59 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:12:23 -0400
Subject: A Non-UFO Saturday Greeting


Dear List,

A non-UFO post -

Happy Easter to Christians and a belated Zeesen Passoch to our
Jewish friends.  To the rest, just have a great weekend.

It's a good time to celebrate and give thanks to whomever is
responsible for the return of our volunteer military from China.
Safe. Home.

As for them bastards (presumably) overhead ... "Eat bovine
excrement and die of hoof in Jacob's mouth disease ... "  or
whatever.

Jim and Rosemarie Mortellaro....
(Woof!) And Stupid, our beloved Yellow Lab...





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

From: Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:22:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:36:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:05:27 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:52:20 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

Previously, John asked:

 >>This long and entertaining "Debunkers' Guidebook" thread started
 >>when I asked Jerome Clark if he could present any example of a
 >>"debunker" claiming that eyewitness testimony could be
 >>disregarded as worthless.

 >>We've heard a lot from Mr Clark on other topics but not, I fear,
 >>an answer to this simple question.

 >>Why am I not surprised?

Jerry wrote:

 >Well, John, I am not surprised. You just can't surprise me
 >anymore, I'm afraid.

 >I answered the question long ago. Please go back and reread the
 >archives of this thread, and particularly the post in which I
 >explained why the rejection of massive eyewitness testimony to
 >structured, craftlike UFOs is an innately necessary aspect of
 >debunking ideology.

 >I must say that your disingenuousness on this and matters is
 >getting tiresome and pointless, except to remind me again why I
 >am neither a debunker nor a psychosocial theorist (if there is a
 >difference).

Not as tiresome as out and out falsehoods like that above, Jerry.

Claim what you may, Jerry. You did not answer John's question
and it is obvious to anyone that cares. But then, your favorite
tactic is to avoid the hard questions and then, after enough
time has passed by, refer them to the archives while you bank on
the likelihood that people won't care enough to do so and call
you on it. Wrong.

I have looked through said archives and there is no post where
you ever answered the question put before you. True, you gave a
response, but did not answer the question which is very simply:

Where has anyone ever said that "eyewitness testimony is
worthless and can be discarded without a single thought?"

Instead of answering the question, you do the Waffle House
special where you talk about anything and everything except the
topic addressed to you. I can not help but notice that you gave
no URL for your alleged answer. So, now, we have _two_
statements unaccounted for by you. And, true to form, instead of
answering the question, you stir things up so that more and more
posts mount and time hides the fact that you've done nothing to
answer yet another question put before you. Then, out of
nowhere, you bound into the clearing, demanding others to toe
the line and provide supporting evidence for their posts.

What we have is Ranger Jerry, taking a wiz in the stream and
clouding the waters; secure in the knowledge that the current
will take the evidence down stream so that no one will notice.
This would not be so bad if Ranger Jerry didn't hang around to
hand out citations for others wizzing in the stream, as well.

Again, the question is simply this: Where has anyone ever said
that "eyewitness testimony is worthless and can be discarded
without a single thought?"

I don't think you can answer this question Jerry because it is a
statement that was never made and does not exist in the
archives. If it did, then you would be as quick to point it out
as you were to point out your other fictitious "answer". Funny
how you can find one but not the other?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                 Cydonian Imperative: 4-14-01 - Questionable

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:38:39 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 4-14-01 - Questionable

The Cydonian Imperative
4-14-01

Controversial "Letters" on the D&M Pyramid
by Mac Tonnies

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html


[image]

Alleged "letters" cited by Tom Van Flandern and Mike
Bara are likely grooves in the D&M Pyramid's eroded
surface.

Tom Van Flandern, in one of the most embarrassing claims at his
ad-hoc Washington press conference, attributed the alleged
"letters" found on the D&M Pyramid's northeast quadrant (see
above) to the work of intelligent Martians. Mike Bara,
criticizing Van Flandern's endorsement of the "letters" in his
recent post on The Enterprise Mission, blasts the notion that
they were carved by Martian architects. Instead, he writes they
were probably placed there by scheming JPL technicians hoping to
lead Mars anomaly research down the gutter by planting
deliberate red herrings.

Neither of these fanciful scenarios makes any sense whatsoever.
The "letters" are dark grooves in the D&M's surface, and conform
to the "debris flow" and "domed uplift" noted by Richard
Hoagland in his pioneering book, "The Monuments of Mars." Bara
argues that the letters must be intentionally "airbrushed"
because there are no corresponding features on the D&M's surface
to cast alphabet-shaped shadows.

But there needn't be shadow-casting features to explain the
presence of these markings. Given the highy irregular, eroded
nature of the D&M's northeast flank, it's the concensus opinion
among Cydonia researchers that the "letters" are spurious
shallow grooves, probably etched out over the millennia by
patient Martian winds.

And just how letter-like are these markings, anyway? The answer,
after a careful look, is "not very." A few isolated characters
can be made out, in particular a passable "A." Tellingly, no
actual words are spelled, and the alphabet-like figures are
interspersed with random "glyphs" consistent with the hypothesis
that these are natural, linguistically meaningless features. If
JPL actually intended to pull one over on the independent Mars
research community by inserting "graffiti" on MOC image strips,
one would certainly think they could do better than this!

It would be wise to remember previous experience with apparent
"letters" on Mars. In "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan, he relates the
appearance of the apparent letter "B" (for "Barsoom"...?) on a
rock at one of the Viking landing sites. Letters are extremely
easy to visualize when faced with a screen-full of alien
geography. The "graffiti" on top of the D&M Pyramid are
additional examples of the mind attributing meaning to spurious
arrangements of pixels. They do not reflect the handiwork of
ancient Martian architects...or, for that manner,
disinformationists on the JPL payroll, as Bara maintains.

The Face and other formations in Cydonia--including the vast D&M
Pyramid-- constitute a very real scientific puzzle. Citing the
"letters" as "evidence" of anything other than what they are
trivializes the Mars SETI inquiry.

-end-









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 22:22:18 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:40:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 06:28:34 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Suppose someone seriously took the position, admittedly
 >off-center, that Santa Claus and his helpers used reindeer
 >driven craft to distract people from huge toy purchases in
 >communist countries.

Larry, et. al.:

A very cool analogy.

When I was a kid, we used to go to grandma's house for
Christmas, up in the "coal regions" of northeastern
Pennsylvania. One year on The Night, when my cousin and I were
sleeping in his room, a tap came to the window. It was the guy
in the red suit at the window asking if we had been good little
boys. For some now forgotten reason, probably because of
something that I'd done, I remained hidden under the covers. My
cousin, though, told me afterwards that he thought it was only
The Old Man: he could smell beer on the big elf's breath, a
particularly nasty local brew loved by all the miners, called "F
& S".

What's the point of this? There isn't any, except that I would
most likely propose that Rudolph's nose bouncing around in the
sky was really autokinetic motion of the eye muscles of
witnesses.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                    Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:27:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:42:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:16:03 -0000

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:56:51 -0400

<snip>

 >See above. Maybe I overreacted.

 >>Your dodging of the issue surprised me.

 >I never dodge issues. That is your interpretation.

<snip>

 >>No reason to be impolite.

 >True. As a frequent advocate of more civil debate and
 >discussion, I violated my own principles. My apologies for that.


Richard,

You a true gentle man <sic> and a honorable person.

With regards and respect,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                               Bettman Archive

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:58:38 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:43:13 -0400
Subject: Bettman Archive


List:

The Bettman Achive, with 17 million photographic images of the
20th Century, including the UPI Archive, has been purchased and
will be largely unavailable, it seems:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/15/national/15BETT.html


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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

               Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 03:51:41 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:46:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'? - Gates


 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:56:32 +0000
 >From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Film - New 'Witness'?

<snip>


Phillip wrote:

 >Hi there,

 >For the sake of my book I have kept the photographers name out
 >of it for now, although I do have his permission to use his full
 >name which I will do in due course.

 >This is not uncorroborated testimony as a number of others have
 >also gone on the record in a similar manner. Some of these were

Operative word here is "similar" not to be mixed up with "the
same"

I always found it interesting that pretty much _after_ the AA
film came upon the scene, suddenly people started claiming that
"they saw it." Do we have any accounts from anybody that
predates AA in which they said, or knew a person who saw AA?
Just curious.

 >featured in our book, 'Beyond Roswell', while another witness
 >contacted Linda Moulton Howe. The latter was published in one of
 >Linda's books and is also featured in the Alien Autopsy Archive
 >on our web site:

 >www.beyondroswell.com

 >The photographer in question is _the_ most decorated (amount of
 >awards) in the UK, is known internationally for his work and
 >his testimony on the AA film is already known to a few close
 >associates in the UK and the USA.

Phillip Corso was highly decorated, served in high level
positions and stroked his military record. Being decorated and
known internationally doesn't mean the dude is absolutely
credible never to be doubted.

 >Added to this, you should also be aware that I have also twice
 >interviewed the technician who transferred the original 16mm
 >film onto video. Again, his full name will be used in our book.
 >The name of this technician and copies of the two interviews are
 >also known to a few close associates in the UK and the USA.

That still doesn't prove the film is real, it _may_ only prove
that the film allegedly was originally shot on 16mm.

Still no proof of the actual age of the actual film with the
alien carcass on it. Just proof that _somebody_ handed the
technician some rolls of film to develop and when he googled it,
it showed an alien creature.

 >What say those who claimed that the film was a contemporary fake
 >filmed on video ?

It also could have been a contemporary fake filmed on 16mm film
as well.

 >Again, none of this shows the film to be authentic but rather it
 >might go a long way to show that if the film is indeed a fake,
 >it was nothing to do with Santilli as it was around (on 16mm) at
 >least 20/30 years before he obtained it.

It still doesn't prove how old the actual film with the actual
alien carcass is.

 >I can already see the egg dripping on certain faces, and it's
 >not mine I can assure you.

If you merely report that witness X says this or that you won't
have any egg on your face, unless the witnesses credibility
disintigrates after further peer investigation.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clarke

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:33:51 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:47:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clarke


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:40:49 -0400

 >Of course, we do have to introduce one subtlety. Skeptics don't
 >say outright that eyewitness testimony is worthless. A blanket
 >statement like that wouldn't make any sense.

 >What they do, instead, is challenge eyewitness statements in
 >particular cases, with general comments on the unreliability of
 >eyewitnesses. For example, see the chapter on the Chiles-Whitted
 >sighting in Phil Klass's book "UFOs Explained." Phil thinks the
 >two airline pilots in that case saw a meteor, and only imagined
 >that the quickly-passing light in the sky was a craft with
 >windows. To support his case, he cites other cases in which
 >eyewitnesses made allegedly similar mistakes.

Hi Greg,

If you read Jenny Randles "Something in the Air" you will find
that Jenny also feels the Chiles-Whitted sighting is explicable
as a fireball meteor, and draws parallels between the
description and that given by the pilot and co-pilot involved in
the 1995 case near Manchester Airport.

Are we to label Jenny as a "debunker" simply for suggesting a
reasonable explanation -or is it better simply to perpetuate
mysteries for the sake of it?

So I think it's you who isn't well-read, rather than the
demonic Mr Rimmer.

As for the reliability of eyewitness testimony, I can't do better
than quote from Wernher von Braun's "First Men to the Moon"
(1958):

"...a lifetime spent with testing of guided missiles has taught
me to be extremely careful with eye-witness accounts on rocket
firings running into some in-flight trouble. Of three
experienced observers questioned after a typical mishap, one
swore that he clearly saw a part coming off before the rocket
faltered; a second hotly denied this but claimed that the
missile oscillated violently before it veered off the course;
while the third trained observer saw neither a part coming off,
nor an oscillation, nor any veering off course but insisted the
rocket was flying perfectly steadily until it was abruptly
ripped apart by an internal explosion."

Von Braun goes on to say:

"Such contradictions in the eyewitness accounts of old rocket
men are by no means an exception; we are almost invariably
confronted with this situation. Yet we are dealing here with
experienced observers who not only had seen many firings, but
who had the great advantage of being mentally prepared for the
imminent test. For this reason I am highly skeptical about the
objective of any 'sighting' report of a fleeting, mysterious
object in the sky submitted by an equally surprised and
unexperienced observer."

That is a neat summary of the problems inherent within
"eyewitness testimony." Of course it should not be discarded,
but equally it should not be accepted at face value unless
supported by independent, hard evidence.


TTFN

Dave Clarke








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                           The Watchdog - 04-15-01

From: "ufowatchdog@earthlink.net" <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 06:55:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:49:42 -0400
Subject: The Watchdog - 04-15-01


UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind"
http://www.ufowatchdog.com


***NEWS***

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/news.html

~ Reed Hoax Further Exposed: Alleged microbiologist and author
of Reed alien book employed as clerks at Seattle gas station.

~ CSICOP Member Says Denial Is Not Skepticism

~ NASA To Cut Live Feed From ISS
~Popular Mechanics: When UFOs Land

***OF INTEREST***

Wanted! Your thoughts, views and comments - How do you view the
current state of UFOlogy? Send comments to:
ufowatchdog@earthlink.net

~Ad *First Annual Northwest UFO/Paranormal Conference* Ad~
http://www.seattleartbellchatclub.com/NWUFO.html

***CAVEAT EMPTOR***

~ Ed Dames: Hocus Pocus http://www.ufowatchdog.com/rvdames.html

~ The Morton Files http://www.ufowatchdog.com/morton1.html

***UFO DIRTBAG(s) OF THE MONTH - APRIL 2001***
Jonathan Reed, Robert Raith and the Reed Hoax
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/dirtbagapr.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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:23:17 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:52:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:05:27 -0500

 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:52:20 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>Lest we forget....

 >>This long and entertaining "Debunkers' Guidebook" thread started
 >>when I asked Jerome Clark if he could present any example of a
 >>"debunker" claiming that eyewitness testimony could be
 >>disregarded as worthless.

 >>We've heard a lot from Mr Clark on other topics but not, I fear,
 >>an answer to this simple question.

 >>Why am I not surprised?

 >Well, John, I am not surprised. You just can't surprise me
 >anymore, I'm afraid.

 >I answered the question long ago. Please go back and reread the
 >archives of this thread, and particularly the post in which I
 >explained why the rejection of massive eyewitness testimony to
 >structured, craftlike UFOs is an innately necessary aspect of
 >debunking ideology.

In another answer to a question of mine Serge Salvaille has the
courtesy to list a number of references to people who have used
"mass hysteria" as an explanation of UFO sightings. He also
conveniently gives URL links so I and others can check further.
This contrasts with your consistent policy of _never_ giving
actual references to support any of the claims you toss out.

No, Jerry, you have not answered this question, nor do I now
expect you ever will. You have given us a lot of waffle about
so-called "massive" eye-witness testimony but have consistently,
unlike other, braver, souls on this List, refused to nominate
the cases you think most support the existence of "structured,
craftlike UFOs".

 >I must say that your disingenuousness on this and matters is
 >getting tiresome and pointless, except to remind me again why I
 >am neither a debunker nor a psychosocial theorist (if there is a
 >difference).

The last time you used this phrase (careful, it may become
another element in Jerry Clark Bingo) I asked how you differed
from an ETH proponent. No answer of course, as my question was
snipped from your reply. Without any hope of an answer I will
ask one more question. You clearly accept that some UFO reports
represent "structured craftlike UFOs". Can you suggest anything
that these might be, other than extraterrestrial spacecraft,
given the descriptions of their performance characteristics
reported by witnesses whose accounts must not, in your view, be
challenged because they are part of "massive eyewitness
testimony"?


Yours,

not holding my breath

--
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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                    Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:45:48 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:54:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth
 >Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 09:35:53 -0500

 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:55:01 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth

 >>Lest we forget... II

 >>Another thread which seems to have taken wings without answering
 >>the simple original question.

 >>Examples please (preferably within the past, oh, thirty years)
 >>of a UFO case being dismissed as "mass hysteria" by sceptics.

 >I would guess that it was a smirkingly insulting and
 >complacently arrogant tone that is the major cause of any thread
 >taking angry wing, but to defuse this artless little dodge (and
 >last refuge of the strident skeptibunky), how about Robert E.
 >Bartholomew in the New England Journal of Skepticism Vol. 1
 >Issue 2 (Spring '98)... when he writes :

 >"Mass Delusions: A Brief Overview

 >Collective delusions and so-called mass hysterias take many
 >forms, of which there are at least four common types. For a
 >detailed discussion of each type, see my recent article in The
 >Skeptical Inquirer (May-June, 1997). I will next provide a brief
 >overview of each category, then briefly discuss two separate
 >delusions that occurred in various parts of New England between
 >1897 and 1910 and look at their characteristic features."

 >...at URL http://ufonline.oasi.asti.it/testi/airship1.htm

This article is interesting, in that it does seem to be an
account of a genuine social panic. In this case it seems that
many different phenomena (some of which may indeed have been
genuinely mysterious) were lumped together as a result of the
rumours which were in circulation at the time; the "panic" was
then helped along by sensationalised newspaper reports, which
fed on further sightings, and so on. The whole episode is very
well described by the entry in Jerry Clark's Encyclopaedia,
which draws a careful distinction between the "mass hysteria"
part of the phenomena, and the individual cases which might
withstand more critical scrutiny.

A similar situation arose in Warminster, England, in the late
sixties and early seventies, where a whole community, and the
thousands of visiting ufologists and curiosity seekers built up
an elaborate "UFO flap" in which any strange or even momentarily
puzzling episode was incorporated into the Warminster Mystery.
As in the New England episode this was helped along by a
supportive press, abley spun by local newsman Arthur
Shuttlewood.

 >I would suggest that you already knew of this example and of
 >more besides, and that this is a further demonstration of the
 >skeptibunky mindset usually coming up short in a rational debate
 >on the subject of UFOs. I don't know why Hall and Clark even
 >waste time with you.

I'm flattered that you think I am as well-read on these matters
as Jerry Clark, who appears to have read everything on the topic
(not being sarcastic, Jerry, a genuine tribute!) but I seem to
have missed this piece in the "New England Journal of
Skepticism" - a new title to me, but one which promises to be a
barrel of laughs. Does anyone know where I can subscribe or blag
a copy?

Goodnight skeptibunkys... everywhere.
--
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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                    Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 14:18:52 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:56:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Rimmer


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth
 >Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:31:53 -0400


 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:55:01 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth

 >>Lest we forget... II

 >>Another thread which seems to have taken wings without answering
 >>the simple original question.

 >>Examples please (preferably within the past, oh, thirty years)
 >>of a UFO case being dismissed as "mass hysteria" by sceptics.

 >Skeptics seldom if ever succeed in addressing specific UFO cases
 >in detail. This is understandable as they seek to smother the
 >UFO debate. As such, the widespread use of "mass hysteria" suits
 >them well: it makes the general public believe that UFO reports
 >are issued by weirdoes and "suspicious" people.

No. As I think earlier contributions to UpDates show, sceptics
are happy to discuss individual cases, but it seems to be ETH
proponents who are unwilling to nominate cases for discussion -
except the never-ending Socorro and Rendlesham.

If "mass hysteria" is being used as an explanation of reports it
is by - and here may I make a contribution to the ufological
lexicon - "bungee- sceptics"; people with little or no knowledge
of the subject who dive in, take a quick look around, issue a
couple of fatuous pronouncements, then rapidly bounce out again
leaving consternation behind them. I would point out that there
are "bungee-believers" as well, whose contributions bring groans
from long-term ETH-oriented researchers. (Those of you who are
followers of the Dilbert cartoon strip will know what i am
talking about here.)

 >Another weapon of this arsenal would be "little green men".

Has anybody got any idea where this started? What's the first
printed reference -- any idea Jerry?

 >I do not believe one could ever explain a single UFO case with
 >"mass hysteria".

Neither do I, as an explanation for a single event. But it might
explain why, in certain circumstances, stimuli which would
normally be overlooked or not registered as mysterious, are
reported as UFOs and given a prominence they do not otherwise
desrve. cf. Warminster.

 >But the buzzword serves the skeptic's agenda very well.

 >Following are a few references to spear you some work.

Thank you for these references, it is kind of you to give such a
full and instructive reply. I will certainly follow them up with
interest. I note that in one of them even the sceptic admits
that mass hysteria is a "glib assertion". As to the Spanish
gentleman, well I am already one of the "hip-crowd" and have no
need of such hysteria.

Completely irrelevant joke, prompted by the last comment:

1960's:     New, hip, joint.
2000's:     New hip-joint.

--
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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                 Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:02:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:59:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:40:25 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:01:00 EDT
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young

<snip>

 >You're still missing my point.

 >Johnson brought up the whole issue of how far he could see
 >"objects" in his telescope in an allusion to the distance at
 >which he saw _these_ objects, otherwise the point was irrelevant
 >to bring up and the FBI agents wouldn't have mentioned it
 >either. Certainly he was giving a clue to a ballpark estimate or
 >order-of-magnitude impression of the distance which alone might
 >not be directly observable but in a ratio with the height
 >impression he had would be a valid and observable quantity
 >(elevation angle = height/distance in radians approx.). And
 >Bruce still suspects the objects were even further than what
 >Johnson "thought" (see the URL for his posting I gave above) but
 >disagrees on my distance interpretation.>


I think the objects were relatively close to overhead, hence
Johnsons claim or "interpretation of the data" that they seemed
to be 1,000 ft higher than he. I think they may have been
farther than Johnson thought because I think they were probably
higher than he thought, not because I think they were at a great
distance and on the horizon.

Had they been 10 miles away I think he would have said so
directly. I still think he was just trying to impress the FBI
agents with the quality of his telescope that allowed him to see
things at ten miles. Of course, we all know that being able to
"see things" at 10 miles does not tell us the strength of the
scope. 3X binoculars help one to see things at 10 miles better
than\ one can see them without the binoculars. ertainly the same
would be true of a 10X monocular or... pick a magnification!

I think it is _less_ likely that the objects were "close" to
overhead than that they were 10 miles away nearly on the
horizon.

I think it is perfectly possible for Johnson to have tracked one
or more of the objects by moving his monocular telescope
(assumed, since he didn't say binocular).

I think the main point to emphasize here is that Johnson got a
very good look at the objects and saw a detail unnoticed by
Arnold: some object, perhaps bar-like, that was swinging back
and forth at the rear end of an (each?) object, "like a big
magenet" (sic).

 >I notice no comment on the extraordinary match between this 2�
 >elevation angle derived from Fred Johnson's distance/height
 >impressions and Arnold's 2� elevation angle which I take as
 >confirmation of each other.

I don't think there is a match.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                 Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:03:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:00:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee


 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 03:45:15 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question



 >Hello Bruce and Serge:

 >I found a few EME cases prior to the Johnson sighting in June
 >1947. These are of highly variable merits of course.

 >The Electromagnetics aspect may not be apparent in my one-line
 >summaries, thus the sources:


 >#74:  1809/8/10  0:0  10  0:05W  51:31N  3331  WEU GBI ENG
 >LONDON:SCIENTIST STAVELEY:MANY NLTS MNVR/DARK CLOUD COVER:
 >NFD:/r2p14 + /R210 The APRO BULLETIN. Volume 33 Issue 7


Thanks for the information.  It is highly unlikely that Johnson
would have known of any of these earlier reports.)

Did any of these reports actually mention effects on a compass?









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                    Brazil: UFO Sect Suspected of Murder

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:44:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:03:49 -0400
Subject: Brazil: UFO Sect Suspected of Murder



Source: StarMedia.com Date: April 10, 2001

13 Children Murdered in Brazil: Argentine-Brazilian UFO Cult
Suspected Of Infanticide

Buenos Aires.- While a member of the "Lineamiento Universal
Superior" (L.U.S. -- Superior Universal Alignment) cult is being
accused of crimes against children, the cult's leader, Valentina
de Andrade, is also under suspicion. She is believed to be
living in Argentina, according to investigators in this
country's capital.

In the city of Altamira, State of Para, 13 children were raped,
with their genitalia mutilated for what appear to be ritual
satanic purposes, and then stabbed to death. Physician Anisio
Ferreira de Souza, an alleged member of the L.U.S. sect, is
among the accused and is currently in jail. He is also under
suspicion of having created an organization dedicated to
murdering minors to steal their vital organs, and of having
committed crimes in the states of Parana, Goias and Espiritu
Santo.

Judge Luis Ernane Ferreira Malto, of 3rd Crimilan Court in
Altamira, mandated preventive custody for other parties
suspected of being involved--among them another physician, a
former corporal in the military police, and Valentina de Andrade
herself. "As of today, they shall be hunted throughout the
country and even abroad," stated the judge when issuing the
preventive custody decree.

In 1992, Brazilian justice investigated Valentina and her group
due to the disappearance of a child in the island of Guaratuba,
in the southern state of Parana, where another children had
become a victim to ritual crime. Valentina and her followers
avoided prosecution when suspicions were proven to be
inconsistent. From that moment on, the sect ceased all public
operations and its leader left Brazil for the city of Londrina
in Parana. Taking up residence in Buenos Aires, she was followed
only by a few faithful adepts, having been deserted by hundreds
of followers who had become aware of the psychological
manipulation and economic exploitation to which they had been
subjected under the Brazilian's leadership.

While former members who denounced these abuses testified to the
non-existence of ritual crime or the kidnapping of children by
Valentina de Andrade, they did accuse her of having commited
"coercive persuasion" after forcing a couple to turn over their
baby daughter to a childless couple, and forcing other couples
to leave their children with grandparents or other guardians in
order to "leave the planet" aboard her spaceship. These children
were believed to be "negative energies" by Valentina, who
advised that they be left behind. Meanwhile, she portrayed
herself as a lofty cosmic entity of "light, love and truth" who
had become incarnate on Earth to perform a mission.

Valentina's preching started in 1981 after having received
allegedly extraterrestrial messages through her former husband,
Argentinean national Roberto Olivera, her accomplice in the sect
until 1987. Shortly after, Valentina embarked upon her mission
to spread the information she had supposedly received from the
cosmic beings. This task is apparently pursued only by a few
former members of her group, after having separated themselves
from Valentina. A confidential source says the woman's "abuses
betrayed the mission, using her extraterrestrial-imparted
knowledge for her benefit and not for the common good, for which
reason the teachings must be purified from her distortions and
rescued from the ridicule she created by her ravings."

While Brazilian authorities sought Valentina de Andrade in the
country, hoping to finde her in Sao Paulo, sources knowledgeable
on UFOs in Argentina claim that L.U.S.'s leader is spending her
70 years of age in Buenos Aires under fair economic conditions,
without working and relying on the earnings of her followers.
She changes residences frequently and has not denied herself a
trip to Las Vegas among other ostentatious ways of fulfilling
her "mission on Earth".


######################

Translation (C) 2001. S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special Thanks to Dr. Virgilio Sanchez Ocejo.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                        High Silliness On UFO UpDates

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:34:52 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:07:01 -0400
Subject: High Silliness On UFO UpDates


High Silliness on UFO UpDates

83.2% of posts on UpDates concerning debunking, statistics and
skeptic-advocates debates contain silliness, high silliness, or
very high silliness.

"Ultra high silliness" is a new category to encompass a new
silliness which is off the previous charts. The >belief< that
one should not cite one's own works because there might be some
economic benefit to the author or the non-availability of the
work to the disputant requires a new ultra high silliness
category.

So if Dick Hall with nearly 45 years experience has selected a
large number of cases that he feels merit attention in UFO
Evidence II, he shouldn't be allowed to cite them, not from UFO
Evidence II in any case, since the disputants won't cough up the
money for it or won't ask the local library to obtain a copy.

That said, I was also very impressed with the ideas that
statistics are important in the understanding of UFOs. I have
always been a fan of statistics. Let me see:

Humphreys explain all cases of ball lightning sent to him, that
is 100%. The Titanic was unsinkable, that was the probability of
major accident causing the ship to go down happening was 0%.

We should eschew statements based on experience if they are not
accompanied by statistics. Therefore, the commanders and staff
officers of Third Army should have disregarded just about
everything that Patton wrote in his "Instructions to Third
Army." He said things like don't trust stragglers stories
because they are trying to justify their position, or night
reconnaissance should be viewed with caution. Since Patton did
not include any kind of statistics in this kind of "speaking
from experience," all his statements and orders should have been
disregarded because they were demonstratively unscientific.
Orders to commanders not to directly attack highly defended,
strong points in unfavorable terrain such as mountain passes
also should not be credited; again, no statistics, and with the
large amount of men and equipment available to Third Army, such
strong points could probably be statistically overcome.

Hynek should not be trusted because he makes noises which
sounded scientific but were not backed up by statistics. I
agree. Apparently, the disputants also feel that they should not
read Hynek's books either. Good idea! Then, one would not know
Hynek did a re-evaluation the USAF cases explaining some
unknowns and changing some "explained cases" to unknown. The
number of unknowns remained low verses knowns. Cover sheets from
this study may be found in the CUFOS files.

Everyone "knows" that 95-97 UFO reports can be explained.
Ufologists, skeptics the USAF, Martians all use these numbers.
They must be true. They must be good because the Air Force is a
high technical proficient organization which routinely
understands and uses statistics. They can give you bombing
rates, maintenance failure rates, and all kinds of stats on how
much tonnage will arrive over the target, etc., etc. Just some
questions here about using the Air Force UFO stats.

What is a UFO case?

Let's see a two paragraph newspaper clipping is a UFO cases, but
a highly detailed report from trained intelligence experts
assigned to Air Force attache positions is not a case, but for
information only. A GOC observer called the filter center and
asked when Mars rises, that became a UFO case. When interviewed
by the 4602d AISS personnel, the observer said she saw a bright
red light in the east that she took to be Mars and called the
filter center to confirm her idea, not to report a UFO, that is
a UFO case.

What is meant by the "insignificant information category?"

Probably the Madhatter's answer in Alice is best here, anything
you want it to mean at the time, but it seemed to be that "vital
elements" such as time, date, place, direction, etc. were
missing. However, it also includes, reports not reaching the Air
Force within five days, reaching the Air Force, not investigated
by the Air Force. The rationale being, that if a case is over
five days old the witness' memory is degraded. However, if the
Air Force took two months to get around to investigating the
case it is not "insignificant information" the witness memory is
still degraded. But if the observer waited six days or the
report got tied up somewhere, that is insignificant information.
Hall once wrote an essay on how the insignificant info category
was used as "finagle factor" but we shouldn't cite such works,
sorry.

Known, Probably and Possible.

Known, it can demonstrated that the object(s) in question
has/have identifiable source(s).

Probably, well, it looked like a balloon, acted like a balloon,
balloons were in the area. It was probably a balloon.

Possible. Ruppelt mentioned two fireballs that crossed each
other at right angles. It was possibly two fireball meteors. It
is possible that I will win the lottery tomorrow, also. Some
times the possibilities are pretty far out, but that shouldn't
give anyone pause, statistics are what is important. Hynek
actually suggested the above system of possible/probable/known
in his commentary about the August 1953, Bismarck/Grand Rapid,
SD case. He later railed against this suggestion when it was
adopted. Besides, Hynek and James, Major General Harold Watson
was associated with Blue Book for about the longest time, either
as ATIC commander or as a staff officer or commander overseeing
ATIC or its successor organizations. When the 4602d AISS came up
with about one third unexplained UFO cases, he said possible and
probable categories should be instituted. Understandably the
unexplained category fell, just as the regulations ordered.

One last comment here, Ruppelt according to his notes, did not
use the Nash-Fortenberry sighting in his book due to the fact
that there were other aircraft present in the area. Possible
aircraft?

Psychological explanation.

During Ruppelt's tenure close approach sightings were trashed or
put in the CP file. There really was a "Crack Pot" file,
Ruppelt's papers contains some examples made available by Max
Futch to Ruppelt. The 4602d AISS labeled most close approach
cases as overactive imagination, and pushed on. As James
Doetter's US Forest Service firewatchers study shows, if the
object or light is far out there, it is an intellectual
curiosity, but if it comes in close then it becomes personal and
people forget to use the measuring instruments readily available
to them.

Col Friend labeled most cases reported years after the fact as
psychological, that got them explained and off the books.

MacArthur, I think, said only 5% of intelligence is true, the
trick was knowing which 5%.

93% of all UFO books are trash.

97% of all UFO reports are IFOs.

98% of all people don't understand the proper use of statistics.

99% of all UFO statistics whatever the source, Air Force,
ufologists, etherians, skeptics are useless.

99.8% of all scientists who cite Air Force UFO stats have not
idea what they are talking about.

I am the UFO statistics debunker! Give me a UFO statistic, and I
will debunk it!

Is that CISCOP enough for ya?

Word Up!


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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                      The Watchdog - Eaaster Greetings

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 15:56:34 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:08:45 -0400
Subject: The Watchdog - Eaaster Greetings


UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind"
http://www.ufowatchdog.com

Wishing you all a great Easter holiday, enjoy.


Sincerely,

Royce J. Myers III
UFOWATCHDOG.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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

               CCCRN News: Radio Interview: 21st Century Radio

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 12:50:38 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:10:09 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News: Radio Interview: 21st Century Radio


CCCRN NEWS
The E-News Service of the Canadian Crop Circle Research Network

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

April 15, 2001

_____________________________


RADIO INTERVIEW: 21ST CENTURY RADIO

Discussion with CCCRN on the Canadian crop circles and other
circular phenomena, with director Paul Anderson, Alberta
coordinator Gordon Sopczak and Saskatchewan field research
assistant Beata Van Berkom, including reports from 2000 and
looking toward the 2001 season

'21st Century Radio'
Hieronimus & Company
Monday, April 16, 2001
Live, 10:00 pm - 12:00 am ET

http://www.21stcenturyradio.com

Affiliate radio stations (Liberty Works Radio Network):

http://www.libertyworksradio.com/stations.shtml

To listen via internet:

http://www.libertyworksradio.com


____________________________


CCCRN News is the e-news service of the Canadian Crop Circle
Research Network, providing the latest news and reports on the
crop circle phenomenon in Canada and other relevant updates, as
well as other information and updates on CCCRN-related news,
projects and events. CCCRN News is available free by
subscription:

To subscribe to CCCRN News, send your e-mail address to:
cccrnnews-subscribe@listbot.com


You can also subscribe or unsubscribe from the CCCRN web site:

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/emailupdates.html

CCCRN News Archive:

http://www.listbot.com/archive/cccrnnews


CANADIAN CROP CIRCLE RESEARCH NETWORK

Main Office:
Suite 202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC  V5T 2M9  Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

Provincial Branch Contacts:
http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/contacts.html


� Canadian Crop Circle Research Network, 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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                        Re: 'Military' UFOs - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 16:47:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:12:08 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Aldrich


 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:23:27 +0100
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:02:04 -0400
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Jones

 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: 'Military' UFOs

 >Evening John,

 >>The 'talk' about the Nellis Craft being "made in the USA"
 >>started me thinking. What bothers me is, military UFOs is one of
 >>those situations where 1+1 never equals 2.

<snip>

 >1) The SR71 Blackbird was flying back in '62 (before I was born)
 >it is still one of the fastest planes known about>publicly. That
 >bird was built forty years ago!

 >2) The SR71 wasn't made public until the>eighties, please
 >someone tell me when, because I bet the dates>where different
 >both sides of the water.

<snip>

No, the Sr-71 was announced in three different avatars by
President Johnson. For my logics professor, an ultra liberal,
this was too much. In class he announced that the answers for
each one of Goldwater's criticism of Johnson's military policy
Johnson reacted with an announcement of a new aircraft. "So now
we have the 'weapons falacy.'"


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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                                   Belief

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:38:02 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:13:42 -0400
Subject: Belief


Hi all,

Something struck me the other day, I have three daughters, 3, 8
and 9 years of age.

They all believe very strongly in the existence of Fairies,
little people with dragonfly wings.

Now of course we know such things don't really exist don't we,
but they won't be budged from their belief.

A belief system seems to exist on all levels, if you have
children then you know what I mean, if not then you can't begin
to understand.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, maybe the belief of some
adults is not that different from that of children. Innocent!


Dave (the suffering Dad).









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                    Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:42:03 +0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:18:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Goldstein


 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:41:34 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:29:36 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

 >>>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:54:28 -0500
 >>>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Previously, I had written:

 >>>You obviously understand the difference between discussing
 >>>differences of opinion on a topic as opposed to the flat out
 >>>criticizing of another person. Yet, for some reason beyond me,
 >>>you and Jerry find some sort of redeeming value in the latter.

 >Greg replied:

 >>Thus, Jerry and Dick Hall, who've been working
 >>in the field for decades, are challenged to provide lists of
 >>cases, as if they hadn't already done that in well known
 >>published work.

 ><snip>

 >Hi Greg!

 >If you know this to be true, then how can you chastise someone
 >or hold them accountable for not having access to these
 >materials? It is an assumption you make that skeptics either
 >haven't read the materials or have read them and have ignored
 >them. What is amazing to me is that skeptics should be held to a
 >higher standard than Ufologists. I refer to Richard Hall's
 >recent post where he lamented:

 >>Something that is becoming evident to me in the often
 >>acrimonious exchanges in regard to internal criticism by
 >>advocates as compared to doubters, is that we apparently do not
 >>know each others' UFO literature very well.

 >In the end, it is not the skeptics' duty to prove the ETH, but
 >rather, the duty of those that feel the ETH is the most
 >reasonable explanation for the best of the UFO casefiles. When a
 >skeptic asks to see "evidence" or "proof", Ufologists recoil
 >into a well worn routine of referral to previous works;
 >information that you and Richard both admit is not that readily
 >available or well known. This would not be so bad if not for the
 >feigned indignation and artificial importance attached.

 >Again, the double standard runs straight and true. You claimed
 >that skeptics don't criticize each other's work and offer up Bob
 >Young's lack of response in providing examples as some sort of
 >proof of your position. You then follow up with examples that
 >show skeptics do, in fact, criticize each other though not as
 >often as would satisfy Ufologists. You chastise those demanding
 >proof of your position for not reading materials that, by all
 >accounts, are not that well known or available. Ultimately, it
 >would appear from Richard's post that being ill acquainted with
 >some Pro-UFO literature is considered only an unfortunate
 >oversight, as long as Ufologists are involved. But let a skeptic
 >make the same transgression, and suddenly it is inexcusable
 >ignorance.

 >And let's be clear about this: Just what is it that skeptics
 >might be ignorant of? In the end, until ET life and ET
 >visitation has been proved, then something as impressive as
 >Jerry's Big Book of UFOs is really nothing more than a
 >collection of folk lore. As such, anyone's papers relating to
 >said cases are nothing more than opinions on folk lore.
 >Interesting opinions, maybe, but nothing anywhere close to proof
 >or even convincing evidence. Just guesses.

 >Regarding these opinions, Greg wrote:

 >>But still we should conduct
 >>ourselves with respect for the work that's already been done. We
 >>should (this includes me) be asking about it, rather than acting
 >>as if it doesn't exist, or is somehow irrelevant. (Or, for that
 >>matter, writing in apparent ignorance of what's in the UFO
 >>literature, as I've seen some active participants do here.)

 >I couldn't agree more. The only thing that I would add is that
 >Ufologists also shouldn't act as if questions don't exist or are
 >somehow irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Or, for that
 >matter, writing in apparent ignorance of what's in the UFO
 >UpDates archives, as I've seen some active participants do
 >here.) I believe in the probability of ET life and ET visitation
 >but I believe that the Ufology camp has become a little too
 >cocky in their position and a reality check is badly needed.
 >There is no proof; they have proved nothing and demanding that
 >skeptics "disprove" folklore is childish. To demonize skeptics
 >for asking unpopular questions that should, by all accounts, be
 >easily accounted for is a really poor substitute for actually
 >answering the questions. If skeptics ask questions out of
 >ignorance, then Ufologists should enlighten them with a good
 >answer as opposed to the Waffle House special of avoidance,
 >ridicule and selective memory.

 >Finally, you wrote:

 >>Brad Sparks has stated my position very well. It's a question of
 >>scientific debate and peer review, not personal or even
 >>intellectual "hits."

 >If that's the case, then I don't see what the problem is. As you
 >have already pointed out, skeptics have been known to disagree
 >with each other's positions in the past; you even pointed out
 >the very literature. If it's not enough to satisfy Ufologists,
 >then that is really just too bad, frankly. Again, it is not the
 >job of skeptics to prove the ETH. If skeptics chose to do
 >absolutely _nothing_ but sit at their computers and do no
 >research what so ever, it doesn't change the responsibility of
 >the Ufology campers to prove their case. If Ufologists get to
 >decide if something has been debunked, then it is only fair that
 >skeptics get to decide if something is convincing.

 >What's convincing to you and me might not be the same as what's
 >convincing to them. But who's fault is that, really?


Until Friday I had been offline since April 1 due to a short
music tour. I downloaded 499 messages, mostly from UFO UpDates.
I'm glad I did not have Stan Friedman's load of over 1,000 to
plow through. I've found a lot of this Skeptics Vs. Ufologists
debate rather tedious.

In my opinion I feel Greg Sandow, Jenny Randles, Jerry Clark,
and Dick Hall clearly pointed out that there is UFO evidence to
be looked at that is worthy of a scientific study. I certainly
do not believe it is only folklore. If you think so, you
obviously are not acquainted with much of the serious UFO
related research. The above named people have been involved with
this research for a great many years. How much did you study
before or since you arrived on this forum some months ago?

Have you read any of the military reports, radar trackings,
airline pilots, military pilots and crew reports? Have you
studied any of the history of this subject? Have you read
anything published by Dick Haines, or anything published by the
above named people? Did you study any of James McDonald's or
Allen Hynek's work? I'm not talking about the archives of this
forum. Yes, there are a few expensive books but considering the
volume and depth of research and study that went into them they
are well worth their price. Plus, Dick Hall and Jerry Clark have
published a lot of material that is not so costly. I believe if
one is going to seriously study the subject and take an informed
position, one must make an investment into that research. That
material is easily available to people with small budgets. It is
available to anyone. It may not be available in your local
bookstore but it is easily obtained otherwise.

Have you read any of the serious journals?

Roger, have you studied any of the above? If so, I don't
understand how you can claim it is mere folklore. I certainly
believe in healthy skepticism but uninformed skeptic or believer
positions are the opinions of dilletantes. The worst is if one
sinks to being a Klasshole, trying to make pronouncements
unconnected to having studied anything. When I joined this forum
I hoped it would be free of uninformed opinions and debate with
no merit. It is rather odd to have people who have conducted
years of serious research having to defend themselves against
the criticisms of people who have not invested the energy to
find out what they are talking about. That is why it was
proposed that a forum consist of people on both sides who have a
track record that shows they know what they are talking about.
I've seen a great deal of ignorance exhibited in the anti - ET
possibility posts and the Alien Autopsy posts. I don't know if
there are ETs or not but I have read many of the reports of the
type I mentioned in my second paragraph. I have no doubt that
people who are professionals in their fields observed and
tracked UFOs that exhibit fligh characteristics beyond anything
known to have been manufactured by any nation on this planet.
Once again, I believe that it is more than folklore and it is
worthy of serious scientific study. That will certainly involve
skepticism and the ability to suspend any judgement until the
evidence is thoroughly and professionally analyzed.


Happy Easter,

Josh











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                       Re: 'Military' UFOs - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 03:47:46 +0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:25:10 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Goldstein


 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: 'Military' UFOs

 >Hi All,

<snip>

 >Recently when I saw the aircraft that was being used for
 >"spying" I almost busted a gut laughing. That thing may be
 >"ultra-top-secret-state-of-the-art" inside... but outside it is
 >about as subtle as a Pink elephant. It was a big, clunky, four
 >engine plane. It had to be to carry all that crap and, 24 crew
 >members.

John, that was a surveillance plane,not a spy plane. It was
intended to be visible flying over international waters. There
is a big difference between surveillance, reconnaisance and spy
planes.

 >Historically, every time the military types find a way to make
 >the "stick" they wield BIGGER, the first thing they do is to
 >wave it in everyone's face. (A little old fashioned sabre
 >rattling.) Man, they would score huge brownie points with the
 >American public, who would throw their support behind 'making
 >America invincible' in a New York minute.

 >(If you don't think that's true, come and talk to the
 >flag_waving morons that tied yellow ribbons around trees for our
 >captured _spies!_) They would not only throw their support
 >behind a fleet of American UFOs, they would throw their money at
 >it in precedent setting quantities. If these alleged military
 >UFOs were also capable of going beyond earth's atmosphere and
 >maneuvering in space then America would control the world, and
 >outer space.

John, I find your above statement calling those people "morons"
to be insulting. To get on a high horse, I served in Vietnam
flying helicopters. I was highly decorated for combat in the air
and on the ground. I also was shot down and from my injuries I
am rated 100% service connected disabled by the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Fortunately I closely escaped from being
captured. When I returned I became active in the anti-war
movement because we needed to get out of that morass we were
sinking into. I feel your calling people who care about captured
service people "morons" to be insensitive and narrow minded. If I
had become a POW I would have been glad to have people tie
yellow ribbons around the old oak tree. I love this country and
what it stands for.

John, I am asking you to post a public apology on this List.
Please think before you shoot your mouth off.

By the way,  the crew held by the Chinese were not spies. I am a
Democrat and I think this aadministration has done an excellent
job with this situation. I like that in times of crisis people
drop their partisanship and work together for the common good.
It certainly is the opposite from the totalitarian dictatorship
of China. If this country was under attack, I wouldn't think
twice about fighting to defend America,  even with my
disabilities.

<snip>

John, you seem to be of better character than your above "moron"
remark.

Please retract that and apologize to everyone on this List you
may have offended.


Thanks,

Josh










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                             'The Mystery Club'

From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:58:16 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:27:15 -0400
Subject: 'The Mystery Club'


I would just like to thank everyone who has either donated or
promised UFO items for the boys of 'The Mystey Club' at Batley
Boys High School.

I have been working with these boys and their teachers and I
will continue to do so. They have shown great enthusiasm for all
things mysterious, but especially UFOs.

It is our hope that this enthusiasm will overlap into ther
general academic studies. You may remember me informing you that
a great many of these young boys (aged 11 and upwards) are at
the bottom of the education ladder and rarely put pen-to-paper,
however, when it comes to UFOs there's no stopping them.

The Mystey Club is run in their own time and like most schools
in the UK the one thing they are short of is resources.

I would therefore like to ask once again for your support in
this venture. I am trying to collect as much UFO material as I
can for the express use of The Mystery Club. This of course
includes books, magazines, CD-ROMS, videos, etc, etc.

If you can help supply any  UFO material I can assure you that
it will be greatly appreciated by all concerned and also put to
good use.


Many thanks,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                       Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:29:36 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:31:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall


 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:48:09 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>>In 'The Threat', David Jacobs wrote, "While Mack does not 'lead
 >>>>the witness' in the classic meaning of the phrase, he embraces
 >>>>the 'positive' therapeutic technique that leads to mutual
 >>>>confirmational fantasies and easily steers the abductee into
 >>>>dissociative channeled pathways."

 >>>These seem rather muted criticisms of methodology and not the
 >>>sort of dismantling of basic principles that ufologists/sceptics
 >>>adopt against each other. Of course it would be difficult for
 >>>Mack, Jacobs, et al to take each other too much to task for
 >>>their hypnotic regression methods, as their own invesigative
 >>>techniques might start to crumble as well.

 >>Muted? Sounds like a pretty strong criticism to me. I have also
 >>criticized Mack along similar lines. Their hypnotic regression
 >>methods or techniques are all pretty similar; it's their
 >>"filtering" mind sets and the attitudes and world views they
 >>convey to their "clients" that tend to differ. For you to
 >>suggest that they avoid criticizing each others methods for fear
 >>of it backfiring on themselves amounts to a personal attack on
 >>them. Why can't they honestly disagree?

 >I'm sure they do honestly disagree, and I don't see that my
 >comments could be construed as a personal attack. But obviously
 >both have investigated many - certainly not all - of their cases
 >using hypnotic techniques. They will disagree with certain
 >aspects of interpretation, but it is no none of their interests
 >to denounce any particular technique too strongly. I think
 >Jacob's comment quoted above *is* rather muted, as he takes
 >pains to assure us that Mack does not lead the witness "in the
 >classic meaning of that phrase".

John,

Oh, you want them to criticize each others' use of hypnosis as
an investigative technique, but it is not "in their interests"
to do so. Perhaps they simply see no reason to do so. They don't
disagree on the use of hypnosis per se, except insofar as
someone blatantly cues the witness. At least twice you suggest
that they are somehow `holding back' for fear of doing damage to
their own position. That sounds like a personal charge to me.

 >>>Neal makes a valid criticism of the abductionists case and has
 >>>never been adequately answered, but he is hardly a mainstream
 >>>figure - I suspect he is probably as obscure as John Harney, as
 >>>he does not feature in Jerome Clark's encyclopaedia!

 >>Dr. Neal was an active member of MUFON and often attended and
 >>spoke at its conventions.

 >I'm sure Neal was a dilligent researcher. My comment was aimed
 >at Jerome Clark, who seemed to imply in an earlier posting that
 >because John Harney did not command as high a profile as some
 >other researchers, then his critical comments on Klass need not
 >be given too much weight.

My point was that he was not an obscure person in the U.S. Was
John Harney an obscure person in the U.K.? And how do his
credentials compare to those of Neal?

 >>>Bullard is not, in my opinion, either an abduction researcher or
 >>>a ufologist in the usual way that word is used. He is a
 >>>historian and folklorist, and has never been afraid to challenge
 >>>assumptions on both sides of the fence.

 >>Eddie Bullard is a Board Member of the Fund for UFO Research,
 >>and I believe also of the Center for UFO Studies, and
 >>contributes regularly to U.S. UFO publications.

 >I know this, but his writings have always seemed to me to be
 >those of an informed, neutral observer of the scene. I wonder if
 >Bullard considers himself a ufologist?

Oh, I guess your point is that if you are a ufologist, you can't
be "an informed, neutral observer of the scene." Mutually
exclusive. Funny, we have several like him in the U.S. Greg
Sandow is another.

 >>>I'm happy to agree that there is a degree of self-criticism
 >>>within the 'ufological community'. However a lot of this is
 >>>because people are defending their own take on a particular
 >>>issse, as in the Mack/Jacobs disagreements you quote above. But
 >>>this cannot go too far.

 >>No, it tends to stop short of ad hominem attacks. However, the
 >>behavior you attribute to them is typical of scientific
 >>give-and-take. I see it all the time in my work abstracting
 >>scientific journals. Scientist A says his view is right
 >>because... and Scientist B says Scientist A's view is wrong
 >>because... They go round and round and others chime in. It's
 >>called peer review.

 >I cannot agree that critical comment in the UFO 'community'
 >stops short of ad-hominem attacks! I do agree that within
 >ufology arguments go round and round - Rendlesham comes to mind,
 >for some reason - but I wonder if we are any the better off for
 >that!

You'll have to define "community." I don't consider myself to be
part of the full rainbow, ranging from idiots to saints, who
consider themselves to be ufologists. My point here, obviously,
was that the internal criticism is nothing but standard and much
to be desired peer review.

Are we better off for it? Is science better off for it? I say
yes. Peer review is an essential element of scientific method.

 >>I suspect one of the reasons scoffers/debunkers tend not to
 >>engage in peer review is that they don't view themselves as a
 >>"community". Our U.S. brand clearly view themselves as the
 >>"defenders of science against human irrationality". It is a
 >>crusade on their part.

 >I think you have a good point here, but I both sides are engaged
 >in a crusade. I suppose that as ufologists are to some extent
 >"outsiders" from the consensus scientific view, they are likely
 >to have a stronger sense of "community" - like any minority
 >group. While this may lead to a banding together to form a
 >common front against external criticism, it may also promote a
 >stronger "self-policing" against errant views within the
 >community in order to present a clearer, more focussed image to
 >the outside world. Thus people whose viewpoints and methods are
 >generally unacceptable, such as he-who-must-not-be-named, come
 >under sustained critical attack.

Once again, here and above, you make it personal by suggesting
we (I am very much involved in the process) are only protecting
ourselves, covering our rears in our self-policing for ulterior
motives.

Kevin Randle comes under criticism (not "sustained critical
attack") because he makes assertions about abductees that do not
at all fit the experience of his colleagues and offers no data
to support them. (Kevin is a good man and has made many positive
contributions to the field. I strongly disagree with him on this
issue, and it has nothing to do with the sort of motive you
attribute to me and us.)

And, yes, we do have "crusaders" on both sides in the common
meaning of the word. However, "holy crusaders" who are on a
mission to "save the faith" should be viewed with suspicion no
matter which extreme they may represent. Skeptics of the
Menzel-Klass ilk are very much akin to the rabid "aliens walk
amongst us" crowd or the wild conspiritorialist Trilateralist
Commission, New World Order kooks.

 >With the sceptics, there is no such imperative to present a
 >united front. If Phil Klass's explanation for Case A differs
 >from Robert Scheaffer's this is not going to challenge their
 >consensus world view, and they can afford to shrug shoulders and
 >say "whatever". Differing as to whether Socorro was a hoax by
 >kids or a hoax by Zamarro does not mean that either of them has
 >to accept instead that it was an extraterrestrial spacecraft, so
 >there is no particular benefit for them in arguing the toss.
 >However, accepting either of those explanations does challenge
 >those who are promoting the idea of the ETH.

If it doesn't bother them that they can't agree on an
explanation in so many cases, it should. In fact, to us it
suggests that they are not really investigating cases at all,
merely assuming they all can be explained and guessing
(inconsistently) at answers.

 >>Or could the reluctance on their part be due to a realization
 >>that if they are too critical of each other, their own methods
 >>and techniques may begin to crumble? Hmmm!

 >I don't think this is the reason. I think the primary reason
 >that there is less sceptic-on-sceptic criticism than there is
 >ufologist-on- ufologist criticism (and yes, I do agree that this
 >is so, I am merely challenging Jerry's assumption that there is
 >*none* of the former) is that the sceptics are starting their
 >argument from a consensus position - UFO reports do not
 >represent extraterrestrial spacecraft - and have no particular
 >need to get involved in long and acrimonious, and it must be
 >said sometimes boring, debates.

You're right here; they are starting with "the answer," which of
course is helpful in avoiding any meaningful discussion or
investigation.

 >ETH ufologists, on the other hand, are proselytising a
 >contentious hypothesis and have a stronger incentive to take on
 >any viewpoints which challenge it, whether they come from
 >sceptics or other ufologists.

I am not "proselytising" at all, a word that strongly connotes a
religious belief. I am arguing facts and data. Cannot one simply
"offer" or "advance" a hypothesis? (It used to be "an
hypothesis" in my youth, but that seems to have disappeared.)
Again, it is simply part of scientific method to argue the pros
and cons of hypotheses. To the extent that the skeptics avoid
the give and take, they are behaving unscientifically.

We don't have too much disagreement about hypnosis so I am
deleting those comments.

 >As I say above, I am not implying dishonesty to either Mack or
 >Jacobs, but they have developed theories from their research
 >which are in almost total contradiction to each other. If Mack
 >is right, then Jacobs has to be wrong, I can see no other
 >conclusion. Yet the most they can do in criticisng each other is
 >to make some carefully phrased comments about the other's
 >regression techniques, which Mack seems to have withdrawn almost
 >immediately.

You may be surprised to learn that I have written to the same
effect. Hopkins, Jacobs, Mack, and Fowler come to very different
conclusions. I think each sincerely thinks he is right, and some
(especially Hopkins) qualifies his conclusions more clearly than
others. What I think the differences mean is that they can only
go so far in interpretation on the basis of the present
evidence, and then their proposed answers become something akin
to confabulation. They tend to agree pretty well on the
evidence.

 >>>It is reassuring to see that abductionist are willing to
 >>>criticism some aspects of their colleagues/rivals work, and they
 >>>should be pressed to explain how these criticisms do not equally
 >>>apply to their own work.

 >>If you had read their respective writings, you would have the
 >>answer to this.

 >I have, and I don't.

How refreshing to have a skeptic actually read that which he is
criticizing! The criticisms of Mack don't apply to the others,
for example, because they don't overtly encourage New Age
interpretations among their clients. My main criticism that does
apply to them all is over interpretation, or going beyond the
evidence too speculatively.


Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:59:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:32:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:52:57 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:52:20 +0100
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:24:34 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >>Lest we forget....

 >>This long and entertaining "Debunkers' Guidebook" thread started
 >>when I asked Jerome Clark if he could present any example of a
 >>"debunker" claiming that eyewitness testimony could be
 >>disregarded as worthless.

 >>We've heard a lot from Mr Clark on other topics but not, I fear,
 >>an answer to this simple question.

 >>Why am I not surprised?

 >Yes, lest we forget.....

 >Menzel's famous reply to a written questionnaire asking what to
 >do with unexplained UFO reports (Hynek, UFO Experience, 1972 p.
 >206; 1974 pp. 233-4):

 >"Throw them in the wastebasket!"

And lest we forget, however much the pelicanists want us to:

Donald H. Menzel on witness reliability: "I submit that [Dr.
James E.] McDonald's interviews of more than five hundred people
who have reported UFOs have no scientific validity whatever."

(In Sagan and Page, UFOs: A Scientific Debate)

Clear memories,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:23:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:35:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:23:17 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:05:27 -0500

 >>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:52:20 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


 >>>We've heard a lot from Mr Clark on other topics but not, I fear,
 >>>an answer to this simple question.

 >>>Why am I not surprised?

 >>Well, John, I am not surprised. You just can't surprise me
 >>anymore, I'm afraid.

 >>I answered the question long ago. Please go back and reread the
 >>archives of this thread, and particularly the post in which I
 >>explained why the rejection of massive eyewitness testimony to
 >>structured, craftlike UFOs is an innately necessary aspect of
 >>debunking ideology.

 >In another answer to a question of mine Serge Salvaille has the
 >courtesy to list a number of references to people who have used
 >"mass hysteria" as an explanation of UFO sightings. He also
 >conveniently gives URL links so I and others can check further.
 >This contrasts with your consistent policy of _never_ giving
 >actual references to support any of the claims you toss out.

What a load of rubbish, even by your standards, John.

Let me repeat yet one more time, if only so that you can whine
once again and pretend that I have yet to answer your question.
Unless you are accepting as meaningful the large body of witness
testimony to structured, craftlike objects worldwide (and if you
demand examples of same, then you know nothing about UFO reports
and shouldn't be involved in this discussion), then you are
rejecting it as inherently worthless.

I ordinarily don't think of Donald Menzel as intellectually (or
in any other way) honest, but at least, unlike you, he had the
guts to admit his lack of interest, or even contempt, for
witnesses and their testimony.

 >No, Jerry, you have not answered this question, nor do I now
 >expect you ever will. You have given us a lot of waffle about
 >so-called "massive" eye-witness testimony but have consistently,
 >unlike other, braver, souls on this List, refused to nominate
 >the cases you think most support the existence of "structured,
 >craftlike UFOs".

Are you still beating this one to death? I have consistently
referred you to the enormous amount of writing I have done on
this subject. (I have also referred you to Dick Hall's excellent
Book That Bob Young Does Not Want Us to Name). I refer you to
The UFO Encyclopedia, a book whose existence it does not
obviously suit your purposes to acknowledge, and to the relevant
entries. I even cited them by name in response to another of
your challenges sometime ago, an act I refuse to repeat because
it proved pointless. In this book I write at considerable length
about those cases in which witnesses, independently, multiply,
or both, describe craftlike structures, often with extraordinary
performance characteristics. I also discuss cases in which such
UFOs were tracked by instruments. I know the existence of such
cases and such testimony is an embarrassment to debunkers and
psychosocial theorists (or am I repeating myself?), but that's
your problem, not mine.

 >The last time you used this phrase (careful, it may become
 >another element in Jerry Clark Bingo) I asked how you differed
 >from an ETH proponent. No answer of course, as my question was
 >snipped from your reply.

My word. Can't you read, John?

I have stated repeatedly that since none of us knows how to
prove or to disprove a particular general theory of UFO origins,
it is wisest to concentrate our attention on UFO data and the
study of specific cases, patterns, and the like. That is
something that -- notwithstanding ufology's limitations in
funding, access to scientific expertise, and the like - is at
least doable in a broad sense. Your desperate, relentless
attempt to turn all discussion of the UFO phenomenon into a
debate about the ETH (about which you clearly give a great deal
more thought than anybody on the other side) tells me only that
you can't be bothered to think about any real and immediate
issues of concern to ufology. Your phobia about the ETH has
erased your capacity to think clearly.

 >Without any hope of an answer I will
 >ask one more question. You clearly accept that some UFO reports
 >represent "structured craftlike UFOs". Can you suggest anything
 >that these might be, other than extraterrestrial spacecraft,
 >given the descriptions of their performance characteristics
 >reported by witnesses whose accounts must not, in your view, be
 >challenged because they are part of "massive eyewitness
 >testimony"?

I take it that you reject the notion that "some UFO reports
represent 'structured craftlike' UFOs." If you do, then you
reject out of hand a whole lot of eyewitness testimony to that
effect. Which was the point I made originally.  As for the rest,
see above.

Now, John, don't you have something better to do than keep this
thread going? I know I do.


Not holding my breath,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                             Re: Belief - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:38:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:23:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Clark


 >From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Belief
 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:38:02 +0100


Dave,

 >They all believe very strongly in the existence of Fairies,
 >little people with dragonfly wings.

No, they aren't. "Dragonfly wings" were a Victorian literary
invention. Worldwide fairy traditions, the subject of a great
deal of oral lore nearly everywhere human beings can be found,
typically characterize fairies as small humanlike beings with
supernatural powers. They do not have wings, dragonfly's or
otherwise.

 >Now of course we know such things don't really exist don't we,
 >but they won't be budged from their belief.

 >A belief system seems to exist on all levels, if you have
 >children then you know what I mean, if not then you can't begin
 >to understand.

A small point: "Belief system" is one of those meaningless can't
phrases, employed where a mere "belief" will do.

I'm not sure what the relevance of your children's ideas about
fairies is to our current discussion, but the whole question of
fairy "belief" - and, more interestingly to anomalists, fairy
"experience" - is far more complicated than you apparently
realize. It's fascinated me for a long time, and I've written
about it most recently in my book Unexplained! and in Stacy and
Huyghe's journal The Anomalist ("From Mermaids to Little Gray
Men," Spring 2000).

There is a range of experiences (differ from events, in my view)
for which we have no real vocabulary and thus are very hard to
conceptualize; thus, fairies almost certainly do not exist, but
it is strangely possible to have vivid experiences of them (or
other comparable supernatural entities). We really have few
clues to the dynamics of such things. Though I disagree with him
on a number of points, Hilary Evans has pioneered this area of
inquiry and should be read by any and all who are intrigued by
such matters.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                        Re: 'Military' UFOs - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:42:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:25:25 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Felder


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 03:47:46 +0200
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: 'Military' UFOs

<snip>

 >To get on a high horse, I served in Vietnam flying helicopters.
 >I was highly decorated for combat in the air and on the ground.
 >I also was shot down and from my injuries I am rated 100%
 >service connected disabled by the Department of Veterans
 >Affairs. Fortunately I closely escaped from being captured.

<snip>

I salute you, Sir. It is my personal opinion that American
Veterans deserve more respect than they get.

I suspect that Mr. Velez would feel differently if some of those
"captured spies" had been members of his family. It usually
gives one a little different perspective when the shoe is on the
other foot.....


Bobbie

==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.com
Point of View Webcast
www.dragoncrest.net
Online publishing
==========










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                             Re: Belief - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:49:47 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:28:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Ledger


 >From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Belief
 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:38:02 +0100

 >Hi all,

 >Something struck me the other day, I have three daughters, 3, 8
 >and 9 years of age.

 >They all believe very strongly in the existence of Fairies,
 >little people with dragonfly wings.

 >Now of course we know such things don't really exist don't we,
 >but they won't be budged from their belief.

 >A belief system seems to exist on all levels, if you have
 >children then you know what I mean, if not then you can't begin
 >to understand.

 >I suppose what I'm trying to say is, maybe the belief of some
 >adults is not that different from that of children. Innocent!


Well this is profound. That it Dave?

Another armchair skeptic is heard from - and with
incontrovertable evidence to boot!









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                              Re: Belief - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:53:54 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:30:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Hale


 >From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Belief
 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:38:02 +0100

 >Hi all,

 >Something struck me the other day, I have three daughters, 3, 8
 >and 9 years of age.

 >They all believe very strongly in the existence of Fairies,
 >little people with dragonfly wings.

 >Now of course we know such things don't really exist don't we,
 >but they won't be budged from their belief.

 >A belief system seems to exist on all levels, if you have
 >children then you know what I mean, if not then you can't begin
 >to understand.

 >I suppose what I'm trying to say is, maybe the belief of some
 >adults is not that different from that of children. Innocent!


Hi,

I have often heard the word belief used in refrence with space
exploration " We beleive that it is quite feasible for other
intelligent life forms to exsist within our universe, we just
have to find them "

I believe I heard that a few times in the last couple of years!


Roy

(Nice, these small cream eggs!)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                        Re: Belief - Clark [re-send]

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:38:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:38:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Clark [re-send]

[An over zealous spell-checker caused Jerry's use of the word
  'cant' - a "set or stock phrase" or "the expression or
  repetition of conventional, trite, or unconsidered opinions
  or sentiments." below to 'can't' - as in 'can not'. Apologies.
  -- ebk]

 >From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Belief
 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:38:02 +0100


Dave,

 >They all believe very strongly in the existence of Fairies,
 >little people with dragonfly wings.

No, they aren't. "Dragonfly wings" were a Victorian literary
invention. Worldwide fairy traditions, the subject of a great
deal of oral lore nearly everywhere human beings can be found,
typically characterize fairies as small humanlike beings with
supernatural powers. They do not have wings, dragonfly's or
otherwise.

 >Now of course we know such things don't really exist don't we,
 >but they won't be budged from their belief.

 >A belief system seems to exist on all levels, if you have
 >children then you know what I mean, if not then you can't begin
 >to understand.

A small point: "Belief system" is one of those meaningless cant
phrases, employed where a mere "belief" will do.

I'm not sure what the relevance of your children's ideas about
fairies is to our current discussion, but the whole question of
fairy "belief" - and, more interestingly to anomalists, fairy
"experience" - is far more complicated than you apparently
realize. It's fascinated me for a long time, and I've written
about it most recently in my book Unexplained! and in Stacy and
Huyghe's journal The Anomalist ("From Mermaids to Little Gray
Men," Spring 2000).

There is a range of experiences (differ from events, in my view)
for which we have no real vocabulary and thus are very hard to
conceptualize; thus, fairies almost certainly do not exist, but
it is strangely possible to have vivid experiences of them (or
other comparable supernatural entities). We really have few
clues to the dynamics of such things. Though I disagree with him
on a number of points, Hilary Evans has pioneered this area of
inquiry and should be read by any and all who are intrigued by
such matters.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:28:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:59:14 -0500

 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:52:20 +0100
 >>>Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:24:34 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

 >>>Lest we forget....

 >>>This long and entertaining "Debunkers' Guidebook" thread started
 >>>when I asked Jerome Clark if he could present any example of a
 >>>"debunker" claiming that eyewitness testimony could be
 >>>disregarded as worthless.

 >>>We've heard a lot from Mr Clark on other topics but not, I fear,
 >>>an answer to this simple question.

 >>>Why am I not surprised?

 >>Yes, lest we forget.....

 >>Menzel's famous reply to a written questionnaire asking what to
 >>do with unexplained UFO reports (Hynek, UFO Experience, 1972 p.
 >>206; 1974 pp. 233-4):

 >>"Throw them in the wastebasket!"

 >And lest we forget, however much the pelicanists want us to:

 >Donald H. Menzel on witness reliability: "I submit that [Dr.
 >James E.] McDonald's interviews of more than five hundred people
 >who have reported UFOs have no scientific validity whatever."

 >(In Sagan and Page, UFOs: A Scientific Debate)


Thank you for these quotations at last, Jerry, even though they
are over thirty years old. They certainly demonstrate that
Menzel said some silly things.

However, I have put down equally flippant and dismissive answers
in written questionnaires. What was this questionnaire? Who
produced it? Was it a seriouis scientifically designed survey,
or some junk from a 'flying saucer club'? Was Menzels's reply
returned as a serious answer, or as a way of dismissing it?
Hynek's quote is completely unattributed and uncheckable.

In the second quotation, is it clear from the context (I don't
have Sagan and Page's book any more) whether Menzel is talking
about the actual eyewitness reports as raw data, or the way it
was presented via McDonald's interviews?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                         Re: 'Military' UFOs - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:53:14 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:35:56 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Velez


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 03:47:46 +0200
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: 'Military' UFOs

 >>Hi All,

 ><snip>

 >>(If you don't think that's true, come and talk to the
 >>flag_waving morons that tied yellow ribbons around trees for our
 >>captured _spies!_) They would not only throw their support
 >>behind a fleet of American UFOs, they would throw their money at
 >>it in precedent setting quantities. If these alleged military
 >>UFOs were also capable of going beyond earth's atmosphere and
 >>maneuvering in space then America would control the world, and
 >>outer space.

<snip>

 >Please retract that and apologize to everyone on this List you
 >may have offended.


Hi Josh, hi All,

I will most happily (willingly) apologise to any veterans that
may have misread my meaning up above. It was not my intention to
"insult." I was making reference to the blind "America right or
wrong" attitude that I have always found frightening and
reminiscent of the National Socialists back in the 30's. _That_
is what I meant by "morons". Those scary 'blind followers'
better known as the 'Sheeple'. Folks who react rather than
respond. People who never question anything. I have always
considered the growing political apathy in this country a matter
of concern. I think that people who follow blindly (America
right or wrong) without questioning are stupid. Ergo my choice
of the descriptive term "moron."

No insult was intended to veterans who fought for America. (or
any country) My anger at the 'sheeple' comes from my deep love
of what America "stands for." (Not necessarily what it is) I'm
surprised that you took it as an 'anti-American' remark. It
wasn't.

It was 'anti-mindless follower.'

Someone else whipped the flag out on me the day after my post.
But I didn't respond to that one a because the person who posted
it takes _everything_ I say 'bass-ackwards' anyway. I didn't
want to waste my breath. You're a friend of mine though. And
because of that I am surprised you put the kind of
'spin/interpretation' on my remarks that you did. 'Some folks' I
have grown to expect it from. Not from you though.

Like yourself I would fight and die for my people and this
country. My remarks were not meant to be unpatriotic. It is
(unquestioning) 'group' or 'brown shirt' mentality that I was
ragging on. I think that people with that kind of a mind-set are
morons. And I have no qualms about telling it like it is.

It wasn't meant the way you took it at all. Your
'interpretation' was mistaken Josh. You shouldn't personalise
it. As far as the Nam is concerned and the guys who fought
there. I actively protested that war. But I was behind every one
of our guys that was over there fighting and dying. It was for
them and their families that I chose to stand up and be counted
at anti-war demonstrations. We lost over 50,000 guys from our
generation over there. For the last 30 years I have just as
actively supported efforts to recover our MIAs (or info about
them) I have never had a bone to pick with our people in the
armed services, only with our own elected officials and their
insane murderous policies. There's a difference between that and
'anti-Americanism' Jeff. I hope you can see that. I love this
country as much as you do although I have been fortunate not to
have to prove it at the cost that you and others have paid.

Warmest regards, and my sincerest apologies for any offense
you may have taken mistakenly or otherwise.

None was intended. I expect that from certain 'others' but
never from you. ;)


Tu amigo siempre,

John Velez, Americano ;)


                      "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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:14:20 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:37:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:23:02 -0500

 >>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:23:17 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

Lots of fascinating stuff snipped here...

 >>Without any hope of an answer I will
 >>ask one more question. You clearly accept that some UFO reports
 >>represent "structured craftlike UFOs". Can you suggest anything
 >>that these might be, other than extraterrestrial spacecraft,
 >>given the descriptions of their performance characteristics
 >>reported by witnesses whose accounts must not, in your view, be
 >>challenged because they are part of "massive eyewitness
 >>testimony"?

 >I take it that you reject the notion that "some UFO reports
 >represent 'structured craftlike' UFOs." If you do, then you
 >reject out of hand a whole lot of eyewitness testimony to that
 >effect. Which was the point I made originally.  As for the rest,
 >see above.

A pretty blatant refusal to answer a simple question, even for
you, Jerry. Whether or not I think some UFO reports represent
"structured craftlike UFOs" is irrelevant to the question, as
clearly you do. I am simply asking, do you have any ideas or
suggestions as to what those structured craftlike UFOs might be?

 >Now, John, don't you have something better to do than keep this
 >thread going? I know I do.

If only I had, Jerry, if only I had... <sigh>.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 16

                         Re: 'Military' UFOs - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:48:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:31:54 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Velez


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:42:32 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 03:47:46 +0200
 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: 'Military' UFOs

 ><snip>

 >>To get on a high horse, I served in Vietnam flying helicopters.
 >>I was highly decorated for combat in the air and on the ground.
 >>I also was shot down and from my injuries I am rated 100%
 >>service connected disabled by the Department of Veterans
 >>Affairs. Fortunately I closely escaped from being captured.

 ><snip>

 >I salute you, Sir. It is my personal opinion that American
 >Veterans deserve more respect than they get.

 >I suspect that Mr. Velez would feel differently if some of those
 >"captured spies" had been members of his family. It usually
 >gives one a little different perspective when the shoe is on the
 >other foot.....


Hola once again Mz. Felder,

No response, I just want to discuss a little 'Nature'. I'm up to
the "B's" in my study of the encyclopedia.  <LOL>

The barracuda is an opportunistic feeder. It will hide in its
burrow and wait for potential 'prey' to pass by the opening.
Whereupon it will 'spring' from its lair and devour the prey
with its huge gaping jaws.

By the way, cease taking [opportunistic] 'cheap shots' at me in
public. You, of all the people on this List, know me personally
least of all.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:14:20 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:59:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:23:02 -0500

 >>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:23:17 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

Lots of fascinating stuff snipped here...

 >>Without any hope of an answer I will
 >>ask one more question. You clearly accept that some UFO reports
 >>represent "structured craftlike UFOs". Can you suggest anything
 >>that these might be, other than extraterrestrial spacecraft,
 >>given the descriptions of their performance characteristics
 >>reported by witnesses whose accounts must not, in your view, be
 >>challenged because they are part of "massive eyewitness
 >>testimony"?

 >I take it that you reject the notion that "some UFO reports
 >represent 'structured craftlike' UFOs." If you do, then you
 >reject out of hand a whole lot of eyewitness testimony to that
 >effect. Which was the point I made originally.  As for the rest,
 >see above.

A pretty blatant refusal to answer a simple question, even for
you, Jerry. Whether or not I think some UFO reports represent
"structured craftlike UFOs" is irrelevant to the question, as
clearly you do. I am simply asking, do you have any ideas or
suggestions as to what those structured craftlike UFOs might be?

 >Now, John, don't you have something better to do than keep this
 >thread going? I know I do.

If only I had, Jerry, if only I had... <sigh>.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                             Re: Belief - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:38:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:01:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Velez


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Belief
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:38:45 -0500


 >>From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Belief
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:38:02 +0100

 >Dave,

 >>They all believe very strongly in the existence of Fairies,
 >>little people with dragonfly wings.

 >No, they aren't. "Dragonfly wings" were a Victorian literary
 >invention. Worldwide fairy traditions, the subject of a great
 >deal of oral lore nearly everywhere human beings can be found,
 >typically characterize fairies as small humanlike beings with
 >supernatural powers. They do not have wings, dragonfly's or
 >otherwise.

 >>Now of course we know such things don't really exist don't we,
 >>but they won't be budged from their belief.

 >>A belief system seems to exist on all levels, if you have
 >>children then you know what I mean, if not then you can't begin
 >>to understand.

 >A small point: "Belief system" is one of those meaningless cant
 >phrases, employed where a mere "belief" will do.

 >I'm not sure what the relevance of your children's ideas about
 >fairies is to our current discussion, but the whole question of
 >fairy "belief" - and, more interestingly to anomalists, fairy
 >"experience" - is far more complicated than you apparently
 >realize. It's fascinated me for a long time, and I've written
 >about it most recently in my book Unexplained! and in Stacy and
 >Huyghe's journal The Anomalist ("From Mermaids to Little Gray
 >Men," Spring 2000).

 >There is a range of experiences (differ from events, in my view)
 >for which we have no real vocabulary and thus are very hard to
 >conceptualize; thus, fairies almost certainly do not exist, but
 >it is strangely possible to have vivid experiences of them (or
 >other comparable supernatural entities). We really have few
 >clues to the dynamics of such things. Though I disagree with him
 >on a number of points, Hilary Evans has pioneered this area of
 >inquiry and should be read by any and all who are intrigued by
 >such matters.


Hi Jerry, hi All,

There is a difference between a belief based on an actual
'event' and one based on hearsay. It's the difference between,
"I heard that fire burns if you touch it with your bare hands,"
and, "I stuck my hand in a fire and it burned the crap out of
me."

My "belief" in UFOs and their occupants comes from -contact-
with them. (An actual, waking, real-life "event.") At that point
"belief" becomes "knowledge." Which is why I'm fond of the
(cant) "I am a UFO knower" as opposed to, "UFO believer."


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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:34:55 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:03:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

<snip>

 >Thank you for these quotations at last, Jerry, even though they
 >are over thirty years old. They certainly demonstrate that
 >Menzel said some silly things.

 >However, I have put down equally flippant and dismissive answers
 >in written questionnaires. What was this questionnaire? Who
 >produced it? Was it a seriouis scientifically designed survey,
 >or some junk from a 'flying saucer club'? Was Menzels's reply
 >returned as a serious answer, or as a way of dismissing it?
 >Hynek's quote is completely unattributed and uncheckable.

 >In the second quotation, is it clear from the context (I don't
 >have Sagan and Page's book any more) whether Menzel is talking
 >about the actual eyewitness reports as raw data, or the way it
 >was presented via McDonald's interviews?



Now that's predictable. Raising the bar. Okay you've sent the
examples- a few of many mind you- now John wants even more
detail. You were mistaken Jerry was right. Why drag it out
trying to second guess the master Menzel?

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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                  Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:28:33 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:04:45 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Jones


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: High Silliness On UFO UpDates
 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:34:52 -0400

Evening Jan

 >High Silliness on UFO UpDates

<simply huge snip>

 >93% of all UFO books are trash.

 >97% of all UFO reports are IFOs.

 >98% of all people don't understand the proper use of statistics.

 >99% of all UFO statistics whatever the source, Air Force,
 >ufologists, etherians, skeptics are useless.

 >99.8% of all scientists who cite Air Force UFO stats have not
 >idea what they are talking about.

 >I am the UFO statistics debunker! Give me a UFO statistic, and I
 >will debunk it!

Let me guess, you are saying that stats _prove_ nothing? <g>

I agree, I learnt ages ago when I was doing my sociology A level
that you can use figures/stats to prove anything you wanted to.

Figure can say anything;

Take an example, 83.3 percent of the human DNA code is the same
as that of a cabbage, but boy what a difference.

Another example, 99.9 percent of Ufologists are self taught, hey
where do you get a degree in Ufoolagy?

Jan, methinks, unless I completely misunderstood your missive,
figures/ stats are only _supporting_ data, nothing more nothing
less.

 >Is that CISCOP enough for ya?

I didn't know you was a member of CSICOP <g>

 >Word Up!

Are we playing Scabble? Triple points <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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                         Re: 'Military' UFOs - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:43:23 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:05:49 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Jones


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs
 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 16:47:45 -0400

Evening John

<snip>

 >>2) The SR71 wasn't made public until the>eighties, please
 >>someone tell me when, because I bet the dates>where different
 >>both sides of the water.

 >No, the Sr-71 was announced in three different avatars by
 >President Johnson. For my logics professor, an ultra liberal,
 >this was too much. In class he announced that the answers for
 >each one of Goldwater's criticism of Johnson's military policy
 >Johnson reacted with an announcement of a new aircraft. "So now
 >we have the 'weapons falacy.'"


I know nothing of nothing of American history other than what
Hollywood has not taught me. So could you please tell me when
President Johnson was in power and the dates of the three
avatars in which he announced the SR71 as a new aircraft.

Thanks in advance.

--

    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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:58:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:07:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:59:14 -0500

 >>>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:52:20 +0100
 >>>>Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:24:34 -0400
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


John,

 >>And lest we forget, however much the pelicanists want us to:

 >>Donald H. Menzel on witness reliability: "I submit that [Dr.
 >>James E.] McDonald's interviews of more than five hundred people
 >>who have reported UFOs have no scientific validity whatever."

 >>(In Sagan and Page, UFOs: A Scientific Debate)

 >Thank you for these quotations at last, Jerry, even though they
 >are over thirty years old. They certainly demonstrate that
 >Menzel said some silly things.

So I guess the words of the world's most influential UFO
debunker, Donald Menzel, who died in 1976 and who has never been
criticized or repudiated (except in the very mild form above,
and even that's a first) by debunkers, no longer count because
he is no longer among us. By that logic, I guess, debunkers
should stop saying anything bad about what Allen Hynek or James
McDonald had to say. Actually, come to think of it, McDonald has
been dead longer than Menzel, and thus is even more deserving of
the sort of rhetorical protection you apparently advocate.

 >However, I have put down equally flippant and dismissive answers
 >in written questionnaires. What was this questionnaire? Who
 >produced it? Was it a seriouis scientifically designed survey,
 >or some junk from a 'flying saucer club'? Was Menzels's reply
 >returned as a serious answer, or as a way of dismissing it?
 >Hynek's quote is completely unattributed and uncheckable.

Are you accusing Allen Hynek of lying about it? Are you
seriously maintaining that Menzel did not hold the view
attributed to him?

 >In the second quotation, is it clear from the context (I don't
 >have Sagan and Page's book any more) whether Menzel is talking
 >about the actual eyewitness reports as raw data, or the way it
 >was presented via McDonald's interviews?

The quote was in the context of the reliability of eyewitness
testimony, which McDonald took seriously (though not
uncritically). That's why he went to some considerable trouble
to interview witnesses, especially technically and
scientifically trained ones. Menzel was putting down McDonald's
practice because McDonald was not coming to Menzel's
conclusions; therefore, by Menzel's reasoning, he had to be
doing something wrong, though Menzel never produced a specific
instance of what was wrong with McDonald's interviewing
methodology. That's something, by the way, that I know a whole
lot more about than Menzel did, because I have a substantial
collection (as do Jan Aldrich, Mike Swords, and Loren Gross) of
the notes McDonald took during those interviews. I think my
just-mentioned colleagues would agree that McDonald was a
conscientious, thorough interviewer and, unlike Menzel, always a
scientist.

By way of contrast, Menzel arrived at his conclusions in nearly
all cases (exceptions noted shortly) without interviewing a
single witness. To the contrary, he made up his "explanations"
out of thin air. Thus his preposterous and empirically unfounded
allegation that Lonnie Zamora was the victim of teenaged
pranksters out to embarrass a supposedly hated local cop (he
also made up this last part). And then there are openly racist
(and, that aside, just plain false) speculations about the
native witnesses in the famous Boianai CE3 from Papua New
Guinea, June 1959.

The most hilarious stuff of Menzel's I've seen consists of his
correspondence with fellow astronomers Seymour Hess and Clyde
Tombaugh, trying to get them to endorse his allegedly prosaic
solutions to their sightings. Neither Hess nor Tombaugh is
buying what Menzel is selling, and as the correspondence
progresses, one gets some sense of why it's just as well Menzel
never interviewed witnesses. He was much less interested in what
they said than in what he said. I don't buy the idea that Menzel
was an on-the-payroll agent of the cover-up, but I find it very
easy to believe that the man was a raging narcissist, and
consequently a pompous, bullying fool.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:53:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:09:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:42:03 +0200
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Goldstein
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:41:34 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

Previously, I had written:

 >>What is amazing to me is that skeptics should be held to a
 >>higher standard than Ufologists. I refer to Richard Hall's
 >>recent post where he lamented:

"Something that is becoming evident to me in the often
acrimonious exchanges in regard to internal criticism by
advocates as compared to doubters, is that we apparently do not
know each others' UFO literature very well."

 >>In the end, it is not the skeptics' duty to prove the ETH, but
 >>rather, the duty of those that feel the ETH is the most
 >>reasonable explanation for the best of the UFO casefiles. When a
 >>skeptic asks to see "evidence" or "proof", Ufologists recoil
 >>into a well worn routine of referral to previous works;
 >>information that you and Richard both admit is not that readily
 >>available or well known. This would not be so bad if not for the
 >>feigned indignation and artificial importance attached.

<snip>

 >>Ultimately, it
 >>would appear from Richard's post that being ill acquainted with
 >>some Pro-UFO literature is considered only an unfortunate
 >>oversight, as long as Ufologists are involved. But let a skeptic
 >>make the same transgression, and suddenly it is inexcusable
 >>ignorance.

<snip>

 >>And let's be clear about this: Just what is it that skeptics
 >>might be ignorant of? In the end, until ET life and ET
 >>visitation has been proved, then something as impressive as
 >>Jerry's Big Book of UFOs is really nothing more than a
 >>collection of folk lore. As such, anyone's papers relating to
 >>said cases are nothing more than opinions on folk lore.
 >>Interesting opinions, maybe, but nothing anywhere close to proof
 >>or even convincing evidence. Just guesses.

Josh replied:

 >In my opinion I feel Greg Sandow, Jenny Randles, Jerry Clark,
 >and Dick Hall clearly pointed out that there is UFO evidence to
 >be looked at that is worthy of a scientific study. I certainly
 >do not believe it is only folklore. If you think so, you
 >obviously are not acquainted with much of the serious UFO
 >related research. The above named people have been involved with
 >this research for a great many years. How much did you study
 >before or since you arrived on this forum some months ago?

<snip>

 >Have you read any of the military reports, radar trackings,
 >airline pilots, military pilots and crew reports? Have you
 >studied any of the history of this subject? Have you read
 >anything published by Dick Haines, or anything published by the
 >above named people? Did you study any of James McDonald's or
 >Allen Hynek's work?

 >Have you read any of the serious journals?

 >Roger, have you studied any of the above? If so, I don't
 >understand how you can claim it is mere folklore. I certainly
 >believe in healthy skepticism but uninformed skeptic or believer
 >positions are the opinions of dilletantes.

Hi, Josh!

To answer your question, yes I've read quite a bit of the above.
Not all, perhaps, but I doubt if anyone has read everything on
this subject. However, what I find interesting is this: You
start out this entire post with the words,"In my opinion..."

The only distinction, I take it, is that you are somehow
"informed" whereas I am "uninformed" and, therefore, a
dilettante for expressing my own opinions?

Could you _possibly_ be more arrogant or condescending?

Not only that, but you chastise me for something that you,
clearly, have no information on. You asked if I've read any of
the above mentioned literature, which means you don't know if I
have or not. In either case, if I don't agree with you, then I
am an "uninformed skeptic" or "dilettante". This would not be so
egregious if not for your own assumption about the length of
time I've been on this list, which you describe as only a "some
months back". The fact that you are wrong, aside, what
difference would that make? Further, how dare you question my
own familiarity with UFO material when you obviously didn't
bother to see how long I've been with this list! How hard can it
be to find out that I've been posting since September of 1998?
Surprised? Practice what you preach! Do some research!

This is exactly the kind of behavior that I find tiresome; the
"UFO elite".

Let me try and make myself perfectly clear: I believe in the
probability of ET life and ET visitation because I find the odds
are simply in favor of it and some of the UFO reports are
intriguing, to say the least. That said, however, all of this
research you put so much faith in has done squat to prove the
ETH or this discussion list wouldn't even exist and this
conversation wouldn't even be taking place.

Also, I never said there was nothing, regarding UFO cases, that
warranted scientific study. What I said was that nothing has yet
been proven. In that sense, I also find reports of Bigfoot to
warrant scientific study. If you've read anything about Bigfoot,
then you know there is quite a bit of evidence there, as well.
In either case, until the existence of each are proven, they are
nothing more than folklore, regardless of what your more
"informed" opinion is. Scientific study? Bring it on! But let's
not jump the gun, here, and take the attitude that it's a
shoo-in for validation.

In fact, considering that _nothing_ has been substantiated
regarding the existence of UFOs, I'd say it is the UFO elite
that are dilettantes, dabbling in something they know little
about as evidenced by the lack of results in proving the ETH
after all this exhaustive research you are so quick to point
out. But, since your opinion is more "informed" than mine what
would you call _pretending_ to be an expert on something that
hasn't been proven to exist? Perhaps you consider it science.
I'd call it wishful thinking.


Roger Evans










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                       Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:04:28 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:12:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:59:14 -0500

 >>>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:52:20 +0100
 >>>>Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:24:34 -0400
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

 >>>>Lest we forget....

 >>>>This long and entertaining "Debunkers' Guidebook" thread started
 >>>>when I asked Jerome Clark if he could present any example of a
 >>>>"debunker" claiming that eyewitness testimony could be
 >>>>disregarded as worthless.

 >>>>We've heard a lot from Mr Clark on other topics but not, I fear,
 >>>>an answer to this simple question.

 >>>>Why am I not surprised?

 >>>Yes, lest we forget.....

 >>>Menzel's famous reply to a written questionnaire asking what to
 >>>do with unexplained UFO reports (Hynek, UFO Experience, 1972 p.
 >>>206; 1974 pp. 233-4):

 >>>"Throw them in the wastebasket!"

 >>And lest we forget, however much the pelicanists want us to:

 >>Donald H. Menzel on witness reliability: "I submit that [Dr.
 >>James E.] McDonald's interviews of more than five hundred people
 >>who have reported UFOs have no scientific validity whatever."

 >>(In Sagan and Page, UFOs: A Scientific Debate)

 >Thank you for these quotations at last, Jerry, even though they
 >are over thirty years old. They certainly demonstrate that
 >Menzel said some silly things.

 >However, I have put down equally flippant and dismissive answers
 >in written questionnaires. What was this questionnaire? Who
 >produced it? Was it a seriouis scientifically designed survey,
 >or some junk from a 'flying saucer club'? Was Menzels's reply
 >returned as a serious answer, or as a way of dismissing it?
 >Hynek's quote is completely unattributed and uncheckable.

 >In the second quotation, is it clear from the context (I don't
 >have Sagan and Page's book any more) whether Menzel is talking
 >about the actual eyewitness reports as raw data, or the way it
 >was presented via McDonald's interviews?

John,

It so happens that it was my questionnaire. And I can confirm
the accuracy of the response attributed to Menzel. A chapter of
the American Psychological Association had invited me to
participate in a panel discussion of UFOs, and I was
specifically asked to talk about "UFO databases." So I sent a
questionnaire around to obtain some numbers (some of Bob Young's
"statistics") and included the question about what each person
thought should be done with unexplained UFO reports.

Menzel replied exactly as reported (I still have a file on the
whole affair), and if that is not a blanket dismissal of
eyewitness testimony, I don't know what it is. Now it's "30
years old." So what? The chronological cutoff date is entirely
arbitrary on your part. Klass, Oberg, and "true disciple"
followers like Posner have carried on the clearcut pattern of
summarily dismissing eyewitness testimony as worthless.

Menzel knew the purpose of the survey and where the results were
going to be presented. Glad to see that you agree Menzel "said
some silly things." One of the silliest, which I can also
document, was that pilots Nash and Fortenberry in the classic
July 1952 Virginia encounter with a formation of glowing red
disks was that they saw fireflies embedded between the layers of
glass in the cockpit window! And I am not exaggerating.


Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:10:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:15:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:14:20 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:23:02 -0500

 >>>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:23:17 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


John,

 >>>Without any hope of an answer I will
 >>>ask one more question. You clearly accept that some UFO reports
 >>>represent "structured craftlike UFOs". Can you suggest anything
 >>>that these might be, other than extraterrestrial spacecraft,
 >>>given the descriptions of their performance characteristics
 >>>reported by witnesses whose accounts must not, in your view, be
 >>>challenged because they are part of "massive eyewitness
 >>>testimony"?

 >>I take it that you reject the notion that "some UFO reports
 >>represent 'structured craftlike' UFOs." If you do, then you
 >>reject out of hand a whole lot of eyewitness testimony to that
 >>effect. Which was the point I made originally. As for the rest,
 >>see above.

 >A pretty blatant refusal to answer a simple question, even for
 >you, Jerry. Whether or not I think some UFO reports represent
 >"structured craftlike UFOs" is irrelevant to the question, as
 >clearly you do. I am simply asking, do you have any ideas or
 >suggestions as to what those structured craftlike UFOs might be?

Ideas, yes. Suggestions, no. Your question, as I have patiently
informed you on more than one occasion now, is irrelevant to the
discussion, which is not about unprovable and pointless
speculations concerning UFO origins.

Now, expecting once again a blatant refusal to answer a simple
question, I nonetheless try again:

Do you reject as effectively meaningless and misguided all
reports in which witnesses -- including technically trained
ones, under excellent viewing conditions -- report structured
objects whose appearances and performance characteristics are
unlike those even of the most advanced military and civilian
aircraft?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                          Re: Data Exchange - Hall

From: "Richard Hall" <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:12:11 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:16:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Data Exchange - Hall


 >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:59:56 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Data Exchange

Richard Hall said:

 >>I would be delighted to have, say, a couple of years back issues
 >>of Magonia, and a current complimentary subscription, for my
 >>Donald E. Keyhoe Archives where they would be available to
 >>scholarly researchers and news media types, as well as to my
 >>closest colleagues. In return, I would be willing to send
 >>something of equivalent value from my holdings (Perhaps some of
 >>the critical articles mentioned above)or to arrange for some
 >>complimentary copies of Fund for UFO Research publications,
 >>which are numerous.

John replied:

 >Send me a postal address and I'll add you to the mailing list
 >and send a bundle of back issues. I'd be happy to have your
 >choice of FUFOR publications in exchange (I already have Jerry
 >Clark's "Demons Spacemen and Conspiracies).

For the benefit of the List, we have privately worked out a
mutually agreeable exchange of publications.


Dick










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                         Re: 'Military' UFOs - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:20:11 0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:18:42 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Clark


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:53:14 0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs


 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 03:47:46 +0200
 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t online.de>
 >>To: UFO UpDates Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: 'Military' UFOs


John,

 >I will most happily (willingly) apologise to any veterans that
 >may have misread my meaning up above. It was not my intention to
 >"insult." I was making reference to the blind "America right or
 >wrong" attitude that I have always found frightening and
 >reminiscent of the National Socialists back in the 30's. _That_
 >is what I meant by "morons". Those scary 'blind followers'
 >better known as the 'Sheeple'. Folks who react rather than
 >respond.

You're a great guy, my friend, but you're way off base here. My
experience is that there are more people on both the left and
the right who believe America is on the wrong side of every
conflict it gets into than the other extreme. Americans, in my
experience, are remarkably self critical people, sometimes even
too much so. I see no justification for bringing Nazis into this
discussion. My word.

To all available evidence, and so far none to the contrary, the
lives of an America crew on a surveillance not a spy plane
flying over international waters were put at serious risk for no
justifiable purpose. The Chinese had every right to follow the
plane, but not to knock it out of the sky either intentionally
or accidentally. Nor did they have the right to detain the crew.

This is a good country, John. Not a perfect one, but a pretty
decent place with good values it tries, however often it comes
up short, to live up to. I wish you were as hard on China's
police state (which, moreover, is lying brazenly to its own
people about what happened) as you are on our democracy and on
the brave Navy crew who came perilously close to perishing in
the ocean for doing nothing wrong.

I ought to add that, like Josh, I'm a Democrat, and hardly a
kneejerk defender of an administration I voted against once and
will happily vote against twice. Even so, I think Bush and his
people handled a bad situation as well as they could.

And now back to UFOs....


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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                             Re: Belief - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:11:00 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:21:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Bowden


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:53:54 -0700
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Belief

 >>From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Belief
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:38:02 +0100

 >>Hi all,

 >>Something struck me the other day, I have three daughters, 3, 8
 >>and 9 years of age.

 >>They all believe very strongly in the existence of Fairies,
 >>little people with dragonfly wings.

 >>Now of course we know such things don't really exist don't we,
 >>but they won't be budged from their belief.

 >>A belief system seems to exist on all levels, if you have
 >>children then you know what I mean, if not then you can't begin
 >>to understand.

 >>I suppose what I'm trying to say is, maybe the belief of some
 >>adults is not that different from that of children. Innocent!


 >I have often heard the word belief used in refrence with space
 >exploration " We beleive that it is quite feasible for other
 >intelligent life forms to exsist within our universe, we just
 >have to find them "

 >I believe I heard that a few times in the last couple of years!
 >Roy

At least someone gets the point.

 >(Nice, these small cream eggs!)

You should see what my kids have been 'piggin out' on these past
couple of days ;-)

Hope all your eggs didn't melt.


Dave









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                             Re: Belief - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:11:45 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:23:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Bowden


 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:49:47 -0300
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Belief

 >>From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Belief
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:38:02 +0100

 >>Hi all,

 >>Something struck me the other day, I have three daughters, 3, 8
 >>and 9 years of age.

 >>They all believe very strongly in the existence of Fairies,
 >>little people with dragonfly wings.

 >>Now of course we know such things don't really exist don't we,
 >>but they won't be budged from their belief.

 >>A belief system seems to exist on all levels, if you have
 >>children then you know what I mean, if not then you can't begin
 >>to understand.

 >>I suppose what I'm trying to say is, maybe the belief of some
 >>adults is not that different from that of children. Innocent!

 >Well this is profound. That it Dave?

Hi Don,

You may be Ledger but your mail is illegible!

'That it Dave?' what does that mean??

 >Another armchair skeptic is heard from - and with
 >incontrovertable evidence to boot!

Do you have children Don?

Armchair skeptic you say, as apposed to what? in the field
skeptic perhaps? Surely a personal observation should be heard
as well.

All the best to you Don,


Dave









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                             Re: Belief - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:44:45 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:25:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Bowden


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Belief
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:38:45 -0500

<snip>

 >There is a range of experiences (differ from events, in my view)
 >for which we have no real vocabulary and thus are very hard to
 >conceptualize; thus, fairies almost certainly do not exist, but
 >it is strangely possible to have vivid experiences of them (or
 >other comparable supernatural entities). We really have few
 >clues to the dynamics of such things. Though I disagree with him
 >on a number of points, Hilary Evans has pioneered this area of
 >inquiry and should be read by any and all who are intrigued by
 >such matters.

Jerry,

I understand what you're saying and I don't for a moment
consider going head to head with you on a subject you obviously
know more about than I.

It is interesting to me however that my children should relate a
tale of fairy visitation.

They have seen all there is to see with grey aliens and yet they
don't feature.

As I said before, they cannot be budged from their belief in the
fairies, and I will do nothing to change that.

They should enjoy it while they can because when they grow up
they will become as skeptical as me and the magic will be gone.


All the very best,

Dave







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:49:53 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:28:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:29:36 -0000
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:31:27 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall

 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:48:09 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 ><snip>

 >>>>I'm happy to agree that there is a degree of self-criticism
 >>>>within the 'ufological community'. However a lot of this is
 >>>>because people are defending their own take on a particular
 >>>>issse, as in the Mack/Jacobs disagreements you quote above. But
 >>>>this cannot go too far.

 >>>No, it tends to stop short of ad hominem attacks. However, the
 >>>behavior you attribute to them is typical of scientific
 >>>give-and-take. I see it all the time in my work abstracting
 >>>scientific journals. Scientist A says his view is right
 >>>because... and Scientist B says Scientist A's view is wrong
 >>>because... They go round and round and others chime in. It's
 >>>called peer review.

 >>I cannot agree that critical comment in the UFO 'community'
 >>stops short of ad-hominem attacks! I do agree that within
 >>ufology arguments go round and round - Rendlesham comes to mind,
 >>for some reason - but I wonder if we are any the better off for
 >>that!

Hi Dick, John,

Rendlesham goes 'round and 'round because skeptics and debunkers
won't discuss sighting details point by point beginning with
compass directions and maps.

I think John seems to be laboring under some fundamental
misunderstandings of what "criticism" and "community" and "peer
review" are all about. Let me illustrate below.

 >You'll have to define "community." I don't consider myself to be
 >part of the full rainbow, ranging from idiots to saints, who
 >consider themselves to be ufologists. My point here, obviously,
 >was that the internal criticism is nothing but standard and much
 >to be desired peer review.

 >Are we better off for it? Is science better off for it? I say
 >yes. Peer review is an essential element of scientific method.

This profound little statement I think went right over the
skeptics' heads. "Peer review" doesn't mean having backslapping
good times with one's buddies. It encompasses the whole range of
scientific discipline, self-correction, self-criticism,
literature review, intellectual integrity, intersubjective
testability and reproducibility of results.

 >>>I suspect one of the reasons scoffers/debunkers tend not to
 >>>engage in peer review is that they don't view themselves as a
 >>>"community". Our U.S. brand clearly view themselves as the
 >>>"defenders of science against human irrationality". It is a
 >>>crusade on their part.

 >>I think you have a good point here, but I both sides are engaged
 >>in a crusade. I suppose that as ufologists are to some extent
 ><snip>

 >>With the sceptics, there is no such imperative to present a
 >>united front. If Phil Klass's explanation for Case A differs
 >>from Robert Scheaffer's this is not going to challenge their
 >>consensus world view, and they can afford to shrug shoulders and
 >>say "whatever".

This is a "world view" where it isn't facts that count but
"consensus," having a "united front." It's an ideological
crusade and partisans must take sides and stay loyal. This is
not the ideal of a scientific inquiry.

This lackadaisical attitude about explaining past work fits in
with the notion that seems to emerge that "criticism" simply
means personal attacks or clashes of opinion {"long,
acrimonious, boring, debate" see below), with nothing decidable
by factual inquiry or empirical analysis, and that "peer review'
simply means congratulations by one's buddies. This seems to be
a literary criticism or deconstructionist worldview rather than
a science or engineering worldview.

To a scientist or engineer "criticism" means a learning process
involving technical issues; emotions usually don't come into
play. Often the greatest compliments ever paid are a detailed
and thorough scientific criticism of one's work. Here, I suspect
the meaning of "criticism" is to get slimed.

The skeptics and debunkers who announce the grandiose
"solutions" to famous UFO cases never seem to acknowledge
predecessors with conflicting "solutions" and it seems clear
it's a matter of ego. They don't want to give credit to others
or they'd lose the exclusive, the journalistic scoop, whatever
will maximize visibility, sales, publicity, etc. They are also
quick to cry foul, shout scandal, question motives and denounce
frauds, liars and charlatans, because they seem to have adopted
the journalistic mindset rather than the scientific mindset.

To shrug one's shoulders about the past and to say "whatever"
shows a disregard for the truth as well as for history.

 >>Differing as to whether Socorro was a hoax by
 >>kids or a hoax by Zamarro does not mean that either of them has
 >>to accept instead that it was an extraterrestrial spacecraft, so
 >>there is no particular benefit for them in arguing the toss.

Personal benefit is the key factor in this mentality, not in
arriving at the truth. There is no personal benefit in seeming
to disunite the united front or to appear to loyal partisans to
be breaking ranks. All that matters is that ETH is attacked. It
doesn't matter whether the attack is true. It doesn't matter
whether it contradicts the facts or other attacks. All that
matters is that ETH is denied, the enemy crushed. This tactic
goes by various names such as mudslinging (sling enough mud some
is bound to stick), character assassination, political agitprop,
etc.

 >>However, accepting either of those explanations does challenge
 >>those who are promoting the idea of the ETH.

Why on earth would ETHers care what Klass or Menzel or Sheaffer
accepted or believed or didn't believe about the Zamora (not
"Zamorro") case? Again, we see the crusade mentality, this time
psychologically projected onto ETHers. It's this insatiable
desire to make converts, not find out what is true or real.

 >If it doesn't bother them that they can't agree on an
 >explanation in so many cases, it should. In fact, to us it
 >suggests that they are not really investigating cases at all,
 >merely assuming they all can be explained and guessing
 >(inconsistently) at answers.

Indeed it bothers us that anyone can be so cavalier about the
facts.

 >>>Or could the reluctance on their part be due to a realization
 >>>that if they are too critical of each other, their own methods
 >>>and techniques may begin to crumble? Hmmm!

 >>I don't think this is the reason. I think the primary reason
 >>that there is less sceptic-on-sceptic criticism than there is
 >>ufologist-on- ufologist criticism (and yes, I do agree that this
 >>is so, I am merely challenging Jerry's assumption that there is
 >>*none* of the former) is that the sceptics are starting their
 >>argument from a consensus position - UFO reports do not
 >>represent extraterrestrial spacecraft - and have no particular
 >>need to get involved in long and acrimonious, and it must be
 >>said sometimes boring, debates.

See here we find "criticism" considered simply to be "long and
acrimonious... boring, debates." Scientists engage in criticism
in an entirely different way, even if they fall short at times,
and it is this ideal that is the standard for rigorous research.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:39:42 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:33:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01Re: Debunkers' Guidebook:42:03 +0200
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:18:14 -0400
 >Subject: - Goldstein


 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:41:34 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:29:36 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

 >>>>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:54:28 -0500
 >>>>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>Previously, I had written:

 >>>>You obviously understand the difference between discussing
 >>>>differences of opinion on a topic as opposed to the flat out
 >>>>criticizing of another person. Yet, for some reason beyond me,
 >>>>you and Jerry find some sort of redeeming value in the latter.

 >>Greg replied:

 >>>Thus, Jerry and Dick Hall, who've been working
 >>>in the field for decades, are challenged to provide lists of
 >>>cases, as if they hadn't already done that in well known
 >>>published work.

 >><snip>

 >>Hi Greg!

 >>If you know this to be true, then how can you chastise someone
 >>or hold them accountable for not having access to these
 >>materials? It is an assumption you make that skeptics either
 >>haven't read the materials or have read them and have ignored
 >>them. What is amazing to me is that skeptics should be held to a
 >>higher standard than Ufologists. I refer to Richard Hall's
 >>recent post where he lamented:

 >>>Something that is becoming evident to me in the often
 >>>acrimonious exchanges in regard to internal criticism by
 >>>advocates as compared to doubters, is that we apparently do not
 >>>know each others' UFO literature very well.

 >>In the end, it is not the skeptics' duty to prove the ETH, but
 >>rather, the duty of those that feel the ETH is the most
 >>reasonable explanation for the best of the UFO casefiles. When a
 >>skeptic asks to see "evidence" or "proof", Ufologists recoil
 >>into a well worn routine of referral to previous works;
 >>information that you and Richard both admit is not that readily
 >>available or well known. This would not be so bad if not for the
 >>feigned indignation and artificial importance attached.

 >>Again, the double standard runs straight and true. You claimed
 >>that skeptics don't criticize each other's work and offer up Bob
 >>Young's lack of response in providing examples as some sort of
 >>proof of your position. You then follow up with examples that
 >>show skeptics do, in fact, criticize each other though not as
 >>often as would satisfy Ufologists.

In most of the examples I've seen or found, skeptics criticized
other skeptics' occasional lapses into making PRO-UFO statements
or arguments. This can be seen as maintainenance of ideological
conformity. It was often made in ephemeral material such as
letters, speeches or email, and didn't generate a readily
citable literature of internal self-criticism of skepticism.

The skeptics and debunkers dodge and evade the issue of not
having a body of literature of internal self-criticism of
skepticism on UFO's. Whereas I can pick up almost any book on
Roswell by pro-Roswell pro-UFO authors and find massive
criticism of pro-UFO positions and claims by others, e.g.,
everyone against Stan Friedman on the Gerald Anderson fraud,
huge arguments over Glenn Dennis, arguments about crash sites,
chronology, etc. The pro-UFO researchers don't limit their
criticism to anti-UFO positions. But skeptics carefully confine
their criticism to attacking their enemies.

 >>You chastise those demanding
 >>proof of your position for not reading materials that, by all
 >>accounts, are not that well known or available. Ultimately, it
 >>would appear from Richard's post that being ill acquainted with
 >>some Pro-UFO literature is considered only an unfortunate
 >>oversight, as long as Ufologists are involved. But let a skeptic
 >>make the same transgression, and suddenly it is inexcusable
 >>ignorance.
 >snip>

 >>Regarding these opinions, Greg wrote:

 >>>But still we should conduct
 >>>ourselves with respect for the work that's already been done. We
 >>>should (this includes me) be asking about it, rather than acting
 >>>as if it doesn't exist, or is somehow irrelevant. (Or, for that
 >>>matter, writing in apparent ignorance of what's in the UFO
 >>>literature, as I've seen some active participants do here.)
<snip>

 >>Finally, you wrote:

 >>>Brad Sparks has stated my position very well. It's a question of
 >>>scientific debate and peer review, not personal or even
 >>>intellectual "hits."

 >>If that's the case, then I don't see what the problem is. As you
 >>have already pointed out, skeptics have been known to disagree
 >>with each other's positions in the past; you even pointed out
 >>the very literature.

<snip>

Again, most of these examples of skeptical disagreement with
skeptics has been of attacks on the PRO-UFO positions of other
skeptics, e.g., Klass and Sheaffer criticizing skeptic Hartmann
of the Condon Committee for his PRO-UFO findings and conclusions
on the Trent/Mcminnville photo case.

And it isn't the trivializing disagreement or clashing opinion
that is being looked for but criticism over facts and analysis
to resolve contradictions among skeptics and debunkers. E.g.,
with Rendlesham, was it the Orfordness Lighthouse, or was it a
lightship, or was it Cosmos 749, or a fireball, or hoax, or
what? With Kenneth Arnold, was it pelicans, meteors, or mirages?
Did Chiles and Whitted see a meteor or suffer an eye defect
called the Pulfrich Phenomenon?

 >In my opinion I feel Greg Sandow, Jenny Randles, Jerry Clark,
 >and Dick Hall clearly pointed out that there is UFO evidence to
 >be looked at that is worthy of a scientific study. I certainly
 >do not believe it is only folklore. If you think so, you
 >obviously are not acquainted with much of the serious UFO
 >related research. The above named people have been involved with
 >this research for a great many years. How much did you study
 >before or since you arrived on this forum some months ago?

 >Have you read any of the military reports, radar trackings,
 >airline pilots, military pilots and crew reports? Have you
 >studied any of the history of this subject? Have you read
 >anything published by Dick Haines, or anything published by the
 >above named people? Did you study any of James McDonald's or
 >Allen Hynek's work? I'm not talking about the archives of this
 >forum.

You're talking about foundational scientific literature in the
UFO field. Most skeptics, debunkers as well as pro-UFO types
seem to be unfamiliar with it.

 >Yes, there are a few expensive books but considering the
 >volume and depth of research and study that went into them they
 >are well worth their price. Plus, Dick Hall and Jerry Clark have
 >published a lot of material that is not so costly. I believe if
 >one is going to seriously study the subject and take an informed
 >position, one must make an investment into that research. That
 >material is easily available to people with small budgets. It is
 >available to anyone. It may not be available in your local
 >bookstore but it is easily obtained otherwise.

 >Have you read any of the serious journals?

 >Roger, have you studied any of the above? If so, I don't
 >understand how you can claim it is mere folklore. I certainly
 >believe in healthy skepticism but uninformed skeptic or believer
 >positions are the opinions of dilletantes. The worst is if one
 >sinks to being a Klasshole, trying to make pronouncements
 >unconnected to having studied anything.

I was with you right up to this point and again afterward.
However, Klass does usually try to investigate cases. It was
Menzel who investigated few if any cases.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                         Re: 'Military' UFOs - Gates

From: Robert Gates RGates8254@aol.com
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 00:50:30 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:36:10 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Gates



 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs
 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 16:47:45 -0400

 >>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >>Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:23:27 +0100
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:02:04 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Jones

 >>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: 'Military' UFOs

 >>Evening John,

 >>>The 'talk' about the Nellis Craft being "made in the USA"
 >>>started me thinking. What bothers me is, military UFOs is one of
 >>>those situations where 1+1 never equals 2.

 ><snip>

 >>1) The SR71 Blackbird was flying back in '62 (before I was born)
 >>it is still one of the fastest planes known about>publicly. That
 >>bird was built forty years ago!

 >>2) The SR71 wasn't made public until the>eighties, please
 >>someone tell me when, because I bet the dates>where different
 >>both sides of the water.

 ><snip>

 >No, the Sr-71 was announced in three different avatars by
 >President Johnson. For my logics professor, an ultra liberal,
 >this was too much. In class he announced that the answers for
 >each one of Goldwater's criticism of Johnson's military policy
 >Johnson reacted with an announcement of a new aircraft. "So now
 >we have the 'weapons falacy.'"


Jan correctly notes that LBJ publicly revealed the existance of
the SR-71. As I recall the first instance was in 1964.
Originally it was to be called the RS-71  but when LBJ made the
announcement as the "SR-71" nobody wanted to butt heads with the
President so SR stuck.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                        Re: 'Military' UFOs - Murray

From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@home.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 03:35:00 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:41:01 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Murray


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:53:14 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 03:47:46 +0200
 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: 'Military' UFOs

Josh wrote:

 >>Please retract that and apologize to everyone on this List you
 >>may have offended.

John Velez responded:

 >Hi Josh, hi All,

 >I will most happily (willingly) apologise to any veterans that
 >may have misread my meaning up above. It was not my intention to
 >"insult." I was making reference to the blind "America right or
 >wrong" attitude that I have always found frightening and
 >reminiscent of the National Socialists back in the 30's. _That_
 >is what I meant by "morons". Those scary 'blind followers'
 >better known as the 'Sheeple'. Folks who react rather than
 >respond. People who never question anything. I have always
 >considered the growing political apathy in this country a matter
 >of concern. I think that people who follow blindly (America
 >right or wrong) without questioning are stupid. Ergo my choice
 >of the descriptive term "moron."

 >No insult was intended to veterans who fought for America. (or
 >any country) My anger at the 'sheeple' comes from my deep love
 >of what America "stands for." (Not necessarily what it is) I'm
 >surprised that you took it as an 'anti-American' remark. It
 >wasn't.

 >It was 'anti-mindless follower.'

<snip>

 >Like yourself I would fight and die for my people and this
 >country. My remarks were not meant to be unpatriotic. It is
 >(unquestioning) 'group' or 'brown shirt' mentality that I was
 >ragging on. I think that people with that kind of a mind-set are
 >morons. And I have no qualms about telling it like it is.

 >It wasn't meant the way you took it at all. Your
 >'interpretation' was mistaken Josh. You shouldn't personalise
 >it. As far as the Nam is concerned and the guys who fought
 >there. I actively protested that war. But I was behind every one
 >of our guys that was over there fighting and dying. It was for
 >them and their families that I chose to stand up and be counted
 >at anti-war demonstrations. We lost over 50,000 guys from our
 >generation over there. For the last 30 years I have just as
 >actively supported efforts to recover our MIAs (or info about
 >them) I have never had a bone to pick with our people in the
 >armed services, only with our own elected officials and their
 >insane murderous policies. There's a difference between that and
 >'anti-Americanism' Jeff. I hope you can see that. I love this
 >country as much as you do although I have been fortunate not to
 >have to prove it at the cost that you and others have paid.

 >Warmest regards, and my sincerest apologies for any offense
 >you may have taken mistakenly or otherwise.

 >None was intended. I expect that from certain 'others' but
 >never from you. ;)

Howdy Josh, John & All,

If I'm not mistaken, John's father fought in WW2 and is a
veteran of that war, as are several others of his family. I have
known John for quite some time now, and he is a man of the
highest ideals when it comes to what his country should be as
compared to how it really is. He can be blunt, but he would
never, ever disrespect those who have fought and died for the
United States, whether the reason, as justified by the
government, was valid or not.

Myself, my parents both served in the armed services in WW2, and
my father in Korea also. I grew up in that type of environment.
I have nothing but the deepest respect for those who went to war
for their country. My charity of choice is the Canadian Warplane
Heritage, which restores to flying condition all the aircraft
flown by Canadian servicemen in wartime. The museum currently
owns one of only two Lancaster bombers still in flying condition
in the world today, and that aircraft gets what little money I
can spare to keep it flying, and I am proud of that.

Like John, though, I have little respect for "sheep." Those
people who blindly believe what they are told and refuse to
think for themselves. God gave all of us a brain, but some
people find it easier for others to do their thinking for them.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 02:11:19 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:44:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Hatch


 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:03:05 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 03:45:15 -0700
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question

 >>Hello Bruce and Serge:

 >>I found a few EME cases prior to the Johnson sighting in June
 >>1947. These are of highly variable merits of course.

 >>The Electromagnetics aspect may not be apparent in my one-line
 >>summaries, thus the sources:

 >>#74: 1809/8/10 0:0 10 0:05W 51:31N 3331 WEU GBI ENG
 >>LONDON:SCIENTIST STAVELEY:MANY NLTS MNVR/DARK CLOUD COVER:
 >>NFD:/r2p14 + /R210 The APRO BULLETIN. Volume 33 Issue 7

 >Thanks for the information. It is highly unlikely that Johnson
 >would have known of any of these earlier reports.)

 >Did any of these reports actually mention effects on a compass?

Hello Bruce:

None of these specifically mention a compass in my truncated
one-line summaries. Two mil. pilot sightings might involve
compasses. These are:

*1944/02/?? Bass Strait, Australia where all or nearly all
instruments went haywire, -and-
*1944/11/27 US AAF over Speyer, Germany: where much the
same thing happened.

Presumably the airmen all had compasses, and presumably
they went haywire two.

The rest appear to be mainly auto and motorcycle engines,
headlights and other electrics conking out, RFI and mysterious
radio signals, a whole town or two going dark (power) after what
might be ball lightning attacks, one or two cases of temporary
human paralysis.....

Hope this helps a little.

- Larry Hatch

PS: I'd like to see a compass that isn't haywire. You can take
10 of them, put them right on the glass counter of any sporting
goods store, and no two will agree. I had one in my car that
reminded me of a roulette wheel. I'll take a good map any day.












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:32:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:47:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Kaeser


 >From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:33:51 +0100

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:40:49 -0400

 >>Of course, we do have to introduce one subtlety. Skeptics don't
 >>say outright that eyewitness testimony is worthless. A blanket
 >>statement like that wouldn't make any sense.

 >>What they do, instead, is challenge eyewitness statements in
 >>particular cases, with general comments on the unreliability of
 >>eyewitnesses. For example, see the chapter on the Chiles-Whitted
 >>sighting in Phil Klass's book "UFOs Explained." Phil thinks the
 >>two airline pilots in that case saw a meteor, and only imagined
 >>that the quickly-passing light in the sky was a craft with
 >>windows. To support his case, he cites other cases in which
 >>eyewitnesses made allegedly similar mistakes.

 >If you read Jenny Randles "Something in the Air" you will find
 >that Jenny also feels the Chiles-Whitted sighting is explicable
 >as a fireball meteor, and draws parallels between the
 >description and that given by the pilot and co-pilot involved in
 >the 1995 case near Manchester Airport.

 >Are we to label Jenny as a "debunker" simply for suggesting a
 >reasonable explanation -or is it better simply to perpetuate
 >mysteries for the sake of it?

 >So I think it's you who isn't well-read, rather than the
 >demonic Mr Rimmer.

 >As for the reliability of eyewitness testimony, I can't do better
 >than quote from Wernher von Braun's "First Men to the Moon"
 >(1958):

 >"...a lifetime spent with testing of guided missiles has taught
 >me to be extremely careful with eye-witness accounts on rocket
 >firings running into some in-flight trouble. Of three
 >experienced observers questioned after a typical mishap, one
 >swore that he clearly saw a part coming off before the rocket
 >faltered; a second hotly denied this but claimed that the
 >missile oscillated violently before it veered off the course;
 >while the third trained observer saw neither a part coming off,
 >nor an oscillation, nor any veering off course but insisted the
 >rocket was flying perfectly steadily until it was abruptly
 >ripped apart by an internal explosion."

 >Von Braun goes on to say:

 >"Such contradictions in the eyewitness accounts of old rocket
 >men are by no means an exception; we are almost invariably
 >confronted with this situation. Yet we are dealing here with
 >experienced observers who not only had seen many firings, but
 >who had the great advantage of being mentally prepared for the
 >imminent test. For this reason I am highly skeptical about the
 >objective of any 'sighting' report of a fleeting, mysterious
 >object in the sky submitted by an equally surprised and
 >unexperienced observer."

 >That is a neat summary of the problems inherent within
 >"eyewitness testimony." Of course it should not be discarded,
 >but equally it should not be accepted at face value unless
 >supported by independent, hard evidence.



David-

A couple of points caught my attention.....

Challenging eyewitness testimony is not the same thing as
dismissing it, and Von Braun's anecdotal story seems to be
little more than that. The fact that eyewitness descriptions are
affected by beliefs and emotions is certainly not new to
Ufologists, and those who approach this subject from a
scientific perspective take that into account. But whenever
backed into a corner with witness testimony, it becomes too easy
to simply claim that such testimony is unreliable and simply
ignore it as worthless.

Being skeptical should lead to further investigation of the
evidence, and not induce one to grab at the first possible
explanation (regardless of the facts) and move on. In regard to
the case you mentioned below, there may be good reason to
believe that it was the result of a miss-identified meteor. That
doesn't prove the case, but provides a possible explanation. My
problem is that "Skeptics" are often just as fanatical as
"Believers". When each should be examining the evidence from a
neutral position, they often skim through the evidence and
present pre-existing beliefs based more on faith than research.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                       Re: 'Military' UFOs - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:52:15 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:49:40 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Goldstein


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:53:14 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 03:47:46 +0200
 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: 'Military' UFOs

<snip>

 >>>(If you don't think that's true, come and talk to the
 >>>flag_waving morons that tied yellow ribbons around trees for our
 >>>captured _spies!_) They would not only throw their support
 >>>behind a fleet of American UFOs, they would throw their money at
 >>>it in precedent setting quantities. If these alleged military
 >>>UFOs were also capable of going beyond earth's atmosphere and
 >>>maneuvering in space then America would control the world, and
 >>>outer space.

 ><snip>

 >>Please retract that and apologize to everyone on this List you
 >>may have offended.

 >I will most happily (willingly) apologise to any veterans that
 >may have misread my meaning up above. It was not my intention to
 >"insult." I was making reference to the blind "America right or
 >wrong" attitude that I have always found frightening and
 >reminiscent of the National Socialists back in the 30's. _That_
 >is what I meant by "morons". Those scary 'blind followers'
 >better known as the 'Sheeple'. Folks who react rather than
 >respond. People who never question anything. I have always
 >considered the growing political apathy in this country a matter
 >of concern. I think that people who follow blindly (America
 >right or wrong) without questioning are stupid. Ergo my choice
 >of the descriptive term "moron."

 >No insult was intended to veterans who fought for America. (or
 >any country) My anger at the 'sheeple' comes from my deep love
 >of what America "stands for." (Not necessarily what it is) I'm
 >surprised that you took it as an 'anti-American' remark. It
 >wasn't.

 >It was 'anti-mindless follower.'

 ><snip>

 >Like yourself I would fight and die for my people and this
 >country. My remarks were not meant to be unpatriotic. It is
 >(unquestioning) 'group' or 'brown shirt' mentality that I was
 >ragging on. I think that people with that kind of a mind-set are
 >morons. And I have no qualms about telling it like it is.

 >It wasn't meant the way you took it at all. Your
 >'interpretation' was mistaken Josh. You shouldn't personalise
 >it. As far as the Nam is concerned and the guys who fought
 >there. I actively protested that war. But I was behind every one
 >of our guys that was over there fighting and dying. It was for
 >them and their families that I chose to stand up and be counted
 >at anti-war demonstrations. We lost over 50,000 guys from our
 >generation over there. For the last 30 years I have just as
 >actively supported efforts to recover our MIAs (or info about
 >them) I have never had a bone to pick with our people in the
 >armed services, only with our own elected officials and their
 >insane murderous policies. There's a difference between that and
 >'anti-Americanism' Jeff. I hope you can see that. I love this
 >country as much as you do although I have been fortunate not to
 >have to prove it at the cost that you and others have paid.
 >
 >Warmest regards, and my sincerest apologies for any offense
 >you may have taken mistakenly or otherwise.
 >
 >None was intended. I expect that from certain 'others' but
 >never from you. ;)


Hello John,

Your apologies are heartily accepted. However, I think your
initial point was rather obscure and easily misinterpreted. You
normally are very clear in your points. That is why I responded
to you on this List rather than privately. Let's kiss and make
up, but no holding hands :).


Be well my friend,

Josh










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Rutkowski

From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@Ms.UManitoba.CA>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 08:49:10 CST
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:52:36 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Rutkowski


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001
 >Subject: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

 >83.2% of posts on UpDates concerning debunking, statistics and
 >skeptic-advocates debates contain silliness, high silliness,
 >or very high silliness.

<snip>

 >MacArthur, I think, said only 5% of intelligence is true, the
 >trick was knowing which 5%. 93% of all UFO books are trash. 97%
 >of all UFO reports are IFOs.

 >98% of all people don't understand the proper use of statistics. 99% of
 >all UFO statistics whatever the source, Air Force, ufologists, etherians,
 >skeptics are useless. 99.8% of all scientists who cite Air Force UFO
 >stats have not idea what they are talking about. I am the UFO statistics
 >debunker! Give me a UFO statistic, and I will debunk it! Is that
 >CISCOP enough for ya? Word Up!

Great, Jan! But you forgot one:

"There are three kinds of people in this world: Those who can count,
and those who can't."


Chris R


Chris Rutkowski
Media Relations Coordinator
Public Affairs Department
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada  R3T 2N2
  voice:  (204) 474-9514
e-mail:  Chris_Rutkowski@umanitoba.ca








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:39:44 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:54:42 -0400
Subject: Re:  Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles


 >From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:33:51 +0100

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:40:49 -0400

 >>Of course, we do have to introduce one subtlety. Skeptics don't
 >>say outright that eyewitness testimony is worthless. A blanket
 >>statement like that wouldn't make any sense.

 >>What they do, instead, is challenge eyewitness statements in
 >>particular cases, with general comments on the unreliability of
 >>eyewitnesses. For example, see the chapter on the Chiles-Whitted
 >>sighting in Phil Klass's book "UFOs Explained." Phil thinks the
 >>two airline pilots in that case saw a meteor, and only imagined
 >>that the quickly-passing light in the sky was a craft with
 >>windows. To support his case, he cites other cases in which
 >>eyewitnesses made allegedly similar mistakes.

 >Hi Greg,

 >If you read Jenny Randles "Something in the Air" you will find
 >that Jenny also feels the Chiles-Whitted sighting is explicable
 >as a fireball meteor, and draws parallels between the
 >description and that given by the pilot and co-pilot involved in
 >the 1995 case near Manchester Airport.

 >Are we to label Jenny as a "debunker" simply for suggesting a
 >reasonable explanation -or is it better simply to perpetuate
 >mysteries for the sake of it?


Hi,

Thanks for this David.

The point really is this:

I followed up the British Airways January l995 sighting because
it happened literally on my door step (over the same part of the
Peak District where I live).

In doing so I realised from past experience with similar cases
that this one was likely to be best evaluated as a meteor
misperception.

The air crew description of a craft with windows/portholes was
consistent with previous examples where witnesses 'joined the
dots' and saw a trail of disconnected debris as being the lit
'windows' on the side of a dark craft that was in reality just
'filled in' by the mind. This is a well documented effect.

Yes, this was an inference to a degree - but one based on a
reasonable reading of the evidence and comparison with past
cases where this has proven to be the explanation. So it was a
logical way to try to interpret this case.

Once astronomical sources revealed that the meteor explanation
was feasible, this had to be regarded as the most likely answer.

Not the certain answer - of course - but the rational one to
adopt if you are faced with this evidence and the various
options to explain it.

It also explained anomalies that the testimony otherwise threw
up (such as the absence of any image on the Manchester Airport
radar other than that of the Boeing 737).

Once you did a data search for past similar cases (as I did) the
Chiles-Whitted case stood out as a very similar one. Not only
that but I had spoken at length about it to Allen Hynek, who was
involved at the time as the USAF science adviser. He told me
that he had always thought a meteor was a likely cause for the
Chiles-Whitted case and whilst he couldnt positively say that
was the answer at the time he became more persuaded as the years
went by.

So, my conclusions as to the meteor resolution being accepted
here were reasoned ones that had nothing to do with a debunking
mentality. This answer simply best fitted the facts of the case.
If it hadnt then I would not have considered it to be the most
appropriate answer.

That - to me - is not belief, nor being skeptical nor following
a debunking mentality. It is simply applying common sense to a
case, looking for the best possible answer - accepting when you
find one - but being aware (as always) that you could be wrong.
You are always only going to be able to make a sensible value
judgement. And here that sensible judgement is that this case
was a misperception of a meteor.

I would hope that is the kind of investigation methodology to
which we would all subscribe.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                          Secrecy News -- 04/17/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:55:53 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:56:24 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 04/17/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
April 17, 2001

**AN ESPIONAGE TREATY?
**MOSSAD: HELP WANTED


AN ESPIONAGE TREATY?

Is it possible that espionage could be restricted by
international agreement?  Remarkably, the answer is yes.  The
proof of principle lies in the fact that the United States and
its allies Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom have
committed not to engage in espionage against one another.

Now that international relations are being roiled by
intelligence activities such as the alleged espionage by FBI
agent Robert Hanssen and the contested U.S. surveillance flights
off the coast of China, some are starting to ask whether the
time has come to establish new rules of the road for
intelligence collection.

This is not, of course, a new question.  In 1960, in the
aftermath of the U-2 affair, President Eisenhower declared: "I
have come to Paris to seek agreements with the Soviet Union
which would eliminate the necessity for all forms of espionage,
including overflights."  (Quoted in M. Beschloss, Mayday, p.
286.)

The issue is complicated by the fact that not all types of
intelligence collection are equally disruptive.  To the
contrary, some are positively beneficial insofar as they help to
promote international stability, verify arms control agreements,
etc.  (For this reason, among others, President Eisenhower's
proposal was quickly abandoned.)

Efforts to negotiate limits on intelligence collection might
prove politically difficult, since many people have a vested
interest -- financial, professional or sentimental -- in
preserving the existing intelligence bureaucracy.  Any limits
that were agreed upon might also be difficult to verify in
practice.

"Obviously, no one is going to renounce spying unilaterally,"
wrote former Soviet foreign minister Boris Pankin in Moscow
Times last week. "And they are right not to. Just as was the
case with nuclear weapons, moving away from espionage requires
multilateral agreements and mutual concessions.... Perhaps the
place to start would be a ban on recruiting foreign nationals."

Mr. Pankin's April 12 commentary, entitled "An Espionage
Treaty," is posted here:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2001/04/12/006.html

Likewise, in 1996, former U.S. Ambassador Robert E. White
suggested a pilot program to test alternatives to espionage in
selected regions of the world.

He proposed "pacts of reciprocal restraint by which signatories
agree not to spy on or engage in covert action against the
other. In order to be eligible to sign such a pact with the
United States, the other nation would have to meet minimal
standards of openness."

See Amb. White's February 7, 1996 Washington Post op-ed entitled
"Call Off the Spies" here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1996/960207-oped.htm


MOSSAD: HELP WANTED

Like other foreign intelligence organizations, Israel's Mossad
is gradually being compelled by the exigencies of the
marketplace and the global media environment to surrender some
of its traditional secrecy.

Not long ago, the very name of the Mossad's director was
considered a state secret. "Even the son of the head of the
Mossad did not know that he was the son of the head of the
Mossad," began a memorable 1992 short story, "Ha-Ben shel Rosh
ha-Mossad," by the young Israeli writer Etgar Karet.

Nowadays, however, the Mossad is placing want ads in the press,
following the example of the CIA, MI5 and others.  Last weekend
the Israeli government announced -- on its Hebrew web pages, not
the English counterparts -- a new advertising campaign on behalf
of the Mossad's technology unit.

"This is the first time that the Mossad has acknowledged its
technology unit, which has functioned for thirty years now,"
according to a statement of the Prime Minister's spokesman.

The technology unit "works in conjunction with Mossad
operational personnel.  Its purpose is to develop advanced
technological methods to improve the operational capability of
the Mossad and to meet its technological needs," the April 14
statement said.

The new Mossad ad, seeking suitable electronics engineers and
computer scientists (Israeli citizens only), is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/israel/mossad/helpwanted.htm

******************************
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]


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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                             Re: Belief - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:19:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:00:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Clark


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:38:45 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Belief


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Belief
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:38:45 -0500


 >>>From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Belief
 >>>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:38:02 +0100


John,.

 >>I'm not sure what the relevance of your children's ideas about
 >>fairies is to our current discussion, but the whole question of
 >>fairy "belief" - and, more interestingly to anomalists, fairy
 >>"experience" - is far more complicated than you apparently
 >>realize. It's fascinated me for a long time, and I've written
 >>about it most recently in my book Unexplained! and in Stacy and
 >>Huyghe's journal The Anomalist ("From Mermaids to Little Gray
 >>Men," Spring 2000>

 >There is a difference between a belief based on an actual
 >'event' and one based on hearsay. It's the difference between,
 >"I heard that fire burns if you touch it with your bare hands,"
 >and, "I stuck my hand in a fire and it burned the crap out of
 >me."

 >My "belief" in UFOs and their occupants comes from -contact-
 >with them. (An actual, waking, real-life "event.") At that point
 >"belief" becomes "knowledge." Which is why I'm fond of the
 >(cant) "I am a UFO knower" as opposed to, "UFO believer."

A good point.  The word "belief" - along with its barbaric
euphemism "belief system" - has its uses, but it's nearly always
abused in discourse on UFOs and other anomalies.  (Other words
comparably abused are "folklore" and "rational" [as an adjective
warning us that the noun "explanation" is about to appear].)
Debunkers use "belief" and "believe" in a monumentally
self-serving sense that might be expressed thus: What we know
we _know_; what you "know" you only believe.

I'd take your word about your experiences over a debunker's
speculative, unprovable interpretation of same any day.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                         Re: 'Military' UFOs - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:27:01 _0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:07:05 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Velez


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:20:11 0500

 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:53:14 0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 03:47:46 +0200
 >>>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t online.de>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: 'Military' UFOs

 >John,

 >>I will most happily (willingly) apologise to any veterans that
 >>may have misread my meaning up above. It was not my intention to
 >>"insult." I was making reference to the blind "America right or
 >>wrong" attitude that I have always found frightening and
 >>reminiscent of the National Socialists back in the 30's. _That_
 >>is what I meant by "morons". Those scary 'blind followers'
 >>better known as the 'Sheeple'. Folks who react rather than
 >>respond.

 >You're a great guy, my friend, but you're way off base here. My
 >experience is that there are more people on both the left and
 >the right who believe America is on the wrong side of every
 >conflict it gets into than the other extreme. Americans, in my
 >experience, are remarkably self critical people, sometimes even
 >too much so. I see no justification for bringing Nazis into this
 >discussion. My word.

 >To all available evidence, and so far none to the contrary, the
 >lives of an America crew on a surveillance not a spy plane
 >flying over international waters were put at serious risk for no
 >justifiable purpose. The Chinese had every right to follow the
 >plane, but not to knock it out of the sky either intentionally
 >or accidentally. Nor did they have the right to detain the crew.

 >This is a good country, John. Not a perfect one, but a pretty
 >decent place with good values it tries, however often it comes
 >up short, to live up to. I wish you were as hard on China's
 >police state (which, moreover, is lying brazenly to its own
 >people about what happened) as you are on our democracy and on
 >the brave Navy crew who came perilously close to perishing in
 >the ocean for doing nothing wrong.

 >I ought to add that, like Josh, I'm a Democrat, and hardly a
 >kneejerk defender of an administration I voted against once and
 >will happily vote against twice. Even so, I think Bush and his
 >people handled a bad situation as well as they could.

 >And now back to UFOs....


Hiya Jerry,

Aw man, I'm sorry my remark was taken the way it was. George
Carlin is always basing his comedy on 'use of language' gags. I
guess you should never put the words, "Flag-waving" and "moron"
together in the same phrase or you'll leave yourself open to
_all kinds_ of misinterpretation. Honest Jerry, I don't think
that my original was so poorly worded that it left itself open
to such radical misinterpretation. I also never meant to insult
anybody's sensibilities - much less 'rag' on veterans.

My father is a WWII combat veteran.

My first cousin had his knee cap blown-off in Viet Nam.

I lost three friends, guys I grew up with, played ball with,
discovered girls with, got high for the time with... in
_combat_ in Viet Nam.

Plus two more; one of which arrived home hopelessly addicted to
heroin, (he's still an addict to this day) and another whose
mind was so adversely affected by his military experience that
he's currently (and for that last 17 years) been
institutionalized. (VA Mental hospital) He was committed
because he is considered to be a danger to himself and to
others.

So, I would _never_ say anything meant to be derogatory about
veterans or loyal Americans. That's the opposite end of spectrum
from the kind of "American" I was referring to. (Flag-waving
morons.) I was talking about people who do not use their own
minds to think with. The ones who "follow blindly" and
"mindlessly". People who allow someone else to 'think ' for
them, are dangerous. They scare me. And it is not too far of a
stretch to compare them to the countless thousands in Germany
who, en masse (during the 30's,) embraced the National
Socialists and then looked the other way when they found
injustices in its leaders and in the system itself.

I'm really sorry that both you and Josh 'read me' the way you
did. I love this country every bit as much as you do. And BTW, I
'criticize' the USA as opposed to China because I am an American
citizen, not a Chinese one. If I was living in China, with _my_
mouth, I'd be writing to you from the deepest hole of a jail
cell in Hunan Province. No doubt I would have been arrested
years ago if I lived there.


Warmest regards,

John

                      "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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                    Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:46:21 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:24:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:10:05 -0500

 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:14:20 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

<snip>

 >Now, expecting once again a blatant refusal to answer a simple
 >question, I nonetheless try again:

 >Do you reject as effectively meaningless and misguided all
 >reports in which witnesses -- including technically trained
 >ones, under excellent viewing conditions -- report structured
 >objects whose appearances and performance characteristics are
 >unlike those even of the most advanced military and civilian
 >aircraft?

<snip>

Jerry,

You win the question of the millenium award.

You could have added:

"A simple yes or no will be sufficient".

That should clean up the atmosphere.

Still...










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                             Re: Belief - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:06:21 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:27:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - McCoy


 >From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Belief
 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:38:02 +0100

Hello, all, Dave

 >Hi all,

 >Something struck me the other day, I have three daughters, 3, 8
 >and 9 years of age.

 >They all believe very strongly in the existence of Fairies,
 >little people with dragonfly wings.

Maybe they have "experienced " them?

 >Now of course we know such things don't really exist don't we,
 >but they won't be budged from their belief.

I wouldn't even try, my dear Gloria, a gardener of some ability
has little fairy icons throughout our garden, does she believe?
I don't know-but we have 100 or so roses, many other perennial
plants that seem to grow despite our best intentions.

 >A belief system seems to exist on all levels, if you have
 >children then you know what I mean, if not then you can't begin
 >to understand.

 >I suppose what I'm trying to say is, maybe the belief of some
 >adults is not that different from that of children. Innocent!

Well, maybe, and I think that someone who has  a gift of looking
at things with an innocence like a child is not a bad thing,
Adults accumulate scars and damage to their psyche that can
harden them to any concept of the miraculous. Let alone the
existence of something outside their known (and quite
comfortable) universe (also quite small sometimes).

 >Dave (the suffering Dad).

Actually Dave, you probably aren't suffering -that- much. Enjoy
this time,even if you have to put up with Fairies,and whoever
else is in their world. Cultivate it, nurture it, kids today
have enough reality if that is what  it is . I have seen what
the exposure to the "adult" world can do to kids who aren't
ready. Teen suicide for one, talk about the explosion that
forever changes one's outlook, that happened to me in my first
marriage. The cause was the ripping out of a child's world and
the unready boy thrown into, totally unwanted to an "adult" one
by the boy's real(and a total scumbag father), I found being a
stepparent was near impossible, this only made it worse.

Keep your daughter's "Hunting the Fairies" alive. It will serve
them well. Oh, and if you should find a circle of mushrooms with
one in the middle, in your yard, this is proof of fairy activity
as it's known as a "Fairy ring". please let me know. It is
necessary to make sure they are happy - I'm a specialist in this
you know. First you buy a bottle on any good single malt scotch,
or a good Irish whiskey. Being a specialist in this area I will,
for a specified sum and airfare, be able to help in the search
for the perfect place for said Whiskey (oh, Johnnie Walker red
or black, and Murphy's will work also.) and  I will guarantee
the bottle will be gone in the morning.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                    Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:05:53 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:28:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:49:53 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:29:36 -0000
 >>Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:31:27 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall

<snip>

 >Personal benefit is the key factor in this mentality, not in
 >arriving at the truth. There is no personal benefit in seeming
 >to disunite the united front or to appear to loyal partisans to
 >be breaking ranks. All that matters is that ETH is attacked. It
 >doesn't matter whether the attack is true. It doesn't matter
 >whether it contradicts the facts or other attacks. All that
 >matters is that ETH is denied, the enemy crushed. This tactic
 >goes by various names such as mudslinging (sling enough mud some
 >is bound to stick), character assassination, political agitprop,
 >etc.

<snip>

If ufology can't come up with a Council, why not stir some ideas
for a manifesto?

Where is Jerry Clark when we need him?









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                        Re: 'Military' UFOs - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:31:27 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Tonnies


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:48:16 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs


 >Hola once again Mz. Felder,

 >No response, I just want to discuss a little 'Nature'. I'm up to
 >the "B's" in my study of the encyclopedia. <LOL>

 >The barracuda is an opportunistic feeder. It will hide in its
 >burrow and wait for potential 'prey' to pass by the opening.
 >Whereupon it will 'spring' from its lair and devour the prey
 >with its huge gaping jaws.

 >By the way, cease taking [opportunistic] 'cheap shots' at me in
 >public. You, of all the people on this List, know me personally
 >least of all.

 >John Velez


<snip>

As a third party who hasn't contributed to this particular
thread and has no stake in it, I have to side with Mr. Velez on
this. Enough already.

--Mac







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                    Filer's Files #16 -- 2000 [Truncated]

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:10:44 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:34:13 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #16 -- 2000 [Truncated]


Filer's Files #16 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
April 17, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

POWERFUL SOLAR FLARES INCREASE

On Easter Sunday, April 15, 2001, the sun erupted in one of the
most powerful solar flares ever with a X14-class explosion
climaxing a two-week wave of the largest X-class flares. The
source of the explosion is near sunspot group 9415 on the
western limb, so the blast was directed mostly away from Earth
which is lucky for us. The sun flare was nearly as powerful as
one in 1989 that triggered the collapse of a power grid in
Canada -- no such calamities are expected this time. A moderate
radiation storm is in progress as a cloud of electrified,
magnetic gas moves towards Earth. The activity comes from a huge
sunspot over a dozen times larger than the surface area of the
Earth. Visit Space Weather.com. http://www.spaceweather.com.
Strong solar activity is expected to continue and there is
speculation that large UFO motherships may move into the Earth's
atmosphere or under the water for protection. Our astronauts
were surrounded by water tanks aboard our space station to help
protect them from radiation hazards in space.

INCREASED UFO ACTIVITY in Connecticut, Virginia, Florida,
Illinois, Ohio, California, Alaska, Portugal and Australia.
There are a regular series of sightings of UFOs emerging from
bodies of water and splashing down into them. Frequently, lights
and other activity are observed and recently reports from the
former Soviet Union have been released indicating alien activity
under water.

CONNECTICUT BULLET-SHAPED UFOs

HAMDEN - The witness returned from shopping on March 20, 2001,
when her eight-year-old son, who was in the car, pointed up to a
large bullet-shaped object at 4:00 P.M. We got out of the car to
watch a thick stream of pinkish smoke or (gas) rise vertically
on the horizon. A few seconds later we saw a large bullet-shaped
flying object. It was very shiny and silver with one circular
ring around it's middle. The craft started to rise vertically.
We had great difficulty in not paying attention to it. I did not
seek the attention of any other people in the lot. It flew to
altitude and then flew horizontally to the left of us. There
were no flashing lights or sounds to be heard. We then got in
the car to follow as best we could in the direction it was
headed. We traveled approximately one-tenth of a mile to see
only a grayish line of smoke or gas in the sky. Peter Davenport
spoke with this witness, and found her story rather interesting.
We do not know what she saw, but the case is now in the hands of
MUFON/CT. for investigation.

HAMDEN -- Two hours later, at 6:00 P.M., another Hamden woman
reported that her son heard a very loud propeller sound over
their house. "He ran to the bay window," where, "he said he saw
a large missile-shaped object." The object was hovering just
above the treeline. He was quite certain that, "the object was
oblong, with two lights shining in an alternating fashion, one
blue, the other red." "The object was green and black."

HARTFORD - Two days later, on March 22, 2001, at 4:30 A.M., a
couple living on a residential street in, the state capital of
Connecticut, "were awakened by a light that lit up the entire
house. This lasted for a minute, then suddenly they heard a
whooshing sound, and it was all over." Thanks to Peter B.
Davenport of the National UFO Reporting Center. <A
HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC</A> <A
HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC</A> <A
HREF="http://www.UFOcenter.com/">National Reporting Center</A>

NEW YORK YANKEES COMMENTATORS SEE UFO

KANSAS SIGHTING -- MUFON investigator Troy Carm writes, "While
doing the play-by-play on air broadcast for the Madison Square
Garden Network Tuesday, April 10th, 2001, commentators Al
Trautwig and Ken Singleton related an encounter they had last
year." While commenting on the planes flying through the sky
over Kaufmann Stadium in Kansas City, Missouri, Ken Singelton
commented to Al Trautwig that those lights looked like the
lights they saw last traveling on I-70 to Kansas City after a
series in Chicago. Trautwig then commented that those (airplane)
lights are nothing like the ones they saw fly overhead. He
continued on saying that they had seen plenty of planes and
helicopters flying at night, but those lights were nothing like
it. Singleton commented that what ever they were they remained
unidentified, to which Trautwig responded, as most UFO sightings
are! Wanting to have this comment on tape, I recorded the MSG
replay from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m., but, as the comment was made
during a non-exciting time in the baseball action, it was edited
out on the rebroadcast, presumably to make the 3 hour game fit
into a 2 hour time slot. Thanks to Carmen McLaren FI MUFON Troy,
NY

VIRGINIA LARGE UNKNOWN OBJECT

SPRINGFIELD -- I'm writing to report a sighting of an unusual
craft on March 23, 2001. At about 8:40 p.m., I drove to a nearby
gas station from my home to get a pack of cigarettes. As I was
driving back home I noticed a very large craft of some kind
flying relatively low in the sky. It was about the size of an
audio tape long-wise, at arm's length. I saw two lights, at
first thinking that is was two airplanes flying side by side in
unison. Then I realized it was one large object when I saw a
small red light beside the far right light. As the object went
out of view behind some trees, I followed in my car for about a
minute and caught a better look from the rear. It was three
lights in a line with the small red light just a bit lower to
the right. As I watched the object trying to see if there was
any discernible shape to it, I noticed that there was absolutely
no noise coming from it. I live in an area between Reagan
National and Dulles International Airport and am familiar with
the types of planes ad helicopters that fly in this area. For
any plane to have been that size in my field of view, it would
have been making a recognizable deep rumble sound. This object
was higher up in the sky and was bigger that anything I have
ever seen fly anywhere. It seemed to glide though the sky
heading south when it went out of view. I was surprised that
nobody else saw this in my area given its large population.
Whatever it was, I think it was intended for people to see it
since it was so large and flying so low. Thanks to Peter
Davenport Director <A
HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC</A> FLORIDA GULF OF
MEXICO UFOs

DESTIN -- This happened a while back when I was shark fishing
late one night about two miles off the East jetty, when I saw a
small greenish-colored light on the horizon. At first I thought
it was the running light on another boat, but it was coming
close in to the shore at a pretty good rate of speed. When it
was about a mile out from me parallel to the shore, it suddenly
just stopped and stayed in one spot. After a few minutes, it
suddenly shot straight up into the air faster than I have ever
seen anything move. It shot up 2000 feet and just stopped again.
I went to get my camera out of the cabin but when I came back I
did not see it. I looked all around and saw it again on the
opposite side of the boat about a mile away. It was hovering at
50 feet or so. There is no way a plane can travel that fast and
that far in only 15 seconds. I watched for half an hour as it
seemed to play leap frog with me. It would shoot up and over me
back and forth from one side to the other. Some times it moved
so fast that the light would look like a blur moving across the
sky.

I spent a lot of time commercial fishing and some of the things
we saw out over the Gulf were downright weird. I asked my father
if he knew what they were and all he said was, "I hope that
Eglin Air Force Base is testing something." I saw something
similar about 100 miles off the coast one January night at 3:00
AM, I was up in the bridge of my dad's boat when I saw the
light. I looked at the radar to see if it was a boat on the
horizon. There was a small blip on the screen that disappeared
from the radar and reappeared behind us. I looked out the cabin
door and there was the light behind us that played leap frog for
about 30 minutes before it disappeared. Numerous times fishing
out there we saw lights in the sky doing strange things. Thanks
to WalterClwalter1

OHIO CYLINDER SHAPED UFO

CANTON -- The witness was casually observing starlit night sky
outside while at work on March 24, 2001. He observed 3 or 4
airplanes in night sky at 8:50 P.M. A regional airport is five
minutes from my observation point. I observed two faintly
visible, white, dim, non-blinking lights moving to the East
northeast at what I thought was an impossible rate of speed for
even a military jet. It was a fairly long object with one dim,
non-blinking light forward and one dim, non-blinking light at
the rear. No wing lights were visible although between front and
rear lights a very slight dim, white illumination seemed barely
noticeable along the edges of its body. The object was at about
60 degrees from my vantage point and covered about two-thirds of
the sky within five seconds or so. Suddenly the object slowed
down so very rapidly it barely seemed possible. It seemed to
just "coast" slowly for a second and it then just vanished.
Although sounds from the nearby airplanes could be heard, when
the object I saw darted across the sky, I thought I could hear a
faint, steady sound like a hum of some sort, but unlike that of
an airplane or jet engine. Thanks to Peter Davenport Director.
<A HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC</A> <A
HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC</A>

ILLINOIS HOUSE SHAKES DUE TO UFO?

GALESBURG -- Jane S. Derry writes, "I thought I was imagining
things until I read last weeks Filer's Files about the house
shaking in Taylorville and the man seeing a Flying Triangle over
his home on March 22, 2001. This triangular object also had
lights on the bottom of it and red lights along the back of it.
I was watching TV with my son on March 23rd, and all of a sudden
the house sort of shook, ONCE. It was really strange. There was
a rather muffled thud, and it was gone. I asked if Matt felt
that, and he looked at me oddly, like how could he not! The dogs
looked around worriedly, but didn't move. And then there was
nothing. I guess I should have gone outside, but they have been
here before! I live in Galesburg about 200 WSW of Chicago and
125 miles from Taylorsville. Thanks to Jane S. Derry
derryj@gallatinriver.net,

CALIFORNIA CHEVRON HOVERS OVER WITNESSES

GRANITE BAY -- While driving home on March 24, 2001, we saw a
very white bright point of light up in the sky, and realized
that it was coming towards us. The object had seven or eight
blinking lights on the side. As we got closer at 1:24 A.M., it
became apparent that it was either close to the ground or very
large. There were seven lights on the front in a chevron
formation. An eighth white, blinking light was in the back,
located two inches from the front most light in the front. The
front lights were various sizes of circles with a red light at
the "nose" of the object. The size of the circles were in no
apparent order, but were symmetrical in placement, i.e., a
medium was across from a medium, and a large light was across
from a large light. Once the object moved over the road, it
slowed down to a nearly complete stop and shot out what looked
like a faint spot light on the shoulder of the road at an angle
of about 45 degrees from either the center or one side of the
chevron. After the spotlight went out, the craft sped up,
crossed the road diagonally, and continued to move away from us.
I phoned my friend to tell him to get outside and see if he
could get a look. Thirty seconds later I spotted another object
shaped like a classic saucer. Sort of cigar, but more
saucer-shaped. It was moving over a field in the distance,
complete with blinking lights. It stopped and started and
followed the first object. My friend thinks it was a helicopter,
but I haven't seen helicopters with that many lights. I was very
excited yelling into the phone. I couldn't shut up about it,
while my friend didn't say much. I kept asking him if he had
seen, "That first one," shoot out the spotlight, and he would
say, "yea, he thought so." Thanks to <A
HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC </A>

ALASKA FLYING TRIANGLES

SEWARD --  Michael Harman writes that, "If you are interested in
seeing Flying Triangles, then Seward, Alaska is the place to be.
It is a virtual hotspot for UFO activity. My contact is seeing
black triangles flying over his home every night after 2:00 A.M.
He views them from his bedroom window using a standard pair of
binoculars and can easily see the triangular shape. What are
they and where are they coming from? If there is anyone from
Skywatch or MUFON in the area who could investigate it would be
appreciated. I need more people to observe the ongoing activity.
Thanks to Whitley Strieber & Mike_Harman@rocketmail.com.

AUSTRALIA RED UFO LANDS

QUEENSLAND -- A woman rancher saw a glowing red UFO land in a
paddock close to Beenliegh and Redland Bay Road near Logan, the
night of March 28, 2001. According to the Logan, newspaper,
"Dogs barked, birds squawked and horses bolted when a mysterious
bright object streaked across Logan's night sky, shining red
light over a rural property at 11:30 p.m." "Seeing the silent
red UFO has frightened and mystified property owner Tashma
Hosking Who said she heard it hit the ground minutes later after
it disappeared over a hill." "But her search of the area the
next day found nothing." Thanks to Diane Harrison of the
Australian UFO Research Network.

PORTUGAL TV CARRIES UFO SIGHTING

AMARES -- J. M. Mariojouls writes that RTPi, Portuguese
International Television reported on April 10, that the small
village of So Vicente do Bico in North Portugal was awaked by a
strange phenomenon. On March 18th, at 4:05 AM, witnesses said,
"It was like a big earthquake, we jumped through the windows to
get out of the house," Another saw the whole phenomenon from
outside: "the sky was like daylight, everything was lit like
during the day, but it was a strange light, like fluorescent,
with a bit blue/purple. It lasted for about three minutes and
then it all joined into a small light ball, like the moon. It
floated for four seconds and then it disappeared. I don't know
how to explain the way it disappears but it was very strange.
After the ball disappeared, there was an explosion, and the
ground shook very hard." Thanks to JM Mariojouls
jm.mariojouls@wanadoo.fr SI France

RUSSIAN UNDERWATER ENCOUNTERS:

Researcher Paul Stonehill writes that there are numerous Soviet
accounts of strange objects beneath the surface of the sea. In
the summer of 1982, Mark Shteynberg, along with Lt. Colonel
Gennady Zverev, were conducting periodic training of the
reconnaissance divers ("frogmen") of the Turkestan and Central
Asian military regions. The training exercises had been taking
place at the Issik Kul Lake, a deep-water lake in the
Transiliysk Ala Tau area. Quite unexpectedly the officers were
paid a visit by Major-General V. Demyanko, commander of the
Military Diver Service of the Engineer Forces of the Ministry of
Defense. He arrived to inform the local officers of an
extraordinary event the had occurred during exercises in
Siberia. Frogmen had encountered mysterious underwater swimmers,
very human-like, but huge in size (almost three meters in
height)! The swimmers were clad in tight-fitting silvery suits,
despite icy-cold water temperatures. At the depth of fifty
meters, these "swimmers" were not wearing aqualungs, but
sphere-like helmets concealing their heads.

Alarmed by these encounters the local military commander decided
to capture one of the creatures. With that purpose in mind, a
special group of seven Soviet frogmen chased one of the strange
swimmers. As the Soviet frogman tried to cover [Truncated --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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                         Re: 'Military' UFOs - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 22:01:26 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:38:55 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Hall


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:20:11 0500

 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:53:14 0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 03:47:46 +0200
 >>>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t online.de>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: 'Military' UFOs

 >John,

 >>I will most happily (willingly) apologise to any veterans that
 >>may have misread my meaning up above. It was not my intention to
 >>"insult." I was making reference to the blind "America right or
 >>wrong" attitude that I have always found frightening and
 >>reminiscent of the National Socialists back in the 30's. _That_
 >>is what I meant by "morons". Those scary 'blind followers'
 >>better known as the 'Sheeple'. Folks who react rather than
 >>respond.

 >You're a great guy, my friend, but you're way off base here. My
 >experience is that there are more people on both the left and
 >the right who believe America is on the wrong side of every
 >conflict it gets into than the other extreme. Americans, in my
 >experience, are remarkably self critical people, sometimes even
 >too much so. I see no justification for bringing Nazis into this
 >discussion. My word.

 >To all available evidence, and so far none to the contrary, the
 >lives of an America crew on a surveillance not a spy plane
 >flying over international waters were put at serious risk for no
 >justifiable purpose. The Chinese had every right to follow the
 >plane, but not to knock it out of the sky either intentionally
 >or accidentally. Nor did they have the right to detain the crew.

 >This is a good country, John. Not a perfect one, but a pretty
 >decent place with good values it tries, however often it comes
 >up short, to live up to. I wish you were as hard on China's
 >police state (which, moreover, is lying brazenly to its own
 >people about what happened) as you are on our democracy and on
 >the brave Navy crew who came perilously close to perishing in
 >the ocean for doing nothing wrong.

 >I ought to add that, like Josh, I'm a Democrat, and hardly a
 >kneejerk defender of an administration I voted against once and
 >will happily vote against twice. Even so, I think Bush and his
 >people handled a bad situation as well as they could.

 >And now back to UFOs....

 >Jerry Clark

Never have I more agreed with my friend and compadre Jerry
Clark, even at the cost of possibly offending John Velez, whom I
much admire and consider an eloquent spokesperson for "the
cause" in all of its broadest meanings.

I am anything but a militarist. Yet, my father served as a
junior officer in WWI and all of his five sons have served as
enlisted men during the wars since then, two in life-threatening
combat situations. Although John's comments may well have been
as innocent as he says, they still came across as very insulting
and derogatory to those who were putting their lives on the line
to defend our freedoms.

In the interest of perspective, Jerry and I have clashed about
many specific issues over the years. He, better than anyone
else, has expressed on this List how that is a positive - rather
than a negative - factor in evaluating the UFO data.

John Velez, on the other hand, is one up on us as an
"experiencer". He has "been there", "done that." More than any
of the rest of us, he has a right to speak out and be heard. And
I highly recommend listening to him.


Dick











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                       Re: 'Military' UFOs - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de ()>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:27:14 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:43:13 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Goldstein


 >From: Robert Gates RGates8254@aol.com
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 00:50:30 EDT
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 16:47:45 -0400

 >>>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:23:27 +0100
 >>>Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:02:04 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Jones

 >>>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: 'Military' UFOs

 ><snip>

 >>No, the Sr-71 was announced in three different avatars by
 >>President Johnson. For my logics professor, an ultra liberal,
 >>this was too much. In class he announced that the answers for
 >>each one of Goldwater's criticism of Johnson's military policy
 >>Johnson reacted with an announcement of a new aircraft. "So now
 >>we have the 'weapons falacy.'"

 >Jan correctly notes that LBJ publicly revealed the existance of
 >the SR-71. As I recall the first instance was in 1964.
 >Originally it was to be called the RS-71  but when LBJ made the
 >announcement as the "SR-71" nobody wanted to butt heads with the
 >President so SR stuck.

Hi Robert,

The SR71 was announced by LBJ in 1964 but in 1967 on my way to
Vietnam we made a stop at Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa. We
had to close the shades on the plane windows on descent. When we
walked from the plane into a windowless building it was under
guard and we were told not to look backwards. It was the same
upon leaving. That was because they were operating  the SR71
from the CIA installation there.

Later on at a small airfield I flew into in Vietnam I was having
a small problem with my helicopter. I walked into an unmarked
hangar looking for a mechanic. I was surprised to find it was
for the CIA and contained a secret reconnaisance aircraft. I was
warned that I did not see anything. I had a secret clearance but
it was not high enough. Now I can reveal the secret. It was a
Schweizer motorized sailplane, a far cry from an SR71.

I'm still hard at work on my secret experiment to come up with a
way to modify myself genetically so I can be completely
invisible to be able to slip into area 51 undetected and
excamine all the facilities.  Glenn Campbell suggested shrinking
my size and sneaking in as a desert rat. I have not been able to
shrink myself. Do you think that a 5'9"" rat costume will fool
the guards at the facility? I'll walk on all fours and squeak a
lot. Then again, if they think I'm a giant rat they'll think I'm
an irradiated mutant rat that escaped from a plutonium tunnel in
the NTS and shoot without asking any questions. Does anyone
remember what happened to the mutant ants out there in the
classic movie Them?


Ciao,

Josh










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                     Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates -

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:39:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:45:32 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates -


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:34:52 -0400
 >Subject: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

 >"Ultra high silliness" is a new category to encompass a new
 >silliness which is off the previous charts. The >belief< that
 >one should not cite one's own works because there might be some
 >economic benefit to the author or the non-availability of the
 >work to the disputant requires a new ultra high silliness
 >category.

 >So if Dick Hall with nearly 45 years experience has selected a
 >large number of cases that he feels merit attention in UFO
 >Evidence II, he shouldn't be allowed to cite them, not from UFO
 >Evidence II in any case, since the disputants won't cough up the
 >money for it or won't ask the local library to obtain a copy.

Hi, Jan!

I think you are commenting on the icing and not the cake, my
friend. You need to dig deeper.

Citing one's own work is fine, if the answer required is so
expansive that posting or repeating it would be prohibitive. I
don't think anyone on either side of the fence would argue that
point. The real problem lies with using this act as a dodge of
answering an otherwise simple question or as an excuse to avoid
clarification of a position on a debate they would lose ground
on by giving such a direct and, often, revealing answer.

What makes this all the more unsettling is such acts are
generally followed up by some feigned indignation that such work
was not referenced, in the first place; as if such texts were
holy scriptures and should be committed to memory or the like.

These are nothing but diversionary tactics, Jan. They do nothing
to promote intelligent discussion and only complicate the
context of a debate by bringing dialog to a screeching halt only
so everyone has to stop and look through a multitude of posts or
pages just to find out a yes or no answer. And, of course,
that's the real deception. Because the practitioners of this
tactic know that the majority of readers won't go to the trouble
to find the text or scrounge through the archives and, without
the answer, the debate stops before any real damage can be done
to the position in question. And, yes, I do get tired of being
"pitched" the latest book as part of the dodge.

Bruce Macabee is the only person I have ever seen on this list
that at least tries to give a direct answer which is only
followed by reference to past work when absolutely necessary.
Even then, he is kind enough to give a specific URL.

Everyone else seems to just say,"You mean you haven't read my
paper on blah, blah, blah" or some such nonsense. And what makes
it nonsense is the amount of effort they give to the dodge is
greater than it would take to simply answer the question, in the
first place. With the noted exception of Bruce's work, I haven't
seen anything referred to that couldn't have been answered in a
sentence or two.

And let's face it, with the exception of Bruce's work,
everything else is pretty much opinion, Jan. I don't need to
search through reams of other peoples' opinions just to get an
answer when I am in direct communication with them via this
list. That's the whole purpose of this list. Debate and
discussion. People shouldn't come to the table if they aren't
prepared to ante up. It's just a waste of time. All I want is a
straight answer to a direct question. If someone else has
already asked that question before, so what? All the easier it
should be to come up with the answer, right?

To assume that one's works are so important that everyone should
already know about them is pretty conceded. To refer to those
works instead of answering a simple question is not only a
dodge, it promotes an air of elitism that I find totally
offensive.


Roger Evans







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:40:00 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:47:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:10:05 -0500

 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:14:20 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:23:02 -0500

 >>>I take it that you reject the notion that "some UFO reports
 >>>represent 'structured craftlike' UFOs." If you do, then you
 >>>reject out of hand a whole lot of eyewitness testimony to that
 >>>effect. Which was the point I made originally. As for the rest,
 >>>see above.

 >>A pretty blatant refusal to answer a simple question, even for
 >>you, Jerry. Whether or not I think some UFO reports represent
 >>"structured craftlike UFOs" is irrelevant to the question, as
 >>clearly you do. I am simply asking, do you have any ideas or
 >>suggestions as to what those structured craftlike UFOs might be?

 >Ideas, yes.

Some ideas then ...

 >Suggestions, no. Your question, as I have patiently
 >informed you on more than one occasion now, is irrelevant to the
 >discussion, which is not about unprovable and pointless
 >speculations concerning UFO origins.

 >Now, expecting once again a blatant refusal to answer a simple
 >question, I nonetheless try again:

 >Do you reject as effectively meaningless and misguided all
 >reports in which witnesses -- including technically trained
 >ones, under excellent viewing conditions -- report structured
 >objects whose appearances and performance characteristics are
 >unlike those even of the most advanced military and civilian
 >aircraft?

If you would ever deign to tell us which reports you are talking
about I might be able to answer your question. Until then ...


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 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                 Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway -

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:50:18 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:07:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway -


 >From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 20:56:08 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway -

<snip>

 >Hi Bob, John, Listers:

 >Referring to the following URL:

 >http://www3.nrk.no/kanal/nrk1/redaksjon_21/728878.html

 >with the following excerpt:

<snip>

 >_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 whetherthis 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".

Well, at least _her voice_ can be heard here:

http://www3.nrk.no/rammstein?id=68887&aid=742790

 >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).

<snip>

 >Best Regards,AWS


Hi All:

Referring to this site:

http://www.ufo.no/index2.html

you can now see video footage of this sighting (requiring
RealPlayer on your PC), with Mr. Arnulf Lken in the foreground,
in front of the TV:

http://www3.nrk.no/rammstein?id=67929&aid=729006

It was filmed at 2 separate nights; one night with bad weather.

"There were two witnesses to the phenomenon; one of them was
filming, while the other was watching visually through
binoculars (not monocular...) The last one stated that the
phenomenon was behaving in the same manner as in the film. The
video footage was recorded during second week in December, year
2000, between 11 pm. and 12 pm. in the evening, using a Hitachi
VM-H 650E camera w/digital zoom at 300x. The Moon and Venus were
not in the sky at that time."

Scientists say this can be some kind of a ball of lightning,
with some enclosed, energetic gas(es), moving freely around.

Watch for yourselves!


Best Regards,

Asgeir








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                       Re: 'Military' UFOs - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:22:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:34:46 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Lehmberg


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 22:01:26 -0000

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:20:11 0500

 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:53:14 0400
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 03:47:46 +0200
 >>>>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t online.de>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>>>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >>>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>>Subject: 'Military' UFOs

<snip>

 >John Velez, on the other hand, is one up on us as an
 >"experiencer". He has "been there", "done that." More than any
 >of the rest of us, he has a right to speak out and be heard. And
 >I highly recommend listening to him.

Excellent! Then we can all agree that more than a few of these
intrepid flag wavers _are_ morons, are bereft of any and all
informed cognition on the questionable prerogatives of their
unelected government, and continue to be the bane of enlightened
civilizations everywhere <g>- patriotism being the last refuge
of the scoundrel, and all that. As a career military person
(now retired) and a veteran of a few of our ubiquitous foreign
wars, I feel competent to speak. This country is better served
by ardent criticism than non-critical adulation.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com


~~~~
EXPLORE "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his HostPros URL.
http://www.alienview.net


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
scurrilous skepti-bunkies.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 17

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:37:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:50:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:40:00 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:10:05 -0500

 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:14:20 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:23:02 -0500


John,

 >>Do you reject as effectively meaningless and misguided all
 >>reports in which witnesses - including technically trained
 >>ones, under excellent viewing conditions - report structured
 >>objects whose appearances and performance characteristics are
 >>unlike those even of the most advanced military and civilian
 >>aircraft?

 >If you would ever deign to tell us which reports you are talking
 >about I might be able to answer your question. Until then ...

I think I finally understand. You are unaware that many UFO
reports, documented in a literature with which you act strangely
- or disingenuously - unfamiliar (which seems even stranger and
more disingenuous when I recall your fair-minded review of my
encyclopedia in Magonia), are of structured, metallic-looking
objects with extraordinary performance characteristics. I
suppose I could say I am shocked, but at least you've explained
something about your behavior that otherwise seems
unaccountable.

Blow the dust off my encyclopedia, John, and consult Dick Hall's
Book Whose Title Bob Young Doesn't Want Us to Mention, along
with some other worthy contributions to ufology's serious
writing, and then maybe we can talk. And, at long last, I can
get a straight answer out of you.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 18

                             Re: Belief - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:56:15 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:36:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Bowden


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Belief
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:06:21 -0700

 >Keep your daughter's "Hunting the Fairies" alive. It will serve
 >them well. Oh, and if you should find a circle of mushrooms with
 >one in the middle, in your yard, this is proof of fairy activity
 >as it's known as a "Fairy ring". please let me know. It is
 >necessary to make sure they are happy - I'm a specialist in this
 >you know. First you buy a bottle on any good single malt scotch,
 >or a good Irish whiskey. Being a specialist in this area I will,
 >for a specified sum and airfare, be able to help in the search
 >for the perfect place for said Whiskey (oh, Johnnie Walker red
 >or black, and Murphy's will work also.) and  I will guarantee
 >the bottle will be gone in the morning.


Hi G.T. (What does G.T. stand for?)

My yard is now covered in concrete so a circle of mushrooms
would be a miracle.

I am willing to brush that aside for a bottle of the good stuff.
JW or Murphy's would really hit the spot.


Heading in the general direction of the ground,

Dave










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 18

                 Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:14:34 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:39:21 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Aldrich


 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:28:33 +0100
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:04:45 -0400
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates ->Jones


 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: High Silliness On UFO UpDates
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:34:52 -0400

 >Evening Jan

 >>High Silliness on UFO UpDates

<simply huge snip>

 >>93% of all UFO books are trash.

 >>97% of all UFO reports are IFOs.

 >>98% of all people don't understand the proper use of statistics.

 >>99% of all UFO statistics whatever the source, Air Force,
 >>ufologists, etherians, skeptics are useless.

 >>99.8% of all scientists who cite Air Force UFO stats have not
 >>idea what they are talking about.

 >>I am the UFO statistics debunker! Give me a UFO statistic, and I
 >>will debunk it!

 >Let me guess, you are saying that stats _prove_>nothing? <g>

 >I agree, I learnt ages ago when I was doing my>sociology A level
 >that you can use figures/stats to prove anything>you wanted to.

 >Figure can say anything;

 >Take an example, 83.3 percent of the human>DNA code is the same
 >as that of a cabbage, but boy what a difference.

 >Another example, 99.9 percent of Ufologists are>self taught, hey
 >where do you get a degree in Ufoolagy?

 >Jan, methinks, unless I completely misunderstood>your missive,
 >figures/ stats are only _supporting_ data, nothing>more nothing
 >less.

 >>Is that CISCOP enough for ya?

 >I didn't know you was a member of CSICOP <g>

 >>Word Up!

 >Are we playing Scabble? Triple points <g>


Hi Sean,

I was just being very flip. Stats are indeed useful, and there
are indeed valid and even more important, useful UFO stats.
However, most people do not understand statistics. Even those
that should, make outrageous gaffes when talking about UFO
stats.

I don't want to give you the impression that stats prove
nothing. Properly used, statistics are insightful, powerful
tools, but just as any jackass can manage make something fit
together in the physical world by bull labor, so mental
jackasses can generate meaningless and misleading stats.

As for CISCOP, there is nothing wrong with it that a good dose
of critical thinking wouldn't cure. While we are at it, we
should order up a double dose for many ufologists.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 18

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:18:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:45:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:58:42 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


Previously, Jerry wrote:

 >I don't buy the idea that Menzel
 >was an on-the-payroll agent of the cover-up, but I find it very
 >easy to believe that the man was a raging narcissist, and
 >consequently a pompous, bullying fool.

Hi, Jerry!

Ahhhh. Words from the master...

Does your sense of hypocrisy know no limits? Going back through
the archives, I found these words of wisdom you flaunted before
an unsuspecting audience:

 >Thoughtful debate, which
 >clarifies issues, has nothing to do with "hate mail,"  even when
 >conducted at full volume.

 >What is not legitimate, in my judgment, is the personal slur.
 >But the slur is not synonymous with the dissent, and we'd be
 >fools if we demanded consensus (or, worse, silence) in our ranks
 >when there is in fact plenty of room for reasonable persons to
 >see things differently and to say so.  I cast my vote for
 >continuing -- and, if need be, loud -- debate.

So now we have a better understanding of your idea of debate,
Jerry.

On the one had, you say that there is room for "reasonable"
persons to see things differently. However, in a recent post,
you claimed:

 >The word "belief" - along with its barbaric
 >euphemism "belief system" - has its uses, but it's nearly always
 >abused in discourse on UFOs and other anomalies.  (Other words
 >comparably abused are "folklore" and "rational" [as an adjective
 >warning us that the noun "explanation" is about to appear].)
 >Debunkers use "belief" and "believe" in a monumentally
 >self-serving sense that might be expressed thus: What we know
 >we _know_; what you "know" you only believe.

Thus, it is okay for you to deign who is a "reasonable" person
just as only ufologists get to decide when something has been
debunked. On the other hand, skeptics aren't allowed to use the
word "rational" to express their views unless such applications
have been pre approved by you or other qualified, factory
trained ufologists.

Further, personal slurs are taboo, unless you are the one
issuing the slur, it would seem. Unless you consider your
description of Menzel simply "thoughtful debate".

And, despite your "belief" or even your "belief system" (a petty
and over analyzed distinction), ET visitation has not been
proven. As such, it is currently folklore. To elevate it to a
status greater than that would be a "monumentally self-serving"
proclamation from someone that claims to be unbiased in his
views about the subject of UFOs.


Roger Evans








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 18

                             Re: Belief - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 02:49:18 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:57:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Easton


Regarding:

 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Belief
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:19:27 -0500

Jerry wrote:

 >Debunkers use "belief" and "believe" in a monumentally self-
 >serving sense that might be expressed thus: What we know we
 >_know_; what you "know" you only believe.

 >I'd take your word about your experiences over a debunker's
 >speculative, unprovable interpretation of same any day.

Jerry,

These malevolent 'debunkers'... on what criteria are they
defined?

Does the 'debunkers guidebook' tell us how to recognise one of
them and report it!?

You are, by any accepted definition, a debunker.

How is this rationalised - are you publicly flagellating
yourself?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines that 'debunk' means "to
remove the nonsense (or false sentiment) from"...

As I recently queried in somewhat parallel discussions on the
'UFO Skeptics' list:


Why do 'believers' express such vehement resentment? It seems to
be either a resolute conviction, or attempted bluff, that if it
wasn't for the likes of Menzel, Condon, Klass etc., then science
would definitely have taken the ETH seriously.

However, some might conclude that the more you blame others for
perpetual failure, the more it's obvious you don't actually have
any meaningful scientific evidence.

If ETH proponents ever understood the correct definition of a
debunker or skeptic, it seems to have been forgone in a need to
categorise 'unbelievers', without of course being so self-
evidently transparent as to call them that.

Stan Friedman's a self-avowed skeptic. "I'm a skeptic; I check
things out", he declares. Jerry Clark helped to debunk the 1897
Hamilton 'alien cownapping' story.

So what's the difference between them and others that
'believers' castigate as skeptics and debunkers?

It's an interesting question.

Although Kevin Randle debunked Glenn Dennis's pivotal 'Roswell'
claims and latterly co-wrote a book which was skeptical/critical
about certain aspects of claimed 'alien abductions', we wouldn't
expect 'believers' to categorise Kevin, and certainly not
Friedman or Clark, as skeptics or debunkers. Yet, they are.

Perhaps Kevin's example reveals what the distinction is.

Ultimately, Kevin still apparently believes in the ETH and a
government ET 'cover up'.

It's not therefore really about whether anyone's research has
shown possible 'ET evidence' to have a mundane explanation. That
happens all the time - another obvious example would be Bruce
Maccabee, a staunch ETH disciple who has debunked hoax 'UFO'
photos/videos which others claimed to be genuine.

Within 'ufology' there is in a fact a rich vein of debunking and
skepticism, especially from the UK [Jenny Randles, Peter
Brookesmith, Dave Clarke, Paul Fuller, Ian Ridpath, John Rimmer
and Andy Roberts come to mind], Scandinavia and Italy.

When the fervent faithful denounce debunkers and skeptics, it's
a thin smokescreen and pretence that without these 'naysayers',
acceptance of the ETH evidence - which always seems founded on a
'government cover up' - would be more prevailing.

In addition to possibly being self-delusional, it's also heavily
self-defeating, as debunking and skepticism are conversely
foundations of science and journalism.

The only tangible ETs are the significant number who have become
alienated from 'ufology' and are comfortable remaining a
skeptical distance whilst watching it implode!
[END]


So, debunking is obviously a mainstay of 'UFO' research, yet,
you write:

"I'd take your word about your experiences over a debunker's
speculative, unprovable interpretation of same any day".

Obviously, as stated, you would sooner believe _any_ story which
suggested 'alien contact', unless it could be factually
explained otherwise.

It seems the evidence proves that those whom you castigate as
'debunkers' are personally deemed to be 'unbelievers', whilst
you are evidently predisposed to 'believe'.

To reiterate: debunkers are factually those who, "remove the
nonsense (or false sentiment) from"... claimed evidence.

Debunkers have contributed immeasurably more to the
understanding of 'UFOs' than 'believers' ever can.

Anyone is of course free to insinuate that debunkers are the
reason why mainstream science and the media views 'ufology' with
ridicule, however, the facts are there for all to see. As I
added on 'UFO Skeptics':

By far the largest issue which ETH proponents [as opposed to all
ufologists] must address is their own contribution to defeat.
You can't forever blame other factors - skeptics, unbelievers,
doubters, debunkers, naysayers, cover ups, conspiracies, the
media, etc.

However, as with any religion, believers can't easily, if ever,
admit they could be mistaken - it's sometimes a whole lifetime's
faith which needs to be accepted was utterly unfounded.

So, even if some 50 years later, it simply _can't_ be _your_
fault, then it must be someone else's!

Or, at least you have to proclaim it is.

Accusing debunkers, skeptics, the government, media, et al - or
whatever excuses for failure - serves only to deflect attention
elsewhere.

In truth, it seems that the latent fear is of mirrors.
[END]

So, it's time for a team talk and you're down fifty plus years
to nil...

It's tiresome and so transparent to keep blaming the pitch
conditions, the ball, the referee, the weather, your new
jock-strap, the crowd... where's your big play?

Don't have one? Never had one?

Here's a looking Klass, sorry, glass... ;)

Could it be that it reflects why even your detestable debunkers
and skeptics within ufology are always more successful when you
play in the sought-after 'ball park' of scientific and media
recognition?

And that's despite the proclaimed 'overwhelming' evidence ET is
here?

Can't win? Keep losing?

Reflect... but don't think you can shift the blame for that
everlasting failure on hard-working research within ufology.

Next time debunkers are mentioned, let's all give them the
credit they have won.


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk

Join UFO Skeptics or read the list archives at:

http://debunk.listbot.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 >
   Apr > Apr 18

                      Re: 'Military' UFOs - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:56:20 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:03:03 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Mortellaro


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:22:08 -0500

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs
 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 22:01:26 -0000

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs
 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:20:11 0500

 >>>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:53:14 0400
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>>>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 03:47:46 +0200
 >>>>>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t online.de>
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs

 >>>>>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:21:45_0400
 >>>>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>>>Subject: 'Military' UFOs

 ><snip>

 >>John Velez, on the other hand, is one up on us as an
 >>"experiencer". He has "been there", "done that." More than any
 >>of the rest of us, he has a right to speak out and be heard. And
 >>I highly recommend listening to him.

 >Excellent! Then we can all agree that more than a few of these
 >intrepid flag wavers _are_ morons, are bereft of any and all
 >informed cognition on the questionable prerogatives of their
 >unelected government, and continue to be the bane of enlightened
 >civilizations everywhere <g>- patriotism being the last refuge
 >of the scoundrel, and all that. As a career military person
 >(now retired) and a veteran of a few of our ubiquitous foreign
 >wars, I feel competent to speak. This country is better served
 >by ardent criticism than non-critical adulation.

Dear Alfred, Mr. Velez, bListers and EBK,

Dylan wrote, "Patriotism is the last refuge, to which a
scoundrel clings."

First and foremost, the words used by John had nothing to do
with scoundrels or patriotism. They had to do with flag waving
morons tying yellow ribbons in memory of those afflicted with
imprisonment by a foreign nation whose goals are more than
questionable. Goals, related to our national security.

Having said that, I would like to do something which neither
Velez nor my good friend Lemual Q. Lehmberg expect. Defend John.
And I would very much like to explain why.

Hanging with John for many months, I can say that I doubt very
much John meant that statement the way he wrote it. As he
admitted. It ain't John's style, nor is it his way. He would not
(in my opinion) speak ill of his country, it's military or it's
patriots. Not in the same breath as that which confined our
people in China.

Sometimes, we say things we don't mean to say the way we said
them. Happens. Nay John? Sometimes, in the heat of a dialog or
debate, something just comes out. And later, people look at us
funny and yell a lot. Scream. Never able to understand why the
hell someone - or how someone - could actually say or do such a
thing. Well, like bovinally generated excrement, it happens.

I defend John for making a booboo. Not thinking about how the
words will be perceived by others. Which is why I did not rail
out against him.

As for you, Lemme, listen up... some a them duds... dudes, ARE
morons. But God willing, not enough to make a sentence out of.
One would hope.

Yes, patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings.
"But say, that's a nice hat. And a smile so hard to resist. But,
what's a sweetheart like you.... dooin in a dump like this?"
See? I know my Dylan better'n most. Because I spent most of my
time in the basement, mixin up the medicine.

With Liberty and Justice for Al, John and the rest of us who
occasionally mix up not only the medicine, but the words...


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 >
   Apr > Apr 18

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:28:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:07:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy


Jerry, John, Dick, List,

I hope no one minds if I chime in with my two cents...

One of the things that has always bothered me about some of the
best UFO cases (and by extension, the question of eyewitness
testimony/reliability) is their inherent lack of compatibility.

Viz, let's take four cases that I assume both Jerry & Dick would
take as indicative of the ETH:

1) Kenneth Arnold
2) Papua, New Guinea
3) Socorro
4) Coyne helicopter case

If we assume that all the witnesses of same were spot on, the
first thing that leaps immediately to mind is how disparate the
cases are, one from another. For example, apart from the UFO
aspect itself, I defy anyone to delineate any commonalities or
patterns in the above cases. The best one can do is to say that
entities of some sort were reported in both the Papua and
Socorro cases, but beyond that, what?

Plop those on the desk of any self-respecting, practicing
scientist, and I can almost guarantee that his or her first
response will be, "this is all very fine, but what am I supposed
to _do_ with it? Re-interview the witnesses involved?"

Even if the initial interest _were_ there, the plot thickens
almost immediately. "OK, let's say we're being visited. Are you
then suggesting that we're being visited by four different
species of ET simultaneously, each with different types of craft
and kinds of behavior... or what? And that the government has
successfully managed to keep this covered up for over 50 years
in the bargain? Ah, now I see!"

Multiply this by hundreds of similar "non-standard" cases, and
ufology's ultimate problem should be better appreciated by its
own proponents: most so-called "patterns" are in fact
non-existent.

Arnold reported silvery objects travelling as a group at high
speeds, the New Guinea case involved a single UFO that hovered
over sequential nights, Socorro flames and a roar, and the Coyne
case some kind of weird, green tractor-beam. Add in the Hill
case, Roswell, Rendlesham Forest, RB-47, Cash-Landrum, Delphos,
Trans-en- Provence, you name it, and the Rimmer Ploy is revealed
for the transparency it is.

In other words:

1) If you accept these cases (or you can name your own) as more
or less valid, based largely on anecdotal testimony, then

2) how do you propose to make even a semi-consistent or coherent
"whole" out of them? (That is, come up with a testable
hypothesis that can actually be tested?)

And notice that we haven't even addressed abductions yet.
Remember when they supposedly displayed internal patterns and
consistencies, too?

As far as Jerry and Dick are concerned, the Rimmer Ploy is
really quite simple: put your names behind, say, the ten best
UFO cases in the voluminous UFO literature to which you have
both contributed, rather than referencing said literature as a
whole and witness reliability in general. Both of you have
countless cases (if the evidence is indeed that strong) on the
tip of your collective tongues, so a response shouldn't be that
long in coming.

Now, make a coherent argument for ET visitation that
incorporates and accommodates all ten of those cases, as opposed
to saying they're simply "suggestive" of ET visitation. Include
any physical evidence.

Like I said, my two cents...


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 >
   Apr > Apr 18

                    Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 04:57:09 +0200
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:12:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Goldstein


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:53:46 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:42:03 +0200
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Goldstein
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:41:34 -0500
 >>>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Josh replied:

 >>In my opinion I feel Greg Sandow, Jenny Randles, Jerry Clark,
 >>and Dick Hall clearly pointed out that there is UFO evidence to
 >>be looked at that is worthy of a scientific study. I certainly
 >>do not believe it is only folklore. If you think so, you
 >>obviously are not acquainted with much of the serious UFO
 >>related research. The above named people have been involved with
 >>this research for a great many years. How much did you study
 >>before or since you arrived on this forum some months ago?

<snip>

 >>Roger, have you studied any of the above? If so, I don't
 >>understand how you can claim it is mere folklore. I certainly
 >>believe in healthy skepticism but uninformed skeptic or believer
 >>positions are the opinions of dilletantes.

 >Hi, Josh!

 >To answer your question, yes I've read quite a bit of the above.
 >Not all, perhaps, but I doubt if anyone has read everything on
 >this subject. However, what I find interesting is this: You
 >start out this entire post with the words,"In my opinion..."

 >The only distinction, I take it, is that you are somehow
 >"informed" whereas I am "uninformed" and, therefore, a
 >dilettante for expressing my own opinions?

 >Could you _possibly_ be more arrogant or condescending?

 >Not only that, but you chastise me for something that you,
 >clearly, have no information on. You asked if I've read any of
 >the above mentioned literature, which means you don't know if I
 >have or not. In either case, if I don't agree with you, then I
 >am an "uninformed skeptic" or "dilettante". This would not be so
 >egregious if not for your own assumption about the length of
 >time I've been on this list, which you describe as only a "some
 >months back". The fact that you are wrong, aside, what
 >difference would that make? Further, how dare you question my
 >own familiarity with UFO material when you obviously didn't
 >bother to see how long I've been with this list! How hard can it
 >be to find out that I've been posting since September of 1998?
 >Surprised? Practice what you preach! Do some research!

I guess I forgot about the months such as when you tried to
beat the Trent case and a bunch of people to death on this list
and showed that you had not studied the case and its many
investigations.I don't know why you are so full of angry
attitudes. For reference look at your next statement.

 >This is exactly the kind of behavior that I find tiresome; the
 >"UFO elite".


 >Let me try and make myself perfectly clear: I believe in the
 >probability of ET life and ET visitation because I find the odds
 >are simply in favor of it and some of the UFO reports are
 >intriguing, to say the least. That said, however, all of this
 >research you put so much faith in has done squat to prove the
 >ETH or this discussion list wouldn't even exist and this
 >conversation wouldn't even be taking place.

Roger, you obviously misunderstood my post. I began by giving my
general opinion of what I had read on the ETH vs. skeptics
posts. That was not intended to be a criticism of you. I was
also clear that I was talking about UFO reports, not the ET
hypothesis.

I was critical of you when you said that you thought it was only
folklore. Obviously you have a different understanding of
folklore vs. data and evidence. I have no grounds to question
anything in your photography excpertise. I am trained as a
private investigator.

That is why I questioned your knowledge of UFO evidence. I
certainly believe there is recorded data that is more than
folklore. I could not understand why you took such a position.
For example, look at the Belgian flying triangles case of 1990.
It was initially reported by the military. They were tracked
visually and with radar from military aircraft.

They were photographed and observed by a large number of people.
That is only one case of many. That to me is a lot more than
folklore.

 >Also, I never said there was nothing, regarding UFO cases, that
 >warranted scientific study. What I said was that nothing has yet

 >been proven. In that sense, I also find reports of Bigfoot to
 >warrant scientific study. If you've read anything about Bigfoot,
 >then you know there is quite a bit of evidence there, as well.
 >In either case, until the existence of each are proven, they are
 >nothing more than folklore, regardless of what your more
 >"informed" opinion is. Scientific study? Bring it on! But let's
 >not jump the gun, here, and take the attitude that it's a
 >shoo-in for validation.

That's a rather circular statement. Maybe nothing is proven
because there have not been scientific investigations.

 >In fact, considering that _nothing_ has been substantiated
 >regarding the existence of UFOs, I'd say it is the UFO elite
 >that are dilettantes, dabbling in something they know little
 >about as evidenced by the lack of results in proving the ETH
 >after all this exhaustive research you are so quick to point
 >out. But, since your opinion is more "informed" than mine what
 >would you call _pretending_ to be an expert on something that
 >hasn't been proven to exist? Perhaps you consider it science.
 >I'd call it wishful thinking.

Roger, in my post I was not personally criticizing you. I don't
know why you take everything as a personal attack. You seem to
be sensitive but you then react like a cornered rabid pit bull.
As friendly advice I would suggest you drop the anger and learn
how to mellow out. Perhaps a nice vacation in laid back northern
California with a hot tub, Sonoma wine, and some fine herb. Then
a good massage and a meditation contemplating nature's beauty.
It is great for dropping your shields and opening your heart. It
has served me well. That's why I lived there most of my life.
They call me mellow yellow. :) That's right, slick.


Josh









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 18

                 Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 22:29:39 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:51:02 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors


 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:39:29 -0500
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

 >To assume that one's works are so important that everyone should
 >already know about them is pretty conceded. To refer to those
 >works instead of answering a simple question is not only a
 >dodge, it promotes an air of elitism that I find totally
 >offensive.

 >Roger Evans

FWIW...I know Dick Hall, Jan Aldrich and Jerry Clark personally.
I've spent time with each in long discussions as well as
socially, visited them at their homes, some have been in mine.
These guys have done research that would make many (not all) on
this List look like skateboard Dudes trying to get a clue at the
local Taco Bell. Trying to get any of them to agree on consensus
takes more than calling them "elitist" or "conceited". When you
sit down with them, you better know your material. I know from
experience. The field of ufology has grown so large that there
are no longer room for generalists such as yourself.

When they quote their own work there is certainly no elitism or
conceit behind it because they are giving you a shot at getting
almost the whole picture as it currently stands rather than a
pat and convient answer to satisfy your own semantic
game-playing. What is abundantly clear here is that you (dare I
say many?) List members are too wrapped up in personal opinions
to become well versed in the field of cryptoaeronautics.

You certainly don't know the history or at the very least still
swishing around in mumbo jumbo playing word games than taking
the necessary time to read the amount of new material these men
have brought to the field in the last decade, you have not
produced anything but opinions, posturing and complaining
instead of doing the real work of research and the time, expense
and dispair that sometimes goes with study and looking for true
answers.

When these men give an opinion you can dang well bet a dollar to
a donut that they have done their research and are basing their
informed opinion on hard work and toil, rather than pretending
they know the answer. In other words, they certainly do have the
right to express their opinions more so than others on this
list. Why? Because they DO the real research. They might not
have the answer you want, but you can certainly go to the bank
knowing you got excellent material in which to start your own
study and search for the answers.

All of this blather of late, attacking these people is really
stupid. Kind of reminds me of Tom Wolfe's book (movie), 'The
Right Stuff', when Pancho Barnes tells Gordon Cooper..."First
there are the Prime pilots who get all the good planes and then
there are the Pudknockers who dream of getting the good
planes... now, what are you Pudknockers gonna have?"

Conceit and elitism is you thinking you've done anything to
warrant that your opinion is more important than those who
looked deep into the material, debated it, re-hashed it and then
and only then, came to an informed opinion. Besides that, they
went to the trouble and expense to ensure that 'cretins', have
an open door to research that you've been too busy to
accomplish. Debate them on their expertise and contributions to
the field, not because they've done the work and you haven't,
then gave you an answer you can't accept or adequately debate.

What it boils down to is that some people are so arrogant that
they don't know the real treasure inherent in these men and
their work and contributions to all of us in the field of
ufology. You don't have to agree to their conclusions or
hypotheses on ufological matters, but be gracious enough to
acknowledge these men have done more than you'll ever
accomplish. These are men of deeds and contributions, rather
than just opinion.

IMHO, you should be ashamed of yourself.


Wendy Connors










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 18

                 Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71 - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:22:07 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:53:23 -0400
Subject: Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71 - Gates


We were discussing this on the List recently, and I thought the
List might be interested in the below history blurb I ran
accross.

Short excerpt on LBJ's announcement of the existance of
the SR-71 in 1964 from the web.

***********Begin Excerpt************


THE PRESIDENT'S ANNOUNCEMENT
In spite of all this, 1963 went by without any public
revelation. President Johnson was brought up to date on the
project a week after taking office, and directed that a paper be
prepared for an announcement in the spring of 1964. Then at his
press conference on 24 February, he read a statement of which
the first paragraph was as follows:

"The United States has successfully developed an advanced
experimental jet aircraft, the A-11,  (SR-71) which has been
tested in sustained flight at more than 2,000 miles per hour and
at altitudes in excess of 70,000 feet. The performance of the
A-11 far exceeds that of any other aircraft in the world today.
The development of this aircraft has been made possible by major
advances in aircraft technology of great significance for both
military and commercial applications. Several A-11 aircraft are
now being flight tested at Edwards Air Force Base in California.
The existence of this program is being disclosed today to permit
the orderly exploitation of this advanced technology in our
military and commercial program." The president went on to
mention the "mastery of the metallurgy and fabrication of
titanium metal" which has been achieved, gave credit to Lockheed
and to Pratt & Whitney, remarked that appropriate members of the
Senate and House had been kept fully informed, and prescribed
that the detailed performance of the A-11 would be kept strictly
classified.

The President's reference to the "A-11" was of course
deliberate. "A-11" had been the original design designation for
the all-metal aircraft first proposed by Lockheed; subsequently
it became the design designation for the Air Force YF-12A
interceptor which differed from its parent mainly in that it
carried a second man for launching air-to-air missiles. To
preserve the distinction between the A-11 and the A-12 Security
had briefed practically all witting personnel in government and
industry on the impending announcement. OXCART secrecy continued
in effect. There was considerable speculation about an Agency
role in the A-11 development, but it was never acknowledged by
the government. News headlines ranged from "US has dozen A-11
jets already flying" to "Secret of sizzling new plane probably
history's best kept."

The President also said that "the A-11 aircraft now at Edwards
Air Force Base are undergoing extensive tests to determine their
capabilities as long-range interceptors." It was true that the
Air Force in October 1960, had contracted for three interceptor
versions of the A-12, and they were by this time available. But
at the moment when the President spoke, there were no A-11's at
Edwards and there never had been. Project officials had known
that the public announcement was about to be made, but they had
not been told exactly when. Caught by surprise, they hastily
flew two Air Force YF-12A's to Edwards to support the
President's statement. So rushed was this operation, so speedily
were the aircraft put into hangars upon arrival, that heat from
them activated the hangar sprinkler system, dousing the
reception team which awaited them.

Thenceforth, while the OXCART continued its secret career at its
own site, the A-11 performed at Edwards Air Force Base in a
considerable glare of publicity. Pictures of the aircraft
appeared in the press, correspondents could look at it and
marvel, stories could be written. Virtually no details were made
available, but the technical journals nevertheless had a field
day. The unclassified Air Force and Space Digest, for example,
published a long article in its issue of April 1964, commencing:
"The official pictures and statements tell very little about the
A-11. But the technical literature from open sources, when
carefully interpreted, tells a good deal about what it could
and, more importantly, what it could not be. Here's the story
..."

*******end excerpt************









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 18

              Cydonian Imperative: 4-18-01 - Fine-Scale Linear

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:55:29 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 4-18-01 - Fine-Scale Linear


4-18-01
The Cydonian Imperative

Fine-Scale Linear Features in Cydonia
by Mac Tonnies

For illustrated and linked version, please see:

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html


Related links:
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m13_m18/full_jpg_map/M17/M1700389.jpg


Paul Anderson, writing in a new installment for his Eras Project
site, has drawn attention to two bright, curiously parallel
mound-like features that may be components of the grid system
mapped by Dr. Horace Crater and later analyzed by Dr. Stanley
McDaniel.

[image]

Interesting parallel linear mounds discovered by Paul Anderson
of the Eras Project and Mars Initiative.

These features appear to meet certain proposed criteria for
potentially artificial structures in that they are

[image]

These lettered dots denote specular features indentified by
Richard Hoagland and Dr. Horace Crater.


a.) unusually bright, in keeping with the Mound Hypothesis
mentioned above,

b.) display fine-scale internal "structural" detail

and

c.) parallel each other in what may be evidence of a
deliberate architectural/aesthetic plan.

In addition, these formations are in the Cydonia region, site of
the Face, Cliff and other exotic, possibly artificial,
formations. If the Cydonia region was once home to a
technological civilization of some kind, then it's not an
unreasonable expectation to find small-scale indications of
prior habitation. These could take the form of landscape
modification (i.e. the possible "terracing" on the edge of the
Main City Pyramid) or, more provocatively, a deliberate
mathematical scheme designed to be appreciated from an aerial or
orbital perspective, which is what we may be seeing in the Mound
features recognized by Crater and the "tetrahedral" emphasis
noted by Richard Hoagland.

[image]

Rectilinear "teardrop" feature on the Face.

Similar features exist that conform, if roughly, to the geometry
of Anderson's "Eras Mounds." For example, the "teardrop" feature
on the Face appears to consist of two close walls confining an
extremely narrow interior space, as first recognized by Mike
Bara of The Enterprise Mission. Additionally, we see fine-scale
linear features in the area dubbed the "City Square," such as
this triangle, posted in 1998:

[image]

Blowup of small, unmistakably triangular feature found in the
City Square, very near the Eras Mounds and "teardrop" on Face.
The hollow interior suggests artificial origin.

For other enigmatic features associated with the Mounds
controversy, please visit the Mounds section of my updated
Photographic Evidence pages.

Anderson's mounds are not the only unusual features to be found
in the image swath cited at the beginning of this article. More
commentary and analysis are forthcoming.

-end-









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 18

                       UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line

From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:13:16 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:58:48 -0400
Subject: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line



The latest issue (#8 - February 2001) of Barry Greenwood's
newsletter, the U.F.O. Historical Revue (UHR) is now on-line and
available for your viewing in both HTML and .PDF formats.

Articles include: "Questions on a 1953 Cape Cod Mystery,"
"Censorship: The Kirtland Fireball Catalog," and an "Extract:
History of the 57th Fighter-Interceptor Wing (1950, Alaska)."

To access this (and earlier issues) of UHR, go to:

http://www.cufon.org/

click the UHR button in the upper right hand corner of the
opening screen, and select the issue you wish to view from the
menu that will open.

Barry has been kind enough as to allow us the privilege of
posting UHR on CUFON. The last thing we want is to have this web
edition of the UHR supplant subscribed readership. If you read
the UHR here for free, _please_subscribe_.

CUFON makes the UHR available in order to archive it and make it
available electronically, _not_ to replace in any way
subscriptions to UHR. Therefore, issues do not appear on CUFON
until a minimum of 30 days after mailing.

To subscribe, to renew a subscription or to send UHR as a gift:
Write to: UHR, PO Box 176, Stoneham MA 02180, USA.

Within the United States, subscriptions are $15.00 per
year, $20.00 (US Dollars) outside the US.


- 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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 07:12:19 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:18:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:04:28 -0000

 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>However, I have put down equally flippant and dismissive answers
 >>in written questionnaires. What was this questionnaire? Who
 >>produced it? Was it a seriouis scientifically designed survey,
 >>or some junk from a 'flying saucer club'? Was Menzels's reply
 >>returned as a serious answer, or as a way of dismissing it?
 >>Hynek's quote is completely unattributed and uncheckable.

 >John,

 >It so happens that it was my questionnaire. And I can confirm
 >the accuracy of the response attributed to Menzel. A chapter of
 >the American Psychological Association had invited me to
 >participate in a panel discussion of UFOs, and I was
 >specifically asked to talk about "UFO databases." So I sent a
 >questionnaire around to obtain some numbers (some of Bob Young's
 >"statistics") and included the question about what each person
 >thought should be done with unexplained UFO reports.

 >Menzel replied exactly as reported (I still have a file on the
 >whole affair), and if that is not a blanket dismissal of
 >eyewitness testimony, I don't know what it is. Now it's "30
 >years old." So what? The chronological cutoff date is entirely
 >arbitrary on your part. Klass, Oberg, and "true disciple"
 >followers like Posner have carried on the clearcut pattern of
 >summarily dismissing eyewitness testimony as worthless.

It's the word "worthless" which worries me. Maybe "inaccurate",
maybe "confused", maybe "ambiguous", maybe "subjective", but if
they thought it was "worthless" why would they waste time on the
topic. Whatever you think about Klass, he can hardly consider
such evidence "worthless" or he wouldn't have put so much time
into it.

Do you consider eyewitness testimony of ghosts "worthless", or
do you consider the huge amount of such testimony to be evidence
of an actual external visual object? There is probably more
eyewitness evidence of ghosts - including photographs and
multi-witness cases - than there is of UFOs. This is not a trick
question, nor an attempt to spin off another endless round of
responses on UpDates. I would just like to know. >>Menzel knew
the purpose of the survey and where the results were >going to
be presented. Glad to see that you agree Menzel "said >some
silly things." One of the silliest, which I can also >document,
was that pilots Nash and Fortenberry in the classic >July 1952
Virginia encounter with a formation of glowing red >disks was
that they saw fireflies embedded between the layers of >glass in
the cockpit window! And I am not exaggerating. >>>Dick >Thank
you for this clarifiction.

I don't think an arbitrary cut-off date of thirty years is
completely irrelevant, as the natutre of UFO research and UFO
scepticism has changed over that period of time. In response to
a couple of requests elsewhere, I have been looking out some
articles from old magazines from the fifties and early sixties.
UFO research has changed quite a lot since then, in some cases
for the better, some for the worse. If challenged to produce a
silly quotation from a ufologist I do not think it would be fair
to quote, say, Brinsley le Poer Trench's ramblings of the 1960s.
However, I asked for some quotes, Jerry's given them.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 07:22:11 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:20:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:58:42 -0500

 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>Thank you for these quotations at last, Jerry, even though they
 >>are over thirty years old. They certainly demonstrate that
 >>Menzel said some silly things.

 >So I guess the words of the world's most influential UFO
 >debunker, Donald Menzel, who died in 1976 and who has never been
 >criticized or repudiated (except in the very mild form above,
 >and even that's a first) by debunkers, no longer count because
 >he is no longer among us. By that logic, I guess, debunkers
 >should stop saying anything bad about what Allen Hynek or James
 >McDonald had to say. Actually, come to think of it, McDonald has
 >been dead longer than Menzel, and thus is even more deserving of
 >the sort of rhetorical protection you apparently advocate.

Yes, but I don't think contemporary sceptical ufologists
continue quoting Menzel with the fervour many contemporary
ufologists quote Hynek and, especially, McDonald as sources of
authority.

 >>However, I have put down equally flippant and dismissive answers
 >>in written questionnaires. What was this questionnaire? Who
 >>produced it? Was it a seriouis scientifically designed survey,
 >>or some junk from a 'flying saucer club'? Was Menzels's reply
 >>returned as a serious answer, or as a way of dismissing it?
 >>Hynek's quote is completely unattributed and uncheckable.

 >Are you accusing Allen Hynek of lying about it? Are you
 >seriously maintaining that Menzel did not hold the view
 >attributed to him?

Interesting that Jerry thinks any question about context or
request for clarification is an accusation of lying. It is
presumably this attitude which leads him to the belief that
witnesses original eyewitness accounts must always be taken at
face value and must never be challenged.

<a lot of stuff snipped about Menzel which I wouldn't
particularly argue with>

 >I find it very
 >easy to believe that the man was a raging narcissist, and
 >consequently a pompous, bullying fool.

Still a few of them around in ufology! No names, as they say
here, no pack-drill.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 07:38:01 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:22:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:12:54 -0400

 >My question is on a significantly different subject - how we
 >know when to accept witness testimony, and when to disregard it.
 >I suspect that biases of various kinds can enter that
 >discussion. You're happy to talk about unreliable witnesses when
 >there's a UFO sighting. But now let's suppose that you're robbed
 >on the street. The police ask you to describe the person who
 >robbed you. In that circumstance, if you trusted your memory, my
 >guess is that you'd hope the police believed your testimony.

 >Now let's say the police arrest someone because of your
 >description. You successfully identify the person in a lineup.
 >(If you have lineups in Britain - I don't pretend to be an
 >expert on British police procedure.) But when the case comes to
 >trial, the defense attorney tells the jury to disregard your
 >testimony, citing Werner von Braun as evidence that witnesses
 >are unreliable.

 >You'd be annoyed, perhaps?

We've had this legal analogy a couple of times before on
UpDates, and it's no more relevant now than it was then.

Of course defence lawyers challenge eyewitness testimony all the
time, and often with good reason: "The witness was confused, it
all happened in a few seconds", "the witness was in an emotional
state", etc., etc., etc. Yes, we do have line-ups in Britain,
and yes, identification testimony is challenged. I doubt that a
lawyer would have to cite such an obscure (to him) character as
Werner von Braun as evidence, just one of the many hundreds -
thousands - of cases in Britain and the US where innocent people
have been found guilty. And, although it's rather more difficult
to document, probably more cases where guilty people have walked
free!

So let's have no more of this silly analogy!


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:56:00 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:23:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:34:55 -0300
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 ><snip>

 >>Thank you for these quotations at last, Jerry, even though they
 >>are over thirty years old. They certainly demonstrate that
 >>Menzel said some silly things.

 >>However, I have put down equally flippant and dismissive answers
 >>in written questionnaires. What was this questionnaire? Who
 >>produced it? Was it a seriouis scientifically designed survey,
 >>or some junk from a 'flying saucer club'? Was Menzels's reply
 >>returned as a serious answer, or as a way of dismissing it?
 >>Hynek's quote is completely unattributed and uncheckable.

 >>In the second quotation, is it clear from the context (I don't
 >>have Sagan and Page's book any more) whether Menzel is talking
 >>about the actual eyewitness reports as raw data, or the way it
 >>was presented via McDonald's interviews?

 >Now that's predictable. Raising the bar. Okay you've sent the
 >examples- a few of many mind you- now John wants even more
 >detail. You were mistaken Jerry was right. Why drag it out
 >trying to second guess the master Menzel?

 >Don Ledger

Frankly, it's not me that's raising the bar. Jerry set it pretty
high to start with, with his initial claim that sceptical
ufologists as a whole consider witnesses testimony to be
worthless. I merely asked him for examples. He's produced two,
both from the same person, both over thirty years old. Fair
enough, I'm happy to accept them (even though he dismissed my
examples of sceptic-on-sceptic criticism becuse two out of the
three came from the same magazine). But one was unattributed and
one was - to my eyes - ambiguous, and I asked for a little
further clarification. This clarification has come in postings
elsewhere on UpDates and confirms that Jerry was correct in
using them as examples.

Would you now like me to post dozens of examples of sceptics who
have looked carefully at eyewitness testimony and found it
invaluable in determining the stimulus responsibe for UFO
sightings?

Probably not, and it would be irrelevant to the point that
Jerry's original claim, and Menzel's quoted dismissals are both
as silly as each other! (Or maybe, could it be, no, not possible
- both were being a little bit flippant about people they didn't
have much time for?)


TTFN

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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

              Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway - Velez

From: John <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 03:18:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:26:21 -0400
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 - Skavhaug
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:50:18 +0200

 >Referring to this site:

 >http://www.ufo.no/index2.html

 >you can now see video footage of this sighting (requiring
 >RealPlayer on your PC), with Mr. Arnulf L�ken in the foreground,
 >in front of the TV:

 >http://www3.nrk.no/rammstein?id=67929&aid=729006

 >It was filmed at 2 separate nights; one night with bad weather.

 >"There were two witnesses to the phenomenon; one of them was
 >filming, while the other was watching visually through
 >binoculars (not monocular...) The last one stated that the
 >phenomenon was behaving in the same manner as in the film. The
 >video footage was recorded during second week in December, year
 >2000, between 11 pm. and 12 pm. in the evening, using a Hitachi
 >VM-H 650E camera w/digital zoom at 300x. The Moon and Venus were
 >not in the sky at that time."

 >Scientists say this can be some kind of a ball of lightning,
 >with some enclosed, energetic gas(es), moving freely around.


Hi Asgeir,

Thanx for the URL and for posting the "UFO" footage. I am
curious if the video has been -professionally- analyzed. There
appear to be to 'dark' areas at the 5 o'clock and 7 o'clock
position on the round object. They look like two 'dark'
projections from the main object. Can you tell me if the
observers reported any details regarding these 'projections?'

Interesting footage. I wish it had been taken in daylight so
that the object itself would be clearer. "Night lights" are
always a tough call. All you ever get to see is a bright light
jiggling around against a black background. I would have loved
to see that thing in broad daylight.

Thanx again for remembering us on UpDates.  ;)

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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:15:16 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:27:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:37:17 -0500

 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:40:00 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>If you would ever deign to tell us which reports you are talking
 >>about I might be able to answer your question. Until then ...

 >I think I finally understand. You are unaware that many UFO
 >reports, documented in a literature with which you act strangely
 >- or disingenuously - unfamiliar (which seems even stranger and
 >more disingenuous when I recall your fair-minded review of my
 >encyclopedia in Magonia), are of structured, metallic-looking
 >objects with extraordinary performance characteristics. I
 >suppose I could say I am shocked, but at least you've explained
 >something about your behavior that otherwise seems
 >unaccountable.

 >Blow the dust off my encyclopedia, John, and consult Dick Hall's
 >Book Whose Title Bob Young Doesn't Want Us to Mention, along
 >with some other worthy contributions to ufology's serious
 >writing, and then maybe we can talk. And, at long last, I can
 >get a straight answer out of you.

Well, I think I've gone as far as I can humanly bear on this.

To coin a phrase: Jerry, my friend, I think your refusal to
nominate one case which supports your argument... wait for it...
tells us more about yourself than it does about UFOs.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                        Midlothian, VA 02/02/90 Case

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:17:40 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:30:26 -0400
Subject: Midlothian, VA 02/02/90 Case


Can anyone help find:

1) Email address for Mark Blashak, MUFON investigator
in/about Virginia in 1990?

2) Ditto for Dan Wright who wrote the Current Case log for the
MUFON Journal at that time? (MJ #268)?

3) Any further info on a report for Midlothian,VA ovoid sighting
of 02FEBR 1990, as briefly mentioned in that column, issue #268
of the MUFON Journal, pg 22?

[See details of sighting at bottom. -LH]

This will be most highly appreciated by Matteo Leone of CISU,
Torino, Italy, who is studying a nearly identical case for
Santena, TO, Italy. Please send any possible leads to:

  <larryhat@jps.net> and/or
  <matteo.leone@usa.net>

Very much appreciated in advance!

- Larry Hatch


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Midlothian,VA; 2/2/90
From: Matteo Leone <matteo.leone@usa.net>
To: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>


Hello Larry,

You can't even imagine how this Midlothian sighting is
interesting to me! Each detail in this UFO report seems to fit
well with the UFO sighting at Santena (TO) that started off this
stream of research about falling leaf motions.

Tomorrow (or this evening) I will draft a brief summary for you
about Santena sighting. It is a real pity that the MJ report is
so scanty in details.

I deem contacting Mark Blashak necessary: I have to read the
original UFO report he (hopefully) wrote about the event.

Where to begin? MUFON? Dan Wright? Mark Blashak? An appeal
posted to a mailing list? By asking to other ufologists in
Virginia? Something else?


Your friend,

Matteo

= = = = = =

 >Hello Matteo:

 >On page 21 of MJ #268 is a "Current Case Log" by
 >Dan Wright, then in charge of Investigations.
 >On page 22 I find this short entry:

 >"Log #900510: 2/2/90, 1:20 PM: Midlothian,
 >suburban Richmond, Virginia; Inv: Mark Blashak.
 >A woman was watching TV when she noticed a bright
 >silvery oval object in the distance.
 >It descended in a "falling leaf" motion, then moved
 >away rapidly on a "sawtooth" course.
 >Duration was estimated as 10-15 seconds."

 >That terse account is the only source I have for the
 >story. I suppose the only way to learn any more,
 >would be to try and find Mark Blashak.
 >I don't know if he is on any UFO email lists here,
 >but do not recall hearing anything from him. -LH









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

             Conference in P.R. Presents Abduction Breakthrough

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 07:27:07 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:32:32 -0400
Subject: Conference in P.R. Presents Abduction Breakthrough


*** PRESS RELEASE ***

CONFERENCE IN PUERTO RICO PRESENTS ABDUCTION BREAKTHROUGH

On March 18th, 2001, the "First Symposium of UFO and Paranormal
Researchers in Puerto Rico" showcased a number of presentations
dealing with all aspects of both fields of study.

Sponsored by www.ovni.net, the conference was hosted by
researchers Lucy Guzman de Pla, Orlando Pla, and Prof. Carlos
Fernandez. Dedicated to the memory of pioneering Puerto Rican
ufologist Noel Rigau, the conference sought to provide a more
scientific and less journalistic approach to the island's wealth
of high-strangeness events.

The wide scope of the "First UFO Symposium" was clearly visible
from the subjects broached by its speakers. Father Felix Struik
discussed "Marian Apparitions", Professor Carlos Fernandez spoke
at length about "Genetic Correlations in Abduction Experiences",
radio personality Andrew Alvarez approached the subject from an
anthropological standpoint in his "Meta-Anthropological Analysis
of the UFO Phenomenon" while Orlando Pla  presented the
"Statistical Trends of the UFO Phenomenon in Puerto Rico".

Pride of place, however, was reserved for researcher Lucy Guzman
de Pla's lengthy presentation on "Crises and Traumas in the
Abduction Phenomenon", which centered around the highly
documented events surrounding a female abductee known only as
"Beln".  Ms. Guzman told her audience that "at the time, I
never thought I would find myself facing a case such as the one
I'm about to present. It changed my investigative interest from
mere curiosity to a certainty that the majority of abduction
cases subjected to study are not fantasy and indeed represent a
disturbing reality."

Ms. Guzman has dedicated three years of study to "Beln"'s
abduction experiences, following a trajectory that began in
October 1992 when the protagonist awoke one morining to find
four red, cross-shaped marks on her abdomen, surrounding her
navel. Startled but not overly concerned, "Beln" forgot about
the curious marks on her body. It was not until June 26, 1997 --
notes Guzman -- that the abductee woke up at five o'clock in the
morning with numb legs, a bleeding nose, and ringing in her left
ear. Shortly afterwards, she had a "flashback" of having been on
a metallic, levitating stretcher surrounded by three "little
men" wearing white coveralls. Described as small and thin, with
symbols on their chests, the creatures appeared to be engaged in
a procedure on her body. "Beln" felt neither fear nor pain.

Guzman's paper covers the subsequent apparition of marks on the
abductee's body in May 1998, and the attendant phenomena to the
abduction experience: lights emerging from walls, vibrations,
buzzing sounds in both her ears and within her home.

The "Beln" case is probably the best documented abduction
experience to have emerged from Puerto Rico since the island
underwent a resurgence of UFO activity in the late 1980's.
Parties interested in learning more about this case and seeing
the images should visit:

www.ovni.net/simposiopr/simposio2001_luz_guzman.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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                   Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 07:06:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:04:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Mass Hysteria As A Myth - Lehmberg


Honored List Motes!

Can anyone attest to the authenticity of this article? Found at:
http://aerial.itlnet.net/last_word.htm

[also at: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/jun/m19-002.shtml

  >Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:14:47 -0700
  >From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@bellsouth.net>
  >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
  >Subject: 'The Roots Of Complacency'

  --ebk]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

J. Allen Hynek's Last Word on The Roots of Complacency


Astronomer-Ufologist J. Allen Hynek, In a Previously Unpublished
Essay, Denounces All Those Who Obscure the Truth About UFOs

Introduction
by Dr. Willy Smith

Toward the end of his life, Dr. J. Allen Hynek was a frequent
visitor to my home, the last of such visits taking place from
August 20 to August 31, 1985, when he finally left to have his
first surgery on September 5, 1985. After that his health
declined rapidly and unfortunately he died on April 27, 1986.
During his visits, Dr. Hynek did quite a bit of work using my
computer, which was quite similar to his own at home. At that
time, his interest was centered on the Hudson Valley sightings.
Time marched on, and after Dr. Hynek passed away, the work was
completed by Bob Pratt and published in book form in 1987, under
the title NIGHT SIEGE. [Note: Philip J. Imbrogno is credited as
co-author of Night Siege, along with J. Allen Hynek and Bob
Pratt.]

One day, revising my diskettes, I found a file labeled
"Imbrogno" which I did not recognize. When I opened it, it was a
paper intended to be the Preface of the book, that undoubtedly
by error Allen had saved on one of my diskettes (on August 30,
1985, just the day before he left my home). It is a remarkable
piece, and once you read it it will be easy to understand why it
was not used as initially intended. I think the time has come to
release it through INTERNET, so everyone will see what Dr.
Hynek's thoughts about these remarkable sightings really were. I
strongly suggest that you compare "THE ROOTS OF COMPLACENCY" (as
Hynek himself titled it) with the version that appeared in NIGHT
SIEGE.

Dr. Willy Smith
Unicat Project
June 1999

The Roots of Complacency
by Dr. J. Allen Hynek


Something truly astonishing happened.... Not far from New York
City, along the Hudson Valley, as hundreds of astonished people
looked up, many driving along the Taconic Parkway, they saw
something no one had ever seen before. Some called it a
"Space-ship from outer space" (for want of anything better) but
it was generally described by numbers of competent, professional
persons as startlingly brilliant lights, in the form of a "V",
or Boomerang, silent, slowly-moving, and very large close-by
object. It has often popularly been called the "Westchester
(County) Boomerang".

The world has never known about this, even though the event
happened not once but several times, and over the course of
several years. To all intents and purposes, this was a
non-event. The media across the world has remained dumb. Local
papers, radios and TV's, it is true, did momentarily carry spots
along with the daily news, but there the news just vanished.

How is it possible that in the United States, where even trivial
events are often flashed across the world, only one TV and radio
network carried an account of this utterly astounding event?
Far, far lesser stories are spewed forth across the world! Could
it possibly be that the whole thing just never happened? No:
many times there was good, but extremely local, media coverage;
many hundreds have personally attesteds to us, and to many
others, that the "Westchester Boomerang" was most undeniably,
very truly real to them. Furthermore, many witnesses at a given
time, were geographically separate, and unknown to each other.
Cars along the Taconic Parkway, a well traveled highway,
stopped, and passengers looked in amazement, many frightened and
bewildered at the spectacle.

Police department "blotters" proved that many calls came to
several local police stations, and we have tape recordings of a
number of the police involved. The Boomerang was undeniably
real; it was not a chimera! Yes, something astonishing
transpired, but was no one "minding the store", was everyone
asleep at the switch? What about law enforcement agencies (whose
duty is certainly to alert and assist when something amazing is
afoot; what about civilian and military personnel?

When hundreds of largely professional, affluent people, in
suburban areas, are astonished, awestruck, and many frightened
by what they could only regard as a very bizarre event, would
this not at least warrant and bring forth some comment from the
nation's media? And what about law officers, government
officials and... what of the FAA which supposedly monitors the
airwaves over which the "Boomerang" repeatedly flew, and thus
constituted a serious hazards, especially over the Taconic
Parkway? And what of scientists, to whom these events should
have been of breathtaking scientific concern? But nothing...
except, oh yes, a writer so inept at his task that not once did
he check, even briefly, the voluminous tapes and other material
amassed by the present authors: a remarkable example of
investigative reporting.

His conclusion: the Boomerang was caused by nothing more than a
flight of small planes flying in formation, a totally untenable
conclusion in view of the facts.

It would appear that we really have TWO astounding stories,
rather than just one... different but related... and equally
incomprehensible: the story of the low-flying luminous Boomerang
(in itself which could rank high in the annals of science
fiction... if it were science fiction!) and the second, a
totally unaccountable dereliction of duty (and there seems to be
no other word for it), a complete indifference to
accountability.

It was a malady which appeared to plunge all who encountered it,
EXCEPT the witnesses, into a deadly stupor. Such a malady, or
perhaps a virulent virus of apathy and indifference to duty,
could immobilize cities and a whole country. Of course, we don't
know what the Boomerang was really about, for the Police and
other law enforcement officers were derelict and failed in their
duty to assist the many who called [in] fear and danger, as well
as in awe and wonder.

The FAA utterly failed to be concerned for air safety, flight
rules, navigation lights, when told that some utterly strange
and possibly menacing object was cruising close over streets and
houses.  the Military was derelict by not attending to public
safety and matters of National Defense (the country could have
been subtly invaded!) the Scientists failed to uphold their
"Hippocratic" oath of science: they were derelict in following
the quest [of] an outstanding mystery. the media, well, where
were they? Truly derelict. Always avid news hounds, rushing to
their typewriters or microphones to rush the news to the world
(good, bad and trivial), but where were they? Hardly any of the
50 States heard the Boomerang story. Why? Utterly indifferent
and apathetic? If so, why? Of the two stories, that of the
Boomerang if by far the more directly told. Bizarre and
fantastic though it may be (and is) it merely needs competent
retelling. The facts are on record. From the hundreds of
cassette tapes in the thousands of statements made by witnesses,
the Boomerang is a matter of record. But the second story, well,
that is another matter.

This story is not at all directly told. Here there are no
cassette tapes, no clear cut descriptions, and no policeman, no
scientist, no military man, no media person, no FAA has recorded
why they were derelict. We can only infer, as one might infer
from the pages of history. We can only deduce and play
detective. And we must try, for this second story, more truly a
puzzle, could be of utmost importance to finding out how we, as
humans, act under stress, trauma, and fear...for the Boomerang
had all of these! The puzzle has far more parts than the tale of
the Boomerang. It is, indeed, a part of a continuing story of
mankind's pioneering search for adventure and meaning, but
repeatedly dashed and frustrated by those who cannot look to the
heights of the pioneer: by the "it will never fly" or "it can't
be done" mentalities. These who always must say that "since it
can't be done, there is no need to even think about it or even
talk about it.

Therein lies the spawning ground of indifference, of apathy, and
[of] dereliction of duty. All those who didn't follow through on
the Boomerang event were not willfully derelict: they were
merely the thousands of "it will never fly" and "it can't be
done" and so there is no need to think about it. The corollary
is: "Since it can't be done, whomever said it had been done,
were simply deluded... they must have been mistaken, and so no
need to look into it further". It is the failure to seek for the
light of the tunnel because there couldn't be a light.

Intellectual adventure is sterile when there is continual
inability to seek answer to challenges, to seek ways out of the
tunnel of indifference. In the story of the Boomerang, the FAA,
the media, scientists, politicians, the military.... all may
momentarily touch upon the mystery, but suddenly it appeared
that apathy saps further energy to incentive, and in its stead
is a great desire [for] nothing... it becomes a hotbed of
inertia... a great desire to do nothing, fobbing it all off in
the guise of a handy solution, like "planes in formation". It is
not as from a seeming direct desire to be in duty, but it is
more as though the call for duty has vanished, or as though some
bad fairy had administered a sleeping potion, an apathy draught.
How else might one hold that otherwise responsible law
enforcement, FAA, military, the media etc. would renege on their
duties?

There is a more realistic answer than calling upon some bad
fairy (though it would certainly fit the facts) and that is that
it all lies in our human (mental) nature. A psychologist would
express it more professionally, but it simply amounts to the
fact that the human mind has definite limits for acceptance and
accountability. In the history of science this syndrome has been
seen many times and in many ages. For instance, how often has it
occurred that totally revolutionary ideas, so novel at first as
to be utterly neglected or discarded... a form of apathy and
total indifference. As a homely analogy, one might say that such
a totally novel idea "overheats the mental human circuits" and
the fuse blows (or the circuit-breaker cuts out) as a protective
device for the mind. The time is not yet right for the age and
the new idea might just as well not have been there in the first
place. Mankind was not yet able to handle it.

Thus when mankind is presented with a totally bizarre, shocking,
traumatic event (the Boomerang?), a mental circuit cuts out.
Instead of a challenge for action, there is a dead battery. This
is, of course, well known in individual cases of amnesia in, for
example, "shell shock": could it be that a collective amnesia or
apathy can come into play? If so, might it be possible that
collectively people can react traumatically, as to the
Westchester Boomerang, to a collective amnesia, whether they are
policemen, media people, the FAA etc.?

Whatever be the case, the effect is real. Many instances in
history.... and the Boomerang is its most recent and spectacular
example... when the breaking point of the collective mind
occurs, it must openly disregard patent evidence of the senses:
it can no longer encompass them within their normal borders. The
Holocaust perpetrated by Hitler in WW II is another sample:
people simply refused to accept, and were indifferent to the
evidence, because their minds couldn't bring themselves to
accept that such a Holocaust could possibly be, despite ample
evidence. It was also a "mental circuit breaker", a general
apathy and a will to indifference.

The Boomerang and the Holocaust are but striking samples of what
happens when the collective mind willfully disregards evidence,
when "it can't take it". The entire modern UFO syndrome is
another: here we have utterly ample evidence of the global
nature of the UFO phenomenon. [In] thousands of instances and
over many countries, the evidence for the UFO phenomenon is
clear, but those in position of policy and authority (FAA,
educators, scientists etc) are deaf or purposely obtuse. Apathy
goes hand in hand with the ability to accept even the most inane
answers, anything whatever, just to stave off the necessity to
think. So we cannot at the moment expect to do [but] little
about the wealth of material collected on the Westchester
Boomerang (or for the much more abundant wealth of UFO
material). The circuits are closed; apathy holds sway. But
history has shown that in time the information and questions dam
breaks, sometimes cataclysmically, and later, why, lo and
behold, the pundits by a complete irrational turn of fact, will
say,

"Oh, we knew this all the time!"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A final note -- the event described above seems similar to the
astonishing National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS)
reception of a UFO report at 3:46 am Pacific time on 1/5/2000
from a police officer at Milstadt, Illinois. The officer
reported an unidentified flying object seen by a business owner
and several police officers at Lebanon, Millstadt, Shiloh and
Dupo, Illinois. The report to NIDS came approximately two hours
after the sighting.

This devolved into the same kind of non event Hynek described
above and for the very same reasons?

Lehmberg@snowhill.com




~~~~
EXPLORE "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his HostPros URL.
http://www.alienview.net


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 scurrilous
skepti-bunkies.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:12:10 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:07:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:04:28 -0000


 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

<snip>

 >Menzel replied exactly as reported (I still have a file on the
 >whole affair), and if that is not a blanket dismissal of
 >eyewitness testimony, I don't know what it is. Now it's "30
 >years old." So what? The chronological cutoff date is entirely
 >arbitrary on your part. Klass, Oberg, and "true disciple"
 >followers like Posner have carried on the clearcut pattern of
 >summarily dismissing eyewitness testimony as worthless.

 >Menzel knew the purpose of the survey and where the results were
 >going to be presented. Glad to see that you agree Menzel "said
 >some silly things." One of the silliest, which I can also
 >document, was that pilots Nash and Fortenberry in the classic
 >July 1952 Virginia encounter with a formation of glowing red
 >disks was that they saw fireflies embedded between the layers of
 >glass in the cockpit window! And I am not exaggerating.>

This is even wilder than Menzel's "explanation" (more properly,
a Candidate Explanatory Hypothesis, or CEP) that Arnold saw
water drops on his windshield. This CEP was based on Menzel's
own observation of "UFOs" when he was flying an an airplane and
saw objects moving by. Then he tried focusing his eyes better
and realized they were close, one the outer surface of the
window. Menzel provided a justification for his water drop
explanation: "queer things" happen at high altitude in the
atmosphere. (This was Menzel's 6th and last CEP for the Arnold
case.)

How about a more recent example: Sir Bernard Lovell propsed
"unburned meteorites" to explain the Dec. 31, 1978 New Zealand
sightings in spite of the fact that the witnesses saw one of the
lights for abou 10 minutes (and the cameraman was able to film
it for many minutes ). (see brumac.8k.com for info on the "squid
boat" New Zealand sightings.)

Details of witness testimony played a very small role in the
"official" CSICOP explanation for the Japan Air Lines sighting
(JAL1628) over Alaska. The captain and rew reported **two
objects/lights** which each appeared as rows of pulsating or
flaring, yellowish lights which suddenly appeared in front of
their 600 mph aircraft and gave off heat. When they appeared
they were one above the other and stayed that wasy for several
mnutes. Then they reoriented themselves to side-by-side..
According to Klass this was Mars and Jupiter Hence, the only
thing Klass accepted about the testimony was that the witnesses
had seen _two_objects/lights_ ahead of the aircraft for many
minutes.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:38:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:11:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Maccabee


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:39:42 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01Re: Debunkers' Guidebook:42:03 +0200
 >>Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:18:14 -0400
 >>Subject: - Goldstein

 >>>>Brad Sparks has stated my position very well. It's a question of
 >>>>scientific debate and peer review, not personal or even
 >>>>intellectual "hits."

 >>>If that's the case, then I don't see what the problem is. As you
 >>>have already pointed out, skeptics have been known to disagree
 >>>with each other's positions in the past; you even pointed out
 >>>the very literature.

<snip>

 >Again, most of these examples of skeptical disagreement with
 >skeptics has been of attacks on the PRO-UFO positions of other
 >skeptics, e.g., Klass and Sheaffer criticizing skeptic Hartmann
 >of the Condon Committee for his PRO-UFO findings and conclusions
 >on the Trent/Mcminnville photo case.>

 >And it isn't the trivializing disagreement or clashing opinion
 >that is being looked for but criticism over facts and analysis
 >to resolve contradictions among skeptics and debunkers. E.g.,
 >with Rendlesham, was it the Orfordness Lighthouse, or was it a
 >lightship, or was it Cosmos 749, or a fireball, or hoax, or
 >what? With Kenneth Arnold, was it pelicans, meteors, or mirages?
 >Did Chiles and Whitted see a meteor or suffer an eye defect
 >called the Pulfrich Phenomenon?


What most people here don't get, and this especially refers to
the skeptics, is that there _is_ science in ufology or
ufological investigation, but it is not the science that most
people expect.

We keep hearing skeptics and debunkers say "what proves the ETH"
or make up some unconventional explanation (time travel,
dimension travel, etc.) and defend it. Well, that would be fine
if we a priori knew the characteristics of the unknown. But we
don't.

We don't know what a flyign saucer SHOULD look like.

On the other hand, we do know what a pelican should look like,
how brght it is, how fast it is, etc.

So the science comes in in defending a particula Candidate
Explanatory Hypothesis (CEP). Yeah, I'm, going to keep beating
on this, inasmuch as it is "wisdom" learned over many years of
investigation and analysis.

The rubber meets the road in the explanations. My paper "Prosaic
Explanations, the Failure of UFO Skepticism" is based on this.
Since it won't cost anyone to read it at my web site,
http://brumac.8k.com,. I suppose I can mention it, unlike others
here who refer to their own unmentionable books.

Anyway, the arguments over lighthouses, hot air balloons, and
pelicans (I assume everyone here knows to which cases I refer)
are where the science comes in.... or tries to come in. I
discovered long ago that th skeptics/debunkers would propose
explanations without doing the science behind them (Arnold saw a
mirage, meteors, etc) Hence if skeptic A proposed explanation A,
that proposal would be published and "sit there" with no
critical comment. But other skeptics might refer to it as proof
that the sighting had been explained. Then skeptic B comes along
proposes explanation B, but without explaining why explanation A
was wrong. In scientific literature... the "real stuff:"... you
find that Scientist B will explain why he/she thingks Scientist
A was wrong and why Explanation B is correct.

The Scientist A may come back with a response to defend his/her
original explanation. Or perhaps there will be a third proposed,
etc. All these explanations or CEP are based on theories...
theories of the explanations... but the bottom lie always is, if
something new is being discovered, that no conventional
explanation works and something new must be proposed. Probably
qantum theory is the most radical example of this sudden break
with the past (which tok place about 100 years ago).

OK. So let's see some real science around 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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

               Brazil - Thousands Mistake MIR Balloon For UFO

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:06:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:17:27 -0400
Subject: Brazil - Thousands Mistake MIR Balloon For UFO


Dear Friends,

Over the past month we have been cautioning our readers about
the Franco-Brazillian MIR (Montgolfier Infrarouge) program and
the very real possibility of mistaking said devices for
unidentified flying objects. Two days ago, INEXPLICATA posted a
message from Luis Eduardo Pacheco reporting that the balloons
were due to swing over the South American landmass one more
time. In spite of his warnings, thousands were still caught
unawares.

Scott Corrales

Institute of Hispanic Ufology

__________________________________________________________

SOURCE: Diario "La Estrella del Loa" Vol. XXXV - No. 9.555

DATE: Wednesday,  18 April 2001

Thousands Mistake Large Weather Balloon for UFO

Curiosity and anticipation followed in the wake of a large
weather balloon as it passed over  Calama and particularly
Chuquicamata. The balloon remained suspended in the skies over
the Atacama Desert all morning yesterday, leading many people to
believe that it was an unidentified flying object (UFO).

Renzi Jara Lagos, director of the El Loa Airport, reported that
the object in question was a meteorogical instrument launched by
CNES, the French Space Agency, from Brazil.

"We received the first report regarding the balloon at 08.25
hours and immediately contacted the  Comit de Estudio de
Fenmenos Areos Anmalos (CEFAA) belonging to the Chlilean Air
Force (FACH), which had always been aware of the device's orgin
given the fact that it is in continuous contact with the
Brazilian launch center, " he stated.

According to  data provided by the Chilean agency, the object
measures approximately 100 meters in diameter and is covered by
an aluminum film which captures solar radiation  and heats the
balloon from within, thus keeping it suspended in the air.

Given that its mission is strictly a meteorological one, the
balloon carries a considerable number of instruments aimed at
measuring the planet's atmospheric conditions as it travels from
east to west.

The earliest reports issued by technicians at the El Loa Airport
indicated that the weather balloon was at an altitude of 9000
feet at 0900 hours, ascending to 25,000 feet by 1000 hours and
later to 52,000 feet.

Experts at the Cerro Moreno air base indicated that neither one
of their two radars was able to pick up the balloon because the
primary radar was out of service and the secondary one did not
meet the proper characteristics for detection.

UFOMANIA

While this sighting had nothing supernatural or alien about it,
as everyone knows, many residents of Chuquicamata left their
homes in order to view, photograph and film the  balloon, which
was mistaken for a UFO even after it had vanished.

#####################

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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:22:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:19:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:28:15 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy

Previously, Dennis wrote:

 >As far as Jerry and Dick are concerned, the Rimmer Ploy is
 >really quite simple: put your names behind, say, the ten best
 >UFO cases in the voluminous UFO literature to which you have
 >both contributed, rather than referencing said literature as a
 >whole and witness reliability in general. Both of you have
 >countless cases (if the evidence is indeed that strong) on the
 >tip of your collective tongues, so a response shouldn't be that
 >long in coming.

 >Now, make a coherent argument for ET visitation that
 >incorporates and accommodates all ten of those cases, as opposed
 >to saying they're simply "suggestive" of ET visitation. Include
 >any physical evidence.

 >Like I said, my two cents...

Yes! Well, put, indeed.

We may have differed on many things in the past, Dennis, but
your two cents is worth mucho debate-bucks in this instance.
Indeed, the UFO elite insist that the sum of the whole suggests
support for the ETH as the best explanation. However, no one
wants to take a sampling of the larger group and do a side by
side comparison of individual cases. There is no "pattern" other
than the simple existence of reports that cannot be explained.
In that sense, they just as easily fit the bill as religious
events. In short, the only thing in common about them is their
lack of similarity.

Again, well spoken.

Roger Evans








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clarke

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:32:17 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:22:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clarke


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:32:05 -0400

 >>From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:33:51 +0100

Hi Steven,

 >Challenging eyewitness testimony is not the same thing as
 >dismissing it, and Von Braun's anecdotal story seems to be
 >little more than that. The fact that eyewitness descriptions are
 >affected by beliefs and emotions is certainly not new to
 >ufologists, and those who approach this subject from a
 >scientific perspective take that into account. But whenever
 >backed into a corner with witness testimony, it becomes too easy
 >to simply claim that such testimony is unreliable and simply
 >ignore it as worthless.

I'm in agreement with you - but the proviso is that eyewitness
testimony is _all_ we have in ufology, therefore the problems
you and von Braun have highlighted are all the more important
- and potentially significant.

I would submit that it is not a case of being "backed into a
corner"- there are simply so many cases where witnesses have
misperceived or allowed beliefs to influence testimony, that
relying upon witness testimony - particularly in the cases
involving single observers - becomes a minefield.

 >Being skeptical should lead to further investigation of the
 >evidence, and not induce one to grab at the first possible
 >explanation (regardless of the facts) and move on. In regard to
 >the case you mentioned below, there may be good reason to
 >believe that it was the result of a miss-identified meteor. That
 >doesn't prove the case, but provides a possible explanation. My
 >problem is that "Skeptics" are often just as fanatical as
 >"Believers". When each should be examining the evidence from a
 >neutral position, they often skim through the evidence and
 >present pre-existing beliefs based more on faith than research.

I couldn't agree with you more. The problem comes when one side
starts name-calling and branding others (viz "pelicanists" etc),
therefore defining themselves only in their contempt for their
perceived "opponents."

That really is a convenient method of avoiding awkward questions
relating to what exactly the "UFO evidence" is based upon -
which takes us back to "witness testimony."

I can only reiterate what I've said before; we would be foolish
to dismiss witness testimony, but equally foolish to accept it
at face value. What worries me is that in a large percentage of
ufological writings we are looking at witness testimony through
the _interpretation_ of ufologists - not the actual narratives
of the witnesses themselves. Therefore there are layers and
layers of additional interpretation and sometimes prejudice to
peel away before one can asses what _really_ happened.

I  and colleagues have spent the last few years tracing and
interviewing many dozens of "UFO witnesses" from the 50s and 60s
in Britain, and have been amazed to find how their stories have
been distorted by the media and ufology as a whole.

Few, if any, have had their accounts professionally
tape-recorded and transcribed as fieldworkers in folklore and
oral traditions would stipulate as a matter of course.

Hence, before we can even begin to look at the flaws of human
perception itself, we have to collect the actual narratives of
the witnesses themselves - something ufologists have not even
begun to consider was important in Britain at least.

However, I understand sterling work is being done in the US by
Tom Tulien and others working on an oral history project,
tracing and interviewing key witnesses and participants on
video. That really is the sort of thing that should have been
done in Britain years ago.


Thanks for your interesting comments!

Dave Clarke









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                    Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:48:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:31:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Salvaille


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:28:15 -0500

<snip>

 >If we assume that all the witnesses of same were spot on, the
 >first thing that leaps immediately to mind is how disparate the
 >cases are, one from another. For example, apart from the UFO
 >aspect itself, I defy anyone to delineate any commonalities or
 >patterns in the above cases. The best one can do is to say that
 >entities of some sort were reported in both the Papua and
 >Socorro cases, but beyond that, what?

 >Plop those on the desk of any self-respecting, practicing
 >scientist, and I can almost guarantee that his or her first
 >response will be, "this is all very fine, but what am I supposed
 >to _do_ with it? Re-interview the witnesses involved?"

<snip>

Let me throw in my two Canadian cents ( = 1.2 USC).

My God, Dennis, do you have a subscription to a SETI mailing
List on the Net?

If not, why?

What are you doing on a UFO List in this is all-meaningless?

Save our souls from terminal stupidity?

If this is the case, do you have a subscription on an Astrology
mailing List on the Net?

If not, why?

Before we go any further, could you answer Jerome Clark's
recent, and most pertinent, question:

"Do you reject as effectively meaningless and misguided all
reports in which witnesses - including technically trained ones,
under excellent viewing conditions - report structured objects
whose appearances and performance characteristics are unlike
those even of the most advanced military and civilian aircraft?"

To which I will add: a simple yes or no will be sufficient.

<snip>

 >Like I said, my two cents...

<snip>

Yes, and, in a poker game, when you throw two cents in the pot,
you're expected to show your cards when the guy at the table
follows.

Unless you're bluffing.

Is this the case?










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:56:04 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:33:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 04:57:09 +0200
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Goldstein


 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:53:46 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

Previously, I wrote wrote:

 >>In either case, if I don't agree with you, then I
 >>am an "uninformed skeptic" or "dilettante". This would not be so
 >>egregious if not for your own assumption about the length of
 >>time I've been on this list, which you describe as only a "some
 >>months back". The fact that you are wrong, aside, what
 >>difference would that make? Further, how dare you question my
 >>own familiarity with UFO material when you obviously didn't
 >>bother to see how long I've been with this list! How hard can it
 >>be to find out that I've been posting since September of 1998?
 >>Surprised? Practice what you preach! Do some research!

Josh replied:

 >I guess I forgot about the months such as when you tried to
 >beat the Trent case and a bunch of people to death on this list
 >and showed that you had not studied the case and its many
 >investigations.I don't know why you are so full of angry
 >attitudes. For reference look at your next statement.

 >>This is exactly the kind of behavior that I find tiresome; the
 >>"UFO elite".

I think your response is a perfect example of the attitude I
find offensive. For starters, just because I had a different
opinion about the Trent case automatically means, again, that I
had not studied the case, as far as you're concerned. What a
bunch of crap, Josh. I studied the Trent case, applied my own
expertise in photography and came up with an answer different
that Bruce Macabee. So what? Your response only proves my point:
If I don't agree with your way of thinking, then I am
"uninformed".

More arrogance from the UFO elite.

Continuing, I wrote:

 >>Let me try and make myself perfectly clear: I believe in the
 >>probability of ET life and ET visitation because I find the odds
 >>are simply in favor of it and some of the UFO reports are
 >>intriguing, to say the least. That said, however, all of this
 >>research you put so much faith in has done squat to prove the
 >>ETH or this discussion list wouldn't even exist and this
 >>conversation wouldn't even be taking place.

Josh replied:

 >Roger, you obviously misunderstood my post. I began by giving my
 >general opinion of what I had read on the ETH vs. skeptics
 >posts. That was not intended to be a criticism of you. I was
 >also clear that I was talking about UFO reports, not the ET
 >hypothesis.
 >
 >I was critical of you when you said that you thought it was only
 >folklore. Obviously you have a different understanding of
 >folklore vs. data and evidence. I have no grounds to question
 >anything in your photography excpertise.

As long as it doesn't question the validity of the Trent case,
right?

 >That is why I questioned your knowledge of UFO evidence. I
 >certainly believe there is recorded data that is more than
 >folklore. I could not understand why you took such a position.
 >For example, look at the Belgian flying triangles case of 1990.
 >It was initially reported by the military. They were tracked
 >visually and with radar from military aircraft.

 >They were photographed and observed by a large number of people.
 >That is only one case of many. That to me is a lot more than
 >folklore.

Josh, I do not question the existence of the data or the
reports. I merely stated that they have not proven the case for
the ETH _despite_ all the data crunching you have pointed out.
It doesn't matter what it means to you or to me, even. I would
_like_ to believe that ET visitation exists, but it has not been
proven. As such, like it or not, the notion of ET visitation is
only folklore. The only way you can counter that is with _one_
single proven case for ET visitation. Can you come up with one?
I am sure everyone on this list would love to know about it.

Continuing, I wrote:

 >>Also, I never said there was nothing, regarding UFO cases, that
 >>warranted scientific study. What I said was that nothing has yet
 >>been proven. In that sense, I also find reports of Bigfoot to
 >>warrant scientific study. If you've read anything about Bigfoot,
 >>then you know there is quite a bit of evidence there, as well.
 >>In either case, until the existence of each are proven, they are
 >>nothing more than folklore, regardless of what your more
 >>"informed" opinion is. Scientific study? Bring it on! But let's
 >>not jump the gun, here, and take the attitude that it's a
 >>shoo-in for validation.

Josh replied:

 >That's a rather circular statement. Maybe nothing is proven
 >because there have not been scientific investigations.

No doubt very true, Josh. But how is that my fault for pointing out the
lack of results? And let's face it, it's the lack of results that are
the thorn in the side of the UFO elite. No matter the length of time
they filibuster, once they sit down and the smoke clears, the ETH has
yet to be validated. There's nothing circular in that logic, at all
Josh. It's merely annoying to the UFO elite that don't want to talk
about it.

Finally, I wrote:

 >>In fact, considering that _nothing_ has been substantiated
 >>regarding the existence of UFOs, I'd say it is the UFO elite
 >>that are dilettantes, dabbling in something they know little
 >>about as evidenced by the lack of results in proving the ETH
 >>after all this exhaustive research you are so quick to point
 >>out. But, since your opinion is more "informed" than mine what
 >>would you call _pretending_ to be an expert on something that
 >>hasn't been proven to exist? Perhaps you consider it science.
 >>I'd call it wishful thinking.

Josh replied:

 >Roger, in my post I was not personally criticizing you. I don't
 >know why you take everything as a personal attack. You seem to
 >be sensitive but you then react like a cornered rabid pit bull.

Gee, Josh, I guess when you call me "uninformed" and a
"dilettante" and then follow up by including me in the company
of fools like Klass, I'm supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy
inside? You know, some months back, you contacted me via email
and said that you were going to be traveling and wanted to try
and visit with me. I graciously extended acceptance of that
idea, and still do. But are you sure you want to waste time with
such an uninformed dilettante like myself?

Maybe you didn't mean to insult me, Josh, but you really need to
go back and re-read what you wrote and the context you put me
in. Based on the napalm hit you gave John Velez n a different
thread, it's obvious that you are totally capable of a slash and
burn campaign, when you want. Practice what you preach.


Roger Evans










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                        Re: Serious Research - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:47:52 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:35:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Young


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 15:46:45 -0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:45:57 EDT
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research - Young

Hi, Dick, Folks:

On another thread here the other day, Dick remarked, "While
waiting patiently for Bob Young to engage me in debate about
the merits of the agreed-upon UFO cases..."

Income Tax time is over, so let's get down to it. For readers
of an intermediate age who, like me, no longer have good
intermediate length memories, I'll review the situation:

In a December 1999 article, The Science of UFOs: Fact vs.
Skepticism, found at:

http://www.isso.org/inbox/science.htm,

Dick listed 20 UFO incidents, which he said demonstrated:
structured objects and tangible effects; maneuvered motion
and intelligent control; "aggressive encounters"; physical
and physiological effects; propulsion physics & technology,
such as body lights, light beams, brilliant illumination,
propulsion clues and flight patterns.

He wrote, "UFOs as craft--as someone else's technology--is
one important hypothesis that could be tested. (In my estimation,
it is the most likely hypothesis to be proven true.)"

I proposed,

 >>could we agree that irrespective of what may occur next week,
 >>or next month or next year, that each of these 20 incidents
 >>contains evidence that you believe can best be explained by
 >>the presence of craft made by someone or something else?

 >>This proposition can be a working hypothesis. Then, all that it
 >>needs is proof.

Dick responded,

 >For my part, I agree to confine the discussion to the 18 main
 >cases cited in the ISSO article (19 & 20 were merely
 >illustrations that certain features had also been reported by
 >others). We can let others decide on which of us makes the more
 >convincing case for our respective positions. I expect you to
 >offer convincing explanations in mundane terms for those 18
 >cases, or at least to convincingly cast doubt on their validity
 >in some way. They form the basis of my generalizations.

<snip>

 >You are the one with the obsession that each case on its own
 >must prove the ETH. My position is and always has been that it
 >is the cumulative evidence of many hundreds of cases of the type
 >illustrated in this article (see UFOE-II), and associated
 >physical evidence of various types, and recurring patterns
 >closely similar or identical to the cases illustrated in this
 >article, are what make the ETH the most likely interpretation.
 >For purposes of the present debate, I am willing to base my
 >argument on these 18 cases.

 >Just to be perfectly clear, I never claimed that these cases and
 >the many hundreds like them prove the hypothesis; only that they
 >strongly suggest or indicate that the ETH is a very reasonable
 >(in my estimation very likely to be true) hypothesis.

<snip>

 >My full and complete case is presented in great detail in my
 >book. The ISSO article represents a much condensed but
 >reasonable sample that will (or should) allow a reasonable
 >discussion.

OK, I understand your position. I am willing to discuss these
cases and evidence, but I'm not sure about the conditions.

Even though you do not want to be held to the requirement that
each case offer proof of the ETH, you insist that I must meet
that standard (although for a now, curiously, reduced number of
only 18 cases), and that I must offer a convincing explanation
for each, in order to falsify your ETH hypothesis.

Originally in this thread you insisted that the IFOs
(Astronomical IFOs, in particular) had nothing to say about
these remaining "unidentifieds". It seems to me that while
hiding among what you call the "cumulative evidence" in making
your generalization, you deny me the right to offer
generalizations using the IFOs, which are, after all,
_Identified_ (proven?) evidence.

I could, for example, argue that the cumulative evidence for any
UFOs being ET craft is overwhelmingly (perhaps 98 or 99 to 1)
that these are prosaic events, and that it is your
responsibility to present evidence that each one of these 18
cases cannot fit that pattern because they have been ID'd as an
ET craft. (Note how close this is to my original position).

The other thing is that it is really not my responsibility to
offer evidence for alternate explanations, although these may
come to light as the examination of each case proceeds. It is
you, as the proponent of the hypothesis, to do this. For
example, the 1997 Sturrock Panel questioned the presenters about
the evidence for specific cases and this is what would happen if
any other scientific panel were to review your evidence.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss each one of the 18, but it is,
after all, your responsibility to present evidence to support
your hypothesis.

The problem is, of course, that since you have 50 years worth of
reports to choose from it is not only likely, but probable that
one or more of these will, by itself, remain "unidentified",
even if we and everybody else on the List debate it for another
50 years.

Even though you didn't want to be pinned down on percentages of
IFOs vs "UFOs", I think that most reasonable people - and
experienced investigators of UFO reports - would agree that
there is some smallish fraction of _reports_ that will always
remain unknown for a number of reasons, such as lack of
information, or the passage of time, for example. I believe that
studies, such as Hendry's for CUFOS, GEPAN's for the French, and
the Air Force's effort, have shown that this percentage can be
quite small (less than 10%, possibly only a couple percent).

I'm willing to begin discussion of each of these cases if you
are in agreement that the burden of proof of the ETH hypothesis
you have put forward wrests with you.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                       Re: 'Military' UFOs - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:10:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:40:59 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Lehmberg


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:56:20 EDT
 >Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Dear Alfred, Mr. Velez, bListers and EBK,

 >Dylan wrote, "Patriotism is the last refuge, to which a
 >scoundrel clings."

...and let's not forget it. Too many hide themselves in those
full skirts, and skirts like them, sneering openly about
apparent realities they refuse to validate out of stark
intolerance and crass self interest. But that's not what this is
about. It's about mainstream _refusal_ to investigate UFOs. The
same folk that reflexively tie their empty ribbons are the same
ones too quick to accept the equally empty ufological caveats of
the disingenuous mainstream. Those same folks that fear and
mistrust the Chinese while they tie their retributional little
pieces of yellow cloth (...death to Tony Orlando!<g>) won't
allow themselves the exposure to anything that threatens their
little white bread view of the world or might make plain that
there could be a whole host of valid reasons why the Chinese
feel the way they DO about the adversarial manner in which they
have been treated by the present administration - and from a
time back BEFORE they were _ever_ communist... just another
colony.

 >First and foremost, the words used by John had nothing to do
 >with scoundrels or patriotism. They had to do with flag waving
 >morons tying yellow ribbons in memory of those afflicted with
 >imprisonment by a foreign nation whose goals are more than
 >questionable. Goals, related to our national security.

Gawd! The way you say that makes it so one sided. As if OUR
goals have been seriously questioned, evaluated, and positively
certified. You think for a moment that the *Rome* of the 21st
Century is blameless, non-culpable, and above reproach? The
interests of National Security have been richly, righteously,
and ritually abused - remember that this is the same bunch that
dismisses your contention and won't investigate or validate what
you _know_ has been happening to you. ...It's like somebody
mentions yellow ribbon and the next thing you know everyone's IQ
drops about 25 points! The media does its job
"goooooooooo-oooo-ud," to quote Sheriff Andy Taylor.

 >Having said that, I would like to do something which neither
 >Velez nor my good friend Lemual Q. Lehmberg expect. Defend John.
 >And I would very much like to explain why.

 >Hanging with John for many months, I can say that I doubt very
 >much John meant that statement the way he wrote it. As he
 >admitted. It ain't John's style, nor is it his way. He would not
 >(in my opinion) speak ill of his country, it's military or it's
 >patriots. Not in the same breath as that which confined our
 >people in China.

First thing I thought when I heard that everyone was down and
safe? It was "Boy - that bunch is set." Instant Heroes. Where
did I learn to be so bitter? I learned it in the example of the
nation that I put it all on the line for, many times. We are not
without blemish, we do a consummate and pervading disservice to
the world to pretend that we are. I'm learning that almost too
late...

 >Sometimes, we say things we don't mean to say the way we said
 >them. Happens.

Well... I get a whole lot more satisfaction letting an informed
conscience speak for me. I may not be able to keep a job <g>,
but I have no problem shaving in the morning either. <razor
blades _are_ getting a little pricey, though>

 >Nay John? Sometimes, in the heat of a dialog or
 >debate, something just comes out. And later, people look at us
 >funny and yell a lot. Scream. Never able to understand why the
 >hell someone - or how someone - could actually say or do such a
 >thing. Well, like bovinally generated excrement, it happens.

...much like this bovine quadruped urinating on a flat
geological projection in a location subject to extreme
meteorological disturbance?

 >I defend John for making a booboo. Not thinking about how the
 >words will be perceived by others. Which is why I did not rail
 >out against him.

John was too quick to acquiesce to too easily wounded
sensibility and those offended were too quick to be so. It may
be that the reaction to John's reference to morons of _any_
stripe was not the root of the consternation, anyway, just a
convenient handle to assert pressure... I say the preceding
without remembering _who_ it was that was offended. I don't want
to know. It'll make it hard for me to take them seriously in the
future... <g>.

 >As for you, Lemme, listen up... some a them duds... dudes, ARE
 >morons. But God willing, not enough to make a sentence out of.
 >One would hope.

Your hopes are in vain, and you know it, sadly. That "90% of
_everything_ is crap," must sadly apply to people, too...

 >Yes, patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings.
 >"But say, that's a nice hat. And a smile so hard to resist. But,
 >what's a sweetheart like you.... dooin in a dump like this?"
 >See? I know my Dylan better'n most. Because I spent most of my
 >time in the basement, mixin up the medicine.

...there's a whole bunch of different kinds of medicines, from a
plethora of dissimilar cabinets, in a myriad of different
dwellings, and all made from diverse combinations of straw,
sticks, and stone. Some of the medicines work for some, and some
of the medicines don't work for anyone... <zimmermann's not
cool enough for this room <g>>

 >With Liberty and Justice for Al, John and the rest of us who
 >occasionally mix up not only the medicine, but the words...

Too much ado 'bout nothin' I presume...
but I'd squeeze 'em in the middle <!>
...just to fill their fruit o' looms!

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

~~~~
EXPLORE "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his HostPros URL.
http://www.alienview.net


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
scurrilous skepti-bunkies.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                 Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:30:08 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:42:54 -0400
Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Velez


 >From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:13:16 -0700

 >The latest issue (#8 - February 2001) of Barry Greenwood's
 >newsletter, the U.F.O. Historical Revue (UHR) is now on-line and
 >available for your viewing in both HTML and .PDF formats.

 >Articles include: "Questions on a 1953 Cape Cod Mystery,"
 >"Censorship: The Kirtland Fireball Catalog," and an "Extract:
 >History of the 57th Fighter-Interceptor Wing (1950, Alaska)."

 >To access this (and earlier issues) of UHR, go to:

 >http://www.cufon.org/

 >click the UHR button in the upper right hand corner of the
 >opening screen, and select the issue you wish to view from the
 >menu that will open.

 >Barry has been kind enough as to allow us the privilege of
 >posting UHR on CUFON. The last thing we want is to have this web
 >edition of the UHR supplant subscribed readership. If you read
 >the UHR here for free, _please_subscribe_.

 >CUFON makes the UHR available in order to archive it and make it
 >available electronically, _not_ to replace in any way
 >subscriptions to UHR. Therefore, issues do not appear on CUFON
 >until a minimum of 30 days after mailing.

 >To subscribe, to renew a subscription or to send UHR as a gift:
 >Write to: UHR, PO Box 176, Stoneham MA 02180, USA.

 >Within the United States, subscriptions are $15.00 per
 >year, $20.00 (US Dollars) outside the US.

 >- Jim Klotz

Hi Jim,

Would it be possible for you to put up a 'direct subscription'
page on the Internet? You know, one of those interactive CGI
script pages so that folks can subscribe (and pay) online. It
would be convenient and fast.

I'm going to add your CUFON site to my 'links' page at AIC. I
hope it brings more traffic your way and more new subscribers
for Barry's UHR Newsletter.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                  Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:37:54 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:44:24 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Young


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: High Silliness On UFO UpDates
 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:34:52 -0400

 >High Silliness on UFO UpDates

 >83.2% of posts on UpDates concerning debunking, statistics and
 >skeptic-advocates debates contain silliness, high silliness, or
 >very high silliness.

 >"Ultra high silliness" is a new category to encompass a new
 >silliness which is off the previous charts. The >belief< that
 >one should not cite one's own works because there might be some
 >economic benefit to the author or the non-availability of the
 >work to the disputant requires a new ultra high silliness
 >category.

 >So if Dick Hall with nearly 45 years experience has selected a
 >large number of cases that he feels merit attention in UFO
 >Evidence II, he shouldn't be allowed to cite them, not from UFO
 >Evidence II in any case, since the disputants won't cough up the
 >money for it or won't ask the local library to obtain a copy.


Jan:

Well, we had to start somewhere, and Dick's December 1999
article seemed a good starting point and was accessible to
everyone.

With 45 years experience investigating UFO reports behind Dick
Hall, I don't doubt that the 18 selected fairly represent his
proposition. Granted, he has a longer list, but I'm only 57 and
there isn't enough time or bandwidth here to simultaneously
discuss hundreds (or is it thousands?).

Everybody else can take on that.

Have to start someplace.

On statistics, are anybody's UFO statistics useful, in you
estimation?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                  Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Evans

From: Rogers Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:43:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:47:08 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Evans


 >From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 22:29:39 -0600
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors

 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:39:29 -0500
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

Previously, Wendy wrote:

 >FWIW...I know Dick Hall, Jan Aldrich and Jerry Clark personally.
 >I've spent time with each in long discussions as well as
 >socially, visited them at their homes, some have been in mine.

<snip>

 >When they quote their own work there is certainly no elitism or
 >conceit behind it because they are giving you a shot at getting
 >almost the whole picture as it currently stands rather than a
 >pat and convient answer to satisfy your own semantic
 >game-playing. What is abundantly clear here is that you (dare I
 >say many?) List members are too wrapped up in personal opinions
 >to become well versed in the field of cryptoaeronautics.

<snip>

 >What it boils down to is that some people are so arrogant that
 >they don't know the real treasure inherent in these men and
 >their work and contributions to all of us in the field of
 >ufology. You don't have to agree to their conclusions or
 >hypotheses on ufological matters, but be gracious enough to
 >acknowledge these men have done more than you'll ever
 >accomplish. These are men of deeds and contributions, rather
 >than just opinion.

 >IMHO, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Hi, Wendy!

Again, the cheering section brings down the stands. More proof
that, if someone doesn't agree with the UFO elite, then that
person is "uninformed" and has no right to an opinion. At the
very least, you claim that they have "more" right to an opinion
than others.

If anyone should be ashamed, it is you Wendy. For starters, you
make an assumption about my own research and investigative
skills and accomplishments. You don't know me. All you know is
that I don't always see eye to eye with the people you admire. I
find it odd that I never mentioned these guys names in the
previous post. Yet, somehow, you knew _exactly_ who the guilty
parties were!

Thanks for making my point. If the connection is that obvious to
someone as over zealous as yourself, then there must be
something to my beef, eh?

Again, referencing past work is okay if that is the _only_ way
to answer a question. But you and I both know that isn't the
case. More to the point, it is rarely the case when it comes to
this discussion list. What you perceive as "expertise" is often
just posturing for the sake of the cheering section. What you
consider "semantic game playing" is generally a frustrating
attempt to get a simple answer to a simple question. And the
"elitism" that elludes you manifests itself on a regular basis
in the form of demands that skeptics should, for some reason,
disprove folklore or their arguments don't amount to anything.

I don't deny that your guys have done a lot hard work. But it
doesn't make their conclusions any more sacred than anyone
else's. After all, did they do the work just so that everyone
would have to agree with them? If so, then they should post a
disclaimer before each debate that says,"It's okay to access my
hard earned information, but you have to agree with me, if you
do." I can remember coming to this list and reading Jerry Clark
drilling Ed Stewart over that very attitude. Ed has _tons_ of
research, Wendy. Should we all agree with him because of the
sheer effort he put into amassing it?

If you can't understand that, then you are clearly missing the
point, Wendy.

I believe in the possibility of ET life and ET visitation
despite the lack of proof for the ETH. As such, I'm ashamed of
nothing except the ego driven elitism that seems to perpetuate
an "us against them" mentality which you, yourself, are a
perfect example of. If I don't agree with your position, then I
am one of the unfortunate "uninformed" that has less of a right
to an opinion than those that nod there heads in unison before
the UFO high priests and their sacred texts. One might as well
prove that the Red Sea was parted or that water was turned to
wine.


Roger Evans









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                             Re: Belief - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:44:02 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:01:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Jones


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Belief
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 02:49:18 +0100

<snip>

James

Methinks you scored an own goal mate.

By your definition _any_ UFO researcher worth his or her salt
has solved or resolved a case, is a debunker.

What a load of cods wallop. What it means is, they, he or she,
has done their job, and investigated, researched and produced a
result.

Debunkers are those who will provide/accept _any_ explanation
other than the UFO was of alien origin - period. They will do
this regardless of _any_ evidence, _any_ witness testimony, they
will take _anything_at_all_ that will offer even a wafer thin
possibility rather than say _possibly_, just possibly the UFO
_might_ be an alien spacecraft.

Besides which, where do you get your fifty years - nil score
from? Or is that conceding defeat?

--

    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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                  Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:54:44 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:04:01 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Jones


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:14:34 -0400

<snippy snip, snip>

Hi Jan

 >I was just being very flip. Stats are indeed useful, and there
 >are indeed valid and even more important, useful UFO stats.
 >However, most people do not understand statistics. Even those
 >that should, make outrageous gaffes when talking about UFO
 >stats.

On both sides of the camp methinks.

 >I don't want to give you the impression that stats prove
 >nothing. Properly used, statistics are insightful, powerful
 >tools, but just as any jackass can manage make something fit
 >together in the physical world by bull labor, so mental
 >jackasses can generate meaningless and misleading stats.

This is oh so true. Stats are a supporting tool in my book, but
they to, like Occams razor can cut both ways.

 >As for CISCOP, there is nothing wrong with it that a good dose
 >of critical thinking wouldn't cure. While we are at it, we
 >should order up a double dose for many ufologists.

<G> for sure. I think extremes on both sides of the camp should
get the sheep dip. Perhaps if the extremes on the left, ( _all_
UFO's are alien spacecraft) had three doses and those on the
extreme right, (_all_ UFOs aren't), had four, just for good
measure??

I remember when I did my Sociology A level, I got an A grade
because I was the only student who actually went out and asked
questions of Joe Q Public questions before writing what the
results would be. It still seams strange to me that people can
say "so an so will say such an such because of tish and tosh".
Yet almost daily here on this list we see people saying pretty
much that. Then they mis-use figure to back up what they have
said.

It's a fun game we are in, isn't it.

--

    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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                              Re: Belief - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:24:18 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:09:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Hall


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Belief
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 02:49:18 +0100

 >Regarding:

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Belief
 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:19:27 -0500

<snip>

 >Accusing debunkers, skeptics, the government, media, et al - or
 >whatever excuses for failure - serves only to deflect attention
 >elsewhere.

 >In truth, it seems that the latent fear is of mirrors.

 >So, it's time for a team talk and you're down fifty plus years
 >to nil...

 >It's tiresome and so transparent to keep blaming the pitch
 >conditions, the ball, the referee, the weather, your new
 >jock-strap, the crowd... where's your big play?

 >Don't have one? Never had one?

 >Here's a looking Klass, sorry, glass... ;)

 >Could it be that it reflects why even your detestable debunkers
 >and skeptics within ufology are always more successful when you
 >play in the sought-after 'ball park' of scientific and media
 >recognition?

 >And that's despite the proclaimed 'overwhelming' evidence ET is
 >here?

 >Can't win? Keep losing?

 >Reflect... but don't think you can shift the blame for that
 >everlasting failure on hard-working research within ufology.

 >Next time debunkers are mentioned, let's all give them the
 >credit they have won.


James,

Although Jerry is quite capable of dealing with your
semi-coherent remarks, I am so surprised that King James the
Umpteenth deigned to communicate with us ignoramuses on our
allegedly "believer" List that I am moved to make my own reply.
Whenever I offer to debate outright Scoffers like you (or even
more moderate debunkers), there are no takers. (Bob Young seemed
to accept, but I am still waiting.)

You continually attribute views and attitudes to us that are
quite false; you ignore and apparently pretend not to hear
arguments that tend to demolish your arguments (e.g., Socorro),
and on and on we go. For the most part, all I ever hear in reply
are insults and name-calling, especially behind my back on the
"skeptics" list. (Yes, I have spies everywhere!)

We obviously do not believe that everything sighted can only
have an ETH explanation. The evidence is "overwhelming" that the
psychosocial viewpoint is bankrupt and there are unexplained
"craftlike" things flying around in our atmopshere, not that an
ET origin is proven. I too have debunked a lot of nonsense in
the UFO field, but that is applied to specific incidents and
cases, not across the board as you seemingly do. Can you not
understand the difference?

Please cease playing your semantical games. We colonists are not
nearly as naive as you think.


Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                       Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:49:11 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:12:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:28:15 -0500

 >Jerry, John, Dick, List,

 >I hope no one minds if I chime in with my two cents...

 >One of the things that has always bothered me about some of the
 >best UFO cases (and by extension, the question of eyewitness
 >testimony/reliability) is their inherent lack of compatibility.

 >Viz, let's take four cases that I assume both Jerry & Dick would
 >take as indicative of the ETH:

 >1) Kenneth Arnold
 >2) Papua, New Guinea
 >3) Socorro
 >4) Coyne helicopter case

<snip>

Dennis,

I would like to preface my reply by saying that I consider you
to be a well-informed, literate, skeptic in the traditional
sense of that word, which I would simply define as, "He doubts,
but he is willing to listen to arguments and examine evidence."

That being said, since when should anyone be tasked with finding
meaningful patterns in only four cases? What I could do would be
to take each of the four cases you cite and show you many dozens
or hundreds of very similar reports (and there is some
objective, physical evidence in many cases). Let's take your
chosen examples one at a time:

1. Kenneth Arnold

Silvery objects flying in formation, undulating flight pattern?
Duck soup.

2. Papua, New Guinea

Craft-like object with basic disc shape, superstructure and
legs? Many hundreds of cases. Beings associated with "craft." No
problem.

3. Socorro

Elliptical shape (with legs). One of the most common reported
configurations. Beings alongside? Not uncommon at all.

4. Coyne helicopter encounter.

Typical configuration, typical body lights and light beam, etc.,
etc.

Also, I have "put my name behind" cases that I think are
hardcore, representative examples. I think you acknowledged
reading my ISSO article.

Now, I have said you are well-informed. But if you are not truly
aware of the many hundreds of reports of this type, maybe I will
have to withdraw that statement. Maybe you need to do some more
reading.


Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                    Filer's Files #16 -- 2000 [Complete]

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:10:44 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:16:56 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #16 -- 2000 [Complete]


Filer's Files #16 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
April 17, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

POWERFUL SOLAR FLARES INCREASE

On Easter Sunday, April 15, 2001, the sun erupted in one of the
most powerful solar flares ever with a X14-class explosion
climaxing a two-week wave of the largest X-class flares. The
source of the explosion is near sunspot group 9415 on the
western limb, so the blast was directed mostly away from Earth
which is lucky for us. The sun flare was nearly as powerful as
one in 1989 that triggered the collapse of a power grid in
Canada -- no such calamities are expected this time. A moderate
radiation storm is in progress as a cloud of electrified,
magnetic gas moves towards Earth. The activity comes from a huge
sunspot over a dozen times larger than the surface area of the
Earth. Visit Space Weather.com. http://www.spaceweather.com.
Strong solar activity is expected to continue and there is
speculation that large UFO motherships may move into the Earth's
atmosphere or under the water for protection. Our astronauts
were surrounded by water tanks aboard our space station to help
protect them from radiation hazards in space.

INCREASED UFO ACTIVITY in Connecticut, Virginia, Florida,
Illinois, Ohio, California, Alaska, Portugal and Australia.
There are a regular series of sightings of UFOs emerging from
bodies of water and splashing down into them. Frequently, lights
and other activity are observed and recently reports from the
former Soviet Union have been released indicating alien activity
under water.

CONNECTICUT BULLET-SHAPED UFOs

HAMDEN - The witness returned from shopping on March 20, 2001,
when her eight-year-old son, who was in the car, pointed up to a
large bullet-shaped object at 4:00 P.M. We got out of the car to
watch a thick stream of pinkish smoke or (gas) rise vertically
on the horizon. A few seconds later we saw a large bullet-shaped
flying object. It was very shiny and silver with one circular
ring around it's middle. The craft started to rise vertically.
We had great difficulty in not paying attention to it. I did not
seek the attention of any other people in the lot. It flew to
altitude and then flew horizontally to the left of us. There
were no flashing lights or sounds to be heard. We then got in
the car to follow as best we could in the direction it was
headed. We traveled approximately one-tenth of a mile to see
only a grayish line of smoke or gas in the sky. Peter Davenport
spoke with this witness, and found her story rather interesting.
We do not know what she saw, but the case is now in the hands of
MUFON/CT. for investigation.

HAMDEN -- Two hours later, at 6:00 P.M., another Hamden woman
reported that her son heard a very loud propeller sound over
their house. "He ran to the bay window," where, "he said he saw
a large missile-shaped object." The object was hovering just
above the treeline. He was quite certain that, "the object was
oblong, with two lights shining in an alternating fashion, one
blue, the other red." "The object was green and black."

HARTFORD - Two days later, on March 22, 2001, at 4:30 A.M., a
couple living on a residential street in, the state capital of
Connecticut, "were awakened by a light that lit up the entire
house. This lasted for a minute, then suddenly they heard a
whooshing sound, and it was all over." Thanks to Peter B.
Davenport of the National UFO Reporting Center. <A
HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC</A> <A
HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC</A> <A
HREF="http://www.UFOcenter.com/">National Reporting Center</A>

NEW YORK YANKEES COMMENTATORS SEE UFO

KANSAS SIGHTING -- MUFON investigator Troy Carm writes, "While
doing the play-by-play on air broadcast for the Madison Square
Garden Network Tuesday, April 10th, 2001, commentators Al
Trautwig and Ken Singleton related an encounter they had last
year." While commenting on the planes flying through the sky
over Kaufmann Stadium in Kansas City, Missouri, Ken Singelton
commented to Al Trautwig that those lights looked like the
lights they saw last traveling on I-70 to Kansas City after a
series in Chicago. Trautwig then commented that those (airplane)
lights are nothing like the ones they saw fly overhead. He
continued on saying that they had seen plenty of planes and
helicopters flying at night, but those lights were nothing like
it. Singleton commented that what ever they were they remained
unidentified, to which Trautwig responded, as most UFO sightings
are! Wanting to have this comment on tape, I recorded the MSG
replay from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m., but, as the comment was made
during a non-exciting time in the baseball action, it was edited
out on the rebroadcast, presumably to make the 3 hour game fit
into a 2 hour time slot. Thanks to Carmen McLaren FI MUFON Troy,
NY

VIRGINIA LARGE UNKNOWN OBJECT

SPRINGFIELD -- I'm writing to report a sighting of an unusual
craft on March 23, 2001. At about 8:40 p.m., I drove to a nearby
gas station from my home to get a pack of cigarettes. As I was
driving back home I noticed a very large craft of some kind
flying relatively low in the sky. It was about the size of an
audio tape long-wise, at arm's length. I saw two lights, at
first thinking that is was two airplanes flying side by side in
unison. Then I realized it was one large object when I saw a
small red light beside the far right light. As the object went
out of view behind some trees, I followed in my car for about a
minute and caught a better look from the rear. It was three
lights in a line with the small red light just a bit lower to
the right. As I watched the object trying to see if there was
any discernible shape to it, I noticed that there was absolutely
no noise coming from it. I live in an area between Reagan
National and Dulles International Airport and am familiar with
the types of planes ad helicopters that fly in this area. For
any plane to have been that size in my field of view, it would
have been making a recognizable deep rumble sound. This object
was higher up in the sky and was bigger that anything I have
ever seen fly anywhere. It seemed to glide though the sky
heading south when it went out of view. I was surprised that
nobody else saw this in my area given its large population.
Whatever it was, I think it was intended for people to see it
since it was so large and flying so low. Thanks to Peter
Davenport Director <A
HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC</A> FLORIDA GULF OF
MEXICO UFOs

DESTIN -- This happened a while back when I was shark fishing
late one night about two miles off the East jetty, when I saw a
small greenish-colored light on the horizon. At first I thought
it was the running light on another boat, but it was coming
close in to the shore at a pretty good rate of speed. When it
was about a mile out from me parallel to the shore, it suddenly
just stopped and stayed in one spot. After a few minutes, it
suddenly shot straight up into the air faster than I have ever
seen anything move. It shot up 2000 feet and just stopped again.
I went to get my camera out of the cabin but when I came back I
did not see it. I looked all around and saw it again on the
opposite side of the boat about a mile away. It was hovering at
50 feet or so. There is no way a plane can travel that fast and
that far in only 15 seconds. I watched for half an hour as it
seemed to play leap frog with me. It would shoot up and over me
back and forth from one side to the other. Some times it moved
so fast that the light would look like a blur moving across the
sky.

I spent a lot of time commercial fishing and some of the things
we saw out over the Gulf were downright weird. I asked my father
if he knew what they were and all he said was, "I hope that
Eglin Air Force Base is testing something." I saw something
similar about 100 miles off the coast one January night at 3:00
AM, I was up in the bridge of my dad's boat when I saw the
light. I looked at the radar to see if it was a boat on the
horizon. There was a small blip on the screen that disappeared
from the radar and reappeared behind us. I looked out the cabin
door and there was the light behind us that played leap frog for
about 30 minutes before it disappeared. Numerous times fishing
out there we saw lights in the sky doing strange things. Thanks
to WalterClwalter1

OHIO CYLINDER SHAPED UFO

CANTON -- The witness was casually observing starlit night sky
outside while at work on March 24, 2001. He observed 3 or 4
airplanes in night sky at 8:50 P.M. A regional airport is five
minutes from my observation point. I observed two faintly
visible, white, dim, non-blinking lights moving to the East
northeast at what I thought was an impossible rate of speed for
even a military jet. It was a fairly long object with one dim,
non-blinking light forward and one dim, non-blinking light at
the rear. No wing lights were visible although between front and
rear lights a very slight dim, white illumination seemed barely
noticeable along the edges of its body. The object was at about
60 degrees from my vantage point and covered about two-thirds of
the sky within five seconds or so. Suddenly the object slowed
down so very rapidly it barely seemed possible. It seemed to
just "coast" slowly for a second and it then just vanished.
Although sounds from the nearby airplanes could be heard, when
the object I saw darted across the sky, I thought I could hear a
faint, steady sound like a hum of some sort, but unlike that of
an airplane or jet engine. Thanks to Peter Davenport Director.
<A HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC</A> <A
HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC</A>

ILLINOIS HOUSE SHAKES DUE TO UFO?

GALESBURG -- Jane S. Derry writes, "I thought I was imagining
things until I read last weeks Filer's Files about the house
shaking in Taylorville and the man seeing a Flying Triangle over
his home on March 22, 2001. This triangular object also had
lights on the bottom of it and red lights along the back of it.
I was watching TV with my son on March 23rd, and all of a sudden
the house sort of shook, ONCE. It was really strange. There was
a rather muffled thud, and it was gone. I asked if Matt felt
that, and he looked at me oddly, like how could he not! The dogs
looked around worriedly, but didn't move. And then there was
nothing. I guess I should have gone outside, but they have been
here before! I live in Galesburg about 200 WSW of Chicago and
125 miles from Taylorsville. Thanks to Jane S. Derry
derryj@gallatinriver.net,

CALIFORNIA CHEVRON HOVERS OVER WITNESSES

GRANITE BAY -- While driving home on March 24, 2001, we saw a
very white bright point of light up in the sky, and realized
that it was coming towards us. The object had seven or eight
blinking lights on the side. As we got closer at 1:24 A.M., it
became apparent that it was either close to the ground or very
large. There were seven lights on the front in a chevron
formation. An eighth white, blinking light was in the back,
located two inches from the front most light in the front. The
front lights were various sizes of circles with a red light at
the "nose" of the object. The size of the circles were in no
apparent order, but were symmetrical in placement, i.e., a
medium was across from a medium, and a large light was across
from a large light. Once the object moved over the road, it
slowed down to a nearly complete stop and shot out what looked
like a faint spot light on the shoulder of the road at an angle
of about 45 degrees from either the center or one side of the
chevron. After the spotlight went out, the craft sped up,
crossed the road diagonally, and continued to move away from us.
I phoned my friend to tell him to get outside and see if he
could get a look. Thirty seconds later I spotted another object
shaped like a classic saucer. Sort of cigar, but more
saucer-shaped. It was moving over a field in the distance,
complete with blinking lights. It stopped and started and
followed the first object. My friend thinks it was a helicopter,
but I haven't seen helicopters with that many lights. I was very
excited yelling into the phone. I couldn't shut up about it,
while my friend didn't say much. I kept asking him if he had
seen, "That first one," shoot out the spotlight, and he would
say, "yea, he thought so." Thanks to <A
HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC </A>

ALASKA FLYING TRIANGLES

SEWARD -- Michael Harman writes that, "If you are interested in
seeing Flying Triangles, then Seward, Alaska is the place to be.
It is a virtual hotspot for UFO activity. My contact is seeing
black triangles flying over his home every night after 2:00 A.M.
He views them from his bedroom window using a standard pair of
binoculars and can easily see the triangular shape. What are
they and where are they coming from? If there is anyone from
Skywatch or MUFON in the area who could investigate it would be
appreciated. I need more people to observe the ongoing activity.
Thanks to Whitley Strieber & Mike_Harman@rocketmail.com.

AUSTRALIA RED UFO LANDS

QUEENSLAND -- A woman rancher saw a glowing red UFO land in a
paddock close to Beenliegh and Redland Bay Road near Logan, the
night of March 28, 2001. According to the Logan, newspaper,
"Dogs barked, birds squawked and horses bolted when a mysterious
bright object streaked across Logan's night sky, shining red
light over a rural property at 11:30 p.m." "Seeing the silent
red UFO has frightened and mystified property owner Tashma
Hosking Who said she heard it hit the ground minutes later after
it disappeared over a hill." "But her search of the area the
next day found nothing." Thanks to Diane Harrison of the
Australian UFO Research Network.

PORTUGAL TV CARRIES UFO SIGHTING

AMARES -- J. M. Mariojouls writes that RTPi, Portuguese
International Television reported on April 10, that the small
village of So Vicente do Bico in North Portugal was awaked by a
strange phenomenon. On March 18th, at 4:05 AM, witnesses said,
"It was like a big earthquake, we jumped through the windows to
get out of the house," Another saw the whole phenomenon from
outside: "the sky was like daylight, everything was lit like
during the day, but it was a strange light, like fluorescent,
with a bit blue/purple. It lasted for about three minutes and
then it all joined into a small light ball, like the moon. It
floated for four seconds and then it disappeared. I don't know
how to explain the way it disappears but it was very strange.
After the ball disappeared, there was an explosion, and the
ground shook very hard." Thanks to JM Mariojouls
jm.mariojouls@wanadoo.fr SI France

RUSSIAN UNDERWATER ENCOUNTERS

Researcher Paul Stonehill writes that there are numerous Soviet
accounts of strange objects beneath the surface of the sea. In
the summer of 1982, Mark Shteynberg, along with Lt. Colonel
Gennady Zverev, were conducting periodic training of the
reconnaissance divers ("frogmen") of the Turkestan and Central
Asian military regions. The training exercises had been taking
place at the Issik Kul Lake, a deep-water lake in the
Transiliysk Ala Tau area. Quite unexpectedly the officers were
paid a visit by Major-General V. Demyanko, commander of the
Military Diver Service of the Engineer Forces of the Ministry of
Defense. He arrived to inform the local officers of an
extraordinary event the had occurred during exercises in
Siberia. Frogmen had encountered mysterious underwater swimmers,
very human-like, but huge in size (almost three meters in
height)! The swimmers were clad in tight-fitting silvery suits,
despite icy-cold water temperatures. At the depth of fifty
meters, these "swimmers" were not wearing aqua-lungs, but
sphere-like helmets concealing their heads.

Alarmed by these encounters the local military commander decided
to capture one of the creatures. With that purpose in mind, a
special group of seven Soviet frogmen chased one of the str
ENCOUNTERS: ange swimmers. As the Soviet frogman tried to cover
the creature with a net, the entire group was thrown out of the
deep waters to the surface by a powerful force. The frogmen were
in danger of dying because they needed decompression stops to
equalize the pressure in their bodies. All of the members of the
ill-fated expedition were stricken by decompression sickness
known as the Caisson disease. The only remedial treatment
available was to place them in a decompression pressure chamber.
Unfortunately, the closest one could handle only two persons.
Four frogmen were put in the chamber and three perished, and the
rest became invalids.

The Major General rushed to Issik Kul to warn against similar
"devil-may-care" actions. Although the Issik Kul Lake is more
shallow than the Baikal Lake, both lakes contained similar
mysterious creatures. A short time later, the Turkmenistan
Military received an order from the Commander-in-Chief of the
Land Forces. The order consisted of detailed analysis of the
Baikal Lake events. The documents contained bulletins from
Engineer Forces listing appearances of underwater creatures in
numerous lakes, giant discs and spheres coming in and out of the
lakes, and powerful lights emanating from the deep, etc. The
documents were highly classified and were used, "to prevent
unnecessary encounters." Shteynberg served near the Sarez Lake
in the Pamir Mountains. The lake was roughly a kilometer and a
half deep. Sophisticated radar "tracking" of US SDI satellites
was conducted in this area. The radar repeatedly tracked disc
like objects diving and submerging into Sarez Lake, later they
surfaced and lifted off.

The Russian Ufology Research Center's files contain similar
statements of Naval officers and intelligence operatives. The
most interesting information will be published in the new book,
co-authored by Paul Stonehill and Philip Mantle. The secret
files of the Soviet Navy contain much valuable information on
UFO sightings. Soviet military researchers are quite thorough.
Mr. Krapiva, attended lectures by Soviet submariners who
reported contact with high speed underwater objects picked up on
Soviet sonar. Hdroacoustics technicians were, "hearing" (at
great depths) strange "targets". Their submarines were actually
being chased by other "submarines." The pursuers changed their
speed at will -- speeds that were much faster than any other
similar vessel in the world. Lieutenant-Commander Oleg Sokolov
informed his students that while he was on duty during his
submarine's navigation, he had observed through a periscope the
ascent of a strange object through the water and "Take off,"
during the 1960s.

Professor Korsakov of the Odessa University reported Soviet
officers from Sevastopol Naval Base had observed and
photographed a UFO ascend from behind a battle cruiser in the
Black Sea in the 1950s. In August 1965, a crew of the steamship
RADUGA, while navigating in the Red Sea, saw a fiery sphere dash
out from under the water. As the sphere emerged from the sea it
created a gigantic pillar of water as it ascended upwards. The
pillar collapsed some moments later. The sphere was sixty meters
in diameter, and hovered 150 meters above the ship illuminating
the sea. In December 1977, not far from South Georgia Island the
crew of the fishing trawler, VASILY KISELEV, observed a
doughnut-shaped object rising out of the sea. Its diameter was
between 300 and 500 meters causing the trawler's radar to stop
operating. The object hovered over the area for three hours, and
then suddenly disappeared.

In June of 1984, seaman Alexander G. Globa, from the Soviet
tanker GORI was in the Mediterranean, twenty miles from the
Straight of Gibraltar. At 16:00, Globa was on duty. With him was
Second-in-Command S. Bolotov. They were standing watch at 1600
hours when both men observed a strange polychromatic object.
When the object was astern, it stopped suddenly. S. Bolotov was
agog, shaking his binoculars and shouting: "It is a flying
saucer, a real saucer, my God, hurry, hurry, look!" Globa looked
through his own binoculars and saw, at a distance over the
stern, a flattened out looking that looked like an upside-down
frying pan). The UFO was gleaming with a grayish metallic shine.
The lower portion of the craft had a precise round shape of
about twenty meters. Around the lower portion of it, Globa also
observed "waves" of protuberances on the outside plating. The
base of the object's body consisted of two semi-discs, the
smaller being on top; they slowly revolved in opposing
directions. At the circumference of the lower disc Globa saw
numerous shining, bright, bead-like lights. The bottom portion
of the UFO appeared completely even and smooth, it's color that
of a yolk, and in the middle of it Globa discerned a round
nucleus-like stain. At the edge of the UFO's bottom, which was
easily visible, was something that looked like a pipe. It glowed
with an unnaturally bright, rosy color, like a neon lamp. The
top of the middle disc was crowned by a triangular-shaped
something. It seemed that it moved in the same direction as the
lower disc, but at a much slower pace.

Suddenly, the UFO jumped up several times, as if moved by an
invisible wave. Many lights illuminated it's bottom portion. The
crew of GORI tried to attract the object's attention using a
signal projector. By that time, Captain Sokolovky was on the
desk with his men. He and his Second-in-Command were watching
the object intensely. However, the UFO's attention was
distracted by another ship, approaching at the port side. It was
an Arab dry cargo ship, on it's way to Greece. The Arabs
confirmed that the object hovered over their ship. A minute and
a half later the object changed it's flight's trajectory, listed
to the right, gained speed and ascended rapidly. The Soviet
seamen observed that when it rose through the clouds, appearing
and disappearing again, it would occasional shine in the sun's
rays. The craft then flared up, like a spark, and was gone
instantly. Published in Zagadki Sfinksa magazine (Issue # 3,
1992) Odessa. Thanks to Paul Stonehill.

POPULAR MECHANICS COVER -- "WHEN UFOs LAND"

Science Editor Jim Wilson of Popular Mechanics Magazine has
written another great article about UFOs. I feel it is an
article you should not miss. The cover page of Popular Mechanics
headline reads: WHEN UFOs LAND. It goes on to say on page 64,
Startling Physical Evidence They Can't Explain Away. Jim writes,
"At long last, scientists have their hands on the proof skeptics
say does not exist." In headlines it says, "Most professional
scientists never bother to look at the evidence. Dogmatic
dismissals are taken at face value." Jim has data on French
government landings and samples of the Ubatuba debris. Thanks
Jim for a fair article about UFOs . It's very refreshing to see
a major magazine handle the UFO situation fairly. This issue is
worth buying to show your friends.

THE UFO - JESUS CONNECTION

David E. Twichell writes, "The ancient astronaut and Biblical
UFO hypotheses are not new. However, no one seems to want to
take the matter to the next logical step. If Ezekiel's, "wheel
within a wheel," and Moses', "pillar of fire and cloud," were
forerunners of today's UFOs, then the Star of Bethlehem and the
brilliant cloud to which Jesus ascended must be treated in the
same vein. When Biblical descriptions of anomalous aerial
phenomena are overlaid on that of modern-day UFO reports, the
picture seems to meld as one. Once the evidence has been
presented, the reader is led to a conclusion that is at best
convincing and at least thought provoking. Are you willing to
risk having your world view shaken? Read the preface free at:
http://hometown.aol.com/fi4mufon/myhomepage/index.html To order
your copy of THE UFO - JESUS CONNECTION, go to:
http://www.buybooksontheweb.com. Or Save the shipping charges
and order your autographed copy by sending a check or money
order for $13.95 (US) per copy to: David Twichell, P.O. Box 511,
Trenton MI. 48183-0511

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 a
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. 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

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 2001 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. 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. Caution, most of
these are initial reports and require further investigation.

Regards, George Filer













   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                            Re: Belief - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:21:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Tonnies


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Belief
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 02:49:18 +0100

<snip>

 >Although Kevin Randle debunked Glenn Dennis's pivotal 'Roswell'
 >claims and latterly co-wrote a book which was skeptical/critical
 >about certain aspects of claimed 'alien abductions', we wouldn't
 >expect 'believers' to categorise Kevin, and certainly not
 >Friedman or Clark, as skeptics or debunkers. Yet, they are.

I think a great deal of this is semantic noise. Debunking
something is perfectly acceptable - if the think being debunked
_is_ bunk. For example, I think the Billy Meier story is a lot
of bunk, and I think Kal Korff's book does a pretty good job of
debunking it.

True skepticism is possibly the highest intellectual state
someone can achieve. Skeptics can be debunkers, but, again, only
when the thing they're trying to debunk _is_ bunk and can de
demonstrated as such.

Kevin Randle is a skeptic. He finds weight in the Roswell case,
for whatever reasons, but doesn't find weight in the abduction
phenomenon, for whatever reasons. Whether or not his debunking
is justified is, in my opinion, an unknown at this point.

"Believers" are something else entirely. I have no respect for
"believers." Once you "believe" something is true, the circuits
in your brain that govern that aspect of your critical ability
atrophy and die. Ideally, we should hold everything in a state
of question.

(Stupid people say I "believe" in the Face on Mars, i.e. that I
think it's artificial. This isn't true. I simply think there is
good evidence to suggest that it very well _might_ be.)

Unfortunately, our mainstream media is very binary, and
collectively just doesn't _get_ that someone can be agnostic on
a highly charged subject. Everyone loves absolutes but retreats
from the gray area in the center because they're afraid of
having to actually think--and that's not good for ratings.


Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                 Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:00:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:27:25 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Aldrich



 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:39:29 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:34:52 -0400
 >>Subject: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

 >>"Ultra high silliness" is a new category to encompass a new
 >>silliness which is off the previous charts. The >belief< that
 >>one should not cite one's own works because there might be some
 >>economic benefit to the author or the non-availability of the
 >>work to the disputant requires a new ultra high silliness
 >>category.

 >>So if Dick Hall with nearly 45 years experience has selected a
 >>large number of cases that he feels merit attention in UFO
 >>Evidence II, he shouldn't be allowed to cite them, not from UFO
 >>Evidence II in any case, since the disputants won't cough up the
 >>money for it or won't ask the local library to obtain a copy.

 >I think you are commenting on the icing and not the cake, my
 >friend. You need to dig deeper.

 >Citing one's own work is fine, if the answer required is so
 >expansive that posting or repeating it would be prohibitive. I
 >don't think anyone on either side of the fence would argue that
 >point. The real problem lies with using this act as a dodge of
 >answering an otherwise simple question or as an excuse to avoid
 >clarification of a position on a debate they would lose ground
 >on by giving such a direct and, often, revealing answer.

 >What makes this all the more unsettling is such acts are
 >generally followed up by some feigned indignation that such work
 >was not referenced, in the first place; as if such texts were
 >holy scriptures and should be committed to memory or the like.

 >These are nothing but diversionary tactics, Jan. They do nothing
 >to promote intelligent discussion and only complicate the
 >context of a debate by bringing dialog to a screeching halt only
 >so everyone has to stop and look through a multitude of posts or
 >pages just to find out a yes or no answer. And, of course,
 >that's the real deception. Because the practitioners of this
 >tactic know that the majority of readers won't go to the trouble
 >to find the text or scrounge through the archives and, without
 >the answer, the debate stops before any real damage can be done
 >to the position in question. And, yes, I do get tired of being
 >"pitched" the latest book as part of the dodge.

 >Bruce Macabee is the only person I have ever seen on this list
 >that at least tries to give a direct answer which is only
 >followed by reference to past work when absolutely necessary.
 >Even then, he is kind enough to give a specific URL.

 >Everyone else seems to just say,"You mean you haven't read my
 >paper on blah, blah, blah" or some such nonsense. And what makes
 >it nonsense is the amount of effort they give to the dodge is
 >greater than it would take to simply answer the question, in the
 >first place. With the noted exception of Bruce's work, I haven't
 >seen anything referred to that couldn't have been answered in a
 >sentence or two.

 >And let's face it, with the exception of Bruce's work,
 >everything else is pretty much opinion, Jan. I don't need to
 >search through reams of other peoples' opinions just to get an
 >answer when I am in direct communication with them via this
 >list. That's the whole purpose of this list. Debate and
 >discussion. People shouldn't come to the table if they aren't
 >prepared to ante up. It's just a waste of time. All I want is a
 >straight answer to a direct question. If someone else has
 >already asked that question before, so what? All the easier it
 >should be to come up with the answer, right?

 >To assume that one's works are so important that everyone should
 >already know about them is pretty conceded. To refer to those
 >works instead of answering a simple question is not only a
 >dodge, it promotes an air of elitism that I find totally
 >offensive.


Roger,

My take on most of the posts in several related threads here
became nothing more than sophistry. Specifically, I am speaking
of "Council Proposal", "Serious Research", and others related
topics. It is obvious to me that many of the people involved
don't understand data reduction, statistics or the philosophy of
science involved here, nor have they gone much further than
repeating the mutterings of others equally ill informed.

Also, perhaps there is a required basic level of knowledge which
one should have prior to throwing one's two cents in the pot.

Of course, by cutting my message down to this one point, you
have tried to circumstribe my answer. Unh, uh, I am not having
that.

Once again, Dick Hall produced the UFO Evidence II, as his final
work on the subject. It also gives his views what is significant
in the subject and how the subject should be approached. So his
final summing up is out there, maybe to engage him you ought to
read it first! I expect if someone came after me when I had just
finished my magnum opus, I too would be inclinded to say go read
what I have written, I've already answered your questions.

That said my message was on the silliness generated here.
Mainly, what is hiding here is ignorance. Hynek was associated
with the USAF project for the longest time. He during his tenure
he was able to look see much of workings of the official inquiry
and afterwards he reviewed most of the cases contained in the
Project Blue Book files. That is experience that almost no one
else can claim. His impression and experiences have weight.
Then, to say that he has no statistics concerning his studies,
just shows the ignorance of the source here. Obviously, the
disputant hasn't read Hynek's works. I find this much like the
Corsophiles. Most of them haven't really read Corso either and
are only interested in disputing on the margins. (I have to say
here that Ed Gehrman did step forward to answer my Corso
challenge, even though his answer was not really a support of
Corso's central claim. Even though we agree on almost nothing, I
must admire his courage, considering all the cowardly little
puffballs who would not take any position.)

I would turn the tables on you in your last paragraph, if you
don't have the necessary knowledge to engage in a debate, maybe
it would be best to go do some research first!


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:19:21 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:16:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates


 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:18:05 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


<snip>

Roger wrote:

 >And, despite your "belief" or even your "belief system" (a petty
 >and over analyzed distinction), ET visitation has not been
 >proven. As such, it is currently folklore. To elevate it to a
 >status greater than that would be a "monumentally self-serving"
 >proclamation from someone that claims to be unbiased in his
 >views about the subject of UFOs.

Roger,

I guess the questions come back to: "What is proof?" and what is
a person and or scientific community willing to "accept" as
proof. In many instances the threshold is lower until you
mention the ET or UFO word, then suddenly the threshold climbs.

For years "science" claimed that the universe was 4 or so
billion years old, that was considered "scientific fact" never
to be doubted or challanged. In essence it was already proven.

Along comes Hubble. It shoots some photographs of what
mainstream science, astronomers, and other experts all say is
"older matter" that is in the shock wave of the big bang. They
tell us that this so called older matter is in fact about 15 or
so billion years old, so rather instantly science is now telling
us the universe is 15 billion years old, blah blah. The point
being is mainstream science is making this pronoucement not
based upon having "physical evidence" in hand (i.e. a sample of
the older matter that could be dated), but basing it upon
"interpretation of photos." If you started talking about UFOs
with some of these same scientists you would probably get all
sorts of mumbo jumbo about wanting to having an alien craft,
piece of debris to touch and inspect, about seeing or touching
an ET etc etc.

Then you have witness testimony. On one hand if a witness says
he or she saw a structured craft flying through the atmosphere,
etc we are told the witnesses were either mistaken, liars,
hoaxers, misidentified a natural phenomona. On the other hand of
it when a witness describes seeing a meteor many of these same
skeptibunkers take the testimony at face value, never challange,
dispute or question it an iotta.

So what is proof and what is folklore is something that main
stream science, much less anybody else has a hard time
distinguishing.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:22:17 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:19:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:39:44 +0100

<snip>

 >Once you did a data search for past similar cases (as I did) the
 >Chiles-Whitted case stood out as a very similar one. Not only
 >that but I had spoken at length about it to Allen Hynek, who was
 >involved at the time as the USAF science adviser. He told me
 >that he had always thought a meteor was a likely cause for the
 >Chiles-Whitted case and whilst he couldnt positively say that
 >was the answer at the time he became more persuaded as the years
 >went by.

 >So, my conclusions as to the meteor resolution being accepted
 >here were reasoned ones that had nothing to do with a debunking
 >mentality. This answer simply best fitted the facts of the case.
 >If it hadnt then I would not have considered it to be the most
 >appropriate answer.

 >That - to me - is not belief, nor being skeptical nor following
 >a debunking mentality. It is simply applying common sense to a
 >case, looking for the best possible answer - accepting when you
 >find one - but being aware (as always) that you could be wrong.
 >You are always only going to be able to make a sensible value
 >judgement. And here that sensible judgement is that this case
 >was a misperception of a meteor.

 >I would hope that is the kind of investigation methodology to
 >which we would all subscribe.


Hi Jenny,

A couple of things bother me about the Chiles-Whitted meteor
explanation. First of all the speed is all wrong for a meteor.
They estimated the speed at 700 mph. The other is that the
object pulled UP into clouds. Meteors don't do that either.

I find quite often that when a sighting can't be solved because
the presented eyewitness testimony gets in the way, then the
investigator or the expert starts throwing out eyewitness
testimony as he-she-they must have been mistaken. That's very
convenient but proves or disproves nothing.

Now if you are on quicksand already with the first sighting then
47 years later, I think it's a mistake to start writing off
another sighting [number 2] stating the faulty reasoning of the
first as a precedent. Again this is a case of the outside agent
second guessing the witnesses, and very credible and reliable
witnesses at that... with considerably more experience than the
"experts" at describing and encountering aerial phenomenon.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

              Eras News: 04-17-01 Image Study #1: More Cydonia

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:37:30 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:59:28 -0400
Subject: Eras News: 04-17-01 Image Study #1: More Cydonia


(Resend)

ERAS NEWS
The E-News Service of The Eras Project

http://www.geocities.com/erasproject

April 17, 2001

____________________________


The Mars Initiative:

Image Study #1: More Cydonia Artifacts? (M1700389)

by Paul Anderson

April 17, 2001


Web version of this report with correlating images:
http://www.geocities.com/erasproject/imagestudy1.html


A primary focus of The Mars Initiative and The Eras Project is
the continued study of the thousands of images that have been
returned by Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) and other probes, joining
the effort that many independent researchers and research groups
have taken on. In recent years and even recent months, many of
these images have shown features (including, but as well as the
famous Face and Cydonia region) that _may_ be interpreted as
evidence of past or even current life, ranging from possible
vegetation to ancient ruins of some by-gone civilization. It is
the opinion of TMI / TEP that such an investigation is not only
worthwhile, but important. TMI / TEP's own findings and analysis
will be put forth in an on-going series of Image Studies which
will be posted to the TEP web site as new information and
discoveries warrant. This is done in an effort to make such
information publicly available; others can then make up their
own minds and form their own conclusions or do comparison
studies.

This first image study is based on a newly-released (April 4,
2001) photo from the Cydonia region (M1700389), a short distance
west of the Face and City area. Near the centre of the image
strip, a grouping of three bright 'mounds', common in this
region, show evidence of possible 'structures' of some kind on
them, similar to other features which have been identified
previously by other researchers in this same area. The premise
is that if there are large-scale artificial objects (ie. Face,
D&M Pyramid, Cliff, etc.) in this area, then logically we may
expect to find many smaller features scattered on the landscape,
on more of a terrestrial scale in terms of size.

The main object appears to be either hexagonal or pentagonal in
shape, based on visible shadowing and relief. A smaller 'dome'
can be seen on top as well as a linear protrusion off one
corner. The long axis of the object lies along the main axis of
the mound itself.

Next to this, again in line with the mound's axis, is a
'fivespot', set of five (or possibly more) much smaller objects
in a general square or rectangular configuration, resembling the
'city centre' or 'crosshairs' seen in the City area to the east.
These objects may also be set in a shallow rectangular area on
the top of the mound.

At the other end of the mound is another object, the shape of
which is less discernable, but having a general linear
appearance. The other two mounds have what may be similar
objects to this on top of them as well.

In between the second and bottom mounds in the image is a set of
possible linear markings resembling rows of smaller objects,
like stones or boulders (?), perhaps similar to stone monument
configurations in Britain, Easter Island, etc.

Further study of other images may reveal similar objects of
interest (several already have been, as noted above), in the
Cydonia region or elsewhere.

All inclusive images are taken from the high-resolution,
non-mapped version of the original MSSS image.

Original NASA / MSSS image:

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m13_m18/images/M17/M1700389.html


Related links:

Other Mound Features
http://www.geocities.com/macbot/moundsphotos.html


THE MARS INITIATIVE

The Mars Initiative is a special research project of The Eras
Project, advocating the continued exploration of Mars, including
a manned mission and eventual colonization as part of mankind's
next steps outward into the solar system and beyond; a major
focus of TMI is the search for and examination of evidence for
life, past or present, on this the most earthlike of the nearby
worlds


____________________________


Eras News is the e-news service of The Eras Project, providing
the latest news and reports relating to the leading-edge issues
of our time in science and technology and their possible present
and future implications as we enter the 21st Century and a new
Era, as well as other periodic information and updates on
TEP-related news, projects and events. Eras News is available
free by subscription:

To subscribe to Eras News, send your e-mail address to:
erasnews-subscribe@listbot.com


You can also subscribe or unsubscribe from the TEP web site:
http://www.geocities.com/erasproject/erasnews.html

Eras News Archive:
http://www.listbot.com/archive/erasnews


THE ERAS PROJECT

Suite 202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC  V5T 2M9  Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/erasproject


� The Eras Project, 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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:36:33 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:36:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:28:15 -0500

 >Jerry, John, Dick, List,

 >One of the things that has always bothered me about some of the
 >best UFO cases (and by extension, the question of eyewitness
 >testimony/reliability) is their inherent lack of compatibility.

 >Viz, let's take four cases that I assume both Jerry & Dick would

 >1) Kenneth Arnold
 >2) Papua, New Guinea
 >3) Socorro
 >4) Coyne helicopter case

 >If we assume that all the witnesses of same were spot on, the
 >first thing that leaps immediately to mind is how disparate the
 >cases are, one from another. For example, apart from the UFO
 >aspect itself, I defy anyone to delineate any commonalities or
 >patterns in the above cases. The best one can do is to say that
 >entities of some sort were reported in both the Papua and
 >Socorro cases, but beyond that, what?

 >Plop those on the desk of any self-respecting, practicing
 >scientist, and I can almost guarantee that his or her first
 >response will be, "this is all very fine, but what am I supposed
 >to _do_ with it? Re-interview the witnesses involved?"

Hi,

This is a very valid point - and I tend to agree that it is a
primary reason why science tends to remain on the outside
looking in at ufology - with notable (and welcome) exceptions,
of course.

Partly this is inherent within the fact that ufology is not 'a
phenomenon' but a collection of phenomena. I wouldn't mind
betting that at least half a dozen different things are involved
in creating the UFO data and it about time we woke up to that
realisation. Because it is pointless looking for patterns in a
rag bag of cases  that comprise ufology - within which there are
(for instance) some that probably describe peculiar atmospheric
effects, others maybe unknown types of energy, a few may be
phenomena of consciousness that we have not identified, as yet -
and so on - up to and including a few that just might point
towards some other intelligence at work.

Scientists would never understand the nature of the nuclear
reactions that cause the sun to burn if they spent 90% of their
time debating what is going on on Pluto or an ice moon of
Neptune.

But that's what ufology does all the time. Argue the whys and
wherefores of cases that very often have no relevance to the
sorts of questions ufologists tend to ask about them.

This is one of the reasons behind the ideas I discuss in my
column in the April 2001 MUFON Journal. Here I propose that we
need more focused ufology - especially through the medium of our
conferences.

It is great fun meeting colleagues and hearing the latest
rallying call from the 'big guns', or news of what happened over
Pittsburgh last month etc. But in terms of progressing ufology
conferences tend to be social functions not at all maximising
their opportunity to set an agenda and use the fact that we have
a captive audience of thinking ufologists together for a few
days.

Of course, there are reasons. Conferences tend to be organised
by UFO groups who need to attract paying customers who will foot
the lecturers and admin bills and who may also become future
members of the group. So you simply have to aim the conference
at the public not at ufology.

So why does ufology have so few conferences set up to 'do'
something and to which the attendance of the public is not even
part of the strategy?

For this is how we would progress ufology and overcome the
problem raised by Dennis.

If we selected a type of case that is consistent - for example
the car stop - as the pure focus of an event - we could get
somewhere. Cases like this have a very homogeneous set of
features. Science would clearly be interested - if it was asked
to consider them without all the other distractions that ufology
brings. And any working conference set up to exclusively study
these cases and to ask - and answer - clearly defined questions
'just' about such cases could make a stab at looking closely
into a data base that probably all sings from the same hymn
sheet rather than a dozen different songs in half a dozen
languages.

Sadly, whilst ufology continues to look into the subject in its
current 'free for all' approach the sort of confusions to which
Dennis rightly points will continue to deter serious
participation from the kind of outsider who really could make a
difference.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                  Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:08:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:54:29 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Evans


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:00:37 -0400
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Aldrich

 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:39:29 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

Previously, I had written:

 >>Citing one's own work is fine, if the answer required is so
 >>expansive that posting or repeating it would be prohibitive. I
 >>don't think anyone on either side of the fence would argue that
 >>point. The real problem lies with using this act as a dodge of
 >>answering an otherwise simple question or as an excuse to avoid
 >>clarification of a position on a debate they would lose ground
 >>on by giving such a direct and, often, revealing answer.

 >>What makes this all the more unsettling is such acts are
 >>generally followed up by some feigned indignation that such work
 >>was not referenced, in the first place; as if such texts were
 >>holy scriptures and should be committed to memory or the like.

<big snip of things that don't even begin to address the issue>

Finally, Jan wrote:

 >I would turn the tables on you in your last paragraph, if you
 >don't have the necessary knowledge to engage in a debate, maybe
 >it would be best to go do some research first!

I rest my case, Jan.

True to form, your last paragraph seems to be the defacto answer
to any opposition, now. If someone doesn't get in line with the
UFO elite, the standard position is that one is "uninformed" and
hasn't read the literature or they would quite naturally agree.

Is it even remotely possible in your mind that someone has read
the literature, done some research and simply doesn't see eye to
eye? More to the point, you spent the majority of this post
defending someone's right to cite past work if the answer to a
given question was gong to be extensive; something that I took
no issue with. My beef was abuse of this technique to avoid
answering shorter, simpler questions or even flat out refusals
to address the issues presented. Your own avoidance in
addressing this issue, in this very post, only drives home my
point. Thanks for making my job easier.

As far as I'm concerned, your reply has only proved my point the
one must agree with the UFO elite or be pegged as one of the
"uniformed" that hasn't done enough research to know the error
of their ways.

Typical.

(my best Johnny Bravo)
Hoo-ha! The wind generated from all this head noddin' is messin'
up my hair, momma.

Roger Evans









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                       Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:13:58 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:56:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall


 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 07:12:19 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:04:28 -0000

 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>However, I have put down equally flippant and dismissive answers
 >>>in written questionnaires. What was this questionnaire? Who
 >>>produced it? Was it a seriouis scientifically designed survey,
 >>>or some junk from a 'flying saucer club'? Was Menzels's reply
 >>>returned as a serious answer, or as a way of dismissing it?
 >>>Hynek's quote is completely unattributed and uncheckable.

 >>John,

 >>It so happens that it was my questionnaire. And I can confirm
 >>the accuracy of the response attributed to Menzel. A chapter of
 >>the American Psychological Association had invited me to
 >>participate in a panel discussion of UFOs, and I was
 >>specifically asked to talk about "UFO databases." So I sent a
 >>questionnaire around to obtain some numbers (some of Bob Young's
 >>"statistics") and included the question about what each person
 >>thought should be done with unexplained UFO reports.

 >>Menzel replied exactly as reported (I still have a file on the
 >>whole affair), and if that is not a blanket dismissal of
 >>eyewitness testimony, I don't know what it is. Now it's "30
 >>years old." So what? The chronological cutoff date is entirely
 >>arbitrary on your part. Klass, Oberg, and "true disciple"
 >>followers like Posner have carried on the clearcut pattern of
 >>summarily dismissing eyewitness testimony as worthless.

 >It's the word "worthless" which worries me. Maybe "inaccurate",
 >maybe "confused", maybe "ambiguous", maybe "subjective", but if
 >they thought it was "worthless" why would they waste time on the
 >topic. Whatever you think about Klass, he can hardly consider
 >such evidence "worthless" or he wouldn't have put so much time
 >into it.

John,

Nice civil discussion so far! Okay, I'll go for some semantical
fine-tuning and agree to "not to be taken seriously" or "not
strongly evidential" or something similar (perhaps
"meaningless"). The main point is that they reject eye-witness
testimony; discard it as if it were worthless and/or meaningless
and use that as a basis for debunking UFOs.

As for Klass: "Alas, poor Klass, I knew him Horatio!" You make a
good point indirectly: why does someone who insists that there
is absolutely nothing of significance to UFOs spend so much time
on the subject? The probable answer has already been touched on
in past postings. He is on a "crusade" to save science from
irrational ufologists. He has even been known to indulge in
character assassination in his zeal.

 >Do you consider eyewitness testimony of ghosts "worthless", or
 >do you consider the huge amount of such testimony to be evidence
 >of an actual external visual object? There is probably more
 >eyewitness evidence of ghosts - including photographs and
 >multi-witness cases - than there is of UFOs. This is not a trick
 >question, nor an attempt to spin off another endless round of
 >responses on UpDates. I would just like to know.

I have not studied ghost reports and cannot comment on them.
However, if there were some substance to the reports, it would
never be discovered by scoffers and debunkers who tend to throw
out the baby with the bathwater regularly. Also, I frankly doubt
that that the evidence for ghosts is as strong as that for UFOs
but am not sufficiently familar with the literature to be sure
about that. If the evidence is equivalent, in principle I
probably would want to take a good, skeptical (open-minded,
inquiring, but doubting) look at it. Except that I don't have
the time in this lifetime.

 >I don't think an arbitrary cut-off date of thirty years is
 >completely irrelevant, as the natutre of UFO research and UFO
 >scepticism has changed over that period of time. In response to
 >a couple of requests elsewhere, I have been looking out some
 >articles from old magazines from the fifties and early sixties.
 >UFO research has changed quite a lot since then, in some cases
 >for the better, some for the worse. If challenged to produce a
 >silly quotation from a ufologist I do not think it would be fair
 >to quote, say, Brinsley le Poer Trench's ramblings of the 1960s.
 >However, I asked for some quotes, Jerry's given them.

I have lived the same period and experienced the changes, and
have written about them to some extent. Silly quotations from
"ufologists" (people who call themselves that) can be found on a
daily basis throughout the pop literature. I could easily supply
silly statements from Andy Roberts, James Easton, or practically
anyone you wish to nominate who is in the same league or
tradition with Menzel and Klass as UFO scoffers.


Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:15:03 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:58:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger


 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 07:38:01 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:12:54 -0400

 >>My question is on a significantly different subject - how we
 >>know when to accept witness testimony, and when to disregard it.
 >>I suspect that biases of various kinds can enter that
 >>discussion. You're happy to talk about unreliable witnesses when
 >>there's a UFO sighting. But now let's suppose that you're robbed
 >>on the street. The police ask you to describe the person who
 >>robbed you. In that circumstance, if you trusted your memory, my
 >>guess is that you'd hope the police believed your testimony.

 >>Now let's say the police arrest someone because of your
 >>description. You successfully identify the person in a lineup.
 >>(If you have lineups in Britain - I don't pretend to be an
 >>expert on British police procedure.) But when the case comes to
 >>trial, the defense attorney tells the jury to disregard your
 >>testimony, citing Werner von Braun as evidence that witnesses
 >>are unreliable.

 >>You'd be annoyed, perhaps?

 >We've had this legal analogy a couple of times before on
 >UpDates, and it's no more relevant now than it was then.

 >Of course defence lawyers challenge eyewitness testimony all the
 >time, and often with good reason: "The witness was confused, it
 >all happened in a few seconds", "the witness was in an emotional
 >state", etc., etc., etc. Yes, we do have line-ups in Britain,
 >and yes, identification testimony is challenged. I doubt that a
 >lawyer would have to cite such an obscure (to him) character as
 >Werner von Braun as evidence, just one of the many hundreds -
 >thousands - of cases in Britain and the US where innocent people
 >have been found guilty. And, although it's rather more difficult
 >to document, probably more cases where guilty people have walked
 >free!

 >So let's have no more of this silly analogy!


I doubt very much if anyone is going to see Gregs point as
silly. Only debunkers when they are trying to prove their case.
Of course eye witnesses are important and the basis for the
prosection of most criminal cases. Attempts by yourself and
others like you- truely silly people like those hired guns
Klass, Condon and Menzel- had attempted for years to make light
of the witnesses, discount them in an attempt to explain away
most UFO incidents but they just keep on coming don't they-the
same as they keep getting criminals convicted.

The simple truth is John is that they have as much validity in
their testimony regarding UFOs as they do in a court of law. You
just can't separate one one from the other.

Mind you I can see why this would upset you and Easton.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:32:52 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:02:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger


 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:56:00 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

<snip>

 >Would you now like me to post dozens of examples of sceptics who
 >have looked carefully at eyewitness testimony and found it
 >invaluable in determining the stimulus responsibe for UFO
 >sightings?

 >Probably not, and it would be irrelevant to the point that
 >Jerry's original claim, and Menzel's quoted dismissals are both
 >as silly as each other! (Or maybe, could it be, no, not possible
 >- both were being a little bit flippant about people they didn't
 >have much time for?)


The problem is John we come at a case from two different
perspectives. I go in looking to see if this report has any
merit. Many do not and you know that very early on. Some do but
after some checking around you might find a reason to discount
it-not because it's necessarily solved, but because it's
borderline and you just don't have the time to discover one way
or the other if it's going to have legs. Then there is the third
type-usually the in your face type that is hard to pigeon hole.
Those take up most of your time.

A debunker goes in without any information whatsoever and thinks
- lets see how we can trash this case. And it's usually a word
game with no real merit.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                         Re: Serious Research - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:07:25 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:05:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:47:52 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Bob,

I hate to leave this long reiteration of our exchange so far
because of the space it takes, but I guess it is necessary in
this instance.

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 15:46:45 -0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:45:57 EDT
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research - Young

 >Hi, Dick, Folks:

 >On another thread here the other day, Dick remarked, "While
 >waiting patiently for Bob Young to engage me in debate about
 >the merits of the agreed-upon UFO cases..."

 >Income Tax time is over, so let's get down to it. For readers
 >of an intermediate age who, like me, no longer have good
 >intermediate length memories, I'll review the situation:

 >In a December 1999 article, The Science of UFOs: Fact vs.
 >Skepticism, found at:

 >http://www.isso.org/inbox/science.htm,

 >Dick listed 20 UFO incidents, which he said demonstrated:
 >structured objects and tangible effects; maneuvered motion
 >and intelligent control; "aggressive encounters"; physical
 >and physiological effects; propulsion physics & technology,
 >such as body lights, light beams, brilliant illumination,
 >propulsion clues and flight patterns.

 >He wrote, "UFOs as craft--as someone else's technology--is
 >one important hypothesis that could be tested. (In my estimation,
 >it is the most likely hypothesis to be proven true.)"

 >I proposed,

 >>>could we agree that irrespective of what may occur next week,
 >>>or next month or next year, that each of these 20 incidents
 >>>contains evidence that you believe can best be explained by
 >>>the presence of craft made by someone or something else?

 >>>This proposition can be a working hypothesis. Then, all that it
 >>>needs is proof.

 >Dick responded,

 >>For my part, I agree to confine the discussion to the 18 main
 >>cases cited in the ISSO article (19 & 20 were merely
 >>illustrations that certain features had also been reported by
 >>others). We can let others decide on which of us makes the more
 >>convincing case for our respective positions. I expect you to
 >>offer convincing explanations in mundane terms for those 18
 >>cases, or at least to convincingly cast doubt on their validity
 >>in some way. They form the basis of my generalizations.

 ><snip>

 >>You are the one with the obsession that each case on its own
 >>must prove the ETH. My position is and always has been that it
 >>is the cumulative evidence of many hundreds of cases of the type
 >>illustrated in this article (see UFOE-II), and associated
 >>physical evidence of various types, and recurring patterns
 >>closely similar or identical to the cases illustrated in this
 >>article, are what make the ETH the most likely interpretation.
 >>For purposes of the present debate, I am willing to base my
 >>argument on these 18 cases.

 >>Just to be perfectly clear, I never claimed that these cases and
 >>the many hundreds like them prove the hypothesis; only that they
 >>strongly suggest or indicate that the ETH is a very reasonable
 >>(in my estimation very likely to be true) hypothesis.

 ><snip>

 >>My full and complete case is presented in great detail in my
 >>book. The ISSO article represents a much condensed but
 >>reasonable sample that will (or should) allow a reasonable
 >>discussion.

 >OK, I understand your position. I am willing to discuss these
 >cases and evidence, but I'm not sure about the conditions.

 >Even though you do not want to be held to the requirement that
 >each case offer proof of the ETH, you insist that I must meet
 >that standard (although for a now, curiously, reduced number of
 >only 18 cases), and that I must offer a convincing explanation
 >for each, in order to falsify your ETH hypothesis.

Why shouldn't you be required to offer convincing explanations?
Is not the fact that they cannot be explained that is important
as a basis for the ETH? And if you desire to include the other
two secondary cases, that's fine by me. If we are not going to
discuss the merits of the individual cases, what is it that you
think we should discuss and why?

 >Originally in this thread you insisted that the IFOs
 >(Astronomical IFOs, in particular) had nothing to say about
 >these remaining "unidentifieds". It seems to me that while
 >hiding among what you call the "cumulative evidence" in making
 >your generalization, you deny me the right to offer
 >generalizations using the IFOs, which are, after all,
 >_Identified_ (proven?) evidence.

In philosophy class, we would call you a Sophist. I did not say
what you attribute to me. If you can convincingly explain any of
these cases in astronomical terms, more power to you. Feel free
to try. You were talking percentages and "statistics." If you
are going to approach this debate by merely generalizing about
problems of eyewitness testimony and not addressing the specific
cases as to how they can be explained in those terms, what good
is that? That amounts to a sweeping rejection of all eyewitness
testimony (some supported by objective evidence) without
bothering to study the individual cases. By the way, IFOs often
are simply applied labels and not necessarily convincing
explanations.

 >I could, for example, argue that the cumulative evidence for any
 >UFOs being ET craft is overwhelmingly (perhaps 98 or 99 to 1)
 >that these are prosaic events, and that it is your
 >responsibility to present evidence that each one of these 18
 >cases cannot fit that pattern because they have been ID'd as an
 >ET craft. (Note how close this is to my original position).

This is such a nonsensical statement that I am beginning to
wonder if any debate or discussion is possible. You seem to
forget that I was a math minor and logic and scientific method
student. What sort of sleight-of-hand "statistics" are these? It
also totally ignores my carefully stated position on the facts,
evidence, and logic of reasoning about UFOs. You're back to the
argument, essentially, that unless I can bring a spacecraft into
the laboratory there's no evidence of anything.

My "responsibility" is to show you the cases I base my views on,
which I have done. Your responsibility, if you are serious about
debating their merits, is to talk about those cases
individually, not to try to invoke your prejudices via
meaningless generalizations and phony "statistics."

 >The other thing is that it is really not my responsibility to
 >offer evidence for alternate explanations, although these may
 >come to light as the examination of each case proceeds. It is
 >you, as the proponent of the hypothesis, to do this. For
 >example, the 1997 Sturrock Panel questioned the presenters about
 >the evidence for specific cases and this is what would happen if
 >any other scientific panel were to review your evidence.

Bob, are you really serious? Do you really think good UFO
investigators don't screen cases and constantly look for
alternative explanations. You are the one claiming or implying
(without investigation) that they can be explained. Therefore,
it clearly is your responsibility to say how--specifically. I'll
be glad to help you out with some proposed alternative
explanations since I've already been through that process, but
it is not my RESPONSIBILITY to do so. You can question me all
you like about specific cases. That's reasonable.

 >I'm perfectly willing to discuss each one of the 18, but it is,
 >after all, your responsibility to present evidence to support
 >your hypothesis.

I have and I am providing evidence, but you seem to be
determined not to understand my argument. Let me put it this
way: IF these witnesses are not mistaken and are reporting with
substantial accuracy what they saw, what would be your
hypothesis? Science (as you ought to know) always is involved in
"If...then" propositions.

 >The problem is, of course, that since you have 50 years worth of
 >reports to choose from it is not only likely, but probable that
 >one or more of these will, by itself, remain "unidentified",
 >even if we and everybody else on the List debate it for another
 >50 years.

Sigh! What can I say? Are you crawfishing or do you want to
debate?

 >Even though you didn't want to be pinned down on percentages of
 >IFOs vs "UFOs", I think that most reasonable people - and
 >experienced investigators of UFO reports - would agree that
 >there is some smallish fraction of _reports_ that will always
 >remain unknown for a number of reasons, such as lack of
 >information, or the passage of time, for example. I believe that
 >studies, such as Hendry's for CUFOS, GEPAN's for the French, and
 >the Air Force's effort, have shown that this percentage can be
 >quite small (less than 10%, possibly only a couple percent).

Again, those percentages are completely meaningless. There is no
"lack of information" in hardcore UFO cases and what does "the
passage of time" have to do with anything?

 >I'm willing to begin discussion of each of these cases if you
 >are in agreement that the burden of proof of the ETH hypothesis
 >you have put forward wrests with you.

Of course the "burden of proof" of the ETH would rest on me if
that were the topic of discussion. I thought I had made it amply
clear that my argument is meant to "prove" or establish that the
ETH is a reasonable hypothesis (and therefore UFOs require much
more aggressive scientific study). I have never claimed that I
could prove the hypothesis. My basic posiiton is and always has
been that the type of evidence I am citing establishes that UFOs
are a real, non-trivial phenomenon the best available hypothesis
for which is the ETH.

So I'll take you at your word. Let's start "discussion of each
of these cases."


Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                  Formosa, Argentina Shaken By UFOs (or MIR

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:58:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:09:29 -0400
Subject: Formosa, Argentina Shaken By UFOs (or MIR



SOURCE: La Cronica de Buenos Aires
DATE: April 18, 2001

FORMOSA SHAKEN BY UFOs

Formosa - The sudden appareance of a UFO startled residents of
the far west of Formosa, who had been ready since last Monday--
with still and video cameras-- to record the object's next visit
as a "souvenir".

The first two visits took place on Monday morning and afternoon
in a number of locations, while yesterday morning "we had a
beautiful sighting which moved all of the onlookers," stated
Hector Perez, a resident of the town of General Mosconi, located
some 630 km west of the capital and who operates the locality's
only telephone.

"Today (meaning yesterday) when it appeared, [the sky] was still
dark, so it was seen as an intensely red object, very strong,
and it remained in the sky for about an hour as of 6 a.m.," he
explained.

 From the village of El Potrerillo, close to General Mosconi,
Aidee Elias also indicated that they were able to see "a UFO in
the sky at around 10 a.m. and later at 3 p.m." on Monday.
According to her description, the object resembled "a sort of
silvery balloon that generated white flashes as it ascended.In
the afternoon, it became lost in the sunlight."

Different residents of Western Formosa agreed on the object's
shape and time of each sighting, but there were discrepancies
regarding the shade of color, which some claim was red while
other say it was white. A professional photographer who visits
the location occasionally allegedly took impressive slides while
the UFO headed toward Oran in the province of Salta. Likewise,
in the neighboring location of Ingeniero Juarez, Ricardo Monzon
also used a camera to record the phenomenon which caused such
surprise in western Formosa.

The astonished residents of General Mosconi and Ingeniero Juarez
took to the streets to observe the phenomenon "since 10 a.m.
yesterday, when a strange, round, silvery and shiny object
appeared in the sky, and it followed the movement of the sun."
According to Hector Perez from General Mosconi, a village of
1000 people. Quite surprised by the apparition, residents tried
to find an explanation to the event and gather more details
about the object. One local remarked: "We looked at the object
through rifle scopes and we could make out a halo around the
object, which emitted multicolored flashes like they show in the
magazines."

Student Ricardo Monzon claimed that "it had permanent movements
and appeared to be following the sun. I stopped by the police
department and found [the officers] staring at the sky. I asked
them what was going on, and when they told me, I ran out to get
a camera to take a souvenir photograph."

##########################
Translation (C) 2001. S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special Thanks to Marisela Grezner, CEUFO.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                Mexico: Alleged Chupacabras Attack in Tizimn,

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:39:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:11:20 -0400
Subject: Mexico: Alleged Chupacabras Attack in Tizimn,



SOURCE: Por Esto! (newspaper)
DATE: April 13, 2001

MYSTERIOUS ANIMAL DEATHS AT RANCH

All Blood Removed. No Traces Of Culprit. Has The Chupacabras
Struck Again?

Tizimin Yucatn, 11 April � A strange event  took place in a
ranch known as San Isidro Dzoila, owned by Mr. Esteban Osorio
Mena, located to the north of the Tizimilan commune of Chan
Cenote, where 23 birds (chickens and turkeys) were mysteriously
exsanguinated .

The discovery was made by a young manager, Jose Abraham Canul,
who has worked on this estate for nine years. When interviewed,
he explained that upon reaching this ranch last Tuesday morning,
he realized that within the area used as a henhouse, completely
enclosed by a cyclone fence, lay dead 23 birds with fang marks
on their half-detached necks. Their brain matter also appeared
to have been sucked out.

When an effort was made to find an answer to this uncanny event,
he proceeded to inspect the other animals in their pens and was
startled to find the remains of a two month old colt bearing
fang-marks on its throat and which had also been exsanguinated.
This caused Canul to notify his boss immediately to witness the
gruesome finds.

Canul alsom appeared before the 15th Agency of this city's
Public Ministry in order to report the evens, thinking that
someone might have slain the animals. His account was given
little importance, and he was told that if his claim involved a
homicide, proper attention would be forthcoming.

Frustrated by the negative attitude and shaken by the event, he
returned to the ranch, where more residents of the Chan San
Antonio commune had turned up--spurred by curiosity and
incredulity--to view the macabre scene, which left them
practically stupefied.

Each of the individuals present, said Canul, embarked on the
task of finding the prints of any vicious animal capable of
attacking the fowl. Thousands of questions fluttered within
everyone's head in an effort to find an answer to the
inexplicable. Canul recalls that a similar event had taken place
at a neighboring ranch, some 3 km. away,  only a month and a
half ago. On said occasion, all of the animals (also fowl) had
died under similar circumstances, presenting fang-marks on their
bodies.

It was also reported that the event at said ranch had occured
three days after the full moon, and that in this occasion, three
days had also elapsed from the full moon before the birds at
this ranch experienced an attack.

Canul remarked that on said occasion, the person in charge of
the neighboring ranch quit his job for fear of being attacked.
He added that on the premises of San Isidro Dzoila, where he
works, there are several caves nearby and that a bat may have
attacked the animals.

Ranch owner Esteban Osorio Mena, a respected businessman from
Cancun, stated that if he had not seen the dead animals with his
own eyes he would not have believed it. He cannot explain how
the attack was possible, since the henhouse is completely
enclosed and access is only possible through a doorway.

In order to avoid contagion, the dead birds and animals were
dumped into an abandoned well. All that remains now is to find
an explanation for this strange event.

######################
Translation (C) 2001. Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special thanks to David A. Triay, Centro de Analisis de Fenomenos
Espaciales (CAFE)>









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:49:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:14:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 07:38:01 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Of course defence lawyers challenge eyewitness testimony all the
 >time, and often with good reason: "The witness was confused, it
 >all happened in a few seconds", "the witness was in an emotional
 >state", etc., etc., etc. Yes, we do have line-ups in Britain,
 >and yes, identification testimony is challenged. I doubt that a
 >lawyer would have to cite such an obscure (to him) character as
 >Werner von Braun as evidence, just one of the many hundreds -
 >thousands - of cases in Britain and the US where innocent people
 >have been found guilty. And, although it's rather more difficult
 >to document, probably more cases where guilty people have walked
 >free!

 >So let's have no more of this silly analogy!

It's important to understand why I made the analogy.

You might have noticed that (a) I agree that witness testimony
can be inaccurate, and (b) didn't contend that it's never
doubted in criminal cases.

The question I raised was very different. I asked us all to
examine when we find ourselves raising questions about witness
testimony. Rhetorically, I asked Clarke to consider two
occasions. (1) He's been the victim of a crime, and can describe
the person who robbed him. (2) He hears about a UFO sighting.

I'm guessing that in case (1) - or in related cases, when
someone close to him identifies a criminal - he's not terribly
likely to doubt the witness testimony. (Especially when he's the
witness.) In case (2), he routinely doubts it.

My contention, in other words, is not that witness testimony is
more reliable, or never challenged, in criminal cases. It's that
skeptics doubt it far more quickly in UFO cases than they might
elsewhere.

More generally, I'd say that our assessment of witness
reliability is partly based on our emotions. We're more ready to
accept it when we want it to be true, and less likely to accept
it when we'd rather it was false. This applies just as much to
UFO believers as to skeptics. (So the test then is to see who
looks at witness testimony most rigorously - and I don't think a
kneejerk questioning of it in UFO cases is truly rigorous.)


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:56:08 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:35:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:56:00 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Would you now like me to post dozens of examples of sceptics who
 >have looked carefully at eyewitness testimony and found it
 >invaluable in determining the stimulus responsibe for UFO
 >sightings?

Yes.

I'd very much like to see that. And I mean it - this isn't one
of the rhetorical challenges so tiresomely prevalent on this
list.

We could also make lists of skeptics who declare witnesses
didn't see what they reported, in order to make the skeptic's
explanation of the sighting work. (Klass, for instance, said
Coyne didn't operate the helicopter the way he said he did;
Sheaffer said Betty Hill didn't see lights in the sky in the
positions she said she did.)

One reason I'm curious to see your list, John, is to see how
often, in your citations, the skeptics actually discount part of
the witnesses' testimony. (Yet another example, from recent
discussions on the Project 1947 list - skeptics who say police
officers chased Venus in their squad cars, when they thought
they were chasing a UFO. In one case, to make that work,
skeptics had to ignore the testimony of officers who say the
object passed right over them at close range.)


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      NASA Unveils Futuristic Aircraft

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:57:10 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:37:04 -0400
Subject: NASA Unveils Futuristic Aircraft


Hi Listers,

Here is the latest excuse for something unusual in the sky
whether Experimental or UFO note the number of prototypes and
the nature of their disposition!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010418/aponline201905_000.htm


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                        Re: Serious Research - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:16:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:38:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Sandow


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:47:52 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I'm willing to begin discussion of each of these cases if you
 >are in agreement that the burden of proof of the ETH
 >hypothesis you have put forward wrests with you.


Dick can easily handle his side of this discussion. But I can't
resist noting that two discussisons are confused here. First
discussion: Are there unknown craft flying around? Second
discussion: If there really are unknown craft flying around, do
they come from other planets?

Dick offered his 18 cases as part of the first discussion. If I
read him correctly, he doesn't say he has proof of the ETH. He
does believe he has proof that unknown craft are flying; the ETH
is his hypothesis to explain those unknown craft.

So he's met the burden of proof. He has 18 cases that he thinks
prove what he's trying to demonstrate. It's now Bob's turn to
show why these 18 cases don't demonstrate what Dick says they do.

But instead of doing that, Bob now changes the subject. He wants
Dick to prove the ETH - something that, to my knowledge, Dick
has never claimed he can do. By defining the discussion this
way, Bob gives himself a huge advantage, because no one can
prove the ETH.

Mark Cashman, who's busy with his professional life right now,
used to be very helpful in these discussions. He'd insist that
we debate what he called the "objectively existing hypothesis"
(I hope I've got him terminology right). Or in other words the
hypothesis that unknown flying objects do in fact objectively
exist. Any consideration of what they are or where they came
from, Mark would point out, would have to come later.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                 Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:01:10 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:46:00 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors


 >From: Rogers Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:43:11 -0500
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Evans

 >>Previously, Wendy wrote:

 >>FWIW...I know Dick Hall, Jan Aldrich and Jerry Clark personally.
 >>I've spent time with each in long discussions as well as
 >>socially, visited them at their homes, some have been in mine.

<snip>

 >Hi, Wendy!

 >Again, the cheering section brings down the stands. More proof
 >that, if someone doesn't agree with the UFO elite, then that
 >person is "uninformed" and has no right to an opinion. At the
 >very least, you claim that they have "more" right to an opinion
 >than others.

"Cheering section?" Wrong use of terminology, Roger. If you ask
Dick, Jerry or Jan you will immediately find I've gone around
the mulberry bush with them over things until the poor weasel
popped. I confess I admire their efforts and their expertise,
but don't think for a moment that I hold them up on a pedestal
and do the homage routine. If they are reading this they are
probably rolling around on the floor in hysterics. In other
words, we've all gotten down and dirty with each other at times,
but the difference is that we respect each others work and
contributions. It certainly does not mean in any stretch of the
imagination hero worship or any such tripe. They do have a more
honest right to an opinion on ufology in all its forms based
solely on having done the research, rather than those who have
not or failed to unbiasly read their contributions. My bookshelf
contains many examples of their acumen and research...I don't
see anything by you on the shelf. Therefore, your opinion comes
from the List rather than from your contributions to research. I
do not always agree with certain opinions that they express than
I do with the spittle from the pulpits of religion, but I can't
foolishly dismiss their positions on ufology because it is based
on research they have accomplished and not because I believe
they are wrong on principles sake. Huge difference.

 >If anyone should be ashamed, it is you Wendy. For starters, you
 >make an assumption about my own research and investigative
 >skills and accomplishments. You don't know me. All you know is
 >that I don't always see eye to eye with the people you admire. I
 >find it odd that I never mentioned these guys names in the
 >previous post. Yet, somehow, you knew _exactly_ who the guilty
 >parties were!

Nope, I'm not the least bit ashamed of myself. My work is on the
shelf with theirs and footnoted to the max so that what I have
researched is available, along with my conclusions based on that
research and open to scrutiny by anyone in the field of ufology.
Does that make me an elitist? Ha! Just means I DO the research
too. Speaking of admiration, yes, I'm guility. I do admire
people such as Dick, Jan, Jerry, Jenny R., Jenny Z. and others
who speak from personal knowledge and research rather than
opinion based on gamesmanship in the field of semantic
discourse. Any intelligent person would. Seems to me that Satan
should be admired solely on the concept that anyone who can be
the spiritual head of most of the human race and political head
of all of it must have some type of executive abilities that
should be acknowledged. But that does not mean I condone the
methodology of evil intent inherent in the concept of Satan.

 >Thanks for making my point. If the connection is that obvious to
 >someone as over zealous as yourself, then there must be
 >something to my beef, eh?

My goodness you certainly are arrogant to think I made your
point for you. You leave your own road apples on the road of
discourse. Take credit for your own droppings or at least clean
it up as you pass along on your trip. "over zealous?" Nah, just
thumping the dolt as an old lady is wanton to do from time to
time.

 >Again, referencing past work is okay if that is the _only_ way
 >to answer a question.

Having followed your thread and the silliness it has brought
does, indeed, show that referencing their work was a gracious
way to tell you that you don't have a clue and are a waste of
time to discuss the merits of anything with you. You have a
closed mind and it is obvious. You prattle along only to hear
yourself and to make you feel good that you are, in your own
mind, the master of your universe.

 >But you and I both know that isn't the case.

Wow, again! You are assuming that you can do my thinking for me
and that I agree with you? Not a chance, pal.

 >More to the point, it is rarely the case when it comes to this
 >List. What you perceive as "expertise" is often just
 >posturing for the sake of the cheering section.

Your statement is so ludicrous it was a waste of effort to write
this sentence.

 >What you consider "semantic game playing" is generally a
 >frustrating attempt to get a simple answer to a simple question.
 >And the "elitism" that elludes you manifests itself on a
 >regular basis in the form of demands that skeptics should, for
 >some reason, disprove folklore or their arguments don't amount
 >to anything.

Wrong assumption on your part, as usual. Actually, you're
getting pretty good at doing it. However, the simple answer was,
"read my research to get the total concept of why I make this
assumption" (paraphased). You obviously haven't done so and
expect them to coddle you with long discourse before you've made
yourself ready to ask specific questions. Nothing elitist about
it. I am the only ufological historian to ever be granted an
interview by Dr. George E. Valley, Jr. (don't dare ask me who he
was...you should know if you are a ufologist, skeptic or
debunker) before his death. I was prepared for the interview but
he was not kind or gentle to me in the least. Hardest person
I've ever had the privilege of interviewing. Point here is that
if you want the answer, expect to do your homework before
bothering the person. Your question was, indeed, kind of simple.
The only fault with it was that you didn't ask it because you
wanted an answer (you already formed your own opinion). You
asked it via some kind of hidden agenda. You want to use them to
make yourself feel more powerful. There is nothing sincere in
the questions you've posed to them. Think that might be the TRUE
reason you were given the answer you received? You assume that
people should cow-tow to your whims, but unfortunately for you,
Dick, Jan, Jerry, et. al. are smart enough to know your stinky
bait only. I've followed your pathetic thread and it didn't take
a rocket scientist to figure out what your personal agenda
involves.

 >I don't deny that your guys have done a lot hard work. But it
 >doesn't make their conclusions any more sacred than >>anyone
 >else's.

Yes, indeed, they have done a lot of hard work and shared it openly with
everyone in the field. Gifts of blood, sweat and tears are more "sacred"
than the fluff of an opinion. The difference is their opinions
come from
doing the research and reaching their conclusions and opinions. A major
difference to be sure. If your conclusions are to be more than personal
opinion, you need to back up why you've come to the conclusion you have. You
have not done so and they have. It makes not one iota whether their
conclusions are right or wrong. The difference is that they went way beyond
opinion and based it upon research and not just personal belief. It is
documented so people, such as yourself, can have the references to peruse
and use to base your own conclusions upon.

 >After all, did they do the work just so that everyone would
 >have to agree with them?

I really doubt that they did any such thing. Remember, I know
them personally. Do you? If not, you haven't a clue about them
and flitting around like a bat with a malfunctioning radar
system.

 >If so, then they should post a disclaimer before each debate
 >that says, "It's okay to access my hard earned information, but
 >you have to agree >with me, if you do." I can remember coming to
 >this List and reading Jerry Clark drilling Ed Stewart over that
 >very attitude. Ed has _tons_ of research, Wendy. Should we all
 >agree with him because of the sheer effort he put into amassing
 >it?

If you expect a "disclaimer" being posted by them, then you
should have a big disclaimer attached to your question. For one
thing, you asked a question. Asking a question does not equate
to a "debate." At no time in this entire thread have I seen that
any of them are demanding anyone to agree with them. That
assumption is voo-doo and only in your own mind.

 >If you can't understand that, then you are clearly missing the
 >point, Wendy.

No, I didn't miss the point. I admit openly that I have trouble
understanding the points you are trying to make because they are
obtuse and willy-nilly.

 >I believe in the possibility of ET life and ET visitation
 >despite the lack of proof for the ETH.

Then why make silly demands for answers from them when you've already come
to your own conclusion? That does not make any sense whatsoever and
certainly proves you are a person of inappropriate hidden agendas.

 >As such, I'm ashamed of nothing except the ego driven elitism
 >that seems to perpetuate an "us against them" mentality which
 >you, yourself, are a perfect example of. If I don't agree with
 >your position, then I am one of the unfortunate "uninformed"
 >that has less of a right to an opinion than those that nod there
 >heads in unison before the UFO high priests and their sacred
 >texts. One might as well prove that the Red Sea was parted or
 >that water was turned to wine.

I think you should be more ashamed of your own ego-driven need
to be something you are not and your obvious jealous tendencies
to want to trounce on those who have accomplished something and
shared it with humanity (does not make any difference once again
that they are right or wrong... they published their findings and
backed up why they have come to the conclusion they have) and
you haven't. Wanna play with the "Big Boys" in the sandbox? Do
your homework and be sincere.


Wendy Connors








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:10:49 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:48:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:59:14 -0500

 >>And lest we forget, however much the pelicanists want us to:

 >>Donald H. Menzel on witness reliability: "I submit that [Dr.
 >>James E.] McDonald's interviews of more than five hundred people
 >>who have reported UFOs have no scientific validity whatever."
 >>(In Sagan and Page, UFOs: A Scientific Debate)

<snip>

 >In the second quotation, is it clear from the context (I don't
 >have Sagan and Page's book any more) whether Menzel is talking
 >about the actual eyewitness reports as raw data, or the way it
 >was presented via McDonald's interviews?

John, Jerry, List:

In the above mentioned Menzel quotation, the final period was
actually a comma, followed by, "except to confirm his
[McDonald's] well-known bias in favor of ETH and against the Air
Force and myself and other nonbelievers. Similarly, Hynek's
indexes of 'credibility' and 'strangeness' are equally
subjective." (Sagan and Page, UFOs A Scientific Depate, p. 136).

On the preceding page, 135, Menzel had written, "McDonald's sole
contribution to the study of UFO's - as far as I can ascertain -
has been his reinterviewing of more than five hundred UFO
witnesses. These interviews, clearly biased in favor of the ETH,
have contributed nothing to our knowledge. They are hightly
subjective and have served only to crystallize the observer's
earlier interpretations of his observed sighting. This is not
science."

Clearly the fragmentary quotation cited by Jerry was made in the
context of what Menzel's saw as the subjective, not objective,
nature of McDonald's witness interviews. It was _ not_ just a
statement about witness reliability, which was what this thread
was discussing.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

----------------------------------------------------------------
"First the facts, then distort them as much as you want." Mark Twain
----------------------------------------------------------------









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:20:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:50:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:19:21 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates

 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:18:05 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

Previously, I had written:

 >>And, despite your "belief" or even your "belief system" (a petty
 >>and over analyzed distinction), ET visitation has not been
 >>proven. As such, it is currently folklore. To elevate it to a
 >>status greater than that would be a "monumentally self-serving"
 >>proclamation from someone that claims to be unbiased in his
 >>views about the subject of UFOs.

Robert replied:

 >I guess the questions come back to: "What is proof?" and what is
 >a person and or scientific community willing to "accept" as
 >proof. In many instances the threshold is lower until you
 >mention the ET or UFO word, then suddenly the threshold climbs.

 >For years "science" claimed that the universe was 4 or so
 >billion years old, that was considered "scientific fact" never
 >to be doubted or challanged. In essence it was already proven.

 >Along comes Hubble. It shoots some photographs of what
 >mainstream science, astronomers, and other experts all say is
 >"older matter" that is in the shock wave of the big bang. They
 >tell us that this so called older matter is in fact about 15 or
 >so billion years old, so rather instantly science is now telling
 >us the universe is 15 billion years old, blah blah. The point
 >being is mainstream science is making this pronoucement not
 >based upon having "physical evidence" in hand (i.e. a sample of
 >the older matter that could be dated), but basing it upon
 >"interpretation of photos." If you started talking about UFOs
 >with some of these same scientists you would probably get all
 >sorts of mumbo jumbo about wanting to having an alien craft,
 >piece of debris to touch and inspect, about seeing or touching
 >an ET etc etc.


Hi, Robert!

I understand the point you are trying to make; to a degree I
agree with you. However, the example you give about the age of
the universe is a good example of "theory" being presented as
"fact" to make a point. You wrote:

 >For years "science" claimed that the universe was 4 or so
 >billion years old, that was considered "scientific fact" never
 >to be doubted or challanged. In essence it was already proven.

I have never read where science has accepted the age of the
universe as fact. I have always seen it as an "estimate" or a
"theory" for the very reason you follow up with:

 >The point
 >being is mainstream science is making this pronoucement not
 >based upon having "physical evidence" in hand (i.e. a sample of
 >the older matter that could be dated), but basing it upon
 >"interpretation of photos."

To this date, the information from Hubbell is still being
studied and the age of the universe is still under question.
Therefore, there is no "fact" or "proof" regarding the age of
the universe. Look at it this way: If the age of the universe
had been settled at 4 billion years old, then why was there a
need for the Hubbell telescope, the primary function of which
was to help determine the age of the universe and the
characteristics of its beginnings? Obviously, the Hubbell
telescope didn't just "come along" by accident. It was created
because scientists knew their data was incomplete and the age of
the universe was still in question.

Now, in all fairness, there is much in the way of photographic
evidence regarding UFOs that also warrants scientific study. I
have never claimed there wasn't. The reasons for this lack of
study isn't really the point at hand (though the UFO elite try
and blame skeptics for said lack of scientific study every
chance they get). I merely maintain that, regardless of the
reason, there has been no scientific conclusions regarding the
issue of ET visitations. For better or for worse, it is still
only a theory, just like the age of the universe is only a
theory. And, like studies of the universe, there is new
information all the time. But, in the end, any proclamation
about either is only a guess.

Regarding your position:

 >Then you have witness testimony. On one hand if a witness says
 >he or she saw a structured craft flying through the atmosphere,
 >etc we are told the witnesses were either mistaken, liars,
 >hoaxers, misidentified a natural phenomona. On the other hand of
 >it when a witness describes seeing a meteor many of these same
 >skeptibunkers take the testimony at face value, never challange,
 >dispute or question it an iotta.

I will agree that _some_ skeptics will do this just as _some_ in
the believers camp will take witness testimony of a UFO at face
value. The real issue, here, is the attitude of the larger
group(s) on both sides of the fence. I tire of the UFO elite
quoting statements from people like Klass or Menzel as if
rational skeptics have shrines to these men in there homes and
membership cards in their hip pockets. These guys are not as
influential as the UFO elite would like everyone to believe; a
belief that is important to maintain the "us against them"
scenario.

I've been with this List for about three years and I have yet to
see skeptics, as a group, take a hard line position that witness
testimony is worthless and can be discarded without a thought.
However, if you read through the archives of this list, that is
the common fall-back position when the UFO elite get backed into
a corner about witness testimony. What I have seen is that most
skeptics believe that witness testimony should be validated
before is it taken as fact.

What makes my head swim is that such validation should be
welcomed by the pro UFO camp but that seems to _never_ be the
case. If the notion of validation is brought up, they circle the
wagons, shake chicken bones and start chanting old quotes from
Klass and Menzel, as if that is supposed to embarrass serious
skeptics enough to scare them away from the issues at hand.

The bottom line is that there are a lot people out there that,
like me, believe in the possibility of ET visitation and ET life
and want to get past all the rhetoric and posturing that goes on
in both camps. The UFO elite say that rational debate is a good
thing and that debunking can be useful. The only problem is that
_they_ reserve the right to decide what is rational and what has
or has not been debunked.

Finally, Robert wrote:

 >So what is proof and what is folklore is something that main
 >stream science, much less anybody else has a hard time
 >distinguishing.

Nonsense. Proof can be quantified. Folklore can not. More to the
point, anything not proven as fact is folklore, theory,
hypothesis, a healthy guess; call it what you want. But
something has either been proven as real or it has not. Oh, it
might make the pro-UFO camp feel better about themselves to call
UFO folklore the "Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis", but a rose by
any other name is still a rose. The UFO elite simply don't want
to deal with the thorns.

But thanks for a straight forward, direct to the point post on
this topic. I find it refreshing.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:21:47 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:54:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:22:17 -0300
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:39:44 +0100

 >>Once you did a data search for past similar cases (as I did) the
 >>Chiles-Whitted case stood out as a very similar one. Not only
 >>that but I had spoken at length about it to Allen Hynek, who was
 >>involved at the time as the USAF science adviser. He told me
 >>that he had always thought a meteor was a likely cause for the
 >>Chiles-Whitted case and whilst he couldnt positively say that
 >>was the answer at the time he became more persuaded as the years
 >>went by.

 >A couple of things bother me about the Chiles-Whitted meteor
 >explanation. First of all the speed is all wrong for a meteor.
 >They estimated the speed at 700 mph. The other is that the
 >object pulled UP into clouds. Meteors don't do that either.>>

Hi Don, Jenny:

The problem is that I thought the object came toward the plane.
If the meteor was glowing, it had to be at a height of at least
20 miles, thus much, much further away that they thought.  They
had no way of knowing the actual speed of what they saw,
particularly since they didn't know what it was.


Clear skies,

Bob






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:21:46 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:55:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:19:21 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:18:05 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >I guess the questions come back to: "What is proof?" and what is
 >a person and or scientific community willing to "accept" as
 >proof. In many instances the threshold is lower until you
 >mention the ET or UFO word, then suddenly the threshold climbs.

 >For years "science" claimed that the universe was 4 or so
 >billion years old, that was considered "scientific fact" never
 >to be doubted or challanged. In essence it was already proven.

 >Along comes Hubble. It shoots some photographs of what
 >mainstream science, astronomers, and other experts all say is
 >"older matter" that is in the shock wave of the big bang. They
 >tell us that this so called older matter is in fact about 15 or
 >so billion years old, so rather instantly science is now telling
 >us the universe is 15 billion years old, blah blah. The point
 >being is mainstream science is making this pronoucement not
 >based upon having "physical evidence" in hand (i.e. a sample of
 >the older matter that could be dated), but basing it upon
 >"interpretation of photos."

Robert, Roger, List:

The Hubble pixs (not photographs, incidentally) resolved dimmer,
and presumeably more distant and red shifted, objects.  Thus
better instruments provided new and better (older) data.  This
is what changed the apparent distance, and hence age, of the
Universe.

Some day, perhaps, new more sophisticated instrumentation will
show the images of UFOs more clearly, I suppose.

Of course, then, the pro-ETH'ers will raise the barrier higher,
suggesting a continuing mystery.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                 Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:21:45 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:57:20 -0400
Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Young


 >From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:13:16 -0700

 >The latest issue (#8 - February 2001) of Barry Greenwood's
 >newsletter, the U.F.O. Historical Revue (UHR) is now on-line and
 >available for your viewing in both HTML and .PDF formats.

 >Articles include: "Questions on a 1953 Cape Cod Mystery,"
 >"Censorship: The Kirtland Fireball Catalog," and an "Extract:
 >History of the 57th Fighter-Interceptor Wing (1950, Alaska)."

 >To access this (and earlier issues) of UHR, go to:

 >http://www.cufon.org/

Jim, John, Listers:

This is an always informative publication, and website.
I noticed two little tidbits, today.

Tidbit #1 - In the current issue article about the Kirtland Air
Force Base list of 1946-1950 Green Fireballs, Barry Greenwood
discusses a possible case of Air Force Censorship. In the 1970s
ten years after the list was declassified the assessment of
eyewitness credibility and the evaluation of the sighting were
apparently blacked out. He suggests that this may have made the
list more mysterious than it was. The list was obtained through
the Freedom of Information Act, which was passed and went into
effect in the early 1970s. It requires the deleting of
information identifying private citizens for privacy reasons.

I suggest that this privacy concern may be why this was done in
these cases.

Tidbit #2 - On the website, Don Johnson's interesting list of
"UFO hotspots" in the U.S. provides some food for thought. I
notice that in Pennsylvania there are only two, the most
prominent being Westmoreland County, just east of Pittsburgh.
Both of these locations are where active UFO investigators are
based. Westmoreland County has been the location of Stan Gordon
and his groups for the past 20 years.

Unless the ETs have redlined the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
for some reason (maybe they are allergic to coal dust), it seems
that the population of potential witnesses is not nearly as
important as the population of investigators who stimulate and
collect reports.

Just a thought on this beautiful spring day along the
Susquehanna River.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

              Eras News: 04-19-01 - Enhancement of New Cydonia

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:26:27 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:59:21 -0400
Subject: Eras News: 04-19-01 - Enhancement of New Cydonia


ERAS NEWS
The E-News Service of The Eras Project

http://www.geocities.com/erasproject

April 19, 2001

____________________________


The Mars Initiative:

Image Study #1 Update: Enhancement of New Cydonia Mound Artifacts
(M1700389)

by Paul Anderson

April 19, 2001


Web version of this report with correlating images:

http://www.geocities.com/erasproject/imagestudy1a.html


Researcher Chris Joseph has kindly done a preliminary
enhancement of the 'artifact'-like features on the main mound
discussed in the previous TEP article (Image Study #1) a couple
days ago, found by Paul Anderson of TEP in newly released (April
4, 2001) MGS image M1700389. The enhancement helps to bring out
additional shadowing and 'structural' details. This group of
three anomalous mounds in the Cydonia region is just a short
distance west of the 'Face' and 'City'.

Based on initial study, the image is looking down from almost
directly overhead (emission angle 0.21 degrees from the MOC
data). Each pixel in the image is approximately 4.63 meters by
4.35 meters in size (a pixel aspect ratio of .94). Further
enhancements should help to correct this discrepancy, for a more
accurate view of these objects. This is a preliminary
enhancement only, to help bring out surface detail.

Also, as pointed out by Rick Sterling, there is a set of the
controversial 'tube-like' features in close proximity to these
mounds. Mac Tonnies has shown that these mounds may be part of a
larger 'layout' incorporating other unusual mounds similar to
these in Cydonia, including in the immediate vicinity of the
'Face' and 'City'; geometric features have also been found
previously by various researchers associated with these other
mounds as well.


Original report:

http://www.geocities.com/erasproject/imagestudy1.html


Original NASA / MSSS image:
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m13_m18/images/M17/M1700389.html


THE MARS INITIATIVE

The Mars Initiative is a special research project of The Eras
Project, advocating the continued exploration of Mars, including
a manned mission and eventual colonization as part of mankind's
next steps outward into the solar system and beyond; a major
focus of TMI is the search for and examination of evidence for
life, past or present, on this the most earthlike of the nearby
worlds

____________________________


Eras News is the e-news service of The Eras Project, providing
the latest news and reports relating to the leading-edge issues
of our time in science and technology and their possible present
and future implications as we enter the 21st Century and a new
Era, as well as other periodic information and updates on
TEP-related news, projects and events. Eras News is available
free by subscription:

To subscribe to Eras News, send your e-mail address to:
erasnews-subscribe@listbot.com

You can also subscribe or unsubscribe from the TEP web site:
http://www.geocities.com/erasproject/erasnews.html

Eras News Archive:
http://www.listbot.com/archive/erasnews


THE ERAS PROJECT

Suite 202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC  V5T 2M9  Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/erasproject


� The Eras Project, 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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clarke

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:06:37 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:02:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clarke


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:12:54 -0400

 >>From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:33:51 +0100

 >>Are we to label Jenny as a "debunker" simply for suggesting a
 >>reasonable explanation -or is it better simply to perpetuate
 >>mysteries for the sake of it?

 >Of course not. And as I wrote in my post, the meteor explanation
 >seems entirely reasonable. My complaint with Klass is his
 >contention that the light sighted was "unequivocally" a meteor -
 >that he was _certain_ a meteor was involved, rather than just
 >suggesting the possibility (or even probability).

 >And, of course, when I pressed him on this point, his final
 >answer was that it had to be a meteor, because there aren't any
 >"anomalous structured craft" in our atmosphere.

 >What's your comment on that reasoning? And on Phil's certainty
 >that the sighting was caused by a meteor. I'd be curious to
 >know, since these were the main points I made in my post.

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the message. I agree that the fireball meteor
explanation seems the most reasonable, given what we know of the
circumstances and probabilities.

I don't feel I should be expected to comment upon what Phil
Klass said or didn't say, it's not for me to justify someone
else's statements or viewpoints.

All I can give is my own viewpoint which dovetails with that
which Jenny recently posted in reply to my message, viz:

<snip>

 >So, my conclusions as to the meteor resolution being accepted
 >here were reasoned ones that had nothing to do with a debunking
 >mentality. This answer simply best fitted the facts of the case.
 >That - to me - is not belief, nor being skeptical nor following
 >a debunking mentality. It is simply applying common sense to a
 >case, looking for the best possible answer - accepting when you
 >find one - but being aware (as always) that you could be wrong.
 >You are always only going to be able to make a sensible value
 >judgement. And here that sensible judgement is that this case
 >was a misperception of a meteor.

What more is there to say?

 >>"...a lifetime spent with testing of guided missiles has taught
 >>me to be extremely careful with eye-witness accounts on rocket
 >>firings running into some in-flight trouble.

<snip>

 >I had a very similar conversation with Phil. I don't dispute
 >that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. Can we just
 >stipulate that we both agree about that, and not give further
 >examples.

But why not give further examples if this helps us to resolve
problematic cases? It may well help investigators ask questions
of witnesses and evidence that have been overlooked and that may
offer vital clues to help resolve them.

 >My question is on a significantly different subject - how we
 >know when to accept witness testimony, and when to disregard it.
 >I suspect that biases of various kinds can enter that
 >discussion. You're happy to talk about unreliable witnesses when
 >there's a UFO sighting. But now let's suppose that you're robbed
 >on the street. The police ask you to describe the person who
 >robbed you. In that circumstance, if you trusted your memory, my
 >guess is that you'd hope the police believed your testimony.

 >Now let's say the police arrest someone because of your
 >description. You successfully identify the person in a lineup.
 >(If you have lineups in Britain - I don't pretend to be an
 >expert on British police procedure.) But when the case comes to
 >trial, the defense attorney tells the jury to disregard your
 >testimony, citing Werner von Braun as evidence that witnesses
 >are unreliable.

 >You'd be annoyed, perhaps?

As the whole question is based upon a false premise whether I
would be annoyed is hardly a consideration!

Let me put it simply: we know that robbers exist, we don't know
that ETs in rocket ships exist.

If the robber has been arrested, fits my description and is
present in the identity parade then he or she exists, and may
well even confess to the crime.

If I had described the robber as an 8ft bright green alien who
swooped down in a saucer, snatched my wallet and made off into
the night, then the same rules of evidence hardly apply do they?
Plus I feel the defence might be justified in dismissing my
evidence as "unreliable" !

So what I am saying is that a defence attorney would have no
case that my evidence was unreliable unless he or she could
demonstrate that I was psychotic, that his or her client had an
alibi or there was no forensic evidence etc - all fundamental
concepts which the judge, defence, prosecution etc share as
common values in our society.

In a case such as a robbery there may be additional evidence for
example witnesses, fingerprints, blood, DNA etc. So far we have
no additional evidence in relation to UFO claims: we are left
with the eyewitness testimony that we agree is very often
unreliable.

For additional background on problems with witness testimony see
Allen Hendry's excellent UFO Handbook.

The days when we accept eyewitness testimony as unimpeachable
without independent evidence, and without natural caution, is
the day that we return to the witch-trials and witch- burnings
which characterised the Middle Ages.


All best wishes

Dave Clarke








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                 Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway -

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:24:37 +0200
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:05:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Video Of Sighting in Namdalen, Norway -


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 03:18:56 -0400
 >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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:50:18 +0200

 >>Referring to this site:

 >>http://www.ufo.no/index2.html

 >>you can now see video footage of this sighting (requiring
 >>RealPlayer on your PC), with Mr. Arnulf L�ken in the foreground,
 >>in front of the TV:

 >>http://www3.nrk.no/rammstein?id=67929&aid=729006
 >>It was filmed at 2 separate nights; one night with bad weather.
 >>"There were two witnesses to the phenomenon; one of them was
 >>filming, while the other was watching visually through
 >>binoculars (not monocular...) The last one stated that the
 >>phenomenon was behaving in the same manner as in the film. The
 >>video footage was recorded during second week in December, year
 >>2000, between 11 pm. and 12 pm. in the evening, using a Hitachi
 >>VM-H 650E camera w/digital zoom at 300x. The Moon and Venus were
 >>not in the sky at that time."
 >>Scientists say this can be some kind of a ball of lightning,
 >>with some enclosed, energetic gas(es), moving freely around.

 >Hi Asgeir,

 >Thanx for the URL and for posting the "UFO" footage. I am
 >curious if the video has been -professionally- analyzed.

It is told in the video that the woman wanted to remain
anonymous, and therefore _no_ - professional - video analysis
was 'allowed', or was 'made available' for a such investigation,
even though UFO Norge (Norway) certainly _did_ ask for this to
be undertaken.

The video footage looks 'fairly convincing' to me (_and_ Mr.
Arnulf Loken of UFO Norge, being interviewed here), and also
after listening to the interview with the woman (sorry, in
Norwegian only). There were thus 2 witnesses: The woman and _her
husband_; the footage was filmed during 2 (possibly consecutive)
nights in December 2000, and one of these nights during really
bad, stormy and rainy (and/or possibly snowy), weather
conditions.

 >There appear to be two 'dark' areas at the 5 o'clock and 7
 >o'clock position on the round object. They look like two 'dark'
 >projections from the main object. Can you tell me if the
 >observers reported any details regarding these 'projections?'

No, nothing is told about these 'projections' (they are also
more or less invisible to me...). What was specifically
observed, though, and also through binoculars, were the two
clearly visible beams of light - apparently - being 'emitted
from above and underneath the light/object.

 >Interesting footage. I wish it had been taken in daylight so
 >that the object itself would be clearer. "Night lights" are
 >always a tough call. All you ever get to see is a bright light
 >jiggling around against a black background. I would have loved
 >to see that thing in broad daylight.

I certainly agree! (But, maybe the object would have been almost
invisible then, in the bright daylight...?)

 >Thanx again for remembering us on UpDates. ;)
 >Regards, John Velez

My pleasure! :-)


Best Regards,

Asgeir









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:29:52 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:09:27 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Salvaille


 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:43:11 -0500
 >From: Rogers Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates


 >>From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 22:29:39 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors

 >>>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:39:29 -0500
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

<snip>

 >>What it boils down to is that some people are so arrogant that
 >>they don't know the real treasure inherent in these men and
 >>their work and contributions to all of us in the field of
 >>ufology. You don't have to agree to their conclusions or
 >>hypotheses on ufological matters, but be gracious enough to
 >>acknowledge these men have done more than you'll ever
 >>accomplish. These are men of deeds and contributions, rather
 >>than just opinion.

 >>IMHO, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 >Hi, Wendy!

 >Again, the cheering section brings down the stands. More proof
 >that, if someone doesn't agree with the UFO elite, then that
 >person is "uninformed" and has no right to an opinion. At the
 >very least, you claim that they have "more" right to an opinion
 >than others.

 >If anyone should be ashamed, it is you Wendy. For starters, you
 >make an assumption about my own research and investigative
 >skills and accomplishments. You don't know me. All you know is
 >that I don't always see eye to eye with the people you admire. I
 >find it odd that I never mentioned these guys names in the
 >previous post. Yet, somehow, you knew _exactly_ who the guilty
 >parties were!

 >Thanks for making my point. If the connection is that obvious to
 >someone as over zealous as yourself, then there must be
 >something to my beef, eh?

<snip>

Roger, Wendy, List,

For the record, let me point out the following:

Roger, since september 1998, you have posted 560 times on
UpDates (no kidding).

Wendy Connors has posted 26 times. Her posts are referenced at
the bottom of this one.

Wendy Connors rates very high on my credibility scale. I found
her take on Aldrich, Hall and Clark very refreshing and
enlightening.

Roger, follow the links and read all her posts.

And then tell me that you will apologise to Wendy for calling
her an over zealous cheerleader.


____________________________________________________________

Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m18-008.shtml

Re: Debunker's Guidebook - Connors
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m14-013.shtml

Captain Edward J. Ruppelt: Summer of the Saucers
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m03-007.shtml

'The Anomalist' Book Awards for 2000
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/feb/m02-035.shtml

'Captain Edward J. Ruppelt: Summer of the Saucers'
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/jan/m25-004.shtml

Re: Location(s) of Alleged Roswell Crash Site(s) -
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/jan/m17-012.shtml

Re: On What is Known - Connors
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/nov/m07-037.shtml

Captain Edward J. Ruppelt Book Update
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/nov/m05-025.shtml

'Captain Edward J. Ruppelt: Summer of the Saucers
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/oct/m17-004.shtml

Re: Discovering the Real Story of the Apollo
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/apr/m06-002.shtml

ATIC History Update #3
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/oct/m21-002.shtml

ATIC History Update
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/oct/m19-016.shtml

ATIC Research Update
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/oct/m18-008.shtml

Research Update - ATIC History
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/sep/m29-019.shtml

Projects Sign & Bluebook: Research Update
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/sep/m01-007.shtml

Re: Research Release: 'USAAF' UFO Research Release
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/aug/m16-007.shtml

Re: Black Helicopters in Jane's Defence Weekly
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/aug/m13-015.shtml

Research Release: 'USAAF' UFO Research Pre-1947
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/aug/m10-010.shtml

P-47: The Stupidity Within Ufology
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/jul/m28-039.shtml

Re: Project SIGN Research Center Update
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/jul/m26-005.shtml

Project SIGN Research Center - URL
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/apr/m02-012.shtml

Research Release - Dr. Stefan T. Possony Materials
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/mar/m23-021.shtml

-=[For The Record]=- Re: Roswell UFO Museum and
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/feb/m02-012.shtml

-=[For The Record]=- Roswell UFO Museum and
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/feb/m01-032.shtml

Re: Open Letter To IUR Readers
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/jan/m27-038.shtml

-=[For The Record]=- C.E.: Frank Edwards
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/dec/m15-002.shtml









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                           The Watchdog - 04-19-01

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:55:29 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:12:02 -0400
Subject: The Watchdog - 04-19-01


UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind"
http://www.ufowatchdog.com

***NEWS***

~ Puerto Rico Abduction Conference Reports Breakthrough
~ Alleged Roswell Crash Debris Revealed
~ Thousands Mistake Large Weather Balloon for UFO
~ UFO Cult Suspected in Murders of 13 Children
~ More Reed Hoax Revelations... it never seems to end

~Ad *First Annual Northwest UFO/Paranormal Conference* Ad~

http://www.seattleartbellchatclub.com/NWUFO.html

***OF INTEREST***

Readers are invited to submit their thoughts: How do you view
the current state of ufology?

Send your comments to ufowatchdog@earthlink.net

***COMING SOON***

UFOWATCHDOG.COM reports on cattle mutilations - real or what?
Strange or mundane?









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                    Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:17:28 +0200
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:16:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Goldstein


 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:56:04 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 04:57:09 +0200
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Goldstein

 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:53:46 -0500
 >>>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Previously, I wrote wrote:

 >>>In either case, if I don't agree with you, then I
 >>>am an "uninformed skeptic" or "dilettante". This would not be so
 >>>egregious if not for your own assumption about the length of
 >>>time I've been on this list, which you describe as only a "some
 >>>months back". The fact that you are wrong, aside, what
 >>>difference would that make? Further, how dare you question my
 >>>own familiarity with UFO material when you obviously didn't
 >>>bother to see how long I've been with this list! How hard can it
 >>>be to find out that I've been posting since September of 1998?
 >>>Surprised? Practice what you preach! Do some research!

 >Josh replied:

 >>I guess I forgot about the months such as when you tried to
 >>beat the Trent case and a bunch of people to death on this list
 >>and showed that you had not studied the case and its many
 >>investigations.I don't know why you are so full of angry
 >>attitudes. For reference look at your next statement

 >>>This is exactly the kind of behavior that I find tiresome; the
 >>>"UFO elite.

 >Excuse me, Roger. I had forgotten that you had gone up there to examine
 >the site and that you had interviewed the Trents. How could I not
 >remember that?  If those people who did the actual investigation and
 >wrote it up are the UFO elite, then so be it.  I respect these people
 >because they have done years of in the trenches investigation and have
 >written books with excellent analysis.  They are the "UFO elite" that
 >you have lumped into a group that you can demean. A convenient "them"
 >can be pointed out and scorned.

 >I think your response is a perfect example of the attitude Ifind
 >offensive. For starters, just because I had a differentopinion about the
 >Trent case automatically means, again, that Ihad not studied the case,
 >as far as you're concerned. What abunch of crap, Josh. I studied the
 >Trent case, applied my ownexpertise in photography and came up with an
 >answer different that Bruce Macabee. So what? Your response only proves
 >my point:If I don't agree with your way of thinking, then I
 >am"uninformed".

 >More arrogance from the UFO elite.

Thanks for the compliment, Roger. But I don't think my pittance
of research is in the same league as the "them" that you demean.
I think the same applies to you.

 >Continuing, I wrote:

 >>>Let me try and make myself perfectly clear: I believe in the
 >>>probability of ET life and ET visitation because I find the odds
 >>>are simply in favor of it and some of the UFO reports are
 >>>intriguing, to say the least. That said, however, all of this
 >>>research you put so much faith in has done squat to prove the
 >>>ETH or this discussion list wouldn't even exist and this
 >>>conversation wouldn't even be taking place.

 >Josh replied:

 >>Roger, you obviously misunderstood my post. I began by  giving
 >>my general opinion of what I had read on the ETH vs. skeptics
 >>posts. That was not intended to be a criticism of you. I was
 >>also clear that I was talking about UFO reports, not the ET
 >>hypothesis.

 >>I was critical of you when you said that you thought it was only
 >>folklore. Obviously you have a different understanding of
 >>folklore vs. data and evidence. I have no grounds to question
 >>anything in your photography expertise.

 >As long as it doesn't question the validity of the Trent case,
 >right?

 >Wrong.

 >>That is why I questioned your knowledge of UFO evidence. I
 >>certainly believe there is recorded data that is more than
 >>folklore. I could not understand why you took such a position.
 >>For example, look at the Belgian flying triangles case of 1990.
 >>It was initially reported by the military. They were tracked
 >>visually and with radar from military aircraft.
 >>They were photographed and observed by a large number of people

 >>That is only one case of many. That, to me, is a lot more than
 >>folklore.

 >Josh, I do not question the existence of the data or the
 >reports. I merely stated that they have not proven the case for
 >the ETH _despite_ all the data crunching you have pointed out.
 >It doesn't matter what it means to you or to me, even. I would
 >like_ to believe that ET visitation exists, but it has not been
 >proven. As such, like it or not, the notion of ET visitation is
 >only folklore. The only way you can counter that is with _one_
 >single proven case for ET visitation. Can you come up with one?
 >I am sure everyone on this list would love to know about it.

Once again Roger, I was talking about UFO reports, not the ET
hypothesis. Reports of ET visitors may be mere folklore, not the
legitimate UFO data. Also, remember that the ET hypothesis, is a
working hypothesis, and only that. Please research the meaning
of a hypothesis in the world of science.

<snip>

 >>>In fact, considering that _nothing_ has been substantiated
 >>>regarding the existence of UFOs, I'd say it is the UFO elite
 >>>that are dilettantes, dabbling in something they know little
 >>>about as evidenced by the lack of results in proving the ETH
 >>>after all this exhaustive research you are so quick to point
 >>>out. But, since your opinion is more "informed" than mine what
 >>>would you call _pretending_ to be an expert on something that
 >>>hasn't been proven to exist? Perhaps you consider it science.
 >>>I'd call it wishful thinking.

Roger, read my points again. Perhaps polemics are the last
refuge of people with no data to contribute. I don't know why
you have descended to that level.  Please remember the saying of
the Black Panthers, "If you are not part of the solution you are
part of the problem". When I began my initial post I was
speaking to having read 499 messages and many were arguments of
semantics and polemics that did not contribute real information.
I was making a general observation, it was not addressed
directly to you. Yet you personalized it,, reacted against it,
and began your polemics against your imagined "UFO elite".
Touchy, touchy.

 >Josh replied:

 >>Roger, in my post I was not personally criticizing you. I don't
 >>know why you take everything as a personal attack. You seem to
 >>be sensitive but you then react like a cornered rabid pit bull.

 >Gee, Josh, I guess when you call me "uninformed" and a
 >"dilettante" and then follow up by including me in the company
 >of fools like Klass, I'm supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy
 >inside? You know, some months back, you contacted me via email
 >and said that you were going to be traveling and wanted to try
 >and visit with me. I graciously extended acceptance of that
 >idea, and still do. But are you sure you want to waste time with
 >such an uninformed dilettante like myself?


Roger, please read my above statement. At one point I thought
you had some information to contribute. Now that you have
continued to personalize everything into defensive and rather
offensive arguments based on polemics, I have had second
thoughts. If you have studied the UFO phenomenon to the length
you claim, then contribute from the evidence instead of making
endless arguments against the researchers you don't like. That,
to me is being a dilletante. That was what I read in many of the
scoffers' posts I saw. I'm sure you can do better than that.

 >Maybe you didn't mean to insult me, Josh, but you really need to
 >go back and re-read what you wrote and the context you put me
 >in. Based on the napalm hit you gave John Velez in a different
 >thread,  it's obvious that you are totally capable of a slash and
 >burn campaign, when you want. Practice what you preach.

No, I didn't mean to insult you, yet for reasons of your own you
thought I was and started insulting those whom you disagreed
with. In my post to John, I never insulted or demeaned him. I
carefully stated that I interpreted his statement as meaning
that the people who posted yellow ribbons were morons.
Apparently he meant something else. Yet I never personally
attacked him. I clearly outlined why my background caused me to
not like what I thought I read. John and I are friends because
we share common deep values. Friends sometimes disagree over
things but do not tear each other apart. We kiss and make
up.:No, I'm not gay.:) If you interpreted my discourse with John
as a napalm attack, then you don't know napalm. I've personally
seen its results. I don't use such weapons.

To you I offer an olive branch of peace. I don't want to
continue this pointless niggling with you. Endless and pointless
arguments are what I was referring to in my initial post to you
regarding opinion arguing, rather than constructive discourse on
this list. I joined this forum to further advance some UFO
cases, not to suffer through ego opinion battles from people who
have not done any serious work and have no valid data to offer
towards resolution. If you think informed statements are
personal attacks from the "elite", then that is your problem. I
have great respect for these people because of the work they
have done to contribute to a better understanding of the UFO
phenomenon. That is why I asked you if you were familiar with
the serious research. I did not  accuse you of anything.

I hereby declare a cease-fire and suggest that we both end this.
We both have better things to do with our time. So do the "UFO
elite". So does this forum.

Peace, bro',


Josh










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:17:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:18:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:49:11 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:28:15 -0500

Previously, Dennis wrote:

 >>One of the things that has always bothered me about some of the
 >>best UFO cases (and by extension, the question of eyewitness
 >>testimony/reliability) is their inherent lack of compatibility.

 >>Viz, let's take four cases that I assume both Jerry & Dick would
 >>take as indicative of the ETH:

 >>1) Kenneth Arnold
 >>2) Papua, New Guinea
 >>3) Socorro
 >>4) Coyne helicopter case

<snipped by Richard>

Richard replied:

 >since when should anyone be tasked with finding
 >meaningful patterns in only four cases? What I could do would be
 >to take each of the four cases you cite and show you many dozens
 >or hundreds of very similar reports (and there is some
 >objective, physical evidence in many cases).

<snip>

 >Now, I have said you are well-informed. But if you are not truly
 >aware of the many hundreds of reports of this type, maybe I will
 >have to withdraw that statement. Maybe you need to do some more
 >reading.

For crying out loud, Richard!

Do you really think that we are being visited by a bunch of
different ETs, each with its own characteristics and type of
craft and pupose for being here? _That_ is the point of Dennis'
post. As usual, the point is skewed into something that you'd
rather talk about instead of addressing the harder question
presented to you.

Not only do you avoid the entire point of Dennis' post, you
follow up with the national anthem of the UFO elite: If someone
disagrees with you or presents a viewpoint that makes you
uncomfortable to deal with, then they are "uninformed" and their
questions aren't worth answering.


The Waffle House is sure busy, these days.

Roger Evans









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                       NOVA, UFOs And The Media On SDI

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:01:03 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:28:31 -0400
Subject: NOVA, UFOs And The Media On SDI


Hi All,

Much to his credit Errol doesn't use the List to _plug_ 'Strange
Days... Indeed'.

So I'll do it!

Terry Hanson author of the book, 'The Missing Times - News Media
Complicity In The UFO Cover-Up' will be the guest, along with
myself on 'Strange Days... Indeed' this Saturday night. Among
the things we're going to be discussing will be the Public
Broadcasting System's 'hatchet jobs' in programs they produced
and aired on the subject of UFOs and Abduction.

NOVA stands to figure prominently in the discussion because of
my own participation their program on abductions and anyone who
has any questions about it, or for anybody who merely wishes to
learn more about 'what' happened, I welcome one and all to
listen in, or call in at 416-872-1010.

Those two programs (the PBS reports on UFOs and UFO abductions)
stand out as prime/classic examples of the _worst_ kind of
misleading, biased and alleged science reporting ever produced.

The public was lied to. They were cheated of an opportunity to
view a balanced presentation of the available evidence and
material that researchers like John Mack and Budd Hopkins base
their own assessments on. The public was robbed of an
opportunity to make up their own minds. Speaking as a witness
and a participant, I and the others were robbed of a "fair" and
"unbiased" public hearing.

I hope you all tune in Saturday night at 10 pm EST. The program
is available over the Internet at:

http://www.cfrb.com/

Look forward to speaking with Terry and hearing from some of
you.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                             Re: Belief - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:40:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:30:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Evans


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
 >Subject: Re: Belief - Tonnies
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Belief
 >>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 02:49:18 +0100

Previously, Mac wrote:

 >"Believers" are something else entirely. I have no respect for
 >"believers." Once you "believe" something is true, the circuits
 >in your brain that govern that aspect of your critical ability
 >atrophy and die. Ideally, we should hold everything in a state
 >of question.

 >(Stupid people say I "believe" in the Face on Mars, i.e. that I
 >think it's artificial. This isn't true. I simply think there is
 >good evidence to suggest that it very well _might_ be.)

 >Unfortunately, our mainstream media is very binary, and
 >collectively just doesn't _get_ that someone can be agnostic on
 >a highly charged subject. Everyone loves absolutes but retreats
 >from the gray area in the center because they're afraid of
 >having to actually think--and that's not good for ratings.

Well said, Mac.

But there is a group that you've left out. In the middle of all
this are those that have a vested interest; financial, effort,
ego - you name it. For them it seems impossible to let go and
accept the notion that someone else could be right or, worse,
that they could be wrong or that their data is incomplete
despite their best efforts. These aren't necessarily "believers"
in anything but themselves. In fact, if anything, they know the
weak points of their given arguments and will do anything to
steer the conversation away from exposing their Achilles heel.
It is within this context that the name calling and diversionary
tactics begin to appear. As long as people want to talk
conceptually, everything is fine. Let someone question a
position, and the hounds are released.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:44:34 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:35:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Velez


 >From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:32:17 +0100

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:32:05 -0400

 >>>From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:33:51 +0100

 >Hi Steven,

 >>Challenging eyewitness testimony is not the same thing as
 >>dismissing it, and Von Braun's anecdotal story seems to be
 >>little more than that. The fact that eyewitness descriptions are
 >>affected by beliefs and emotions is certainly not new to
 >>ufologists, and those who approach this subject from a
 >>scientific perspective take that into account. But whenever
 >>backed into a corner with witness testimony, it becomes too easy
 >>to simply claim that such testimony is unreliable and simply
 >>ignore it as worthless.

 >I'm in agreement with you - but the proviso is that eyewitness
 >testimony is _all_ we have in ufology, therefore the problems
 >you and von Braun have highlighted are all the more important
 >- and potentially significant.

 >I would submit that it is not a case of being "backed into a
 >corner"- there are simply so many cases where witnesses have
 >misperceived or allowed beliefs to influence testimony, that
 >relying upon witness testimony - particularly in the cases
 >involving single observers - becomes a minefield.

Hi Steve, Jerry, Dave, All,

A question here if I may.

Establishing witness reliability should be priority number one
for any person 'investigating,' and then 'reporting' on, a case.
Any 'tool' that might prove helpful in establishing witness
reliability should be employed (if/when possible.) Along that
same vein, "what ever happened to the practice of subjecting
witnesses to polygraph/lie detector examination?

At one time in ufology polygraph results appeared fairly
regularly along with witness testimony and investigation
results. The practice of subjecting witnesses to a polygraph
exam has disappeared from most investigations completely.

I know, a lie detector can't prove the "reality" of anything.
But it _is_ an effective (and accurate enough) 'helper' tool to
determine whether an individual is being _intentionally_
deceptive. (Out and out lying)

I don't see the practice of 'routinely' subjecting witnesses to
polygraph examination as a "problem". Or as completely
unreliable. It's not like it is being used to convict somebody
in court, or as the 'lynch pin' of proof for any given case. It
is simply a useful 'tool.' It is helpful to 'shoring up' (not
_establishing_) confidence in the testimony of individuals who
pass say, a 'couple' of exams with flying colors. Besides, I
cannot imagine that just about any honest person who is
telling/reporting the truth would have a "problem" with being
asked to submit to a polygraph examination. (Or two!)

Without creating a 'spin-off' thread, can anybody tell me why
the use of polygraph examination has been uniformly abandoned by
UFO and UFO/abduction investigators? Is polygraph examination
really _that_ unreliable? I'm curious.


Regards to all,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                  Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:04:16 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:21:13 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Hall


 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:08:50 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:00:37 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Aldrich

 >>>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:39:29 -0500
 >>>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

 >Previously, I had written:

 >>>Citing one's own work is fine, if the answer required is so
 >>>expansive that posting or repeating it would be prohibitive. I
 >>>don't think anyone on either side of the fence would argue that
 >>>point. The real problem lies with using this act as a dodge of
 >>>answering an otherwise simple question or as an excuse to avoid
 >>>clarification of a position on a debate they would lose ground
 >>>on by giving such a direct and, often, revealing answer.

 >>>What makes this all the more unsettling is such acts are
 >>>generally followed up by some feigned indignation that such work
 >>>was not referenced, in the first place; as if such texts were
 >>>holy scriptures and should be committed to memory or the like.

 ><big snip of things that don't even begin to address the issue>

 >Finally, Jan wrote:

 >>I would turn the tables on you in your last paragraph, if you
 >>don't have the necessary knowledge to engage in a debate, maybe
 >>it would be best to go do some research first!

 >I rest my case, Jan.

 >True to form, your last paragraph seems to be the defacto answer
 >to any opposition, now. If someone doesn't get in line with the
 >UFO elite, the standard position is that one is "uninformed" and
 >hasn't read the literature or they would quite naturally agree.

 >Is it even remotely possible in your mind that someone has read
 >the literature, done some research and simply doesn't see eye to
 >eye? More to the point, you spent the majority of this post
 >defending someone's right to cite past work if the answer to a
 >given question was gong to be extensive; something that I took
 >no issue with. My beef was abuse of this technique to avoid
 >answering shorter, simpler questions or even flat out refusals
 >to address the issues presented. Your own avoidance in
 >addressing this issue, in this very post, only drives home my
 >point. Thanks for making my job easier.

 >As far as I'm concerned, your reply has only proved my point the
 >one must agree with the UFO elite or be pegged as one of the
 >"uniformed" that hasn't done enough research to know the error
 >of their ways.

 >Typical.

 >(my best Johnny Bravo)
 >Hoo-ha! The wind generated from all this head noddin' is messin'
 >up my hair, momma.

Roger,

I could give a fig whether you agree with me (or Jan), but I am
extremely curious to have your definition of your constantly
cited, but undefined, term "elitist" which you keep throwing out
as if it explains something or has some profound meaning.


Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 19

                       Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:26:16 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:30:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:36:33 +0100

<snip>

 >Hi,

 >This is a very valid point - and I tend to agree that it is a
 >primary reason why science tends to remain on the outside
 >looking in at ufology - with notable (and welcome) exceptions,
 >of course.

 >Partly this is inherent within the fact that ufology is not 'a
 >phenomenon' but a collection of phenomena. I wouldn't mind
 >betting that at least half a dozen different things are involved
 >in creating the UFO data and it about time we woke up to that
 >realisation. Because it is pointless looking for patterns in a
 >rag bag of cases  that comprise ufology - within which there are
 >(for instance) some that probably describe peculiar atmospheric
 >effects, others maybe unknown types of energy, a few may be
 >phenomena of consciousness that we have not identified, as yet -
 >and so on - up to and including a few that just might point
 >towards some other intelligence at work.

<snip>

Jenny,

Although my admiration for your true "skepticism" and admirably
objective approach to UFO studies (let's stop using the oxymoron
"ufology") remains undiminished, I am at a loss to understand
your statement that "it is pointless looking for patterns." It
is very much to the point to look for patterns, and I have found
them in UFOE: II. Have you not received the review copy that I
arranged to be sent to you, or have you not had time to peruse
it? The fact that there are indeed such patterns is central to
the debate. If there were no patterns, the psychosocial argument
would be supported. Sorry, there are very strong and consistent
patterns that need to be addressed.


Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 20

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:11:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:24:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:49:39 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

 >>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 07:38:01 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

Previously, Greg wrote:

 >My contention, in other words, is not that witness testimony is
 >more reliable, or never challenged, in criminal cases. It's that
 >skeptics doubt it far more quickly in UFO cases than they might
 >elsewhere.

 >More generally, I'd say that our assessment of witness
 >reliability is partly based on our emotions. We're more ready to
 >accept it when we want it to be true, and less likely to accept
 >it when we'd rather it was false. This applies just as much to
 >UFO believers as to skeptics. (So the test then is to see who
 >looks at witness testimony most rigorously - and I don't think a
 >kneejerk questioning of it in UFO cases is truly rigorous.)

Hi, Greg!

I agree 100% with everything you have written with the exception
of one thing. You claim:

 >It's that skeptics doubt [witness testimony] far more
 >quickly in UFO cases than they might elsewhere.

On the one hand, it has been promoted that UFologists are the
best skeptics, because they supposedly look at all sides of a
given case. On the other hand, you maintain that skeptics are
more quick to doubt witness testimony than a Ufologist.

Obviously, there is a problem, here.

We now have "good skeptics" and we have "bad skeptics". And the
problem is that Ufologists seem to reserve the right as to who
is a "good skeptic" or a "bad skeptic". Now, if the criteria for
making this distinction were as simple as described above, I'd
have no problem. However, that really isn't the case. Even
UFOlogists must look at witness testimony and determine which
cases are likely to be worth the time and trouble and which are
likely to be dead ends due to unreliable witness testimony. When
a UFOlogist does this, it is considered expedient and logical.
Therefore, such skepticism is considered praise worthy. In fact,
to quote Jerry Clark:

"When a ufologist debunks a case, it stays debunked."

On the other hand, if a skeptic does the same thing, then they
are "discarding witness testimony without single thought".

It would seem that debunking a case can only be done with the
express permission of the UFologists. To promote an opinion
counter to popular belief comes with the risk of being labeled a
"bad skeptic" if for no other reason than to stop a debate
before it gets off the ground. I have seen it time and again on
this list. Instead of addressing the issues as hand, they resort
to the simpler and more lazy method of "labeling" someone as a
skeptic. That way, if the debate continues, the heretic is at
least discredited in the eyes of the cheering section.

Now, do you think I am making this up, Greg? Certainly you have
witnessed it, yourself. I'd really like to know what you think
about this sort of conduct.


Roger Evans








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 20

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:38:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:27:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:49:11 -0000

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:28:15 -0500

 >>Jerry, John, Dick, List,

 >>I hope no one minds if I chime in with my two cents...

 >>One of the things that has always bothered me about some of the
 >>best UFO cases (and by extension, the question of eyewitness
 >>testimony/reliability) is their inherent lack of compatibility.

 >>Viz, let's take four cases that I assume both Jerry & Dick would
 >>take as indicative of the ETH:

 >>1) Kenneth Arnold
 >>2) Papua, New Guinea
 >>3) Socorro
 >>4) Coyne helicopter case

 ><snip>

 >Dennis,

 >I would like to preface my reply by saying that I consider you
 >to be a well-informed, literate, skeptic in the traditional
 >sense of that word, which I would simply define as, "He doubts,
 >but he is willing to listen to arguments and examine evidence."

 >That being said, since when should anyone be tasked with finding
 >meaningful patterns in only four cases? What I could do would be
 >to take each of the four cases you cite and show you many dozens
 >or hundreds of very similar reports (and there is some
 >objective, physical evidence in many cases). Let's take your
 >chosen examples one at a time:


Dick,

Thanks for you comments.

And that being said, I didn't task you with "finding meaningful
patterns in only four cases." I said you were free to name your
own number of cases, be it ten, or a hundred, or more, though
the former are nice round numbers. What I did ask for was a
theory that would encompass the great number of unknown
structured objects reported in our skies. I also suggested
Roswell, Rendlesham, and a few other cases that I thought would
be on your own list. My point was the same one Hynek made when
he spoke of an "embarrassment of riches": there are enough
disparate objects and behaviors reported to require something
more than a simple ET hypothesis. To cite but one example, even
the Drake equation has conservative and optimistic
interpretations, just as there is a Weak and Strong Anthropic
Prinicple, depending on how one wishes to weigh each and all
particulars that go to making it up.

My viewpoint is that the _more_ UFO cases that are cited, the
_harder_ it is to cudgel together a comphrehensive theory to
explain same. To give a crude example, I might consider a theory
that suggests we've actually been visited, say, a hundred times
in the last 50 years. I am not willing to accept an ETH that
suggests one in every 40 Americans has been abducted. I was
basically asking where, along that rather broad spectrum, your
own ETH fell.

 >1. Kenneth Arnold

 >Silvery objects flying in formation, undulating flight pattern?
 >Duck soup.

You've taken two aspects of the Arnold case and turned them to
your advantage. No harm in that, but it dodges the general
issues I was raising. How does your ET hypothesis account for
_all_ the colors, formations or lack thereof, and flight
behaviors to be found in the UFO literature at large? And where
did Arnold's actual objects _go_? Were they on a one-time
visitor's pass or are they still around? Cite another sighting
of the exact same object(s) at a later date, not a reference to
patterns.

 >2. Papua, New Guinea

 >Craft-like object with basic disc shape, superstructure and
 >legs? Many hundreds of cases. Beings associated with "craft." No
 >problem.

The problem is not whether other basic disc shapes have been
reported in association with legs and beings, but whether Father
Gill's exact same UFO was ever seen or reported again. If not,
then your theory must somehow account for all the other patterns
that didn't exactly match. Different UFO manufacturers?
Different alien species for each ship? It's your theory, you
tell me.

 >3. Socorro

 >Elliptical shape (with legs). One of the most common reported
 >configurations. Beings alongside? Not uncommon at all.

Here you're being selective again - and I hope not
disingenuously so - as I clearly referenced the roar and blue
flames that Zamorra reported. How common are _they_? How common
in association with the elliptical shape, legs, and beings? You
can no doubt argue that the insignia Zamorra reported is a
pattern, too, but I'm greedy - I want all the patterns in place
enough times so that that itself is a pattern. Or maybe all I
want in patterns is consistency. So where are the tens or
hundreds of UFO cases that involve an elliptical object with
legs and beings, an insignia on the side, and which emit orange
and blue flames when landing and taking off?

Apart from that, where is the ET theory that would remotely
begin to posit the small craft Zamorra saw as capable of
interstellar travel? Gonna need one of those Mother Ships,
aren't you?


 >4. Coyne helicopter encounter.

 >Typical configuration, typical body lights and light beam, etc.,
 >etc.

Well, you may think all those things are "typical," but I'm
compelled to reach for my quote marks. Again, where is the
pattern of UFOs grabbing helicopters with green tractor beams,
and how does that fit into your ETH?

 >Also, I have "put my name behind" cases that I think are
 >hardcore, representative examples. I think you acknowledged
 >reading my ISSO article.

 >Now, I have said you are well-informed. But if you are not truly
 >aware of the many hundreds of reports of this type, maybe I will
 >have to withdraw that statement. Maybe you need to do some more
 >reading.


Dick, you must have forgotten that I edited the MUFON Journal
for 12 years: I didn't have time to read the UFO literature!
<BG>And then there's The Field Guide to UFOs, which I
co-authored with Patrick Huyghe, in which I make some of the
same pattern arguments as you do, but about which, late at
night, I still have my doubts. Mainly because I could never
quite come up with a comprehensive theory for all of them which
was convincing enough to convince me of it.

You've convinced yourself, however, and I have no quarrel with
that.

Now, you just have to explain why there are so dang many alien
Porsches, Cadillacs, Bugattis, Surburbans and Land Cruisers
buzzing around out there, as if lithium crystals, or whatever
they use as fuel, were as cheap as a barrel of Saudi Arabian
crude.

And while you're at it, you might throw in a corollary or two
about how cozy the universe really is as a place to live in - as
indicated by the voluminous UFO literature and patterns therein
- and how the stars aren't really that far apart.

And don't forget them mother ships.

You might want to catch up on some non-UFO reading of your own.
Did you ever read that Mike Davis article in The Anomalist I
sent you, btw? After that, there's always "Rare Earth" by Ward
and Brownlee. In fact, if you look at the pattern of discovery
for extrasolar planets to date, it's not very encouraging.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 20

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:29:25 -0300
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:29:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:21:47 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:22:17 -0300
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:39:44 +0100

 >>>Once you did a data search for past similar cases (as I did) the
 >>>Chiles-Whitted case stood out as a very similar one. Not only
 >>>that but I had spoken at length about it to Allen Hynek, who was
 >>>involved at the time as the USAF science adviser. He told me
 >>>that he had always thought a meteor was a likely cause for the
 >>>Chiles-Whitted case and whilst he couldnt positively say that
 >>>was the answer at the time he became more persuaded as the years
 >>>went by.

 >>A couple of things bother me about the Chiles-Whitted meteor
 >>explanation. First of all the speed is all wrong for a meteor.
 >>They estimated the speed at 700 mph. The other is that the
 >>object pulled UP into clouds. Meteors don't do that either.>>

 >Hi Don, Jenny:

 >The problem is that I thought the object came toward the plane.
 >If the meteor was glowing, it had to be at a height of at least
 >20 miles, thus much, much further away that they thought.  They
 >had no way of knowing the actual speed of what they saw,
 >particularly since they didn't know what it was.


Hi Bob,

There's also those clouds it allegedly pulled up into. Not at
100,000 feet.This is a poor sighting at best but I'd like to see
the meteor speed satisfied and that of the pull-up. If they
banked away suddenly to get clear of it, I wonder about the
passengers.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 20

                             Re: Belief - Ledger

From: From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:38:55 -0300
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:32:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Ledger


 >From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Belief
 >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:11:45 +0100

 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:49:47 -0300
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Belief

 >>Well this is profound. That it Dave?

 >Hi Don,

 >You may be Ledger but your mail is illegible!

 >'That it Dave?' what does that mean??

 >>Another armchair skeptic is heard from - and with
 >>incontrovertable evidence to boot!

 >Do you have children Don?

 >Armchair skeptic you say, as apposed to what? in the field
 >skeptic perhaps? Surely a personal observation should be heard
 >as well.

 >All the best to you Don,

Hi Dave,

My mistake. Think I crossed you up with another Lister. It
doesn't make any sense to me either.

Sorry,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 20

                  Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:55:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:35:38 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Evans


 >From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:01:10 -0600
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors

 >>From: Rogers Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:43:11 -0500
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Evans

Previously, I had written:

 >>Again, the cheering section brings down the stands. More proof
 >>that, if someone doesn't agree with the UFO elite, then that
 >>person is "uninformed" and has no right to an opinion. At the
 >>very least, you claim that they have "more" right to an opinion
 >>than others.

Wendy replied:

 >"Cheering section?" Wrong use of terminology, Roger.

Really? Let's read on and see...

 >They do have a more
 >honest right to an opinion on ufology in all its forms based
 >solely on having done the research, rather than those who have
 >not or failed to unbiasly read their contributions. My bookshelf
 >contains many examples of their acumen and research...I don't
 >see anything by you on the shelf. Therefore, your opinion comes
 >from the List rather than from your contributions to research.

<snip>

 >My work is on the
 >shelf with theirs and footnoted to the max so that what I have
 >researched is available, along with my conclusions based on that
 >research and open to scrutiny by anyone in the field of ufology.
 >Does that make me an elitist? Ha! Just means I DO the research
 >too. Speaking of admiration, yes, I'm guility. I do admire
 >people such as Dick, Jan, Jerry, Jenny R., Jenny Z. and others
 >who speak from personal knowledge and research rather than
 >opinion based on gamesmanship in the field of semantic
 >discourse. Any intelligent person would.

<snip>

 >Having followed your thread and the silliness it has brought
 >does, indeed, show that referencing their work was a gracious
 >way to tell you that you don't have a clue and are a waste of
 >time to discuss the merits of anything with you.

<snip>

 >Your statement is so ludicrous it was a waste of effort to write
 >this sentence.

Just that sentence? Well, here's quite a few more sentences you
don't have time to write:

 >Wrong assumption on your part, as usual. Actually, you're
 >getting pretty good at doing it. However, the simple answer was,
 >"read my research to get the total concept of why I make this
 >assumption" (paraphased). You obviously haven't done so and
 >expect them to coddle you with long discourse before you've made
 >yourself ready to ask specific questions. Nothing elitist about
 >it. I am the only ufological historian to ever be granted an
 >interview by Dr. George E. Valley, Jr. (don't dare ask me who he
 >was...you should know if you are a ufologist, skeptic or
 >debunker) before his death.

Now, this is the part I _love_:

 >Your question was, indeed, kind of simple.
 >The only fault with it was that you didn't ask it because you
 >wanted an answer (you already formed your own opinion). You
 >asked it via some kind of hidden agenda. You want to use them to
 >make yourself feel more powerful. There is nothing sincere in
 >the questions you've posed to them. Think that might be the TRUE
 >reason you were given the answer you received? You assume that
 >people should cow-tow to your whims, but unfortunately for you,
 >Dick, Jan, Jerry, et. al. are smart enough to know your stinky
 >bait only. I've followed your pathetic thread and it didn't take
 >a rocket scientist to figure out what your personal agenda
 >involves.

Okay, let's stop for a moment. I have to ask, just what were the
questions that I supposedly asked them insincerely with a hidden
agenda? You claim to have been following this thread. Certainly
you should have no problem reminding me. (Beyond that; "stinky
bait"? I'm sure I should feel insulted, but it's a funny term.
Sorry. I'm suddenly overcome with a case of the giggles. I'll do
my best to take you seriously.)

Again, we continue with things Wendy doesn't have time to write
about:

 >Yes, indeed, they have done a lot of hard work and shared it openly with
 >everyone in the field. Gifts of blood, sweat and tears are more "sacred"
 >than the fluff of an opinion. The difference is their opinions come from
 >doing the research and reaching their conclusions and opinions. A major
 >difference to be sure. If your conclusions are to be more than personal
 >opinion, you need to back up why you've come to the conclusion you have. You
 >have not done so and they have. It makes not one iota whether their
 >conclusions are right or wrong. The difference is that they went way beyond
 >opinion and based it upon research and not just personal belief. It is
 >documented so people, such as yourself, can have the references to peruse
 >and use to base your own conclusions upon.

<snip>

 >I really doubt that they did any such thing. Remember, I know
 >them personally. Do you?

 >If you expect a "disclaimer" being posted by them, then you
 >should have a big disclaimer attached to your question. For one
 >thing, you asked a question. Asking a question does not equate
 >to a "debate." At no time in this entire thread have I seen that
 >any of them are demanding anyone to agree with them. That
 >assumption is voo-doo and only in your own mind.

<snip>

 >I think you should be more ashamed of your own ego-driven need
 >to be something you are not and your obvious jealous tendencies
 >to want to trounce on those who have accomplished something and
 >shared it with humanity (does not make any difference once again
 >that they are right or wrong... they published their findings and
 >backed up why they have come to the conclusion they have) and
 >you haven't.

What can I say, Wendy? Wow. If ever I thought, even for a
moment, that there was any elitism in Ufology... well, you
certainly showed me the error of my ways. ;)

If what you say is true, if your opinion truly reflects that of
those you defend, then all you've done is reveal the common
disdain you have for those that haven't published and that, if
one doesn't agree with the UFO elite, then they are "uninformed"
and their questions aren't worth considering, much less
answering.

Further, you try and demonize me by concluding I have a "hidden
agenda" within my questions (again, what are they?). By your
measure, they don't _deserve_ an answer. Who are you to decide
that, Wendy? Oh, that's right; you're a certified, factory
trained Ufologist, complete with a published instruction manual.

You are right. I have not published a single thing. Therefore,
you don't know squat about me, how much research I've done or
what I think, despite your proclamations to the contrary. And,
of course, that has _nothing_ to do with the issue at hand. But
then again, labeling is always easier than addressing the
issues, isn't it? Again, remind me of what my questions were?

For the sake of reducing the size of the quote only, I snipped
more than half of your response. But even from what is left, I
have never seen a more arrogant display of self reverence and
blatant disregard of opinions outside the circle of the UFO
elite. You truly feel that the opinions of you and yours are
more important than anyone else's. Pity.

Seriously, Wendy, maybe you should stay off their side if that's
the best response you can come up with. It isn't flattering to
those you defend and it does little to narrow the obvious gap
you've just widened between the two sides of the debate.


Roger Evans









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 20

               Re: NASA Unveils Futuristic Aircraft - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:37:40 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:33:09 -0400
Subject: Re: NASA Unveils Futuristic Aircraft - Balaskas


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: NASA Unveils Futuristic Aircraft
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:57:10 -0700

<snip>

 >Here is the latest excuse for something unusual in the sky
 >whether Experimental or UFO note the number of prototypes and
 >the nature of their disposition!

 >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010418/aponline201905_000.htm

<snip>

Hi GT.

While studying for my private pilot license back in the
mid-1970s our flying club was invited to the Toronto
International Airport air traffic control tower for a tour. I
asked one of the senior operators if their radars ever picked up
UFOs. He told me that when he was working in eastern Canada
(Gander or Goose Bay?) back in the 1960s, they would often pick
up objects travelling three times the speed of sound. Of course
we now know that the SR-71 "Blackbird" was flying at Mach 3 back
then (which, according to author Palmiro Campagna*, has an
external cockpit configuration identical to the destroyed
Canadian supersonic AVRO Arrow which was also engineered to fly
as fast with the Iroquois engine).** He then went on to tell me
that they now pick up objects moving three times faster still,
or Mach 9.

In the latest issue of UFO Magazine (UK) there is an interesting
article about advanced propulsion systems. The editor of this
magazine mentioned that he was told by a crew member of the
Stealth Bomber at an air show that this plane was operational
back in 1983 (interview recorded on video)! If this aircraft is
what two decade old technology could give us, one just wonders
what still secret aircraft are already flying now (at Mach 9
too?).

Nick Balaskas


* For those interested in UFOs and the Canadian AVRO Car
Project, read about their connection in Palmiro Campagna's
article in the latest issue of Air Force magazine (CDN).

** During a visit a few years ago to the Wright-Patterson AFB
museum which has the most complete collection of US military and
experimental aircraft and spacecraft (including a modified
Gemini spacecraft built for the never flown(?) USAF's manned
orbiting laboratory), I asked one of the staff about the rumour
that the fifth completed AVRO Arrow escaped destruction from the
cutting torch. He just smiled and pointed to the nose cone of
one US aircraft, the front landing gear of another one, and so
on and then asked me if they all looked familiar to me. They
certainly did!








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 20

                  Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:28:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:36:51 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Evans


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:29:52 -0400
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Salvaille


 >>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:43:11 -0500
 >>From: Rogers Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates

Previously, Serge wrote:

 >Roger, since september 1998, you have posted 560 times on
 >UpDates (no kidding).

 >Wendy Connors has posted 26 times. Her posts are referenced at
 >the bottom of this one.

 >Wendy Connors rates very high on my credibility scale. I found
 >her take on Aldrich, Hall and Clark very refreshing and
 >enlightening.

 >Roger, follow the links and read all her posts.

 >And then tell me that you will apologise to Wendy for calling
 >her an over zealous cheerleader.

Hi, Serge!

560 times? Wow. I'll bet half of those were about the Trent case
or Seti!

Apologise to Wendy? Not a chance.

I have read her works and I'll be the first to say that there is
nothing wrong with them. A lot of what she says, I agree with,
even. In fact, there is nothing wrong with anything written by
Aldrich, Hall or Clark, either! I have never said there was and
I respect the effort they have gone through doing the research.
I even respect their opinions; they are a group of very
intelligent people.

The problem is not what is written, it's what's ignored and
_not_ written or addressed.

My beef is not in the content of the writings, but in their
selective refusal to answer simple questions with simple and
direct answers. Furthermore, I find the collective disdain for
opinions outside the official circle of wagons to be
tremendously offensive. I have seen it over and over again that
if someone does not agree with them, then that person is
"uninformed" and their question is not worth answering. _That_
is my complaint, plain and simple. Is it addressed? Of course
not because, as I have been informed, I have a "hidden agenda"
and my questions are "so ludicrous that they don't deserve an
answer".

Again, I think Wendy's opinions about UFO cases are just fine
and, apparently, so does Wendy. If in doubt, here's a URL for
you to check out:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m19-044.shtml

Now, you read this and tell me that it isn't just a tad bit
insulting to all those on this List that have opinions, as well,
but haven't published? Read this and tell me just _who_ deserves
an apology, Serge.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 20

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:21:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:44:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks

 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:28:15 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:07:08 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

<snip>

 >One of the things that has always bothered me about some of the
 >best UFO cases (and by extension, the question of eyewitness
 >testimony/reliability) is their inherent lack of compatibility.

 >Viz, let's take four cases that I assume both Jerry & Dick would
 >take as indicative of the ETH:

 >1) Kenneth Arnold
 >2) Papua, New Guinea
 >3) Socorro
 >4) Coyne helicopter case

 >If we assume that all the witnesses of same were spot on, the
 >first thing that leaps immediately to mind is how disparate the
 >cases are, one from another. For example, apart from the UFO
 >aspect itself, I defy anyone to delineate any commonalities or
 >patterns in the above cases. [And further down:] Are you
 >then suggesting that we're being visited by four different
 >species of ET simultaneously, each with different types of craft
 >and kinds of behavior... or what?

Hi Dennis,

Congratulations! You just disproved the existence of the jet,
the helicopter, the Space Shuttle, and the hot-air balloon -
four "different types of craft" with "disparate" behavior/use
and little or no "commonalities" or "patterns" in their
activity!

Your comments remind me of Battelle's assertion in Blue Book
Special Report 14 that it could not come up with a "model of a
flying saucer," not "even a rough model" from a larger group of
12 "good Unknown" sightings, when in fact the drawings in Cases
6 and 8 are of highly similar rounded helmet-shaped objects.
Battelle conveniently put the drawings on different pages so one
could not instantly see the similarity. Cases 2 and 3 both show
aircraft-shaped objects, but shaded in awkward ways to try to
crudely differentiate them. Cases 4 and 12 show approximately
football-shaped objects. I won't belabor the discussion here
with Battelle's outright dishonest hairsplitting analysis and
mendacious criteria used to evade the obvious striking
resemblance in at least 6 of its 12 best cases selected from
about 4,000, such as suddenly declaring the similar cases _not_
to be "good unknowns" after it had already classified them as
"good Unknowns" in the first place - this was done obviously to
thwart the making of the connection and a "rough model."

Besides, your demand for "commonalities or patterns" runs
counter to the constant skeptic denial that pattern evidence in
UFO studies is meaningful or worthwhile. Do you or do you not
accept "pattern" analysis as valid Dennis?

Moreover, it is a general rule of thumb in statistics that one
needs a sample size of at least 1,000 approximately, in order to
do reasonably valid statistical analysis. Without quibbling over
the exact number needed for statistics, can we agree that 4 is
simply not enough for valid statistical analysis? Maybe a sample
size of 4 is sufficient for non-statistical pattern analysis but
we should at least be aware that there is a difficulty here.

 >The best one can do is to say that
 >entities of some sort were reported in both the Papua and
 >Socorro cases, but beyond that, what?

 >Plop those on the desk of any self-respecting, practicing
 >scientist, and I can almost guarantee that his or her first
 >response will be, "this is all very fine, but what am I supposed
 >to _do_ with it? Re-interview the witnesses involved?"

This demonstrates a tremendous failure of scientific vision and
imagination. You are prejudging what scientists would find if we
could get a full-scale study going, of something on the order of
magnitude of 100 James McDonalds working full-time on the
problem, as we now have more or less with problems in tracking
the mating habits of whales, plotting volcanic dust ejecta in
the stratosphere, etc. etc.

If you have the knowledge, experience and creativity of 100
McDonalds, Dennis, then maybe we should just hire you full-time
to investigate the UFO phenomenon. :) But I would doubt that as
prolific and astute as you are that you would be able to sustain
the output of 100 McDonald-level professional scientists working
full-time. I can only simulate this tremendous outpouring of
scientific work in a bare outline and give precedents or
examples, and here are a few:

On the Arnold case, Bruce Maccabee and I were able to develop
extensive calculations and estimates of the objects' luminosity,
done by way of responding to the pelican theory. This had never
been done before, not in 50+ years. A good physicist can pick up
a case that has been "plopped" on his desk and figure out
entirely brand new things like that. It is very unfair to
prejudge this kind of ability and deny it exists just because
you cannot think of things like this.

You can't put science in a straightjacket and demand to know _in
advance_ what it will find. It reminds me of the physicists who
said after Planck had discovered the quantum that physics was
now complete and no more work needed to be done! Should physics
have been shut down in 1900 when that happened and physicists
forced to explain what new discoveries could possibly be made
since now everything there was to discover had supposedly
already been discovered?

In the Bentwaters 1956 case, I discovered a height-finder effect
in the radar data that had been overlooked for 42 years, and it
confirmed the astonishing fact of the extremely low altitude of
the fast-track UFO that streaked under the C-47 at 4,000 feet
and the low altitude estimated by the ground observers.

And yes McDonald very profitably re-interviewed witnesses by the
hundreds (or interviewed them for the first time in poorly
investigated cases). A skilled scientific investigator can coax
a tremendous amount of information out of a good case that might
otherwise be overlooked, and we're not talking about IFO
screening either, but potentially useful scientific data or
possibly even some overlooked physical trace evidence that no
one had ever thought to look for.

 >Even if the initial interest _were_ there, the plot thickens
 >almost immediately. "OK, let's say we're being visited. Are you
 >then suggesting that we're being visited by four different
 >species of ET simultaneously, each with different types of craft
 >and kinds of behavior... or what? And that the government has
 >successfully managed to keep this covered up for over 50 years
 >in the bargain? Ah, now I see!"

How would the government discern that there were "four different
species of ET" from four different UFO cases? I'm confused here.

 >Multiply this by hundreds of similar "non-standard" cases, and
 >ufology's ultimate problem should be better appreciated by its
 >own proponents: most so-called "patterns" are in fact
 >non-existent.

See above. Look at the similarities in just 6 cases deliberately
evaded by Battelle.

Or consider the RB-47 case from 1957. See next (below).


 >Arnold reported silvery objects travelling as a group at high
 >speeds, the New Guinea case involved a single UFO that hovered
 >over sequential nights, Socorro flames and a roar, and the Coyne
 >case some kind of weird, green tractor-beam. Add in the Hill
 >case, Roswell, Rendlesham Forest, RB-47, Cash-Landrum, Delphos,
 >Trans-en- Provence, you name it, and the Rimmer Ploy is revealed
 >for the transparency it is.

Yes, let's take the RB-47 case. In the 1957 case the UFO emitted
a radar-like beam at approximately 3,000 MHz, and it followed
the aircraft on its tail for long periods over Texas and
Oklahoma. In the 1955 RB-47 cases in northern Canada, the UFO's
also liked to follow on the tails of the jets but transmitted at
about 9,000 MHz (oh wow! a difference! a difference! big deal, a
flip of the dial or whatever on the transmitter frequency). In
the 1957 case, the initial UFO encounter involved the
radar-emitting UFO crossing over in front of the RB-47 from
right to left. In 1951, three B-36's had a series of similar
incidents in northern Canada including one radar-emitting UFO
that crossed over the front of the jet from right to left.

 >In other words:

 >1) If you accept these cases (or you can name your own) as more
 >or less valid, based largely on anecdotal testimony, then

You mean that the ELINT readings of UFO radar transmissions in
the RB-47 case and the medical records in the Cash-Landrum case
are just "anecdotal testimony"? Please tell us what is NOT
"anecdotal testimony"? Do you have androids or robots that can
collect data and analyze them so that there is no human element
involved at all? Otherwise I have to break the bad news to you
that every form of scientific and technical instrumentation on
earth has some human element involved in the collection and
processing of data.


 >2) how do you propose to make even a semi-consistent or coherent
 >"whole" out of them? (That is, come up with a testable
 >hypothesis that can actually be tested?)

See above. If you close your eyes of course you won't see.

Here is where ignorance of the literature - a basic first step
in all scientific endeavors - is biting us in the butt. Going
all the way back to Vallee in the 1960's testable hypotheses
were set up and tested, beginning with Aim Michel's provocative
"orthoteny" theory which even drew the interest of none other
than Donald Menzel who actually wrote a scientific paper on it
for Flying Saucer Review. Please re-read Valle's Challenge to
Science (1966).

 >And notice that we haven't even addressed abductions yet.
 >Remember when they supposedly displayed internal patterns and
 >consistencies, too?

 >As far as Jerry and Dick are concerned, the Rimmer Ploy is
 >really quite simple: put your names behind, say, the ten best
 >UFO cases in the voluminous UFO literature to which you have
 >both contributed, rather than referencing said literature as a
 >whole and witness reliability in general.

Dick has already put forward 18 cases from his ISSO article.
Before you insist it has to be pared down to 10 for some
unfathomable reason please explain whether or not somewhere
along the way you're going to shoot it all down on the excuse
the number is not large enough for a statistical analysis of
"patterns." You already seem to be heading that way. Which way
do things have to go, up to a list of say 1,000 cases or down to
10 or 4 or what?

 >Both of you have
 >countless cases (if the evidence is indeed that strong) on the
 >tip of your collective tongues, so a response shouldn't be that
 >long in coming.

Indeed Dick beat you to it by anticipating you in advance, on
April 7 with his posting on the 18 cases in his ISSO article,
conveniently listed out by Bob Young. See the UpDates posts:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m07-007.shtml
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m06-009.shtml

 >Now, make a coherent argument for ET visitation that
 >incorporates and accommodates all ten of those cases, as opposed
 >to saying they're simply "suggestive" of ET visitation. Include
 >any physical evidence.

Explain what a "coherent argument for ET visitation" looks like.
Does that mean a sign on the side of a UFO saying "Made in Zeta
Reticuli"? Would we believe it even if we saw such a sign?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 20

                    Updated New 'Cydonia Mound' Graphics

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:21:17 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:48:17 -0400
Subject: Updated New 'Cydonia Mound' Graphics




Just a note that I have updated the graphics on the web site to
better illustrate the possible structures on these three mounds
and other markings on the ground between them:

http://www.geocities.com/erasproject/imagestudy1.html

Chris Joseph's excellent initial enhancement of the main mound
(Mound A) again is here for reference:

http://www.geocities.com/erasproject/imagestudy1a.html


Paul

___________________________


Paul Anderson

THE ERAS PROJECT
http://www.geocities.com/erasproject

CANADIAN CROP CIRCLE RESEARCH NETWORK
http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

Suite 202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC  V5T 2M9  Canada
Tel / Fax (Office) : 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca

The Air is Full of Spin!
- The Spin Room








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 20

                 Re: Midlothian, VA 02/02/90 Case - Connelly

From: Dwight Connelly <bookdc@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:42:39
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:53:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Midlothian, VA 02/02/90 Case - Connelly


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Midlothian, VA 02/02/90 Case
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:30:26 -0400

 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:17:40 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch
 >To: Toronto List
 >Subject: Midlothian, VA 02/02/90 Case

 >Can anyone help find:

 >1) Email address for Mark Blashak, MUFON investigator
 >in/about Virginia in 1990?

 >2) Ditto for Dan Wright who wrote the Current Case log for the
 >MUFON Journal at that time? (MJ #268)?

 >3) Any further info on a report for Midlothian,VA ovoid sighting
 >of 02FEBR 1990, as briefly mentioned in that column, issue #268
 >of the MUFON Journal, pg 22?

 >[See details of sighting at bottom. -LH]

 >This will be most highly appreciated by Matteo Leone of CISU,
 >Torino, Italy, who is studying a nearly identical case for
 >Santena, TO, Italy. Please send any possible leads to:


  <larryhat@jps.net>  and/or
  <matteo.leone@usa.net>

<snip>

The latest email address I have for Dan Wright is:

ufoguy29@juno.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 >
   Apr > Apr 20

                      Bell Draws Fire For Guest-Bashing

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:09:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:09:43 -0400
Subject: Bell Draws Fire For Guest-Bashing





From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

Source: Jeff Rense's

Rense.com

Late Night Radio Storm As Art Bell Draws Fire For Guest-Bashing
Trouble In Dreamland

By Michael Goodspeed

4-20-1


On April 17th of 2001, national talk show host Art Bell posted
on his web site a letter from his syndicator, Premier Radio
Networks, to National UFO Reporting Center founder and president
Peter Davenport. In this letter, PRN Vice President Alan Corbeth
asserts that Davenport did not wish to appear on Coast to Coast
AM with Bell replacement Mike Siegel unless he was compensated
financially, and that Davenport repeated this request to Art
when Art scheduled him for a guest appearance on February 5th of
2000. Corbeth stated categorically that this is not the policy
of PRN, and criticized Davenport for appearing on other talk
shows without financial reward.

The decision of Bell to go public with this allegedly true
information has left many in the UFO community flummoxed,
because Peter Davenport has been one of the most respected
independent researchers in the field of UFOlogy, as well as a
valued guest on Art's show, since the early 1990s.

Some find it a bit too coincidental that this accusation has
been posted just days after the Seattle Chat Club removed the
name "Art Bell" from their moniker, because of their
investigation into the infamous Jonathan Reed/Robert Raith
"alien burrito" tale. It's been known for some time that a
number of UFOlogists in Washington (where the NUFORC is based)
were doing legwork into the claims of Reed and Raith. The
Seattle Chat Club's investigation found that Robert Raith and
one "Dr." Chacon, a reported microbiologist who claimed to have
done DNA analysis on Reed's physical "evidence", are actually
co-workers at a gas station and mini-mart, and that Mr. Chacon
is certainly not a doctor, nor did he "flee the country in fear
for his life," as has been asserted by both Reed and Raith.

It's also worth noting that the UFO Watchdog web site, which has
published numerous exposes on popular Bell guests, recently
posted an email from Peter Davenport where Davenport states
categorically that Jonathan Reed is a liar and has confabulated
his tale.

So the question is worth asking: Is Art Bell attempting to
damage the credibility of Peter Davenport, simply because
Davenport is not willing to support apparent hoaxes like the
Jonathan Reed story?

Did Art really believe that his audience needed to know about
Davenport's alleged desire to be compensated financially? What
was the news worthiness of this information? Why not keep it "in
house" and resolve the matter privately? Is Peter Davenport not
worthy of the most perfunctory professional courtesy?

I know of no instances when Davenport has intentionally "dissed"
the Bell show, for obvious reasons. He has always been one of
Art's most loyal, popular, and CREDIBLE quests, which makes this
situation even more perplexing.

Davenport is not the only former Bell guest who has recently
come under fire. Last week on C2C, Richard Hoagland claimed that
Tom Van Flandren has allegedly doctored a Mars photograph for
his Meta Research presentation. This is especially shocking,
because Van Flandren has long been Hoagland's most credible ally
and supporter. And like Davenport, Van Flandren is an almost
UNIVERSALLY respected researcher whose ethics are viewed as
above reproach. I personally know many long time friends and
colleagues of Tom's who are nothing less than appalled by
Hoagland's accusation, which has not been supported by anything
resembling fact.

What gives here? Is Hoagland worried that Van Flandren might be
"stealing his thunder" as the world's leading proponent of
artificial structures on Mars? Is Davenport being damaged
because he has the audacity to stand on principal and not
support people and agendas he knows to be fraudulent? Are Art
and his compadres sending a warning shot to all independent
researchers, that they must NOT challenge the Bell agenda, lest
they suffer the most dire consequences to their careers and
reputations?

Consider the fact that Davenport and Van Flandren are not the
first Bell guests to have their characters assassinated on
national radio. Take a look at the long list of popular
"alternative" personalities who are either banished from C2C or
have been actively smeared:

Dr. Richard Sauder, author of Kundalini Tales. When Sauder
contacted Whitley Strieber about appearing on Dreamland, Sauder
was told that his book Kundalini Tales and the theories within
were "too conspiratorial" to be presented on the air. This was
very perplexing, because it was WHITLEY STRIEBER who wrote a
positively glowing forward to Sauder's book.

David Icke, author of numerous books on the NWO, CFR, Trilateral
Commission, Bilderbergers, and one-world conspiracies. To my
knowledge, Bell has never publicly addressed why Icke is no
longer allowed on his show. Like Sauder, Icke has stated on
other talk shows that he believes C2C to be a promoter of
disinformation.

Courtney Brown, PhD, remote viewer. Remember the Hale-Bopp
fiasco of 1998? Brown refused to give the name of the man
responsible for doctoring the photo of the infamous Hale-Bopp
"companion," and was subsequently reamed by Strieber and Bell in
an on air tag team match. Never mind that it was Bell who
mercilessly promoted the photo on his show for weeks, ignoring
public opinion that the photo was a fake. Did Bell need a fall
guy to take the blame for his own lack of judgment and scruples?

Sherman Skolnick, independent journalist. Skolnick was
responsible for exposing the largest judicial bribery scandal in
US history in his home state of Illinois. He does have some
admittedly far-reaching theories, but not any more so than
Hoagland, Morton, Dames, et al. To my knowledge, Skolnick has
never been featured on C2C, even though he is arguably more
credible than the majority of Art's guest.

David John Oates, founder of reverse speech. Oates' problems
with Bell went way back before the infamous lawsuit and "feud"
of 1999. In 1998, Art abruptly dropped Oates as a guest, and
over the next year aired accusations that Oates had doctored
reversals (which Art later admitted was not true), and engaged
in cyberstalking tactics against Art and his show. Most agree
that Oates contributed greatly to his own downfall, as evidenced
by his odd affiliation with the less-than-credible Robert AM
Stephens. But to date, no one has adequately explained why Oates
was banished at the absolute height of his popularity.

There are numerous other researchers, journalists, remote
viewers, and UFOlogists who have been overlooked by C2C, while
the usual suspects named Scallion, Dames, Reed, Hoagland, and
Morton continue to thrive. This strikes many people as just a
tad incongruent, as Art continues to feature blatant frauds and
hoaxers while simultaneously slamming anyone who either
challenges him or gets too close to the truth.

It's also worth noting that Art has never touched any of the
following topics on his show or website: discrepancies in the
official police report of the Columbine massacre; a possible
conspiracy behind the death of Princess Diana; a conspiracy
behind the FDA's approval of aspartame (or NutraSweet) and other
deadly food additives; theories that numerous high-ranking NASA
officials have ties to the Third Reich; and don't forget Art's
total dismissal of every Clinton and Bush related scandal over
the past several years.

Is it possible that a show as hugely popular as C2C has been
somehow homogenized or influenced by the hands of either the
black or official government, to create confusion, disharmony,
and tumult in the already disjointed world of the paranormal? Or
is this simply the case of a giant media monopoly maintaining
it's stronghold through mercenary force? In either case, an
increasing number of independent thinkers have expressed their
anger over Bell's behavior, and are demanding that Bell begin
treating his colleagues in the alternative milieu with the
respect they have earned.












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                 Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:12:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:20:21 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Felder


 >From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:01:10 -0600

 >>From: Rogers Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:43:11 -0500
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Evans

<snip>

 >They do have a more honest right to an opinion on ufology in
 >all its forms based solely on having done the research, rather
 >than those who have not or failed to unbiasly read their
 >contributions. My bookshelf contains many examples of their
 >acumen and research... I don't see anything by you on the shelf.

You won't find anything by me on any of your shelves either, but
this whole thread screams for a comment. I am not a ufologist...
I am not a professional researcher or investigator. I am a
Consumer... meaning I am one of the working schmucks out here
who plops down my hard earned cash at the book store to buy the
books put out by all these self-proclaimed "ufologists" and "ufo
experts"... that information that was catagorized as being out
there for all to see. It is there for all to see... if one is
willing plop down the 29.95 for that book, that is.

Oh, I know, you can go to the library and check out a copy for
free. Ever tried browsing the UFO section in a small town
library in southern Mississippi? Guess what... there ain't no
UFO section. And the Bible thumpers around these parts don't
exactly fall all over themselves trying to help one acquire a
copy on loan. How do I know this? Been there, done that.

Because I have plopped out my hard earned cash, I feel that I
have every right to voice my opinion on these matters... I have
just as much right to voice my opinion on these matters as the
people who I have helped support over the years.

The customer is always right, ya know :)

It is the "average Joe's" out here like me who keep the UFO
industry going. It is called supply and demand. If you don't
have a market to sell to, you don't make sales. If your audience
loses faith in you, you lose your audience. Sales drop,
bookstores don't carry your books anymore, and you're lucky to
see your name in the bargain basement category on ebay.

Cold, hard reality bites, don't it?

I have to agree with Roger on this issue. I am but one of many
who has paid the cash for book after book, video after video, CD
after CD. I am but one of many who has spent money and time
going to lectures... paying that toll at the door each hour on
the hour at the Roswell bash, for example, just to hear the "big
names" in the field lecture  I am but one of many who has spent
countless hours on the internet reading emails like the ones
that traverse this list, pouring over webpage after webpage,
newsletter after newletter. I am but one of many who has spent
innumerable hours listening to radio show after radio show,
listening to self-proclaimed "ufologists" and "UFO experts"
telling their tales over and over, and selling their wares over
and over.

And you know what? I still don't have the answer to the one
simple question that all of us John Q. Consumer Public-types out
here want to see answered:

"What the hell are these things we are seeing in our skies?"

If any of the self-proclaimed "ufologists" knows the answer to
that question, it will greatly suprise me. There may be some
that know... but if so, they are keeping the information locked
in a file cabinet somewhere for some reason.

Oh..and I say "self-proclaimed" because I am unaware of any
University that offers a degree in Ufology. If there is such an
academic course offered and degree available, I would love to
know where one can go to obtain this degree. If anyone currently
holds a degree in Ufology from an accredited University, then
let's see it. Whip that puppy out... . scan it and post it
online.

It was said in an earlier post... and I'm paraphrasing here...
that one should not bother a dedicated, respected ufologist with
questions that demonstrate how little one has done in the way of
UFO research... ..to that, I simply reply thusly: If you, Mr.
Researcher, don't have time to answer my question, then I don't
have time to buy your book or your video or your CD or pay the
toll at the door of your lectures.

Cold, hard reality bites, don't it?

That's my opinion on the matter. It will be interesting to see
if this post actually gets to the Updates list.....


Bobbie

==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.com
Point of View Webcast
www.dragoncrest.net
Online publishing
==========



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.248 / Virus Database: 121 - Release Date: 4/11/2001







   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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:18:00 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:22:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:10:49 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:59:14 -0500

 >>>And lest we forget, however much the pelicanists want us to:

 >>>Donald H. Menzel on witness reliability: "I submit that [Dr.
 >>>James E.] McDonald's interviews of more than five hundred people
 >>>who have reported UFOs have no scientific validity whatever."
 >>>(In Sagan and Page, UFOs: A Scientific Debate)

 ><snip>

 >>In the second quotation, is it clear from the context (I don't
 >>have Sagan and Page's book any more) whether Menzel is talking
 >>about the actual eyewitness reports as raw data, or the way it
 >>was presented via McDonald's interviews?

 >John, Jerry, List:

 >In the above mentioned Menzel quotation, the final period was
 >actually a comma, followed by, "except to confirm his
 >[McDonald's] well-known bias in favor of ETH and against the Air
 >Force and myself and other nonbelievers. Similarly, Hynek's
 >indexes of 'credibility' and 'strangeness' are equally
 >subjective." (Sagan and Page, UFOs A Scientific Depate, p. 136).

 >On the preceding page, 135, Menzel had written, "McDonald's sole
 >contribution to the study of UFO's - as far as I can ascertain -
 >has been his reinterviewing of more than five hundred UFO
 >witnesses. These interviews, clearly biased in favor of the ETH,
 >have contributed nothing to our knowledge. They are hightly
 >subjective and have served only to crystallize the observer's
 >earlier interpretations of his observed sighting. This is not
 >science."

Hi Bob,

I would point out that what Menzel maintained about McDonald
could be said about the skeptibunkers. That being something
along the lines of 'Skeptibunkers are clearly biased against
anything that suggests or even contemplates ET reality, they
have contributed nothing to our knowledge and our highly
subjective....'

:)

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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                   Dr. Vladimir V. Rubtsov's FATE Article

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:39:09 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:28:07 -0400
Subject: Dr. Vladimir V. Rubtsov's FATE Article


Published in May 2001 issue of FATE Magazine, the title:
'The Unknown Tunguska: What We Know And What We Do Not Know
About The Great Explosion Of 1908'.

Once again, Dr. Rubtsov has demonstrated his analytical
abilities, and his wealth of knowledge of Soviet and the
post-Soviet paranormal scene. I am glad that FATE decided to
publish his work, and hope that he is not the last
Ukrainian/Russian researcher of such standing to be published in
that magazine.

I wish that English-speaking researchers would read some of his
other wonderful publications heretofore available only in
Russian. Such articles as the one in FATE promote cooperation
across borders and oceans.

Years ago Dr. Haines and Dr. Rubtsov created a Federation (The
joint American-Soviet Aerial Anomaly Federation) to promote
joint Soviet-American UFO research. I still keep some of their
publications, and cherish them. My book 'The Soviet UFO Files'
(Philip Mantle has my gratitude, for without him the book would
not have been possible) was but a brief introduction to the
history of Soviet ufology; but I am glad I was able to mention
the two scientists and UFO researchers.

For greater insight into the heretofore unsolved Tunguska
mystery, do read Dr. Rubtsov's article. If you like it as much
as I do, please contact FATE to publish more of his work. And
let us hope that another Federation will be created, to promote
joint research. Russia, Ukraine (and China) may go through
incredible transformations, but the yearning for knowledge
remains.

I believe that only through such cooperation we may get the
answers we all seek.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:53:17 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:35:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates


 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:20:02 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:19:21 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates

 >>>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:18:05 -0500
 >>>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Previously, I had written:

 >>>And, despite your "belief" or even your "belief system" (a petty
 >>>and over analyzed distinction), ET visitation has not been
 >>>proven. As such, it is currently folklore. To elevate it to a
 >>>status greater than that would be a "monumentally self-serving"
 >>>proclamation from someone that claims to be unbiased in his
 >>>views about the subject of UFOs.

 >Robert replied:

 >>I guess the questions come back to: "What is proof?" and what is
 >>a person and or scientific community willing to "accept" as
 >>proof. In many instances the threshold is lower until you
 >>mention the ET or UFO word, then suddenly the threshold climbs.

 >>For years "science" claimed that the universe was 4 or so
 >>billion years old, that was considered "scientific fact" never
 >>to be doubted or challanged. In essence it was already proven.

 >>Along comes Hubble. It shoots some photographs of what
 >>mainstream science, astronomers, and other experts all say is
 >>"older matter" that is in the shock wave of the big bang. They
 >>tell us that this so called older matter is in fact about 15 or
 >>so billion years old, so rather instantly science is now telling
 >>us the universe is 15 billion years old, blah blah. The point
 >>being is mainstream science is making this pronoucement not
 >>based upon having "physical evidence" in hand (i.e. a sample of
 >>the older matter that could be dated), but basing it upon
 >>"interpretation of photos." If you started talking about UFOs
 >>with some of these same scientists you would probably get all
 >>sorts of mumbo jumbo about wanting to having an alien craft,
 >>piece of debris to touch and inspect, about seeing or touching
 >>an ET etc etc.

 >I understand the point you are trying to make; to a degree I
 >agree with you. However, the example you give about the age of
 >the universe is a good example of "theory" being presented as
 >"fact" to make a point. You wrote:

 >>For years "science" claimed that the universe was 4 or so
 >>billion years old, that was considered "scientific fact" never
 >>to be doubted or challanged. In essence it was already proven.
 >
 >I have never read where science has accepted the age of the
 >universe as fact. I have always seen it as an "estimate" or a
 >"theory" for the very reason you follow up with:

Over the years science and text books have presented as fact
that the universe was 4 or so billion years old. That changed
with Hubbell. See below.

 >>The point
 >>being is mainstream science is making this pronoucement not
 >>based upon having "physical evidence" in hand (i.e. a sample of
 >>the older matter that could be dated), but basing it upon
 >>"interpretation of photos."

 >To this date, the information from Hubbell is still being
 >studied and the age of the universe is still under question.
 >Therefore, there is no "fact" or "proof" regarding the age of
 >the universe. Look at it this way: If the age of the universe

Last year on Nightline and in other publications, shows and so
on, the Hubbell data concerning the age of the universe (as now
being 12 or so billion years) was presented as fact by some
leading scientists and people who are working with the data. All
based upon interpretation of what is called Hubbell photographs.

I ran across this quote which you might find interesting:

"The answer to this cosmic puzzle was finally solved earlier
this year by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope Key Project team, led
by Wendy Freedman of Carnegie Observatories. The team, a group
of 27 astronomers from 13 different U.S. and international
institutions, announced in May that it had determined the age of
the universe with precise accuracy. After an eight-year effort
to measure the far-flung galaxies of the expanding universe, the
Key Project astronomers confidently concluded that the universe
is approximately 12 billion years old."

The word "theory" is not mentioned, advanced, or otherwise
presented in the above. You do have words like "precise
accuracy" which I found interesting.

In essence we have 27 astronomers from 13 different US and
international instutitions telling us that the age of the
universe is approx 12 billion years old. So we have 27
astronomers changing the age of the universe from what has been
touted and lathered as scientific fact since the 30s and not
even a shred of doubt, questioning, or skepticism floats up. By
the same token if you mention UFO/ET to some of these same
scientists you would hear such things as "physical evidence" and
"further study" and "closer examination" and "peer review by
100s of scientists" and other such commentary.

 >had been settled at 4 billion years old, then why was there a
 >need for the Hubbell telescope, the primary function of which
 >was to help determine the age of the universe and the
 >characteristics of its beginnings? Obviously, the Hubbell
 >telescope didn't just "come along" by accident. It was created
 >because scientists knew their data was incomplete and the age of
 >the universe was still in question.

 >Now, in all fairness, there is much in the way of photographic
 >evidence regarding UFOs that also warrants scientific study. I
 >have never claimed there wasn't. The reasons for this lack of
 >study isn't really the point at hand (though the UFO elite try
 >and blame skeptics for said lack of scientific study every
 >chance they get). I merely maintain that, regardless of the
 >reason, there has been no scientific conclusions regarding the
 >issue of ET visitations. For better or for worse, it is still
 >only a theory, just like the age of the universe is only a
 >theory. And, like studies of the universe, there is new
 >information all the time. But, in the end, any proclamation
 >about either is only a guess.

Kind of reminds me of the 2000 plus scientists of all types, but
especially including atmospheric and such who signed a petition
stating that global warming was bogus and the research claiming
that it was happening was flawed. Naturally those on the other
side had a signed petition (only 250 scientists as I recall)
stating that global warming was very real, blah blah blah.

Which is scientific fact and study? Depends on your perspective
I suppose.

 >Regarding your position:

 >>Then you have witness testimony. On one hand if a witness says
 >>he or she saw a structured craft flying through the atmosphere,
 >>etc we are told the witnesses were either mistaken, liars,
 >>hoaxers, misidentified a natural phenomona. On the other hand of
 >>it when a witness describes seeing a meteor many of these same
 >>skeptibunkers take the testimony at face value, never challange,
 >>dispute or question it an iotta.

 >I will agree that _some_ skeptics will do this just as _some_ in
 >the believers camp will take witness testimony of a UFO at face
 >value. The real issue, here, is the attitude of the larger
 >group(s) on both sides of the fence. I tire of the UFO elite
 >quoting statements from people like Klass or Menzel as if
 >rational skeptics have shrines to these men in there homes and
 >membership cards in their hip pockets. These guys are not as
 >influential as the UFO elite would like everyone to believe; a

Most if not all modern day skeptibunkers go and worship at
alters (although they may not know it) already built by the
skeptics such as Klass and Menzel. The modern skepticbunkers
offer very little if anything new. From what I have seen they
just package the argument somewhat different, but the principle
is the same.

 >belief that is important to maintain the "us against them"
 >scenario.

 >I've been with this List for about three years and I have yet to
 >see skeptics, as a group, take a hard line position that witness
 >testimony is worthless and can be discarded without a thought.
 >However, if you read through the archives of this list, that is
 >the common fall-back position when the UFO elite get backed into
 >a corner about witness testimony. What I have seen is that most
 >skeptics believe that witness testimony should be validated
 >before is it taken as fact.

I have been in UFOs so to speak since the 70s. Have seen plenty
of skeptibunkers fall back to the position of witness testimony
is meaningless and should be disregarded. If you are ever able
to pin a skeptic down as to validated testimony, you will find
that they raise the bar to the point that in essence they (the
skeptic) has to touch the ET craft that the witness saw before
the witness can be believed. Usually long before you get down to
pinning a skeptic you will find them wanting to disregard the
witness testimony "because of....."

 >What makes my head swim is that such validation should be
 >welcomed by the pro UFO camp but that seems to _never_ be the
 >case. If the notion of validation is brought up, they circle the
 >wagons, shake chicken bones and start chanting old quotes from
 >Klass and Menzel, as if that is supposed to embarrass serious
 >skeptics enough to scare them away from the issues at hand.

Validation is probably in the eyes of the beholder. To
skeptibunkers all storys and testimony that suggest the reality
of UFO/ET are to be disregarded (invalid) because of this or
that. To a gulliable believer aircraft landing lights are valid
testimony of a craft from outer space. In that vain have I got
some 16mm film for you..... :)

 >The bottom line is that there are a lot people out there that,
 >like me, believe in the possibility of ET visitation and ET life
 >and want to get past all the rhetoric and posturing that goes on
 >in both camps. The UFO elite say that rational debate is a good
 >thing and that debunking can be useful. The only problem is that
 >_they_ reserve the right to decide what is rational and what has
 >or has not been debunked.

 >Finally, Robert wrote:

 >>So what is proof and what is folklore is something that main
 >>stream science, much less anybody else has a hard time
 >>distinguishing.

 >Nonsense. Proof can be quantified. Folklore can not. More to the
 >point, anything not proven as fact is folklore, theory,
 >hypothesis, a healthy guess; call it what you want. But

Keep in mind that the age of the universe is now being
pronounced and announced as 12 or so billion years old, all
without any "proof in hand" and based upon interpretation of
photographs. In essence you have folklore being touted as fact.

 >something has either been proven as real or it has not. Oh, it
 >might make the pro-UFO camp feel better about themselves to call
 >UFO folklore the "Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis", but a rose by
 >any other name is still a rose. The UFO elite simply don't want
 >to deal with the thorns.

ETH or ET Theory is fine with me.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:29:55 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:38:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles


 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:22:17 -0300
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Now if you are on quicksand already with the first sighting then
 >47 years later, I think it's a mistake to start writing off
 >another sighting [number 2] stating the faulty reasoning of the
 >first as a precedent. Again this is a case of the outside agent
 >second guessing the witnesses, and very credible and reliable
 >witnesses at that... with considerably more experience than the
 >"experts" at describing and encountering aerial phenomenon.

Hi,

I appreciate that point, of course.

But - pilots may be experts at flying. They are not experts at
seeing fireball meteors as these are rare enough for most air
crew never to see one.

And ufologists have an expertise at dealing with witness
testimony and how human perception experiences a visual
stimulus.

So in this case - yes, I respect the abilities of the pilots and
they are indeed very credible witnesses. But that doesn't mean
they should have been any more aware of what happens when  a
fireball meteor whizzes past you in mid air.

In this case it was the l995 sighting that I investigated. I saw
the Chiles-Whitted case as an interesting precedent and it was
Allen Hynek's expertise on this that I trusted to. He was an
astronomer and a very experienced investigator and certainly not
a skeptic.  But the Chiles-Whitted case was not the reason I
regard the l995 incident as solved.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

               Cydonian Imperative: 4-20-01 - Mars Gets Weird

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 09:27:04 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 4-20-01 - Mars Gets Weird


The Cydonian Imperative
4-20-01

Mars Gets Weird

by Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

The history of the controversial "Face" on Mars has achieved the
momentum of urban myth. And as with an urban myth, our reactions
to the enigma is poses betray a smug disbelief, a collective
certainty that the solar system we inhabit - though strange - is
still the lifeless Newtonian machine we've grown to accept.

At the same time, the notion of extraterrestrial intelligence
has begun to squirm its way into the mainstream. The radio
search for ET signals (SETI) continues, essentially with the
backing of mainstream media. Cybernauts across the world run
SETI@Home, a downloadable number-crunching program, out of
dutiful conviction that it's worth doing. Maybe the next
fluctuation on the monitor will be the moment we've all been
waiting for. Somehow the effort seems worth it. We seem to
possess a fundamental urge to reach out, if only fumblingly, for
contact.

Despite the laudable goals of mainstream SETI, alternative
evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence such as the Martian
"Face" and associated features have been systematically
relegated to the fringe: unwelcome guests, eccentric neighbors
best left ignored. Our dismissal and fear of the "Face" has
affected the very fabric of scientific methodology; when a
confirming photo of the anthropomorphic mesa arrived in April of
1998, unnamed technicians at Pasadena's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory saw fit to obliterate it with an arsenal of arbitrary
graphics filters. With the mainstream press placated by what
looked like a two-dimensional footprint, NASA hoped the mystery
(introduced by a single photo taken by the Viking mission in
1976) would vanish.

But instead, the "Face" and other features in the Cydonia Mensae
region became underground superstars. Hundreds of sites cropped
up on the Web clamoring for attention, many of them brazenly
claiming that the Martian face was artificial beyond all doubt
and going so far as to identify its builders(!). Neighboring
formations such as the huge, five-sided "Main City Pyramid" and
small-scale anomalies like the "Mound" features scrutinized by
Dr. Horace Crater and Dr. Stanley McDaniel crowded cyberspace.
Curious readers were assaulted by ambiguous close-ups of
features billed as "smoking gun" evidence of a prior
civilization on the Red Planet.

In the three years that have passed since the Mars Global
Surveyor space probe returned its first tantalizing glimpse of
the Face in 1998, the search for alien artifacts on the Martian
surface has achieved unprecedented inertia. Most of the
speculation (and rare moments of actual science) have occurred
online, effectively invisible from society at large.
Self-proclaimed "skeptics" unfamiliar with the 10+ years of
fastidious, moderated research that has established the "Face"
as a genuine scientific unknown, have seen fit to maintain the
status quo with sweeping denouncements of the features in
Cydonia (and elsewhere). Many of these attacks have achieved
print status, and gain a relatively large audience among readers
unaware of the controversy and unable to arrive at their own
reasoned conclusions. And NASA, unfortunately, has continued to
betray its public pledge to reimage the Cydonia region at "every
available opportunity," resulting in countless (partially)
justified conspiracy scenarios.

What little ideological camaraderie the Internet "Cydonia
underground" had in 1998 has since become a confusion of claims,
counterclaims and accusations of subversive "political" agendas
harbored by various loose-knit organizations devoted to getting
to the bottom of the Cydonia mystery.

At the same time, our understanding of Mars itself is in the
process of profound mutation. We now know that the rusted sands
of our sister world occasionally harbor liquid water, a
prerequisite for carbon-based organic chemistry. And the
discovery of magnetite particles in a Martian meteorite makes
the case for past microbial life on Mars virtually airtight.
Notables such as scientist and author Arthur C. Clarke have
publicly claimed that new images from the Mars Global Surveyor
show probable macroscopic lifeforms, while NASA, typically,
sulks in perplexing silence.

If we cannot officially recognize possible extant life on Mars,
how can we hope to democratize the results of a successful
search for extraterrestrial intelligence? Radio-based SETI is
ontologically safe enough for establishment science: by SETI's
definition, the "aliens" - if they're indeed out there swapping
pages of the "Encyclopedia Galactica" -  will be conveniently
far away. Mars, on the other hand, hovers enticingly in our own
celestial backyard. If the prospect of Martian fungus is enough
to upset our fragile existential balance, the presence of
megalithic structures - left by a civilization about which we
know nothing - carries with it nothing less than a redefinition
of our species.

If artificiality on Mars is confirmed - and there's nothing to
stop us from confirming it in the next few years other than
bureaucratic reticence - the ensuing transformation is,
literally, everyone's business. We cannot afford the attitude of
smug pseudo-skepticism and anti-scientific denial that now
permeates the subject, for whatever reasons.

-end-













   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:36:19 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 09:58:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:26:16 -0000

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:36:33 +0100

 ><snip>


 >Jenny,

 >Although my admiration for your true "skepticism" and admirably
 >objective approach to UFO studies (let's stop using the oxymoron
 >"ufology") remains undiminished, I am at a loss to understand
 >your statement that "it is pointless looking for patterns." It
 >is very much to the point to look for patterns, and I have found
 >them in UFOE: II. Have you not received the review copy that I
 >arranged to be sent to you, or have you not had time to peruse
 >it?

Hi,

Yes, I have very recently received it and it is an excellent and
most valuable book that will rightly earn a place in Ufology's
hall of fame.

But you need to see what I was saying in a broader context. I
didn't say (or didn't mean to say) that pattern hunting in
Ufology's (sorry habits die hard!) is a waste of time. I've
engaged in that pursuit myself more than a little.

What I actually said was...

 >...'Because it is pointless looking for patterns in a
 >rag bag of cases  that comprise ufology'

And then I went on to clarify what I meant by this.

Ufology is is a mixture of various different phenomena being
reported under a single convenient catch phrase - 'its a UFO'.
But - IMO - these assorted cases have various - and often very
different - interpretations. I set out some of what these were
(eg UAP, consciousness phenomena, perhaps craft piloted by
another intelligence).

So it stands to reason that you cannot hunt for patterns in
these with any hope of meaningful success 'unless' you first
appreciate that you are not merely looking at a single
homogeneous collection of evidence.

If you take any 100 cases there are going to be examples of IFOs
(some of which are aircraft lights, some meteors, some balloons
etc etc etc) and some of which will be UAP (possibly even two or
three different kinds of atmospheric anomaly) and maybe a few
cases that will point elsewhere.

These 100 cases will be a lot of very different things that
simply cannot have patterns because a meteor has very different
parameters from an optical mirage which has very different
features to an alien spaceship - and so on.

Dennis's post to which I replied was arguing - look at these 4
UFO cases - look how different they all are? And I was pointing
out that this is inevitable - because UFO cases 'are' inherently
different -  and even unsolved cases stimulated by some sort of
real UFO probably have a range of causes that are as yet
unidentified.

Seeking patterns in the chaos is - of course - the way to go. My
most current book (Time Storms) does exactly that by having
chapter after chapter that specifically defines the parameters
found within this one type of UFO case. But that's the point. It
looks at a group of cases that have consistent features and that
at least have a reasonable prospect of thus being explained by
the same sort of process.

But unless you recognise that Ufology's is 'not' one mystery
that has 'one' solution waiting to be found - but is a
collection of mysteries with multiple solutions then you are
looking for patterns in many cases that will actively mislead
should they not turn up.

If you have a bag of mixed fruit and pick out all the red ones
and say - aha fruit is red - lets study it - then you may reject
all the orange and green ones on that basis. Which, of course,
could be a big mistake. Because only 'some' fruit is red.

Moreover - if you discover that some red fruit has a core and
call it an apple - then you may have made a discovery. But you
have to be careful not to eliminate from all consideration red
fruit that has a core but is 'not' an apple - or indeed from
mixing up the two and assuming they are the same thing.

Now we can understand this process with fruit because we know
what fruit is. But with UFOs, we don't and that's the problem.

This is not really angled at you - Richard - because it is self
evident that you know what you are doing and your pattern
hunting is carried out with care and recognition of the
problems. And - of course - you ultimately do only learn to
categorise fruit by pattern searching in the way that you
suggest.

So my point was not to deny the value of seeking out patterns
but to warn of its limitations and how it can lead the unwary
into making false assumptions.  I was arguing against treating
Ufology's as a single set of data within which we ought to
expect clearly defined rules. There 'will' be rules and the
patterns within them will help shape our understanding of the
many things that comprise the UFO mystery. But that only works
when you know you are looking for more than one thing - each
with its own set of patterns. It falls apart if you hunt for the
elusive pattern behind all UFO cases - because its elusive for a
very good reason. It doesn't exist.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Cuthbertson

From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:14:41 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:00:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Cuthbertson


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:38:23 -0500

 >>That being said, since when should anyone be tasked with finding
 >>meaningful patterns in only four cases? What I could do would be
 >>to take each of the four cases you cite and show you many dozens
 >>or hundreds of very similar reports (and there is some
 >>objective, physical evidence in many cases). Let's take your
 >>chosen examples one at a time:

 >Dick,

 >Thanks for you comments.

<snip>

 >Now, you just have to explain why there are so dang many alien
 >Porsches, Cadillacs, Bugattis, Surburbans and Land Cruisers
 >buzzing around out there, as if lithium crystals, or whatever
 >they use as fuel, were as cheap as a barrel of Saudi Arabian
 >crude.

I don't get it; sounds like you just answered your own question
Dennis. Given the huge variety of vehicles we use "down here" on
one little planet, and given that "out there" is by far a vaster
place than "down here", why would the variety of vehicles from
"out there" surprise you? Are we the only ones permitted
variety?

And as to fuel, since we haven't a clue about propulsion, fuel
could very well be cheap; heck it could be essentially free,
like hydrogen for instance. We just don't know do we?


-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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                           Have Sceptics Seen One?

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:38:17 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:03:34 -0400
Subject: Have Sceptics Seen One?


Hi,

If I may, a few questions for the sceptics on UpDates.

As sceptics on this list are also human (me thinks!) how many
UFO sightings have you had to date?

How many of your UFO sightings have had common traits displayed
at the time of sighting the UFO? Common traits meaning common
within a large number of UFO sightings made on a world-wide
basis.

Did any of these sightings advance your UFO knowledge?

What one personal sighting challenged your sceptical view
on UFOs being of ET origin?

If you say you could quite accept ET coming here, but you
require the evidence, what made you choose the acceptance of ET
within your answer?

Would you consider yourself a sceptic with a totally closed mind
to the ET question?

Forty years down the line from now, how would you like the new
people in UFO research to remember you and your UFO input?


Best Regards,

Roy..

Down To Earth Magazine on the Net:
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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                              Re: Belief - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:38:58 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:05:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Hale


 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Belief
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

<snip>

 >"Believers" are something else entirely. I have no respect for
 >"believers." Once you "believe" something is true, the circuits
 >in your brain that govern that aspect of your critical ability
 >atrophy and die. Ideally, we should hold everything in a state
 >of question.


Mac,

Do you believe what you wrote in this mail represents your
views?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                 Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:53:35 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:15:02 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors


 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:55:43 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:35:38 -0400
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Evans

<snip>

Final thoughts on Roger's diatribe:

 >"Therefore, you don't know squat about me, how much research
 >I've done or what I think..."

Sure I do, Roger. I can think. You are a consumate labelist,
argue strictly for arguments sake, haven't shared diddly squat
of anything important to the field of cryptoaeronautics and hide
behind a facade of B.S. in anything you post to the UFO Updates
List.

List members, I'm sure, know what your research encompasses...
which translates to zilch. I think we know all we really want to
know about you. The only redeeming value in your'expertise', in
the field, is that you are giving the next edition of the DSM-IV
a whole new chapter. In 560 posts to UFO UpDates you haven't
said a thing worth consideration.

If you have anything worthy to contribute to cryptoaeronautics
via your "research", you have a weird and skewed way of
clarifying your 'expertise'. So, yes, being a thinking
person I know a great deal about you.

That just about covers what I know of you and your expertise in
all matters dealing with exoaeronautics based upon your written
record.

Wendy Connors








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 21

               Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Gonzlez Manso

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:32:46 +0200
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:16:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Gonzlez Manso


 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 02:11:19 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question

Larry Hatch wrote:

 >>I found a few EME cases prior to the Johnson sighting in June
 >>1947. These are of highly variable merits of course.

 >The rest appear to be mainly auto and motorcycle engines,
 >headlights and other electrics conking out, RFI and mysterious
 >radio signals, a whole town or two going dark (power) after what
 >might be ball lightning attacks, one or two cases of temporary
 >human paralysis.....

A question.

Centering in vehicle stoppages, were these cases reported at the
time (before 1947) or were backdated cases known several years
later (i.e. after the Levelland EM cases)?

LuisR









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                  Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:31:39 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:21:43 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Jones


 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:08:50 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

Roger

My tuppence worth.

<snip>

 >True to form, your last paragraph seems to be the defacto answer
 >to any opposition, now. If someone doesn't get in line with the
 >UFO elite, the standard position is that one is "uninformed" and
 >hasn't read the literature or they would quite naturally agree.

 >Is it even remotely possible in your mind that someone has read
 >the literature, done some research and simply doesn't see eye to
 >eye? More to the point, you spent the majority of this post
 >defending someone's right to cite past work if the answer to a
 >given question was gong to be extensive; something that I took
 >no issue with. My beef was abuse of this technique to avoid
 >answering shorter, simpler questions or even flat out refusals
 >to address the issues presented. Your own avoidance in
 >addressing this issue, in this very post, only drives home my
 >point. Thanks for making my job easier.

You are speaking a load of old tosh.

For us standing back can see quite clearly, who is quoting from
knowledge, and who is quoting from ignorance. For example, if
_you_ were quoting from knowledge you _could_ cite particulars
about the case thus _proving_you_ had more than read a summary
of the case in question. It is my opinion that from your posts
you have not cited one detail with regard to any of the cases,
mentioned in previous posts, to substantiate relevant knowledge
of the case to those you are not quite debating with.

I wait to be proved wrong.

So in my not so humble opinion, and not being one of the 'elite'
you scornfully refer to, when they say _read_my_book_ before you
respond, what they are really saying, find some facts, then we
can debate the finer points.

If you are so blinkered that you cannot see that, well all hope
is lost for you, because these guys _have_ done their collective
research so why should they waste their time on someone who will
not do theirs?

 >As far as I'm concerned, your reply has only proved my point the
 >one must agree with the UFO elite or be pegged as one of the
 >"uniformed" that hasn't done enough research to know the error
 >of their ways.

I am neither one of the 'elite', or uniformed, you are clearly
one of the two mentioned groups, unless of course you can
demonstrate knowledge in a clear and concise manner without any
kind of name calling, bitchiness or general bad manners??

 >Typical.

 >(my best Johnny Bravo)
 >Hoo-ha! The wind generated from all this head noddin' is messin'
 >up my hair, momma.

Still watching the Cartoon Network?, well perhaps if you watched
the Discovery Channel you might even have _some_ knowledge!


Have fun.

--

    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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                  Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:15:28 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:25:13 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Young


 >From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:01:10 -0600
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Rogers Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:43:11 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Evans

 >They do have a more honest right to an opinion on ufology in all
 >its forms based solely on having done the research, rather than
 >those who have not or failed to unbiasly read their contributions.
 >My bookshelf contains many examples of their acumen and
 >research...I don't see anything by you on the shelf. Therefore,
 >your opinion comes from the List rather than from your
 >contributions to research.

Wendy, Anyone who read that:

Thanks for giving us this wonderful example of "the UFO Elite".
I thought that we were on a discussion List, but maybe I was
mistaken. Does this mean that if one is losing an argument,
here, that an appeal to "authority" can be the only acceptable
way to proceed?

My, my. That is what ufology always seems to be accusing
"science" of doing. Why, with this rule old Doc Menzel and Uncle
Phil would have to retain advanced positions on your library
shelves.

Based upon this, I can propose,

Wendy Connors' Default Law of Honest UFOlogy

In determining whether someone has The Honest Right to determine
The Truth, the weight of their argument shall be directly
proportional to the weight of their published output; with
double weight being assigned to self-published books, monographs
and articles in little flying saucer magazines; with an
adjustment of a triple weight being added to those works which
have only been read by participants with a "biased attitude". In
case of a dispute, the default setting shall be that of the
author with the more heavily footnoted pro-ETH position.

All kidding aside, this seems to be the 50 year methodology
of the science of ufology.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                    Dog Falls Victim To Unknown Predator

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:31:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:27:52 -0400
Subject: Dog Falls Victim To Unknown Predator


SOURCE: Calama UFO Center (Chile)
DATE: April 20, 2001


Dog Horribly Mutilated by Unknown Predator

Calama businessman Luis Faras Muoz cannot find a rational
explanation for his guard dog's mysterious death.

A mutilated dog was found in strange and intriguing
circumnstances in an industrial neighborhood located to the east
of Calama's Balmaceda Avenue, causing great concern to its
owner, who is still struggling to find a logical answer to the
mystery.

Luis Faras Muoz, owner of the Mabet Company, propietario de la
empresa Mabet, a machine shop and ironworking establishment, was
stunned when he discovered one of his guard dogs yesterday
morning on the street outside the property's walls. The dog
showed signs of having experienced a terrible attack on its left
side, where almost its entire skin was missing from its back to
its belly.

"This is a source of great curiosity for me, since I have seven
dogs (now six) which I leave within the walls every night.
Yesterday (Wednesday) I myself brought her in along with the
other animals and today (yesterday), I had to face this scene
when I arrived - the dog was out on the street, at the other
end, and in this condition. I cannot understand what might have
happened here."

Farias is quite right in his remarks - the case is rather
strange, since the dog's body shows signs of pressure on its
neck, is not swollen despite having been out in the sun all day
yesterday, and its interior shows signs of scraping. However,
the most outstanding thing in the complainant's mind is that he
did not find a single drop of blood visible in the animal's
wounds, nor any blood spilled on the terrain on which it lay
dead.

"I haven't moved a thing - everything is the same way since I
arrived. I also find it strange that there are no drag marks on
the ground, and that the skin that's missing off my dog isn't
anywhere to be found. I've even made a videotape of this."
explained the worker.

He says that the neighborhood is a peaceful one, and has never
attracted the attention of vandals or gangs, mainly due to the
enormous amount of dogs that can be found there and are charged
with defeding the premises of a variety of businesses.

"My friends told me to call La Estrella [de Calama, newspaper]
because it's all so confusing; the attack resembles those of the
Chupacabras. Because, who else would want to do such a thing,
and what happened to my dog's skin and blood, and what was the
dog doing outside of my compound, when I myself brought her
inside?".



##############

Translation (C)2001.S.Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology.

Special thanks to Jaime Ferrer, Calama UFO 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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:55:52 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:29:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:56:08 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:35:42 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

 >>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:56:00 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>Would you now like me to post dozens of examples of sceptics who
 >>have looked carefully at eyewitness testimony and found it
 >>invaluable in determining the stimulus responsibe for UFO
 >>sightings?

 >Yes.

Greg,

What about all the IFOs?

 >We could also make lists of skeptics who declare witnesses
 >didn't see what they reported, in order to make the skeptic's
 >explanation of the sighting work. (Klass, for instance, said
 >Coyne didn't operate the helicopter the way he said he did;

So what? He posited that Coyne operated the helicopter the way
that an experienced pilot would, by not crashing. Coyne just
didn't remember moving a control in the excitement of the
moment, but after having avoided certain death, noticed it had
been moved. The indisputable fact is, he didn't crash and was at
the controls. The ETHers propose that this was because a flying
saucer engaged a Tractor Beam to provent the crash. Now that's a
fine example of the Razor Of Ockem, if I ever was one.

Not.

 >Sheaffer said Betty Hill didn't see lights in the sky in the
 >positions she said she did.)

You have this exactlyl backwards, Greg. Shaeffer noted that
Betty did claim to see two lights in the sky, just where Jupiter
and Saturn were. It's just that she concluded one was a saucer.
Another famous example of eyewitness testimony being good enough
to turn an exciting saucer tale into just one more boring IFO.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

--------------------------------------
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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                        Re: Serious Research - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:14:13 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:31:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Young


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:16:06 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:38:43 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:47:52 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >I can't resist noting that two discussisons are confused here.

Greg, Dick:

Neither can I.

 >First discussion: Are there unknown craft flying around? Second
 >discussion: If there really are unknown craft flying around, do
 >they come from other planets?

A good point.

 >Dick offered his 18 cases as part of the first discussion. If I
 >read him correctly, he doesn't say he has proof of the ETH. He
 >does believe he has proof that unknown craft are flying; the ETH
 >is his hypothesis to explain those unknown craft.

Uh, huh.

 >So he's met the burden of proof. He has 18 cases that he thinks
 >prove what he's trying to demonstrate. It's now Bob's turn to
 >show why these 18 cases don't demonstrate what Dick says they do.

To quote old Doc Menzel, "This is science?"

So, now one only has to proclaim the existence of proof, and
that's it?

Let's all go home.

 >But instead of doing that, Bob now changes the subject. He wants
 >Dick to prove the ETH

Yees, it was _his_ hypothesis.

Hello.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

--------------------------------------
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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:22:37 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:32:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:21:12 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:28:15 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:07:08 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

<snip>

 >You mean that the ELINT readings of UFO radar transmissions in
 >the RB-47 case and the medical records in the Cash-Landrum case
 >are just "anecdotal testimony"

Brad:

Are the medical records of Betty Cash, and the others, as they
relate to this incident, available?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                  Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:08:20 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:35:48 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Hall


 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:09:43 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:04:16 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Hall

 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:08:50 -0500
 >>>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

 >Previously, I had written:

 >>>As far as I'm concerned, your reply has only proved my point the
 >>>one must agree with the UFO elite or be pegged as one of the
 >>>"uniformed" that hasn't done enough research to know the error
 >>>of their ways.

 >Dick replied:

 >>I could give a fig whether you agree with me (or Jan), but I am
 >>extremely curious to have your definition of your constantly
 >>cited, but undefined, term "elitist" which you keep throwing out
 >>as if it explains something or has some profound meaning.

 >Certainly, Dick.

 >I define the 'UFO Elite' as:

 >1) the small group of ufologists that, by virtue of the research
 >they've done or the books they've published, feel that their
 >views have more weight than others, despite the fact that said
 >research or books have proved nothing in regard to the ETH.

 >2) a member of the UFO elite is characterized by their selective
 >refusal to answer questions, their tendency to dodge issues by
 >answering questions with yet another question, or, by their
 >tendency to reference past works when a simple yes or no answer
 >would do.

 >3) the over use of said referencing as a form of diversion
 >calculated to halt the discussion with the obvious ploy that
 >readers won't bother to look up said reference and the debate
 >will die on the vine or veer off in a new, more comfortable
 >direction for the elitist in question.

 >4) a member of the UFO elite will, when pressed into corner,
 >declare that the opposition is "uninformed" or that "they
 >obviously haven't done enough research" or that "their question
 >isn't worth addressing".

 >5) Use partial quotes from well known debunkers as a supposed
 >example of how the opposition thinks when, in reality, few if
 >any rational skeptics approach research that way.

 >6) when pressed for time, simply label the opposition a
 >"skeptic" or "debunker" and then bow out of the debate.

 >and finally, (my favorite)

 >7) simply declare themselves the winner of the debate before it
 >ever starts.

 >That should just about do it.

 >Now that I've answered your question, are you going to address
 >the issues I previously raised or will the definition I've given
 >continue to be demonstrated?

Roger,

Well, that certainly is a convoluted "definition," but it is
illuminating in ways you may not suspect. You have called me an
"elitist", yet many points of your "definition" do not apply to
me in any way I can see. Some of the "simple questions" I have
seen invoked are _not_ simple to answer. They are very complex
and would require lengthy posts to answer. (Like Dennis Stacy's
latest.) Hence, we say "Do your homework."

I don't know what "issues" you are refrerring to that you think
I haven't answered. Ask me a couple of allegedly 'simple'
questions for example, and I will see how readily answerable
they are.


Dick










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Cecchini

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:13:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:02:43 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Cecchini


 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:28:19 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:29:52 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Salvaille

 >>Wendy Connors rates very high on my credibility scale. I found
 >>her take on Aldrich, Hall and Clark very refreshing and
 >>enlightening.

 >Apologise to Wendy? Not a chance.

Just out of curiosity, perhaps I missed it, but has Ms. Connors
released her much-anticipated video interview with RAAF Lt. Col
Walter Haut wherein he allegedly says (in paraphrase) that while
he was the information officer at Roswell that he saw bodies,
saw a "disc", saw what happened to said bodies and disc, etc.?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:52:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:04:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:10:49 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:59:14 -0500

 >>>And lest we forget, however much the pelicanists want us to:

 >>>Donald H. Menzel on witness reliability: "I submit that [Dr.
 >>>James E.] McDonald's interviews of more than five hundred people
 >>>who have reported UFOs have no scientific validity whatever."
 >>>(In Sagan and Page, UFOs: A Scientific Debate)

 >In the above mentioned Menzel quotation, the final period was
 >actually a comma, followed by, "except to confirm his
 >[McDonald's] well-known bias in favor of ETH and against the Air
 >Force and myself and other nonbelievers. Similarly, Hynek's
 >indexes of 'credibility' and 'strangeness' are equally
 >subjective." (Sagan and Page, UFOs A Scientific Depate, p. 136).

With all due respect, this is crap. What Menzel called "bias"
was McDonald's richly merited criticism of Menzel and the Blue
Book clowns. Let's recall what McDonald had to say about
Menzel's debunking pseudoscience:

"... Dr. Menzel's background in physics and astronomy is
well-attested by his authorship of a number of texts and
references in those areas. Despite that background, when he
comes to analyzing UFO reports, he seems to calmly cast aside
well-known scientific principles almost with abandon, in an
all-out effort to be sure that no UFO report survives his
attack. Refraction processes are quite well understood in
optics, and the refracting properties of the atmosphere are
surely as familiar in astronomy as in meteorology, if not more
so. Yet in 'explanation' after 'explanation' in his books,
Menzel rides roughshod over elementary optical considerations
governing such things as mirages and light reflections."

The quote is from a larger, devastating assault on Menzelian
pseudoscience (you know, the kind of pseudoscience debunkers
favor, or at least retain a tactful silence concerning, when it
comes from one of their own) appears in his paper UFOs: The
Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times? (1967).

I find it hilarious that Menzel, and his uncritical apologist
Bob Young, considers any criticism of a debunker "bias" by
definition, with no need whatever to document same.

 >On the preceding page, 135, Menzel had written, "McDonald's sole
 >contribution to the study of UFO's - as far as I can ascertain -
 >has been his reinterviewing of more than five hundred UFO
 >witnesses. These interviews, clearly biased in favor of the ETH,
 >have contributed nothing to our knowledge. They are hightly
 >subjective and have served only to crystallize the observer's
 >earlier interpretations of his observed sighting. This is not
 >science."

To Menzel, who virtually never interviewed witnesses, any
conclusions different from his own could happen only because the
interviewer was "biased" - as opposed to the objective Menzel,
possesser of all truth. Menzel's argument is simply defensive
bluster, of no scientific value to anybody to any truth-seeker
of any persuasion. In point of fact, having had access to
McDonald's interview notes (as Menzel didn't; he's just making
up his accusation), I can tell you that his interviews were well
conducted, did not involve discussions of the ETH, and were
strictly there to gather facts from which to make a
determination about the case. If McDonald, whose inquiries were
a model of scientific thoroughness in a way Menzel and Blue Book
would have done well to emulate, had been investigating anything
but UFO reports, no one would have ever considered for a second
that "bias" drove him or that bias is apparent in his approach
to conservations with witnesses.

This is the sort of garbage Menzel routinely trafficked in. If
debunkers like you, Bob, ever engaged in the heresy of internal
criticism against those who share your ideological crusade, you
would call him on it. But I guess a camel will have to pass
through the eye of a needle before that happens.

 >the fragmentary quotation cited by Jerry was made in the
 >context of what Menzel's saw as the subjective, not objective,
 >nature of McDonald's witness interviews. It was _ not_ just a
 >statement about witness reliability, which was what this thread
 >was discussing.

Nope. My quote aptly underscored Menzel's contempt for
eyewitness testimony, implicit in debunking ideology. All you're
doing here is passing on a charge Menzel hurled maliciously and
did not attempt to document except via hand-waving polemic. He
had no specifics, and I'm sure you don't, either.

At least Menzel was consistent. Since he had no respect for
witness testimony, he didn't interview witnesses. Something else
you would criticize him for (after all, by your own testimony,
you _have_ interviewed witnesses) if internal criticism existed
on your side of the UFO debate.


Clearer skies,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                                 Bizarro TV

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 20:26:01 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:07:51 -0400
Subject: Bizarro TV


"Roswell Conspiracies

An international intelligence agency tracks alien activity on
Earth while keeping the threat of extraterrestrial invasion
under wraps in this animated series. (30 min)

Category: Children, Sci-fi & Paranormal

Saturday, 21 11:30 AM 25 WFXT
Saturday, 28 11:30 AM 25 WFXT
Saturday,  5 11:30 AM 25 WFXT"


Clearly this cartoon is part of a Grand Disinformation Campaign
to pollute the minds of our youngsters into believing that All
Aliens are the Bad Guys!

...

"Contact (150 min)"

Description not needed.

"Wednesday, 25 8:00 PM 4 WBZ

...

Roswell (100 min)"

aka "That Roswell Movie with Kyle MacLachlan

"Sunday, 29 2:00 PM 77 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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                 Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:36:55 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:10:50 -0400
Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Velez


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:21:45 EDT
 >Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line
 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:13:16 -0700

 >>The latest issue (#8 - February 2001) of Barry Greenwood's
 >>newsletter, the U.F.O. Historical Revue (UHR) is now on-line and
 >>available for your viewing in both HTML and .PDF formats.

 >>Articles include: "Questions on a 1953 Cape Cod Mystery,"
 >>"Censorship: The Kirtland Fireball Catalog," and an "Extract:
 >>History of the 57th Fighter-Interceptor Wing (1950, Alaska)."

 >>To access this (and earlier issues) of UHR, go to:

 >>http://www.cufon.org/

 >Jim, John, Listers:

 >This is an always informative publication, and website.
 >I noticed two little tidbits, today.

 >Tidbit #1 - In the current issue article about the Kirtland Air
 >Force Base list of 1946-1950 Green Fireballs, Barry Greenwood
 >discusses a possible case of Air Force Censorship. In the 1970s
 >ten years after the list was declassified the assessment of
 >eyewitness credibility and the evaluation of the sighting were
 >apparently blacked out. He suggests that this may have made the
 >list more mysterious than it was. The list was obtained through
 >the Freedom of Information Act, which was passed and went into
 >effect in the early 1970s. It requires the deleting of
 >information identifying private citizens for privacy reasons.


Hola Young Bob, All,

 >I suggest that this privacy concern may be why this was done in
 >these cases.

Nothing wrong with protecting the identity of someone who wishes
to remain anonymous. Your tidbit brings to mind a picture of
Stan Friedman leafing through a document obtained via the FOIA
that has whole pages redacted/blacked out. Pages where they
wouldn't even show the 'ands' and 'it's'. I don't think they
'always' do it just to protect someone's privacy though. Ask
Stan. <LOL>

 >Tidbit #2 - On the website, Don Johnson's interesting list of
 >"UFO hotspots" in the U.S. provides some food for thought. I
 >notice that in Pennsylvania there are only two, the most
 >prominent being Westmoreland County, just east of Pittsburgh.
 >Both of these locations are where active UFO investigators are
 >based. Westmoreland County has been the location of Stan Gordon
 >and his groups for the past 20 years.

 >Unless the ETs have redlined the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
 >for some reason (maybe they are allergic to coal dust), it seems
 >that the population of potential witnesses is not nearly as
 >important as the population of investigators who stimulate and
 >collect reports.

That's not a fair comment on two counts Bob.

1. _Of course_ an area where someone is actively working to
gather 'local' sighting reports is going to have 'more reported
sightings' than an area where no researchers (or information
gatherers if you will) are known to exist. (by the locals) If
you can "accuse" them of anything, maybe it's for being a bit
too "provincial" (local) in their data gathering.

2. I'm not comfortable with your use of the word "stimulate" to
kind of explain the number of reports these local guys gather.
As if their mere "presence" or in the worst case, "influence"
has something to do with the number of reports they receive.

I hear what you are 'trying' to say, you just chose a 'one
sided'/'one dimensional' way of presenting it. Blanket
statements are very rarely, if ever, true. Although I agree that
a few reports may be submitted by 'jokers' with nothing better
to do, or even by a few needy people seeking attention, but it's
not fair to paint them 'all' with the same brush. The reports
need to be investigated _before_ anyone can determine their
validity. Your suggestion of investigator influence seeks to
invalidate them all in one stroke.

Not a fair assessment Mr. Young.

 >Just a thought on this beautiful spring day along the
 >Susquehanna River.

Yeah, the weather has been glorious in New York too. I took
advantage and stretched my legs for a brisk five mile walk just
to drink it all in and get the Winter and all the cobwebs out of
my bones. I love Spring and Fall most of all.

'Great to be alive' weather. Ah, Spring! ;)


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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                  Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 05:22:55 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:34:51 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Velez


 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:12:47 -0500
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Felder

 >>From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:01:10 -0600

 >>>From: Rogers Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:43:11 -0500
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Evans

 ><snip>

 >>They do have a more honest right to an opinion on ufology in
 >>all its forms based solely on having done the research, rather
 >>than those who have not or failed to unbiasly read their
 >>contributions. My bookshelf contains many examples of their
 >>acumen and research... I don't see anything by you on the shelf.

 >You won't find anything by me on any of your shelves either, but
 >this whole thread screams for a comment. I am not a ufologist...

Hola Ms. Felder,

You wrote:

 >I am not a professional researcher or investigator. I am a
 >Consumer... meaning I am one of the working schmucks out here
 >who plops down my hard earned cash at the book store to buy the
 >books put out by all these self-proclaimed "ufologists" and "ufo
 >experts"... that information that was catagorized as being out
 >there for all to see. It is there for all to see... if one is
 >willing plop down the 29.95 for that book, that is.

For some reason this is only a "problem" in ufology. I never
hear anybody beating up on Stephen King or Martha Stewart for
charging so much for _their_ books. Or people complaining about
having to pay for the books in order to read them.

I was working closely with Budd Hopkins during the same time
period that he was writing 'Witnessed: The Brooklyn Bridge
Abduction Case'. It took him _years_ to research and then to
write that book. The $$ that the publisher gave him up front
wouldn't be able to compete with a janitors salary. People
deserve to be compensated for months and sometimes years of the
dedicated, hard work that it takes to gather and properly present
their material.

I'm certain that Dick Hall, or Jerry Clark, or Stan Friedman or
Jenny Randles etc., have never come anywhere near being properly
compensated for all the time and work it takes to research and
write their books. Maybe it's because, as you say, you have
never written a book, that you have no appreciation for the
effort and labor that is involved.

If _you_ wish to read them, you have to pony up the dough for
the privilege. That's modern capitalism at work. Because the
subject happens to be UFOs doesn't mean that people have to give
their work/labor away for free. It's unreasonable to demand it
or to expect it.

Do you work for free?

I didn't think so.

 >Oh..and I say "self-proclaimed" because I am unaware of any
 >University that offers a degree in Ufology. If there is such an
 >academic course offered and degree available, I would love to
 >know where one can go to obtain this degree. If anyone currently
 >holds a degree in Ufology from an accredited University, then
 >let's see it. Whip that puppy out... . scan it and post it
 >online.

Talk to Dave Jacobs at Temple University. You're in for a
surprise. ;)

 >That's my opinion on the matter. It will be interesting to see
 >if this post actually gets to the UpDates list.....

Surprise again!  <LMAO>


Your List buddy,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                               Polygraph Tests

From: John Rimmer <j.rimmer@merseymail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:37:51 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:39:53 -0400
Subject: Polygraph Tests


 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:44:34 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

<snip>

 >Establishing witness reliability should be priority number one
 >for any person 'investigating,' and then 'reporting' on, a case.
 >Any 'tool' that might prove helpful in establishing witness
 >reliability should be employed (if/when possible.) Along that
 >same vein, "what ever happened to the practice of subjecting
 >witnesses to polygraph/lie detector examination?


John,

The article referenced below may be of some interest:

www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000000557C.htm



--
John Rimmer
<j.rimmer@merseymail.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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                  Re: Midlothian, VA 02/02/90 Case - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:02:56 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:43:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Midlothian, VA 02/02/90 Case - Hatch


 >From: Dwight Connelly <bookdc@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Midlothian, VA 02/02/90 Case
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:42:39


 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:17:40 -0700
 >>From: Larry Hatch
 >>To: Toronto List
 >>Subject: Midlothian, VA 02/02/90 Case

 >>1) Email address for Mark Blashak, MUFON investigator
 >>in/about Virginia in 1990?

 >>2) Ditto for Dan Wright who wrote the Current Case log for the
 >>MUFON Journal at that time? (MJ #268)?

 >>3) Any further info on a report for Midlothian,VA ovoid sighting
 >>of 02FEBR 1990, as briefly mentioned in that column, issue #268
 >>of the MUFON Journal, pg 22?

 >>This will be most highly appreciated by Matteo Leone of CISU,
 >>Torino, Italy, who is studying a nearly identical case for
 >>Santena, TO, Italy. Please send any possible leads to:

 ><larryhat@jps.net>and/or
 ><matteo.leone@usa.net>

 ><snip>

 >The latest email address I have for Dan Wright is:

 >ufoguy29@juno.com

- - - -

Hello Dwight!

Marvelous! I will send off a plea to Dan Wright for further
details immediately.

Very much appreciated, and I passed Dan's address right along to
Matteo of CISU Italy.

Meanwhile, does _anybody_ have a clue how to reach the elusive
Mark Blashak who investigated the Midlothian,VA/1990 matter in
the first place?

All I could learn from MUFON/VA was that he moved to Florida in
recent years. They could offer no details about this case, in
their State, from 1990. Instead they referred us to MUFON
central, now in Colorado.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

              Re: Bell Draws Fire For Guest-Bashing - Mercieca

From: JJ Mercieca <mufor@maltanet.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:50:13 +0200
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:45:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Bell Draws Fire For Guest-Bashing - Mercieca


 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:09:43 -0400
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Bell Draws Fire For Guest-Bashing

Michael Goodspeed wrote:

 >Davenport is not the only former Bell guest who has recently
 >come under fire. Last week on C2C, Richard Hoagland claimed that
 >Tom Van Flandren has allegedly doctored a Mars photograph for
 >his Meta Research presentation. This is especially shocking,
 >because Van Flandren has long been Hoagland's most credible ally

As far as I know, Hoagland did _not_ accuse Van Flandern of
doctoring the D&M pyramid image, rather he accused someone at
JPL/NASA of doing so. According to Hoagland, it was either that
or Martians knew our alphabet several thousand years before it
was invented. Surprisingly, Van Flandern finds the latter
explanation easier to accept, causing the rift between him and
RCH.

(This is my personal opinion, from having listened to the Art
Bell show and articles on several websites - I am not affiliated
in any way with Hoagland or Van Flandern)


Regards,

JJ Mercieca









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                  Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:51:34 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:51:22 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Hatch


 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:12:47 -0500
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

 >>From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:01:10 -0600

 >>>From: Rogers Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:43:11 -0500
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

 ><snip>

 >>They do have a more honest right to an opinion on ufology in
 >>all its forms based solely on having done the research, rather
 >>than those who have not or failed to unbiasly read their
 >>contributions. My bookshelf contains many examples of their
 >>acumen and research... I don't see anything by you on the shelf.

 >You won't find anything by me on any of your shelves either, but
 >this whole thread screams for a comment. I am not a ufologist...
 >I am not a professional researcher or investigator. I am a
 >Consumer... meaning I am one of the working schmucks out here
 >who plops down my hard earned cash at the book store to buy the
 >books put out by all these self-proclaimed "ufologists" and "ufo
 >experts"... that information that was catagorized as being out
 >there for all to see. It is there for all to see... if one is
 >willing plop down the 29.95 for that book, that is.

 >Oh, I know, you can go to the library and check out a copy for
 >free. Ever tried browsing the UFO section in a small town
 >library in southern Mississippi? Guess what... there ain't no
 >UFO section. And the Bible thumpers around these parts don't
 >exactly fall all over themselves trying to help one acquire a
 >copy on loan. How do I know this? Been there, done that.

 >Because I have plopped out my hard earned cash, I feel that I
 >have every right to voice my opinion on these matters... I have
 >just as much right to voice my opinion on these matters as the
 >people who I have helped support over the years.

<snip>

Dear Bobbie:

Your sincere words do strike home for some of us.

Having turned every library in San Mateo county (California)
plus a few over the line in other counties, your experience
reminds me of my own, in the early days when I was trying to
learn what I could about UFOs.

I found shelves groaning from the weight of multiple copies of
Elizabeth Montgomery books, (UFOs as spiritualist
manifestations...) and similar junk, all covered with dust of
course, and precious few volumes worth the trip to the library.

I would bet your library shelves are in a state of near collapse
from equally unread religious blither; layers of dust thick
enough to house, shelter and camouflage whole platoons of field
mice.

Most likely, you like I, simply want to know if there is
something solid and important in UFO sightings.

I suggest a filter of some sort. Any study with more noise than
signal absolutely demands some sort of filtering. It can be as
simple as asking "Does this person make any sense.....?" But
first you need access to some decent reading matter.

It is only an accident of geography that I found easy access to
some major students of Ufology around here. With their help, and
those they recommended, I was able to gather enough good stuff
in print to gradually form what I consider an informed opinion
or two, and to improve a database already in progress.

May I further suggest the Arcturus Book service in Port St.
Lucie, FL? Tell Bob Girard you's from Missasippy, and maybe he
will send a free catalog.

Sure beats 'How I Found Jesus' by Harwood Snick III - author and
title fictitious.'


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch


PS: Please do not be offended by any of 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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                 Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 07:37:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:54:18 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Kaeser


 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:12:47 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

<snip>

 >It is the "average Joe's" out here like me who keep the UFO
 >industry going. It is called supply and demand. If you don't
 >have a market to sell to, you don't make sales. If your audience
 >loses faith in you, you lose your audience. Sales drop,
 >bookstores don't carry your books anymore, and you're lucky to
 >see your name in the bargain basement category on ebay.
 >>Cold, hard reality bites, don't it?

Bobbie-

I don't think you realize how well this points out a major
problem with the genre. When you use phrases like "UFO industry"
you've relegated this to a consumer product that should bend to
the will of the consumer and provide whatever is necessary to
make the sale. Most of the researchers that I work with would
like to see the "wannabees" and those who join in the discussion
because it's "cool" simply go away, but with the Internet and
Media we have today that is highly unlikely.

Just as everything else in life, UFO information and literature
comes in all shapes and sizes, and it is indeed impacted by
economic forces. I've worked with groups to produce good UFO
related material and the fact is that there is a very limited
market for good research. This can be seen in the number of
manuscripts that are floating around looking for publishers.
Most end up being printed by a vanity publisher and distribution
is left up to the author. There is an economic factor to
everything, and Ufology is included in that.

Research publications, such as those sold by the Fund for UFO
Research, will usually have a total sale of about 30 to 40
copies when they first come out, with a copy or two a month sold
after that for a year or two. Certainly no one is going to
retire any time soon on this type of income. Yet this is the
information that is being developed by most of the researchers
(most of whom aren't commercial authors). Of course this
material is somewhat dry and doesn't have a very good plot, so
most people don't go out of their way to snag a copy. Not to
mention the fact that the information is often dealing with a
single facet of a case, or may be nothing but a compilation of
charts and tables that the readers has to use in their own
research.

Yes, UFO literature is impacted by the market and is now viewed
by many as a form of entertainment. This does not help it
develop as a scientific pursuit and may indeed hinder its
acceptance.

I would suggest that those who rely on the television and the
local bookstore for their information on UFOs are helping the
support the entertainment industry and not the search for truth.
This isn't to say that there are no books of value available
from the major publishers, but they are few and far between, and
you need to know who the author is. Unless, of course, you're
simply looking for an entertaining diversion.

My I join others in suggesting that you read Richard Hall's
latest, UFO Evidence II. You probably won't find it at the local
book store though. You might ask your library to order it if you
can't afford the $60 (US) purchase price. Scarecrow press
primarily publishes reference books, and the library would
naturally be their target customer. Let me add that while
Richards gets a very small share, the bulk of any profits from
this book will go to the UFO Coalition (FUFOR, CUFOS, & MUFON)
to help fund further research.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                 Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 05:52:43 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:57:59 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Connors


 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:12:47 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:20:21 -0400
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

<snip>

Hello Bobbie,

 >Because I have plopped out my hard earned cash, I feel that I
 >have every right to voice my opinion on these matters... I have
 >just as much right to voice my opinion on these matters as the
 >people who I have helped support over the years.

 >The customer is always right, ya know :)

 >It is the "average Joe's" out here like me who keep the UFO
 >industry going. It is called supply and demand. If you don't
 >have a market to sell to, you don't make sales. If your audience
 >loses faith in you, you lose your audience. Sales drop,
 >bookstores don't carry your books anymore, and you're lucky to
 >see your name in the bargain basement category on ebay.

 >Cold, hard reality bites, don't it?

Of course you have the right to your opinion on matters dealing
with anything, including ufology. I honestly don't know about
the financial rewards of research in the field of
cryptoaeronautics as it applies to other researchers, but I can
speak for myself. I've never made a cent of profit on anything
I've contributed to the heap. As a matter of fact, I'd probably
have a heart attack if I ever do see a return on my research
expenditures.

Let me see... of Mike and my articles in IUR we received a
courtesy copy. Nice to receive, but no financial cigar. Our book
on Alfred Loedding involved thousands of dollars worth of travel
expense, long distance phone calls, etc. Sold every book and
still over $5,000 in the hole just from the printing costs. Our
newest book on Ruppelt is even worse, but we may...just may, if
God is good to us, break even on the cost of printing, but
again, thousands of dollars spent on trips to Dayton, long
distance calls, thousands of hours at the computer composing,
shipping costs, etc., etc., etc.

Then there are the hundreds of items I personally send out to
people who request items from my archive each year at no charge
(they didn't even send a postage stamp to defray my costs). Just
as an example how about the books I sent free to a young fellow
in Brazil who was interested in the topic of UFOs. I have the
$36 postage receipt right here in front of me. Now there is a
real shrewed profit I made off of this young man! <G> Let's
see...cost me about $60 in books and $36 for postage to Brazil.
Not a bad return on a written request from a 16 year old kid
living in a charitable home in Brazil. Believe me or not...I've
spent a fortune giving and received no monetary rewards of any
kind. What I have received is worth more than money however.

Been on a few of those radio talk shows too. Yeah, same
thing... had a wonderful time and love doing it, but again, no
financial cigar. People will pay their doctor for advice but not
historians. <G> Let's see...thousands of dollars spent on the
website with monthly hosting fees, etc. No financial return
there, but boy, oh boy, have people gotten a ton of free
research over the last several years.

Never have I refused to help anyone in the field of
exoaeronautic studies in any way, shape or form. "Ah, but then
why is she expending so much of her time and money if there is
no profit to be made?" Good question...because I simply find the
field interesting and the search for answers a challenge worth
pursuing without thought to the "BIG BUCKS" that flow into my
coffers. <Huge Grin>

Cold, hard reality bites, don't it?

Then there is the hundred of dollars I contributed to a fellow
researcher who needed a computer, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum
infinitum..... Hey! Maybe I'm a consumer too!!!!

How about John Rimmer of Magonia magazine in England who asked
for a review copy and it took three tries to get a book to him
(postal system in England sucks as much as it does here).
There's a shrewed investment of three books plus overseas
postage with a promise of a copy of the review...

Jeez, I could go on forever here.....


Wendy Connors









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:08:08 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:08:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:18:00 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:10:49 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:59:14 -0500

 >>>>And lest we forget, however much the pelicanists want us to:

 >>>>Donald H. Menzel on witness reliability: "I submit that [Dr.
 >>>>James E.] McDonald's interviews of more than five hundred people
 >>>>who have reported UFOs have no scientific validity whatever."
 >>>>(In Sagan and Page, UFOs: A Scientific Debate)

 >><snip>

 >>>In the second quotation, is it clear from the context

<snip>

 >>In the above mentioned Menzel quotation,

<snip>

 >>On the preceding page, 135, Menzel had written,

<snip>

 >Hi Bob,

 >I would point out that what Menzel maintained about McDonald
 >could be said about the skeptibunkers. That being something
 >along the lines of 'Skeptibunkers are clearly biased against
 >anything that suggests or even contemplates ET reality, they
 >have contributed nothing to our knowledge and our highly
 >subjective....'

 >:)


Dear Robert, Bob, John, Jerry et.al.:

It is my armchair opinion that "skeptibunkers" brush their teeth
left to right and vice-versa, instead of up and down as
recommended by the American Dental Association, and wear
pastel-colored knickers.

That said, may I politely propose that we bring this thread to a
close? Votes anyone?


Best wishes regardless:

- 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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:18:12 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:10:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Hatch


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:32:46 +0200

 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 02:11:19 -0700
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question

 >Larry Hatch wrote:

 >>>I found a few EME cases prior to the Johnson sighting in June
 >>>1947. These are of highly variable merits of course.

 >>The rest appear to be mainly auto and motorcycle engines,
 >>headlights and other electrics conking out, RFI and mysterious
 >>radio signals, a whole town or two going dark (power) after what
 >>might be ball lightning attacks, one or two cases of temporary
 >>human paralysis.....

 >A question.

 >Centering in vehicle stoppages, were these cases reported at the
 >time (before 1947) or were backdated cases known several years
 >later (i.e. after the Levelland EM cases)?

 >LuisR


Dear Luis:

You ask a very good and important question!

Unfortunately, I am unable to answer at this time due to
troubles with beer bottles.

It is my suspicion that most of the cases I referred to were
known, or otherwise recorded, well before the 1947 publicity.

Please do not take that as my final "palabra"!

I am simply unable to assist in these kind endeavors at this
time. I am far far too, ah, distracted.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 07:20:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:13:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Evans


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:53:17 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:20:02 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

Previously, Robert wrote:

 >>>For years "science" claimed that the universe was 4 or so
 >>>billion years old, that was considered "scientific fact" never
 >>>to be doubted or challanged. In essence it was already proven.

I replied:

 >>I have never read where science has accepted the age of the
 >>universe as fact. I have always seen it as an "estimate" or a
 >>"theory"

(hence the "4 or so" billion years old!)

 >>To this date, the information from Hubbell is still being
 >>studied and the age of the universe is still under question.
 >>Therefore, there is no "fact" or "proof" regarding the age of
 >>the universe.

Robert now points out:

 >Last year on Nightline and in other publications, shows and so
 >on, the Hubbell data concerning the age of the universe (as now
 >being 12 or so billion years) was presented as fact by some
 >leading scientists and people who are working with the data. All
 >based upon interpretation of what is called Hubbell photographs.

 >"The answer to this cosmic puzzle was finally solved earlier
 >this year by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope Key Project team, led
 >by Wendy Freedman of Carnegie Observatories. The team, a group
 >of 27 astronomers from 13 different U.S. and international
 >institutions, announced in May that it had determined the age of
 >the universe with precise accuracy. After an eight-year effort
 >to measure the far-flung galaxies of the expanding universe, the
 >Key Project astronomers confidently concluded that the universe
 >is approximately 12 billion years old."

 >The word "theory" is not mentioned, advanced, or otherwise
 >presented in the above. You do have words like "precise
 >accuracy" which I found interesting.

Hi, Robert!

You're right! The word "theory" isn't mentioned. On the other
hand, the word "fact" isn't used either. Oddly, along with the
term "precise accuracy" is the term "approximately", which
certainly stands out like a sore thumb, don't ya' think? Kind of
like the age of the galaxy used to be "approximately" 4 billion
years old. But then, what's a couple of billion years among
friends, right? If you were having a house built, I'm sure you
would want measurements done with "precise accuracy" as opposed
to "approximately". The two terms are mutually exclusive.

Sorry, Robert, but I still see no evidence that the age of the
universe is being touted as a known, sure fact. I see it being
touted as "approximately" 12 billion years old and nothing more.
If the impression _you_ formulate, due to the number of
scientists, is that it is fact, then you're really talking about
individual perception and not how something is really thought of
by the science community.

I am sure if you cornered the best scientists in the world and
asked,"Are you _sure_ of the exact age of the universe?" they
would say "No."

My proof? The fact that they've already played their hand by
saying it is "approximately" 12 billion years old. They simply
aren't sure, which is why they still continue to examine the
data. Or do you think they've exchanged high fives, packed up
the photos and gone home?

Furthermore, as it relates to the topic of UFOs, if these same
scientists were studying the ETH, would their conclusions be
"approximately" aliens or "pretty sure" ET craft? We already
have that conclusion; one that even I would agree with. So far,
all we have is an "approximate" view of the ETH. We do not have
"precise accuracy". A myth is a myth and a fact is a fact. The
two are not the same.

Continuing, Robert wrote:

 >>>Then you have witness testimony. On one hand if a witness says
 >>>he or she saw a structured craft flying through the atmosphere,
 >>>etc we are told the witnesses were either mistaken, liars,
 >>>hoaxers, misidentified a natural phenomona. On the other hand of
 >>>it when a witness describes seeing a meteor many of these same
 >>>skeptibunkers take the testimony at face value, never challange,
 >>>dispute or question it an iotta.

I replied:

 >>I will agree that _some_ skeptics will do this just as _some_ in
 >>the believers camp will take witness testimony of a UFO at face
 >>value. The real issue, here, is the attitude of the larger
 >>group(s) on both sides of the fence. I tire of the UFO elite
 >>quoting statements from people like Klass or Menzel as if
 >>rational skeptics have shrines to these men in there homes and
 >>membership cards in their hip pockets. These guys are not as
 >>influential as the UFO elite would like everyone to believe; a

Robert now writes:

 >Most if not all modern day skeptibunkers go and worship at
 >alters (although they may not know it) already built by the
 >skeptics such as Klass and Menzel.

Really? I don't. (But then maybe I just don't know it.)

Enlighten me.

Please provide enough examples to support "most if not all" do
what you say they do. That would be a lot of posts, but I'm sure
EBK won't mind this sort of myth finally being dispelled, once
and for all. And, let's face it, it is only a myth. I see no
evidence that modern, rational skeptics think much of Klass or
Menzel. Like a lot of early UFologists, their ideas and views
don't unilaterally represent the larger group any more than
President Bush represents the views of the American people. This
is significant, considering that a president is elected and
these guys aren't. The myth only serves a need by the UFO elite
as a tool to try and demonize those with conflicting opinions
that threatened a given debate. With all due respect to you,
Robert, you just employed the myth as prescribed. (although you
may not know it)

Continuing, you wrote:

 >I have been in UFOs so to speak since the 70s. Have seen plenty
 >of skeptibunkers fall back to the position of witness testimony
 >is meaningless and should be disregarded.

<snip>

 >Validation is probably in the eyes of the beholder. To
 >skeptibunkers all storys and testimony that suggest the reality
 >of UFO/ET are to be disregarded (invalid) because of this or
 >that.

Again, please provide enough evidence that supports such a
widespread phenomenon. I will agree that _some_ hardline
debunkers will disregard anything just like _some_ hardline
believers will accept anything. Calling attention to the few
doesn't support your position for the many. (Did Spock say
something like that? I forget.)

Finally, I wrote:

 >>something has either been proven as real or it has not. Oh, it
 >>might make the pro-UFO camp feel better about themselves to call
 >>UFO folklore the "Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis", but a rose by
 >>any other name is still a rose. The UFO elite simply don't want
 >>to deal with the thorns.

Robert replied:

 > ETH or ET Theory is fine with me.

Me too.


Take care,

Roger Evans









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:40:19 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:16:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:29:55 +0100

 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:22:17 -0300
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>Now if you are on quicksand already with the first sighting then
 >>47 years later, I think it's a mistake to start writing off
 >>another sighting [number 2] stating the faulty reasoning of the
 >>first as a precedent. Again this is a case of the outside agent
 >>second guessing the witnesses, and very credible and reliable
 >>witnesses at that... with considerably more experience than the
 >>"experts" at describing and encountering aerial phenomenon.

 >I appreciate that point, of course.

 >But - pilots may be experts at flying. They are not experts at
 >seeing fireball meteors as these are rare enough for most air
 >crew never to see one.

 >And ufologists have an expertise at dealing with witness
 >testimony and how human perception experiences a visual
 >stimulus.

 >So in this case - yes, I respect the abilities of the pilots and
 >they are indeed very credible witnesses. But that doesn't mean
 >they should have been any more aware of what happens when  a
 >fireball meteor whizzes past you in mid air.

 >In this case it was the l995 sighting that I investigated. I saw
 >the Chiles-Whitted case as an interesting precedent and it was
 >Allen Hynek's expertise on this that I trusted to. He was an
 >astronomer and a very experienced investigator and certainly not
 >a skeptic.  But the Chiles-Whitted case was not the reason I
 >regard the l995 incident as solved.


Hi Jenny,

The point I was trying to make is that the pilots were on the
spot-and pretty good observers.The experts [meaning
investigators and or astronomers] were not and when the UFO
didn't fit the usual description of a UFO in the new sense of
the word, then the pilots must have been mistaken. Once you
begin second second guessing the witness [in place] and making
assumptions then you risk changing the evidence to make the
sighting fit into a catagory it does not deserve.

Like others I do not like the description of this UFO. It does
smack of Buck Rogers. Off-List, one investigator mentioned that
there could have been embellishment on the pilot's part due to
the weight of the press interest. That seems more likely to me.
But I still have trouble with a slow, climbing meteor-despite
Corliss [ranks up there with unproved ball lightning].

Hynek - though an astronomer - again was still not there and
likely IMO had little more experience in observing a fireball or
meteor train than did the pilots.It would be interesting to know
what kind of film footage existed in those days of meteors and
fireballs for an astronomer to study. Fireball, bolide and
meteor trains are rarely caught on film so I wonder what an
astronomer of the 40s and 50s would have had on which to base a
conslusion.

One other thing, this sighting was in the same era as the Ghost
Rockets-a UFO tag I always had trouble with. But the C-W
sighting does sound a like a rocket doesn't it, except it was in
the US instead of Sweden.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                  Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:04:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:18:44 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Evans


 >From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:53:35 -0600
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:55:43 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:35:38 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

Previously, Wendy wrote:

 >>"Therefore, you don't know squat about me, how much research
 >>I've done or what I think..."

Wendy responded:

 >Sure I do, Roger. I can think. You are a consumate labelist,
 >argue strictly for arguments sake, haven't shared diddly squat
 >of anything important to the field of cryptoaeronautics and hide
 >behind a facade of B.S. in anything you post to the UFO Updates
 >List.

 >List members, I'm sure, know what your research encompasses...
 >which translates to zilch. I think we know all we really want to
 >know about you. The only redeeming value in your'expertise', in
 >the field, is that you are giving the next edition of the DSM-IV
 >a whole new chapter. In 560 posts to UFO UpDates you haven't
 >said a thing worth consideration.

 >If you have anything worthy to contribute to cryptoaeronautics
 >via your "research", you have a weird and skewed way of
 >clarifying your 'expertise'. So, yes, being a thinking
 >person I know a great deal about you.

 >That just about covers what I know of you and your expertise in
 >all matters dealing with exoaeronautics based upon your written
 >record.

Rah! Rah! Sis boom ba! Goooooo Team!

What is interesting, Wendy, is that I asked you to tell me what
my questions were that you took so much offense to. Typical of
the UFO elite, you don't even address the issue and instead try
to demonize me or cast doubt on my research even though, by your
own admission, you haven't read any of it. As such, I find
myself having to use more bandwidth to repeat a simple question
that, true to form, you just don't answer because haven't done
enough of your own research on the topic at hand which, by the
way, isn't _me_ even though you are trying desparately to change
the subject.

Likewise, I am sure that the number of posts a _lot_ of people
make on this list could be significantly reduced if the UFO
elite would just answer questions the first time and not drag
out threads needlessly an effort to shake people like me that
won't let people like you off the hook.

560 posts? With all the dodging going on and the need to repeat
simple questions, I'm surprised it isn't more. Well the number
just went up, again, by one since you refuse to deal with the
issues or answer the questions. But then again, the royalty
don't have to answer any question they don't want to. They're
far too busy demanding that everyone else toe the line and
disprove their positions.

Your attitude only makes my point easier to prove, Wendy. Plus,
if you had read even _half_ of my posts, you'd find that I keep
my area of expertise focused on matters of photography, film and
video as it relates to the UFO phenomenon. However, when the UFO
elite begin to dodge issues or use diversionary tactics, I feel
compelled to point it out, no matter how many times that
happens. If that takes up more posts than you like, then the
solution rests with the UFO elite, not me. If that makes you
uncomfortable, tough luck.

So, again, what were those questions I asked?


Roger Evans









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                 Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 09:15:55 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:23:58 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Connors


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:15:28 EDT
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:25:13 -0400
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

 >>From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:01:10 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>They do have a more honest right to an opinion on ufology in all
 >>its forms based solely on having done the research, rather than
 >>those who have not or failed to unbiasly read their contributions.
 >>My bookshelf contains many examples of their acumen and
 >>research...I don't see anything by you on the shelf. Therefore,
 >>your opinion comes from the List rather than from your
 >>contributions to research.

 >Wendy, Anyone who read that:

 >Thanks for giving us this wonderful example of "the UFO Elite".
 >I thought that we were on a discussion List, but maybe I was
 >mistaken. Does this mean that if one is losing an argument,
 >here, that an appeal to "authority" can be the only acceptable
 >way to proceed?

 >My, my. That is what ufology always seems to be accusing
 >"science" of doing. Why, with this rule old Doc Menzel and Uncle
 >Phil would have to retain advanced positions on your library
 >shelves.

 >Based upon this, I can propose,

 >Wendy Connors' Default Law of Honest UFOlogy

 >In determining whether someone has The Honest Right to determine
 >The Truth, the weight of their argument shall be directly
 >proportional to the weight of their published output; with
 >double weight being assigned to self-published books, monographs
 >and articles in little flying saucer magazines; with an
 >adjustment of a triple weight being added to those works which
 >have only been read by participants with a "biased attitude". In
 >case of a dispute, the default setting shall be that of the
 >author with the more heavily footnoted pro-ETH position.

 >All kidding aside, this seems to be the 50 year methodology
 >of the science of ufology.


Hi Bob,

That was funny! Thank you!

However, (as usual, huh?), I wonder which has more weight and
credibility in the world... does a person who went to school to
become a doctor of medicine have more to offer in the way of
medical advise than a person who went to school and became a
plumber? The doctor will certainly not know everything in
medicine and probably only enough to change a washer in the
kitchen faucet, but the plumber too does not know everything
involving plumbing and enough to know that they are sick and
usually what it might be. Seems to me that cryptoaeronautical
researchers who go beyond reading the literature and digs into
archives and brings forth new material might know a lot more
than the person interested in UFOs, even if they have read
books. I'll give you an example:

In 1999 I traveled to Dayton, OH, spent several days interacting
with National Air Intelligence personnel, base historians,
former employees (both military and civilian) who worked at ATIC
from before WWII till their retirements. I brought back the
declassified official histories of Air Technical Intelligence
and T-2 Intelligence, which had never been known to exist and
had never been seen by researchers in the exoaeronautical
gendre. Now, since I had these histories wouldn't it make sense
that I would have information that superceded any other
researchers take or opinion regarding ATIC matters as it relates
to "UFO" investigation by the Air Force as it related to ATIC
history? I honestly think so. To me that is a no-brainer!

Do people interested in the genre of 'Ufology' have a right to
an opinion based upon their reading and understanding of the
material they have read? Certainly. Does their opinion carry the
exact same weight as the researcher who brought the material to
light and shared some of that material in their writings? Of
course not. Again, that's a no-brainer.

Does the researcher(s) who provide the new documentation, etc.
to the interested masses in the genre have an edge over personal
opinion obtained by people who got their information from their
work and not by thier own investigations, research, etc.? You
betcha! Does a researcher who accomplishes bringing new material
and documentation to the field become an elitist because of it?
Nope. Just more knowledgable on the topic than the lay person.

If it was not for the researcher who goes beyond a reading
interest in the field of cryptoaeronautics and then shares it
with the masses interested in the phenomena, there wouldn't be
any opinion to have by anyone. But I'd rather dig for the
goodies than take an undocumented opinion from someone. So, even
though I might not agree with the conclusions reached by a
researcher, I certainly am obligated to respect their efforts
and thank them for giving me new documentation to digress over
as I make my way forward to better understanding of the
scenarios that went into the investigation and understanding of
the phenomenon.

Experience and informed opinion counts a lot more than personal
opinion no matter how you want to slice it.


Wendy Connors










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                 Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Ledger

From: Dona Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:27:31 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:27:11 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:15:28 EDT
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:01:10 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>They do have a more honest right to an opinion on ufology in all
 >>its forms based solely on having done the research, rather than
 >>those who have not or failed to unbiasly read their contributions.
 >>My bookshelf contains many examples of their acumen and
 >>research...I don't see anything by you on the shelf. Therefore,
 >>your opinion comes from the List rather than from your
 >>contributions to research.

 >Wendy, Anyone who read that:

 >Thanks for giving us this wonderful example of "the UFO Elite".
 >I thought that we were on a discussion List, but maybe I was
 >mistaken. Does this mean that if one is losing an argument,
 >here, that an appeal to "authority" can be the only acceptable
 >way to proceed?

 >My, my. That is what ufology always seems to be accusing
 >"science" of doing. Why, with this rule old Doc Menzel and Uncle
 >Phil would have to retain advanced positions on your library
 >shelves.

 >Based upon this, I can propose,

 >Wendy Connors' Default Law of Honest UFOlogy

 >In determining whether someone has The Honest Right to determine
 >The Truth, the weight of their argument shall be directly
 >proportional to the weight of their published output; with
 >double weight being assigned to self-published books, monographs
 >and articles in little flying saucer magazines; with an
 >adjustment of a triple weight being added to those works which
 >have only been read by participants with a "biased attitude". In
 >case of a dispute, the default setting shall be that of the
 >author with the more heavily footnoted pro-ETH position.

 >All kidding aside, this seems to be the 50 year methodology
 >of the science of ufology.


Still Bob, you must admit that a thorough grounding in this
field would help before tossing out uninformed opinions based
only on a personal bias. You've demonstarted this naivete
yourself on several occassions, most recently on the Arnold
sighting.

I think it bugs many researchers when someone who has done no
apparent research of their own chimes in with uninformed
opinion, basing their credulity on their attachment to some
scientific persuasion. That's not good enough.

Keep 'em flyin'.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                 Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 09:30:37 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:32:01 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Connors


 >From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:13:12 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:28:19 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

 >>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:29:52 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

 >>>Wendy Connors rates very high on my credibility scale. I found
 >>>her take on Aldrich, Hall and Clark very refreshing and
 >>>enlightening.

 >>Apologise to Wendy? Not a chance.

 >Just out of curiosity, perhaps I missed it, but has Ms. Connors
 >released her much-anticipated video interview with RAAF Lt. Col
 >Walter Haut wherein he allegedly says (in paraphrase) that while
 >he was the information officer at Roswell that he saw bodies,
 >saw a "disc", saw what happened to said bodies and disc, etc.?


Hi Ron,

Nope, not yet. Have patience. The good stuff takes time and is
worth the wait, eh? ;-) I'm still editing the oral history I did
with Richard Hall last October when I spent a week with him at
his home... I just have a better-half who makes his living doing
videography and have to stand in line and wait until his
projects are finished (he gets paid to do his... I don't) before
I can ask him to edit my stuff. Better to be slow and methodical
than going off on a tangent.

The Haut oral history is extremely important and deserves to be
handled with care and I'm not finished yet.

However, French TV-2 did a documentary last year that I was
deeply involved in and you will see an interview I did with him
when it airs here in the U.S. What he says in that interview
will definitely whet your appetite so that when Dennis and I do
release the Haut oral history, it will be a wonderful treat for
all.


Wendy











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                 Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:34:27 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:33:54 -0400
Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Ledger


 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:36:55 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:21:45 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Just a thought on this beautiful spring day along the
 >>Susquehanna River.

Now there's a bit of a coincidence, Bob. My agent lives on the
Susquehanna, and I once landed a plane on an airstrip by that
river.It's a fair distance from Nova Scotia.

Weather's improving here as well. Putting wheels on the dog-sled
runners now.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                  Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:54:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:35:43 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Evans


 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:31:39 +0100
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Jones
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:08:50 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

Previously, I had written:

 >>True to form, your last paragraph seems to be the defacto answer
 >>to any opposition, now. If someone doesn't get in line with the
 >>UFO elite, the standard position is that one is "uninformed" and
 >>hasn't read the literature or they would quite naturally agree.

 >>Is it even remotely possible in your mind that someone has read
 >>the literature, done some research and simply doesn't see eye to
 >>eye? More to the point, you spent the majority of this post
 >>defending someone's right to cite past work if the answer to a
 >>given question was gong to be extensive; something that I took
 >>no issue with. My beef was abuse of this technique to avoid
 >>answering shorter, simpler questions or even flat out refusals
 >>to address the issues presented. Your own avoidance in
 >>addressing this issue, in this very post, only drives home my
 >>point. Thanks for making my job easier.

Sean replied:

 >For us standing back can see quite clearly, who is quoting from
 >knowledge, and who is quoting from ignorance. For example, if
 >_you_ were quoting from knowledge you _could_ cite particulars
 >about the case thus _proving_you_ had more than read a summary
 >of the case in question. It is my opinion that from your posts
 >you have not cited one detail with regard to any of the cases,
 >mentioned in previous posts, to substantiate relevant knowledge
 >of the case to those you are not quite debating with.

 >I wait to be proved wrong.

Try proving your case, first. According to popular figures, I
have made over 560 posts. Certainly, you should be able to have
cited at least _one_ example of my irrational conduct. More to
the point, I know the limits of my expertise are related to
photography, film and video production. When taking a position,
that is the arena I will go head to head with anyone on. If you
check the archives, you will find that is 100% true. To maintain
that I don't have expertise to offer or, even sillier, to
suggest that I have never addressed specifics of a given UFO
case is simply not true and you know it, Sean.

However, there is a difference between "expertise" and
"collecting information". The UFO elite aren't experts on the
ETH simply because they worked hard to collect a lot of data. In
fact, they aren't experts, at all. The data is what it is.
Certainly, I give them credit for amassing such vast
information. But such effort doesn't, despite the proclamations
of Wendy or others, give more weight to their opinions than
anyone else that has accessed the same information. Respect is
earned, Sean, and it can be lost as well. When the UFO elite
take a position that others outside their circle are
"uninformed" simply because of a difference of opinion or,
worse, it is unilaterally decided that certain questions don't
even deserve a response, then any respect is lost.

Continuing, you wrote:

 >So in my not so humble opinion, and not being one of the 'elite'
 >you scornfully refer to, when they say _read_my_book_ before you
 >respond, what they are really saying, find some facts, then we
 >can debate the finer points.

 >If you are so blinkered that you cannot see that, well all hope
 >is lost for you, because these guys _have_ done their collective
 >research so why should they waste their time on someone who will
 >not do theirs?

Just how much research did you do on this thread before writing
the above, Sean? I _clearly_ stated, more than once, that citing
one's own work is fine _if_ that is the only way to answer a
question and a quote from said work would be too extensive. What
I object to is the over use of said referencing as a
diversionary tactic to avoid answering simpler questions. How
clear do I have to make this? Are you saying that you have
_never_ seen this done on this list?

And I am not taking sides, here. The ultra-skeptics are also
guilty of dodging issues, as well. The only difference is that
they have nothing to prove, while the UFO elite demand what is
currently nothing more than folklore be somehow disproved by
those they feel are "uninformed". The problem with this position
is obvious: Certainly no one knows more about the collected UFO
information than the UFO elite, yet their own inability to make
a case for the ETH is ignored while they chastise others for not
being more familiar with the very same information that they
can't seem to get results from!

What's the point?

It is not the job of the skeptics to prove the ETH. A lack of
familiarity with certain publications doesn't make the case for
the ETH stronger by default. A weak case is still a weak case,
even if it sets on the shelf, unread by everyone. Chastising
someone for being "uninformed" is merely a tool to make the UFO
elite feel better about themselves for their own failure to
prove the ETH. After all, no one is more "informed" than the UFO
elite, and they can't come to terms with the ETH, either.

Finally, you wrote:

 >I am neither one of the 'elite', or uniformed, you are clearly
 >one of the two mentioned groups, unless of course you can
 >demonstrate knowledge in a clear and concise manner without any
 >kind of name calling, bitchiness or general bad manners??

Dude, the terms "pelicanism", "pelicanist", "skeptic",
"debunker", "skeptibunker", "dilettante" not to mention
"blinkered", etc didn't just appear out of thin air. Clean your
own house, first.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                  Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:33:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:38:36 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Evans


 >From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 05:52:43 -0600
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:12:47 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:20:21 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

Previously, Bobbie wrote:

 >>It is the "average Joe's" out here like me who keep the UFO
 >>industry going. It is called supply and demand. If you don't
 >>have a market to sell to, you don't make sales. If your audience
 >>loses faith in you, you lose your audience. Sales drop,
 >>bookstores don't carry your books anymore, and you're lucky to
 >>see your name in the bargain basement category on ebay.

Wendy replied:

 >Of course you have the right to your opinion on matters dealing
 >with anything, including ufology.

However, what Wendy doesn't reveal is this from another post:

 >They [the UFO elite] do have a more
 >honest right to an opinion on ufology in all its forms based
 >solely on having done the research, rather than those who have
 >not or failed to unbiasly read their contributions.

Funny how this distinction got left out of your response to Bobbie.


Roger Evans








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:17:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:40:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:55:52 EDT
 >Subject: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:56:08 -0400
 >>Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:35:42 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

 >>>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:56:00 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>Sheaffer said Betty Hill didn't see lights in the sky in the
 >>positions she said she did.)

 >You have this exactlyl backwards, Greg. Shaeffer noted that
 >Betty did claim to see two lights in the sky, just where Jupiter
 >and Saturn were. It's just that she concluded one was a saucer.
 >Another famous example of eyewitness testimony being good enough
 >to turn an exciting saucer tale into just one more boring IFO.

I am delighted to read that Bob Young has now endorsed the value
of eyewitness testimony in cases such as the Hills's
extraordinary experience. Barney and Betty Hill described the
object they saw - I am referring here to consciously recalled
experience, not what they stated under hypnosis - as a large
flattened disc-shaped structure with a band of lights running
along the edge, with a red light on either side. The object
moved in a steplike pattern, tilting vertically as it initiated
each step, spinning all the while. At times Barney watched it
through binoculars.

At one point the object descended into a clearing and hovered
less than a hundred feet in the air and several hundred feet
away. A blue-white flurescent glow shined through a row of
windows along the side. The object had stopped spinning now and
appeared to be the size of a four-engine aircraft.

The Hills stopped their car, and Barney stepped outside. At that
piont they observed the object's passage across the road 100
feet away. It then ceased movement and hovered above a field. As
Barney approached, it resumed its descent toward the ground.
Through his binoculars Barney observed as many as 11 humanlike
figures staring at him through the windows. The figures were
standing in a corridor which encircled the craft at its center.
Suddenly all but one began to scurry about, turning their backs
and appearing to pull levers on the wall. The red lights on
either side of the object moved outward, and Barney saw for the
first time that they were attached to the tips of two pointed
fins sliding out from the sides.

The object moved closer, now filling the entire field of view
through the binoculars. The intense stare of the "leader," as
Barney thought of him, was profoundly unnerving. He could now
see the figures without the glasses. The object was about 75
feet away.

And so on and on. Another famous example of solid eyewitness
testimony to an extraordinary unknown. Or a piloted Saturn or
Jupiter. Take your pick.


Clearer skies,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                  Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:19:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:43:51 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Evans


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 05:22:55 -0400
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:12:47 -0500
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

Previously Wendy had claimed:

 >>>They do have a more honest right to an opinion on ufology in
 >>>all its forms based solely on having done the research, rather
 >>>than those who have not or failed to unbiasly read their
 >>>contributions. My bookshelf contains many examples of their
 >>>acumen and research... I don't see anything by you on the shelf.

Bobbie replied:

 >>You won't find anything by me on any of your shelves either, but
 >>this whole thread screams for a comment. I am not a ufologist...

 >>I am not a professional researcher or investigator. I am a
 >>Consumer... meaning I am one of the working schmucks out here
 >>who plops down my hard earned cash at the book store to buy the
 >>books put out by all these self-proclaimed "ufologists" and "ufo
 >>experts"... that information that was catagorized as being out
 >>there for all to see. It is there for all to see... if one is
 >>willing plop down the 29.95 for that book, that is.

John now writes:

 >For some reason this is only a "problem" in ufology. I never
 >hear anybody beating up on Stephen King or Martha Stewart for
 >charging so much for _their_ books. Or people complaining about
 >having to pay for the books in order to read them.


Hi, John!

I really think you need to re-read what Wendy wrote, very
carefully:

"I don't see anything by you on the shelf."

This pretty much sums up the problem, John. Attitude.

Bobbie's beef isn't how much money that the UFO elite make off
their books. By all accounts, it isn't much. However, it is
profitable enough to get printed in the first place. And since
being in print is the _real_ distinction that Wendy makes for
being a "serious contributor", then Bobbie's point is still
valid: If you alienate your audience by suggesting their
opinions are worthless, then they stop buying your books. When
sales drop, then the printing stops. Should the printing stop,
then someone might very well say to Ms. Connors, "I don't see
anything by you on the shelf."

So it is a bit naive to suggest that sales are not a
consideration in keeping the ETH alive and kicking at all costs.
Wendy just needs to be reminded who butters her bread to replace
the notion that everyone else's opinion takes second fiddle to
the UFO elite. Otherwise, they can just sell their books to each
other, because I'll refuse to buy into such blatant arrogance.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                        'News From Whitley Strieber'

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:24:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:24:20 -0400
Subject: 'News From Whitley Strieber'




From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:15:48 -0500
From: whitley@strieber.com
Subject: News From Whitley Strieber


<snip>

Roswell Object Holding Up Under Study

A small bit of material allegedly from the Roswell crash has
survived extensive laboratory analysis, and continues to appear
to be a piece of manufactured material. This material has a very
strange property of causing distortion in all photographs taken
of it, whether by analog or digital means. A number of
professional photographers have tried to make clear pictures of
it, without success. This week, we are going to be carrying out
more lab tests on the object. The results will be reported
during the first online UFO conference, to be held on the
internet on May 12, and to remain available online for a week
thereafter. To see the object and find out more, go to:

http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=472

<snip>

Powerful New Russian UFO Revelations

Researcher Paul Stonehill has been looking into Soviet accounts
of strange underwater objects. He describes one account that has
come to light involving a frogman excercise in a lake in
Siberia. Frogmen had encountered humanoid swimmers who were
huge, wearing body suits and sphere-like helmets. An attempt to
net one of the swimmers resulted in the frogmen being propelled
from great depth to the surface of the lake in a matter of
seconds. The seven frogmen were all stricken with decompression
sickness. Three died as a result, and the rest became invalids.
We are in touch with Philip Mantle, who first reported this
story, and expecting more detailed updates soon, which will
appear as news on Unknowncountry.com

<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 >
   Apr > Apr 21

                       UFO ROUNDUP Volume 6 Number 16

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:45:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:45:45 -0400
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP Volume 6 Number 16



From: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>

Source: The UFOINFO Website

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/v06/rnd06_16.shtml

UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 6 Number 16
April 19, 2001

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/

Editor: Joseph Trainor


AN ALIEN IN LIMA, PERU?

A ufologist from Ecuador claims to have documentary proof that
an alien, whom ge describes as a "Nordic," stayed at the Embassy
of Ecuador in Lima, the capital of the neighboring South
American country of Peru.

Jaime Rodriguez claimed to have copies of reports written by
consular officials at the Embassy of Educator in Lima, including
a fax describing the incident that was emailed to Ecuador's
Ministry of Defense in Quito, the national capital.

According to Rodriguez, the incident began "when a person of
Nordic aspect with perfect facial features and standing a little
taller than 1.8 meters (6 feet) and with a perfume of exotic
fragrance presented himself to the embassy staff and was
interviewed by Alberto Avila Mazchuca, the Ecuadorian attache
for cultural affairs.. The person identified himself as
Commandante (Commander) Banj (Rhymes with the English word
orange--J.T.) and he asked to speak to the Consul, Jose Davila
Gonzalez. Banj said he had to get back to his ship, which was in
a geostationary orbit above the Earth."

"An official contact has been realized," said Haume Rodriguez,
who is investigating the alleged diplomatic contact. (See
Noticario OVNI for April 8, 2001. Muito obrigado a Adelmar J.
Gevaerd por eso articulo.)

(Editor's Note: Sightings of Hermanos Espaciales (Space
Brothers) are common in South America. See this week's feature
story for one such incident.)


TWO UFO SIGHTINGS REPORTED IN MEXICO

On Tuesday, April 3, 2001, , after sunset, "an enormous luminous
and mysterious OVNI (Spanish acronym for UFO--J.T.) moved across
the sky over hillside homes in Colonia Olimpica, a barrio
(neighborhood) on the outskirts of Guadalajara," the second
largest city in Mexico.

"The witnesses said the light emitted a strong reddish-yellowish
light that lit up the houses in the barrio " {People in Colonia
Olimpica left their homes and watched as the large object
descended and moved slowly over the neighborhood "until it
passed slowly beyond their field of view.

The following day, on Wednesday, April 4, 2001, at 7:45 p.m.,
Claudio Cardona was walking on the beach in Puente Tampico, on
the Gulf of Mexico, "on the border between the (Mexican states
of Tamulipas and Vera Cruz, when he saw a UFO.

"According to Cardona, the OVNI resembled 'a lantern in the
sky.' Flying away to the north, the object hovered over the
horizon for several minutes" until Cardona lost sight of it.
(See Noticario OVNI for April 8, 2001, "OVNI Luminoso es
avistado en el Golfo de Mexico" and "OVNI luminoso altera a los
animales en el occidente de Mexico." Otra vez, muito obrigado a
Adelmar J. Gevaerd.)

TEENAGER VIDEOTAPES A UFO IN KAZAKHSTAN

"A UFO was reported over Almaty," the former capital of
Kazakhstan in central Asia on Thursday, April 5, 2001.

"A city resident, Darkhan Isakov, managed to record the supposed
UFO with a video camera. He brought the videocassette with the
recorded image to our studios," i.e. the studies of Kazakh
Commercial Television (KCT), which aired the footage in its
local news broadcast.

Osakov's video "shows a glowing spot behind tree branches, , a
teenager in a TV studio, people speaking in an office, a
photograph of a flying saucer and a star map," KCT reported.

At first "Darkhan took the brightly-glowing object for a star of
unusual size (magnitude--J.T.) He said it first seemed to be
coming down and then poised in the air, which had especially
attracted his attention. He saw an odd sphere through the
viewfinder of his video camera."

"After ten minutes of mysterious transformations, the UFO
disappeared behind a house. He watched the flight of the sphere
together with his brother and sister. They had no doubt that
they saw a flying saucer with aliens on board."

However, the Kazakh Ministry of Civil Aviation disputed the
saucer theory, and "officials said it could have been an
aircraft, a spacecraft or a star." (Many thanks to Martin
Montague and BBC World Service for forwarding the KCT
transcript.)

UFO SQUADRON SPOTTED OVER CONNECTICUT

On Monday, March 20, 2001, at 4 p.m.. a woman and her
four-year-old son were on the sidewalk in front of their home in
Newington, Connecticut, just south of Hartford, the state
capital, when they spotted some UFOs.

"I was looking up at clouds and explaining to my four-year-kid
son how they move with the wind," she explained, "When I noticed
two white shiny objects appear, and then two more. They were
crossing the sky in a northeasterly direction."

"When I couldn't see them any more, I looked back at the cloud,
and there was one more that seemed to follow them in the same
direction."

"I watched it until it disappeared. Then I went inside for about
ten minutes and came back out. I laid on the sidewalk , watching
the sky again. And, sure enough, I saw a bigger object come from
the northeast heading southwest."

"As I watched it, it split up into a triangle shape, with a
light at each corner and one light moving between them,
'merging' with them. Observed the craft until it disappeared
from sight." (Many thanks to Rev. Billy Dee and Peter B.
Davenport of the National UFO Reporting Center for this case.)

WOMAN SPOTS A UFO IN MARIANNA, FLORIDA

On Wednesday, April 11, 2001, at 8:45 p.m., Denise Koppel was
outdoors when she saw an oblong UFO fly over from west to east
across the sky.

""It was an oblong UFO," Denise reported, "The thing had no
lights. It was approximately 2,000 feet (600 meters) above us.
The (street) lights across the road made the underside of the
object glow. No, not really glow but shimmer maybe. It had
globes all over the underside of the thing. Sort of blended in
with the sky. It was traveling at maybe 70 miles per hour."
(Email Form Report)

COUPLE SIGHTS A UFO IN RURAL PENNSYLVANIA

On Thursday, April 12, 2001, at 10:15 p.m., Skip Yost and his
wife were returning to their car in Moraine State Park in Butler
County, Pennsylvania when they spotted a strange bright light in
the sky.

My wife and I were returning to our vehicle after spending
approximately two hours viewing the stars. Both with our eyes
and our binoculars , I suddenly spotted a very bright white
light moving extremely fast. through the sky. It was about 80
degrees above the horizon, moving from the southeast to the
northwest. It was not moving in a straight line and much faster
than all of the aircraft in the vicinity."

"The 'object' was moving five or six times faster than any other
aircraft in the sky...Using the binoculars, which were
German-made 16X50's, I was able to determine that the UFO was
triangular-shaped and very dark, except for the 'lights' at the
rear of the craft."

"To the naked eye, the lights appeared to be one big bright
light. However, when I viewed it through the binoculars, it was
easy to see that there were actually three separate and distinct
lights. The two outside lights were larger than the middle one.
They were in a straight line across the rear apron of the
craft."

"As the UFO proceeded along, they would switch from a very
bright white to to red, then to blue, then to green and then
back to white again."

"My wife and I both observed the UFO until it was out of sight
over the horizon, all the while making comments to one another.
I observed through my binoculars that the lights changed color
in a distinct pattern from left to right quite rapidly."

Skip added that their vantage point for the observation was near
Lake Arthur in Moraine State Park. (Email Form Report)

TRIO WITNESSES UNUSUAL UFO DISPLAY IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Three people at the Self-Awareness Earth Institute in Trout
Lake, Washington state, witnessed an unusual UFO display the
evening of Saturday, April 7, 2001.

According to Patricia, one of the eyewitnesses, "On Saturday
night, James (Gilliland, the ranch owner--J.T.) and I were
upstairs when we heard his friend, Paul, outside, yelling
excitedly. We ran out on the deck and saw a bright circular
light traveling up from the far horizon, then up into the night
sky."

The glowing circular light arced across the sky at a very slow
speed, "taking about five minutes to cross the sky," Patricia
added.

"It was clearly not a plane (too bright, no flashing
lights--Patricia) and it was the brightest object in the sky."

"As I stood on the front deck watching it, I was overcome by the
cascade of energy, from my head down to my toes. Like being
washed in a shower of glittering golden globes of light with
energy pulsing through my entire body I felt an incredible joy
and love and lightness and radiance. Paul began yelling that he
was getting pulses of energy as well."

When the encounter began, James Gilliland grabbed his camcorder,
mounted it on the tripod in the front yard, and began shooting
the footage. Suddenly, Patricia said, "the object sent a pulse
directly at the camera."

"Kater, we all stood outside, gathered around the fire and
marveled at what we had seen and felt." (Many thanks to John M.
Novak for this report.)

UNUSUAL HUMAN BONES UNEARTHED IN MOROCCO

"Several Moroccan and Italian archaeologists have shed a new
light on the region around Nador" in northeastern Morocco.

"The team discovered three intact skeletons of children dating
from the third millenium B.C."

According to OVNI Maroc, the skeletons were unusually large,
about 190 centimeters (6 feet, 3 inches) in length.

"In a communique to the Moroccan Institute of Science, the team
reported that the skeletons were found in a substrata in a
grotto called Iffri Namar. The remains appear to be from an
unknown culture dating from about 3,400 B.C. Eight samples of
dessicated bone were taken from the remains and sent to Rime for
DNA analysis." (See the newspaper El Ansa for April 13, 2001.
Merci beaucoup au OVNI Maroc et Alfredo Lissoni de Centro
Ufologico Nazionale d'Italia pour cette nouvelles.)

(Editor's Comment: Maybe Morocco was the original homeland of
the Biblical giant, Goliath of Gath.)


READER FEEDBACK:

POLAND NOW HAS ROUNDUP

Tadeus Silowicz writes, "I would like to say that your
newsletter in its original version is now available at our
website here in Poland."

European readers can now log in at
http://www.uforaport.prv.pl/hotlinen.htm"


 From the UFO Files...

1957: UNEASY RIDER

In South America, the most common types of extraterrestrials
sighted are the Hermanos Espaciales (Space Brothers), also known
as Nordics of Off-World Humans (OWH).

The heyday of Space Brother sightings was in the 1950s, as this
account from Argentina will show.

In April 1957, Ricardo Machado (real name is still classified by
the Carabineros or state/provincial police of Argentina--J.T.)
was one happy fella. After many years of careful saving, he had
just bought a used 1952 Harley-Davidson motorcycle and was eager
to try it out.

So, after gassing up in his home city of Cordoba, located about
480 kilometers (300 miles) west of Buenos Aires, the national
capital, Ricardo hopped onto his machine, opened the throttles
and thundered.

With the slipstream ruffling his dark hair and pushing his
sunglasses flush against his face, Ricardo was "riding along a
road about 15 kilometers (9 miles) from the (Cordoba)
international airport, when his machine suddenly failed."

With a muttered cough, the Harley's powerful engine died out.
Gaping in amazement, Ricardo coasted the motorcycle over to the
side of the road, slid off the leather seat and set the
kickstand.

"Dismounting to investigate, he perceived a huge disc some 18
meters (60 feet) wide." He estimated the central portion of the
silver disc to be about 4 meters (13 feet) high. The saucer was
"hovering about 15 meters (50 feet) above the ground just ahead
of him."

"Terrified, he hid in the ditch."

"Silently, except for a sound like the faint hiss of air
escaping from a valve, the disc came down to a height of about
two meters (5 feet, 6 inches) and a sort of lift (pampasout onto
the open roads of the elev in the USA--J.T.) descended from its
base, coming down almost to the ground."

"In it was a man about 1.6 meters (5 feet, 8 inches) in height
who came over and gently coaxed the motorcyclist out of the
ditch."

The alien "then stroked his (Ricardo's) forehead to calm him.
The stranger's garb was like a diver's suit, fitting his body
closely, and seemingly (made) of some kind of plastic."

"Entering the disc via the lift-shaft with his companion,"
Ricardo found there were five or six similarly dressed men
seated before instrument panels. An extraordinary light filled
the cabin, and there were series of large square portholes which
strangely enough he had been unable to see from outside."

"The motorcyclist was then escorted back to his own machine. His
companion placed a hand on his shoulder in a gesture of farewell
and re-entered the lift-shaft, which rapidly rose into the
disc."

"The disc, (made) of an iridescent bluish-green metal, climbed
swiftly to what he thought might be 750 meters (2,500 feet) and
vanished rapidly towards the northwest (the high Andes--J.T.)
During the next hour or so, the same machine (UFO) or another
one was seen at six or seven places along the same" road.

Ricardo returned safely to Cordoba without, Jemry Regnery Co.,
Chicago, Ill., 1969, pages 87 and 88.)

Well, that's it for this week. You know, there hasn't been a
sizeable earthquake for a couple of weeks now. Dare I say it?
Could "Earthquake Season" finally, finally be over? We'll find
out next week, with the return of "the paper that goes home-UFO
Roundup. Join us then for more coverage of UFO and paranormal
events from all over the planet Earth. Have a great week!

UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2001 by Masinaigan Productions, all
rights reserved. Readers may post news items from UFO Roundup on
their websites or in news groups, provided that they credit the
newsletter and its editor by name and list the date of issue in
which the item first appeared.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 22

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:42:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:51:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy


 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:14:41 -0500 (CDT)
 >From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:38:23 -0500

<snip>

 >>Now, you just have to explain why there are so dang many alien
 >>Porsches, Cadillacs, Bugattis, Surburbans and Land Cruisers
 >>buzzing around out there, as if lithium crystals, or whatever
 >>they use as fuel, were as cheap as a barrel of Saudi Arabian
 >>crude.

 >I don't get it; sounds like you just answered your own question
 >Dennis. Given the huge variety of vehicles we use "down here" on
 >one little planet, and given that "out there" is by far a vaster
 >place than "down here", why would the variety of vehicles from
 >"out there" surprise you? Are we the only ones permitted
 >variety?

 >And as to fuel, since we haven't a clue about propulsion, fuel
 >could very well be cheap; heck it could be essentially free,
 >like hydrogen for instance. We just don't know do we?


Brian,

It was merely a metaphor, airplanes would have probably been a
better one. Here on humble planet Earth we have such a large
variety of automobile shapes because of marketing concerns.
Different consumers with different needs, etc.

You find a wide variety of flying machines, too, although the
general "patterns" are more constrained by the laws of physics.
In other words, you can design it to look anyway you want, but
in the end it has to fly in our atmosphere.

As you go up the ladder, however, your design options get
increasingly limited. If you want a really, really fast jet, for
example, you're not likely to stick a huge ball on the front end
of it.

If you look at rockets capable of putting a payload in space,
you won't find much difference in the fundamental, underlying
design from that of the V-2, which is more than 50 years old.
To a certain extent, form follows function.

The Space Shuttle looks the way it does because of the need for
a cargo bay and the ability to fly in our atmosphere (as well as
no atmosphere, which does away with aerodynamic design issues
altogether, which is why we could land a box like the Lunar
Lander on the Moon. Try flying the LL in Earth's atmosphere,
however, and you're asking for serious trouble.)

Now, if you want to believe (or think, if you prefer) that "out
there" is absolutely teeming with ET species and designs capable
of visiting the Earth on what seemingly amounts to a whim, using
essentially free sources of energy, then I have no answer for
you. Or at least not one that you would likely consider.

All I can say is that such a world view is contradicted by any
available body of evidence we currently possess, other than the
UFO literature itself. For all the data on one side of the
question to be so wrong, one has to pull in other factors to
account for the huge gap, beginning with a vast conspiracy and
cover up orchaestrated by...who -- and how?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 22

                  Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Evans

From: Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:00:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:53:22 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Evans


 >From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 09:15:55 -0600
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Connors
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:15:28 EDT
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:25:13 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

Previously, Wendy wrote:

 >Do people interested in the genre of 'Ufology' have a right to
 >an opinion based upon their reading and understanding of the
 >material they have read? Certainly. Does their opinion carry the
 >exact same weight as the researcher who brought the material to
 >light and shared some of that material in their writings? Of
 >course not. Again, that's a no-brainer.

How absurd! (Though I will agree that no brain was used in the
formulation of your statement.

By your measure, the guy that harvests the potatoes is
automatically the better cook!

Come on, Wendy, data is data. The guy collecting the data
doesn't inherently have an "edge" over someone else in terms of
being "right" or "wrong". Perhaps someone like Bruce might be
able to claim expertise in photo analysis, but that has nothing
to do with whether or not he even collected the data in the
first place! He could look at someone else's data a draw a
conclusion that might be more informed than someone that doesn't
know squat about photo analysis. You're confusing effort with
expertise.

The lengths you are going to try and un-ring the bell are highly
amusing, Wendy.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 22

                            Re: Belief - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:54:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Tonnies


 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:38:58 -0700
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Belief

<snip>

 >Mac,

 >Do you believe what you wrote in this mail represents your
 >views?

No.  I highly suspect it does.



=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 >
   Apr > Apr 22

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:58:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:57:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:17:22 -0500

<snip>

 >The Hills stopped their car, and Barney stepped outside. At that
 >piont they observed the object's passage across the road 100
 >feet away. It then ceased movement and hovered above a field. As
 >Barney approached, it resumed its descent toward the ground.
 >Through his binoculars Barney observed as many as 11 humanlike
 >figures staring at him through the windows. The figures were
 >standing in a corridor which encircled the craft at its center.
 >Suddenly all but one began to scurry about, turning their backs
 >and appearing to pull levers on the wall. The red lights on
 >either side of the object moved outward, and Barney saw for the
 >first time that they were attached to the tips of two pointed
 >fins sliding out from the sides.

 >The object moved closer, now filling the entire field of view
 >through the binoculars. The intense stare of the "leader," as
 >Barney thought of him, was profoundly unnerving. He could now
 >see the figures without the glasses. The object was about 75
 >feet away.

 >And so on and on. Another famous example of solid eyewitness
 >testimony to an extraordinary unknown. Or a piloted Saturn or
 >Jupiter. Take your pick.

Jerry,

This isn't a take on you personally, so please don't take it as
such.

For a rather long time, though, I've been musing the matter of
eyewitness testimony and how it's treated in the UFO literature,
call it "How UFO Books Are Written." Of course it's meant to be
awesomely and philosophically profound, but since I haven't
quite gotten there yet, here are a few beginning notes.

Your account of the Hill case above is typical of how testimony
is presented in UFO cases. By typical, I mean everyone does it,
myself included. It's called a narrative summary.

The inherent philosophical problem is that it's placed as
absolute fact against the fact of the existence of both Saturn
and Jupiter and the fact of their existence at some point in
space at a specific time.

The only fact of the Hill case to which we have access, however,
is their spoken or written account of the facts as they
perceived them. No outside party that wasn't there at the time
will ever know the true facts (or objects) of their perceptions.

The above will sound patently redundant to many, but let me
continue. As I see it, the only way to write factually about the
Hill account itself is to describe the circumstances of same, as
opposed to passing editorial judgment on the content of what was
said (or written). Some of this involves such simple
journalistic techniques (and qualifiers) as employing she/he
said, or she/he told investigators, etc.

By way of example, I might rewrite one of the above paragraphs
as follows: (Keep in mind that this is an example only and that
some of it might not necessarily be correct.)

"The Hills told author John G. Fuller that the object moved
closer, now filling the entire field of view through the
binoculars. Reportedly, the intense stare of the 'leader,' as
Barney said he thought of him, was profoundly unnerving. When
interviewed a mere month after the alleged events by Walter
Webb, Barney said he could now see the figures without the
glasses. He estimated the object to be about 75 feet away at
this point."

Of course one could argue that putting a qualifier in each
statement slows reading and results in a rather stitled and
bloated style - probably exactly why the narrative summary was
invented in the first place. Too many allegedlys and reportedlys
arguably spoileth the broth.

The trade-off or alternative, though, is that testimony about
the thing is accepted, treated and presented as the thing
itself, which it can never be. The issue is always to what
degree perception and subsequent testimony differ from the real
thing, an entity which, arguably, can never be ascertained with
any certainty. (Entity here referring to degree of difference,
not the object of the testimony.)

Inevitably, this results in statements like "Another famous
example of solid eyewitness testimony to an extraordinary
unknown," when one could just as easily say "an extraordinary
example of testimony of an unknown origin," which would probably
be closer to the truth.

My two cents on an otherwise slow Saturday...


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 >
   Apr > Apr 22

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:29:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 10:01:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 07:22:11 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:58:42 -0500

 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


John,

 >>So I guess the words of the world's most influential UFO
 >>debunker, Donald Menzel, who died in 1976 and who has never been
 >>criticized or repudiated (except in the very mild form above,
 >>and even that's a first) by debunkers, no longer count because
 >>he is no longer among us. By that logic, I guess, debunkers
 >>should stop saying anything bad about what Allen Hynek or James
 >>McDonald had to say. Actually, come to think of it, McDonald has
 >>been dead longer than Menzel, and thus is even more deserving of
 >>the sort of rhetorical protection you apparently advocate.

 >Yes, but I don't think contemporary sceptical ufologists
 >continue quoting Menzel with the fervour many contemporary
 >ufologists quote Hynek and, especially, McDonald as sources of
 >authority.

Huh? Is this supposed to mean something? Or is the debunking
rhetorical well running even emptier than usual?

Hynek and McDonald investigated a number of crucial early cases
and left extensive records concerning same. As the two most
scientifically qualified individuals to engage in extended
in-depth research into the phenomenon, they routinely
interviewed witnesses, consulted astronomical, meteorological,
psychological, and other materials in search of explanations,
and were not afraid to venture into the field. Hynek even
journeyed to the backwoods of Papua New Guinea to speak with
native witnesses to the Boianai CE3 (you know, the people Menzel
characterized, in racist terms, as ignorant colored folk who
backed Father Gill's testimony because they were [a] illiterate
[they weren't] and [b] trying to please "their great white
leader" [when in fact Papuans were growing ever more keenly
resentful of a European colonial presence]).

Debunking hero Menzel, on the other hand, never bestirred
himself from the armchair and conjured up "explanations" so
flawed that even Blue Book, at least when it was conducting
open-minded inquiries as opposed to releasing dismissive press
releases, rejected them.

In short, Menzel has nothing to teach us except about the
excesses of pathological science. On the other hand, Hynek and
McDonald meticulously documented a phenomenon which remains
puzzling today for precisely the reasons these two brave
scientists demonstrated. When we know a hell of a lot more about
UFOs than we know now, Hynek's and McDonald's contributions will
still be cited, used, discussed, and honored.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 22

                 Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:34:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 10:05:24 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Felder


 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 05:22:55 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates

 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:12:47 -0500
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Felder

<snip>

 >For some reason this is only a "problem" in ufology. I never
 >hear anybody beating up on Stephen King or Martha Stewart for
 >charging so much for _their_ books. Or people complaining about
 >having to pay for the books in order to read them.

I don't recall Stephen King ever making public statements to the
effect that my opinions of the horror genre don't stack up to his
because he's published horror books and I haven't. I don't recall
Martha Stewart tell me that I don't know how to bake muffins
correctly because I haven't written a book on the subject.

Therein lies the difference.

<snip>

 >Maybe it's because, as you say, you have
 >never written a book, that you have no appreciation for the
 >effort and labor that is involved.

I don't recall stating that I have never written a book. I
stated that Wendy would not find any books by me up on her shelf
next to the others she referenced on ufology.

I fully understand the mechanics involved in writing a book. I
fully understand the time, effort, and personal sacrifice often
associated with writing a book. And I also understand that most
books are written by _choice_.

<snip>

 >Because the
 >subject happens to be UFOs doesn't mean that people have to give
 >their work/labor away for free. It's unreasonable to demand it
 >or to expect it.

I don't recall telling anyone that they should give their work
away for free.


Bobbie

==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.com
Point of View Webcast
www.dragoncrest.net
Online publishing
==========



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/2001








   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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                 Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:30:49 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 05:39:35 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO Updates - Connors


 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:19:08 -0500
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

<snip>

 >I really think you need to re-read what Wendy wrote, very
 >carefully:

 >"I don't see anything by you on the shelf." This pretty much
 >sums up the problem, John. Attitude.

Well, I still don't see your research published outside this
list. Attitude? Nope. Plain fact, Jack. Also, taking one
sentence out of a paragraph for your point is just plain
ignorant. John read the entire paragraph to get the concept
being presented, I'm sure. Now you lecture others on how to
read? Now that's _attitude_! <G>

 >Bobbie's beef isn't how much money that the UFO elite make off
 >their books.

Boy, for somebody who wants to teach others how to read, you
should practice what you preach. Your elitistm is certainly
showing here, Roger. Better read Bobbie's posting again.

 >By all accounts, it isn't much. However, it is profitable
 >enough to get printed in the first place.

How in the world can you make such a ridiculous and mis-informed
statement like this? Profit to have it printed came from normal
jobs outside the field of cryptoaeronautics, and not from sales.
Nothing Mike and I have written was done so with profit in mind
for several reasons. First, research backed up by documentation
and without speculation isn't the kind of material ufologist
wannabe's, such as yourself, usually read. It takes effort,
pictures ain't sexy and the footnotes get in the way because
gosh, who wants to bother with where this crap comes from and
why it is important to understanding the whole concept of
cryptoaeronautics cause you didn't want to bother with it when
you were in school either. If you don't have a grasp of the
basic history of the phenomenon and its investigations by
military and civilian organizations, you remain ignorant and
keep blustering.

 >And since being in print is the _real_ distinction that Wendy
 >makes for being a "serious contributor", then Bobbie's point is
 >still valid: If you alienate your audience by suggesting their
 >opinions are worthless, then they stop buying your books. When
 >sales drop, then the printing stops. Should the printing stop,
 >then someone might very well say to Ms. Connors, "I don't see
 >anything by you on the shelf."

Since we pay for printing our work out of our own pockets and
don't make money off of it, your statement is just plain stupid.
And since we pay for our material to be available to
researchers, they will always be on the shelf. No, I don't
expect you to put my research on your shelf.

 >So it is a bit naive to suggest that sales are not a
 >consideration in keeping the ETH alive and kicking at all costs.
 >Wendy just needs to be reminded who butters her bread to replace
 >the notion that everyone else's opinion takes second fiddle to
 >the UFO elite. Otherwise, they can just sell their books to each
 >other, because I'll refuse to buy into such blatant arrogance.

Nobody butters my bread. I've never stated anywhere that I
support the ETH. Show me where I have done so. You won't be able
too because you don't know what you are talking about and don't
take time to read the literature. When you do read, you add tons
of garbage that was not there to begin with.

So, where the hell do I go to see this important and well
documented research you have done? You want me to be an elitist,
which is your favorite word, btw, then fine. I hereby plead
guilty to having done real research beyond reading a book,
acquired and contributed to the knowledge base of
cryptoaeronautics, published at my own expense to share the
material for all to use in their own research and gave to others
from my own archives and collection at my own expense. If that
makes me an 'Elitist', then I plead guilty.

Now, if you want me to answer your questions Roger, pay up. I'm
a professional and if you want the expertise, pay for it.


Wendy Connors








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                      Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

From: Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:34:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 05:42:14 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:08:20 -0000
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Hall

 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:09:43 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

Previously, Dick wrote:

 >>>I could give a fig whether you agree with me (or Jan), but I am
 >>>extremely curious to have your definition of your constantly
 >>>cited, but undefined, term "elitist" which you keep throwing out
 >>>as if it explains something or has some profound meaning.

I replied:

 >>I define the 'UFO Elite' as:

 >>1) the small group of ufologists that, by virtue of the research
 >>they've done or the books they've published, feel that their
 >>views have more weight than others, despite the fact that said
 >>research or books have proved nothing in regard to the ETH.

 >>2) a member of the UFO elite is characterized by their selective
 >>refusal to answer questions, their tendency to dodge issues by
 >>answering questions with yet another question, or, by their
 >>tendency to reference past works when a simple yes or no answer
 >>would do.

 >>3) the over use of said referencing as a form of diversion
 >>calculated to halt the discussion with the obvious ploy that
 >>readers won't bother to look up said reference and the debate
 >>will die on the vine or veer off in a new, more comfortable
 >>direction for the elitist in question.

 >>4) a member of the UFO elite will, when pressed into corner,
 >>declare that the opposition is "uninformed" or that "they
 >>obviously haven't done enough research" or that "their question
 >>isn't worth addressing".

 >>5) Use partial quotes from well known debunkers as a supposed
 >>example of how the opposition thinks when, in reality, few if
 >>any rational skeptics approach research that way.

 >>6) when pressed for time, simply label the opposition a
 >>"skeptic" or "debunker" and then bow out of the debate.

 >>and finally, (my favorite)

 >>7) simply declare themselves the winner of the debate before it
 >>ever starts.

 >>That should just about do it.

 >>Now that I've answered your question, are you going to address
 >>the issues I previously raised or will the definition I've given
 >>continue to be demonstrated?

Dick now responds:

 >Well, that certainly is a convoluted "definition," but it is
 >illuminating in ways you may not suspect. You have called me an
 >"elitist", yet many points of your "definition" do not apply to
 >me in any way I can see.

Hi, Dick!

Convoluted? Apparently not!

After all, your response wasn't a defiant "None of those points
apply to me."

Instead, you readily admit "many points of your definition do
not apply to me."

Okay, I give you that. Many do not apply, which mean some
remain. Now, which of these remaining points _do_ apply to you?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                   Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:12:24 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:47:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Hatch


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:32:46 +0200

 >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 02:11:19 -0700
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question

 >Larry Hatch wrote:

 >>>I found a few EME cases prior to the Johnson sighting in June
 >>>1947. These are of highly variable merits of course.

 >>The rest appear to be mainly auto and motorcycle engines,
 >>headlights and other electrics conking out, RFI and mysterious
 >>radio signals, a whole town or two going dark (power) after what
 >>might be ball lightning attacks, one or two cases of temporary
 >>human paralysis.....

 >A question.

 >Centering in vehicle stoppages, were these cases reported at the
 >time (before 1947) or were backdated cases known several years
 >later (i.e. after the Levelland EM cases)?

 >LuisR


Hello Luis:

I would have to dig each one out individually, then follow the
sources back for original dates of publication, newspaper
accounts or whatever. I'm not prepared to do that any time soon!

My best guess is that these were known, at least locally, around
the times of the events, prior to 1947 in most cases.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                  Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:36:02 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:49:34 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Jones



 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:54:15 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

Roger

<snip>

 >Try proving your case, first. According to popular figures, I
 >have made over 560 posts.

<snip>

Or should that be Roger the dodger??

560 posts eh, I think you should take up politics, for
politicians to can talk for hours and say very little of any
worth. You obviously have that "skill".

Since I asked of you, for me to respond, you have to answer my
queries, it is not for you to tell me to trot off and do my
research, that is _exactly_ what you are complaining about in
others!!

Toodle pip old bean.

--

    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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                    To Readers At The UFO UpDates Archive

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:52:52 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:52:52 -0400
Subject: To Readers At The UFO UpDates Archive



From: Moderator UFO UpDates

Readers at the Archive will no longer be able to post responses
to List messages.


Errol Bruce-Knapp

Moderator, UFO UpDates - Toronto






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                 Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:56:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:58:37 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Felder


 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:51:34 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:12:47 -0500
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

<snip>

 >I would bet your library shelves are in a state of near collapse
 >from equally unread religious blither; layers of dust thick
 >enough to house, shelter and camouflage whole platoons of field
 >mice.

Hi Larry. You speak the truth here, my friend. When I lived
in Denver, I went to the public library there. The _Reference_
section in that library was bigger than the _entire_ library in
the county where I live here in Mississippi.

The libraries around here don't have a budget that allows them
to stock the shelves with "fringe pseudoscience". Most people
around here equate an interest in UFOs with a devotion to
Satanism. Does that give you an idea of why the local library is
not a valid source of information on these subjects? :)

<snip>

 >Most likely, you like I, simply want to know if there is
 >something solid and important in UFO sightings.

You got it. I just want my money's worth on my investment.

Since Mr. Velez brought up the subject of Stephen King and
Martha Stewart, allow me to continue on that comparison. When I
buy a book by Stephen King, I fully expect to have the
be-geebers scared out of me. And I am rarely disappointed. When
I buy a book by Martha Stewart that includes instruction on how
to bake muffins properly, I fully expect to be able to bake a
decent muffin as a return on my investment in her book. My son
will attest to the fact that I can cook a mean muffin :)

I read the books, I watch the videos, I run the CDs, I listen to
the radio shows, I read the email lists, I pour over the
webpages, and I still have no idea what I'm looking at when I
see a huge, diamond-shaped object gliding silently
overhead.....

And now I find out that because I personally haven't written one
of those books, or produced one of those videos, or mass-burned
one of those CDs, or done my segment on Art Bell... now I find
out that my opinion doesn't hold weight beside someone who has?

Gimme a break......

 >Best wishes
 >- Larry Hatch
 >PS: Please do not be offended by any of this.

Not offended in the least... us barracudas have far thicker
skins than one would give us credit for... :)

Bobbie
==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.com
Point of View Webcast
www.dragoncrest.net
Online publishing
==========



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/2001









   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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                 Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 15:25:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:01:02 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Felder


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 07:37:51 -0400

 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:12:47 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

<snip>

 >I don't think you realize how well this points out a major
 >problem with the genre. When you use phrases like "UFO industry"
 >you've relegated this to a consumer product that should bend to
 >the will of the consumer and provide whatever is necessary to
 >make the sale. Most of the researchers that I work with would
 >like to see the "wannabees" and those who join in the discussion
 >because it's "cool" simply go away, but with the Internet and
 >Media we have today that is highly unlikely.

Hi Steve,

I relegate the genre to a consumer product because that is how
it looks from where I sit. From a non-researcher point of view,
it does look like most researcher don't give a damn about the
credibility of the field in general, as long as they move those
books and videos off the shelves. I have said it before and I
will say it again... Ufology cannot expect to be taken seriously
if it pays no attention to the company it keeps.

If you want respect, then act respectable. Stop sharing the
podium with the likes of a certain hot-tubber we all know and
don't admire, stop sharing the airwaves with the Bossacks, the
Reeds, and the Ickes out there.

When Mr. Serious Researcher presents his data to an audience,
and is followed at the podium by the Singing Diva talking about
her Reptilian Stud Muffin, we the consumer find it hard to
maintain faith in Mr. Serious Researcher. There's a no-brainer
for ya, Wendy :)

 >Just as everything else in life, UFO information and literature
 >comes in all shapes and sizes, and it is indeed impacted by
 >economic forces. I've worked with groups to produce good UFO
 >related material and the fact is that there is a very limited
 >market for good research. This can be seen in the number of
 >manuscripts that are floating around looking for publishers.

I don't doubt that there is a small market for it. And it is
understandable from a publishing standpoint, I would think. Money
talks, plain and simple, as it does in any other industry.

UFO research and investigation, in its purest form, may not be a
true industry. The economic factor may not play a part in the
actual investigation done by some researchers, but I think it does
play a part in the dissemination of the information gleaned from
the investigation.

And I don't have a problem with someone turning a profit for their
work. All I ask is that you realize that it is people like me
out here providing you with whatever profit you may glean from your
efforts. And because of that fact, I deserve, at the very least, to
not be summarily dismissed as nothing more than a waste of some
researcher's time.

<snip>

 >My I join others in suggesting that you read Richard Hall's
 >latest, UFO Evidence II. You probably won't find it at the local
 >book store though. You might ask your library to order it if you
 >can't afford the $60 (US) purchase price.

LOL... yeah, right.. a request like that to my local county
library, when the librarian found out the price tag, would get
me laughed out of there to start with, and would probably result
in a visit from the local Cult Investigator from the Sheriff's
Department.

Bobbie




==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.com
Point of View Webcast
www.dragoncrest.net
Online publishing
==========









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                  Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:45:58 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:04:39 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Young


 >From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 09:15:55 -0600

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:15:28 EDT
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

 >That was funny! Thank you!

Wendy:

You're welcome.

<snip>

 >Seems to me that cryptoaeronautical
 >researchers who go beyond reading the literature and digs into
 >archives and brings forth new material might know a lot more
 >than the person interested in UFOs, even if they have read
 >books.

I agree, everything being equal. But, there are people who may
have expertise or experience which makes them more knowledgeable
that somebody who has discovered something in the process of
digging around archives. There also is the matter of: Does the
claim made by the cryptoaeronautical researchers, or whatever
they call themselves, make sense?

Otherwise, all we are doing is defering to "authority". In
ufology there are an awful lot of self-proclaimed experts.

<snip>

 >Does the researcher(s) who provide the new documentation, etc.
 >to the interested masses in the genre have an edge over personal
 >opinion obtained by people who got their information from their
 >work and not by thier own investigations, research, etc.? You
 >betcha!

Not to take anything from your effort, but you have to be
careful that you don't assume that all researchers with access
to the same material are equal, or even right about their
conclusions.n.

<snip>

 >Experience and informed opinion counts a lot more than personal
opinion no matter how you want to slice it.

Can't argue with that.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                 Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 21:55:08 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:06:34 -0400
Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Rimmer


 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:36:55 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:21:45 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Tidbit #2 - On the website, Don Johnson's interesting list of
 >>"UFO hotspots" in the U.S. provides some food for thought. I
 >>notice that in Pennsylvania there are only two, the most
 >>prominent being Westmoreland County, just east of Pittsburgh.
 >>Both of these locations are where active UFO investigators are
 >>based. Westmoreland County has been the location of Stan Gordon
 >>and his groups for the past 20 years.

 >>Unless the ETs have redlined the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
 >>for some reason (maybe they are allergic to coal dust), it seems
 >>that the population of potential witnesses is not nearly as
 >>important as the population of investigators who stimulate and
 >>collect reports.

 >That's not a fair comment on two counts Bob.

 >1. _Of course_ an area where someone is actively working to
 >gather 'local' sighting reports is going to have 'more reported
 >sightings' than an area where no researchers (or information
 >gatherers if you will) are known to exist. (by the locals) If
 >you can "accuse" them of anything, maybe it's for being a bit
 >too "provincial" (local) in their data gathering.

 >2. I'm not comfortable with your use of the word "stimulate" to
 >kind of explain the number of reports these local guys gather.
 >As if their mere "presence" or in the worst case, "influence"
 >has something to do with the number of reports they receive.

I think you're being oversensitive here, John. The presence of
an active investigator certainly stimulates the numbers of
reports from a particular area - but not necessarily the number
of events. One of the problems with getting accurate statistics
on numbers of UFO events is that most people who experience them
have no clear idea where to report them. Some go to the police,
some to the Air Force, some to a local paper or radio or TV
station. Many others just keep schtum.

The presence of an active investigator, especially one who is
well-known locally throgh the media, will "stimulate" reports
just by his/her presence. There is nothing unfair in pointing
this out - it's just commonsense.

There was a very similar situation in Britain some years ago.
Milton Keynes is a large, new planned town/city which has grown
up very rapidly in the past twenty years. For many people in
Britain it is almost a synonym for "boring"! Yet ten or so years
ago it was a UFO "hotspot", with far more reports than other
communities of a similar size. This was due to the diligent work
of one researcher, Ken Phillips, who I think will be know to
many US readers because of his involvement in the Anamnesis
Project.

Now I am not suggesting for one moment that Ken went around
persuading people to produce UFO reports or staged hoaxes, but
his presence did "stimulate" reports (reports, note, not
events), as is clear from the fact that after moving from the
area, the number of reports from Milton Keynes declined rapidly.
People just knew who to report UFOs to. Many reports which
otherwise would never have seen the light of day were placed on
record because of the "influence" of this individual.

I cannot see how you can object to the suggestion that the
presence of an active investigator will have a statistically
significant effect on the number of UFO reports from a
particular area.

--

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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                 Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:06:42 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:07:51 -0400
Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Young


 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:36:55 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:21:45 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Nothing wrong with protecting the identity of someone who wishes
 >to remain anonymous.

Since the FOIA went into effect, it's the law.

 >>Tidbit #2 - On the website, Don Johnson's interesting list of
 >>"UFO hotspots" in the U.S. provides some food for thought. I
 >>notice that in Pennsylvania there are only two, the most
 >>prominent being Westmoreland County, just east of Pittsburgh.
 >>Both of these locations are where active UFO investigators are
 >>based. Westmoreland County has been the location of Stan
Gordon >>and his groups for the past 20 years.

 >>Unless the ETs have redlined the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
 >>for some reason (maybe they are allergic to coal dust), it
seems >>that the population of potential witnesses is not nearly
as >>important as the population of investigators who stimulate
and >>collect reports.

 >That's not a fair comment on two counts Bob.

 >I'm not comfortable with your use of the word "stimulate" to
 >kind of explain the number of reports these local guys gather.
 >As if their mere "presence" or in the worst case, "influence"
 >has something to do with the number of reports they receive.

No, it probably has more to do with the number of press releases
Stan Gordon sends out, and which are reprinted in little papers
out in his neck of the woods.

<snip>

 >The reports need to be investigated _before_ anyone can
determine their validity.

Can't argue with that, John.

 >Your suggestion of investigator influence seeks to invalidate
 >them all in one stroke.

No, I was commenting on the existence of "UFO hotspots", and
suggesting that they may be an artifact of the presence of UFO
investigators, and their clubs, not some interest of the ETs.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:31:26 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:09:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:40:19 -0300
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:16:14 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch


 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:29:55 +0100

 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:22:17 -0300
 >>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>Now if you are on quicksand already with the first sighting then
 >>>47 years later, I think it's a mistake to start writing off
 >>>another sighting [number 2] stating the faulty reasoning of the
 >>>first as a precedent. Again this is a case of the outside agent
 >>>second guessing the witnesses, and very credible and reliable
 >>>witnesses at that... with considerably more experience than the
 >>>"experts" at describing and encountering aerial phenomenon.

 >>I appreciate that point, of course.

 >>But - pilots may be experts at flying. They are not experts at
 >>seeing fireball meteors as these are rare enough for most air
 >>crew never to see one.
<snip>

Hi Jenny, Don, List,

I just have to step in here and ask: How is it possible that
"most" pilots, air crew, have never seen a single fireball
meteor in their entire lives? Considering how much sky viewing
pilots must necessarily do, and their ability to cover a much
larger volume of space from an unimpeded panoramic view in the
air than lay people on the ground, this seems rather incredible.
Surely there must be some statistics somewhere. Once upon a
time there was a VFON (Volunteer Flight Officers Network) headed
by a Herb Roth that compiled reports of satellite/space
re-entries and meteors from airline pilots. But I have no idea
whatever became of VFON, its files, whether it ever issued
reports, etc.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                     Re: Ft. Monmouth Revisited - Borraz

From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 03:00:54 +0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:11:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Ft. Monmouth Revisited - Borraz


Hello All,

On September 10, 1951, while flying at 20,000 ft from a Delaware
to a Long Island airbase, two experienced fighter pilots in a
T-33 jet spotted an object "round and silver in color" which at
one stage of the attempted intercept appeared flat. The T-33 was
put into a descending turn to try to close on the object but the
latter turned more tightly (the airmen stated) and passed
rapidly eastward towards the coast of New Jersey and out to sea,
at an estimated speed of around 900 mph.

The official explanation pointed to a balloon. In fact, two
balloons were launched in the area shortly before the incident.
But many years later, J. E. McDonald questioned this
explanation, concluding:

"The possibility that a pilot can be misled by depth perception
errors and coordinate-reference errors to misconstrue a weather
balloon as a fast-maneuvering object must always be kept in
mind. But in the Ft. Monmouth instance, as in many others that
could be discussed in detail, there is a very large gap between
the balloon hypothesis and the facts."

A good deal of information about this incident and its surroundings
can be found at:

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/monmouthdir.htm

I will try to show that the balloon explanation was very
probable indeed. To follow the discussion below I strongly
recommend to take a look at the map at:

http://www.anomalia.org/fort-mon.jpg

(I thank Matias Morey -Fundacion Anomalia's webmaster- for
putting up the image in the net.)

I've taken the map from Willy Smith's book "On Pilots and UFOs"
(UNICAT PROJECT, 1997; chapter 1). According to Smith, it's "a
copy of the overlay included in Project Grudge, Report No. 1, 30
Nov. 1951, p.28, with the exact initial and final locations of
the balloons added."

Let's take, for instance, five equally spaced points along the
trajectories of the T-33 and the UFO and let's draw a line
connecting each pair of points for a given time (that is,
assuming -to do the things simpler - that both the T-33 and the
UFO didn't vary their speed; in fact, the object is said to have
kept a constant speed, but the jet increased its speed when it
started to turn). What we obtain -see the red lines added to the
map- are the approximate directions of the line of sight from
T-33 to UFO during the incident.

Surprisingly, all the lines cross at a small area (the blue
triangle marked in the figure). Therefore it's conceivable that
a fixed or slow moving object located there were misperceived as
the fast moving and more distant object reported by the airmen.
As we can see in the map, the assumed distance to the UFO
throughout the incident evolve likewise the distance to this
area where the lines of sight cross. Before going on, note that
the area in question is near the launching site of the balloons
(though it doesn't coincide exactly with their estimated
positions.)

But if the observers saw a balloon, why did they report it
banking? If the balloon was below the jet, it should have been
seen "descending" on approach. It's just a perceptive illusion.
And how to reconcile the estimated altitude of the balloons of
about 17,000-18,000 feet and the reported UFO altitude of only
5,000-8,000 feet? What the map indicates after calculations is
that if the airmen at 20,000 feet over Point Pleasant were to
see the balloon aligned with the UFO over Sandy Hook, the
altitude of the balloon should be of the order of 15,000-17,000
feet. All of this makes sense.

What about  the disappearance of the object over the ocean? I've
found contradictory data about the time of the event (same time
quoted as EDST or EDT depending on the source). In any case,
what matters is that the Sun was S or ESS at about 50� over the
horizon. Hence it should be considered the reflexion of light
rays on a balloon getting more and more against the sun light,
from the position of the moving observers.

At this point, we may wonder why did J. E. McDonald reject the
balloon explanation. If we reread his arguments the answer
becomes apparent.

Basically, McDonald stated that "at no time in the interval
involved could the line of sight from T-33 to balloon have
intersected Freehold" and, also, that the balloon "would have
subtended an arc of only 0.6 min, as seen from the T-33 when the
latter passed over Pt. Pleasant", an angular size much too small
to fit the airmen's descriptions of the object. The problem is
that McDonald assumed that the balloons had been released from
the Evans Signal Laboratory "near Ft. Monmouth". But according
to Willy Smith (who doesn't appear to realize that MacDonald was
in error), these facilities were near Belmar, south of Ft.
Monmouth. With the correct location of the launching point in
mind (see map) the above arguments doesn't apply anymore.

Glad to hear further comments on the whole affair.

Manuel Borraz








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:50:56 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:34:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:56:08 -0400

 >>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:56:00 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>Would you now like me to post dozens of examples of sceptics who
 >>have looked carefully at eyewitness testimony and found it
 >>invaluable in determining the stimulus responsibe for UFO
 >>sightings?

 >Yes.

 >I'd very much like to see that. And I mean it - this isn't one
 >of the rhetorical challenges so tiresomely prevalent on this
 >list.

I suppose in the best traditions of this list I should say "Read
the Collected Works of... (insert sceptics name here)"  and
announce that anyone who does not the agree with me is
"uninformed" or has not read the literature sufficiently
diligently. However, I shall try to be a little more
constructive.

One example that comes to mind, where sceptical ufologists
carefully examined witness accounts and came to conclusion
different from the witnesses' assumptions, is the Cracoe Fell
case in Yorkshire, northern England. A full account can be found
in Clarke, Randles and Roberts's book "The UFOs That Never Were"
(one of the 'Collected Works' I would have people read)

At Cracoe two experienced police officer ('trained observers',
many ufologists would claim) saw several UFOs hovering against a
cliff face. They described them as "brightly lit spheres"...
"the glowing orbs hurt the witnesses' eyes"... there was "a
triangular fin behind the central light".

This case did not depend on eyewitness testimony alone, as
several photographs were taken which seemed to confirm the
witnesses report. I won't spell out the rest of the
investigation, except to say that an explanation was found,
based on a careful analysis of the photographs and the
eyewitness reports. This analysis was vigorously challenged by
the UFO group which had first investigated the case.

The Berwyn Mountain case has been previously mentioned on
UpDates. I simply reiterate that it was "debunked" by good basic
investigation, and listening carefully to what witnesses said,
but not taking all descriptions at face value, and doing
background checking.

Jerry Clark said a while ago, trying to explain the difference
between 'good sceptics' and 'debunkers', something like "when a
ufologist explains a case it stays explained", with the
implication that 'debunkers' explanations soon crumble. But I
think a more realistic statement would be "If I agree with the
explanation of a case, it was done by a ufologist. If I don't
agree, then the explanation is the work of a debunker".

 >We could also make lists of skeptics who declare witnesses
 >didn't see what they reported, in order to make the skeptic's
 >explanation of the sighting work. (Klass, for instance, said
 >Coyne didn't operate the helicopter the way he said he did;
 >Sheaffer said Betty Hill didn't see lights in the sky in the
 >positions she said she did.)

The Coyne case has been discussed on another branch of this
thread. I simply repeat that it is only one small - but vital -
part of the witness testimony that is under question. I find it
quite plausible that a highly trained helicopter pilot might,
without thinking or conscious recall, take action to correct a
dangerous situation. Isn't that what being "highly trained" is
all about?

 >One reason I'm curious to see your list, John, is to see how
 >often, in your citations, the skeptics actually discount part of
 >the witnesses' testimony. (Yet another example, from recent
 >discussions on the Project 1947 list - skeptics who say police
 >officers chased Venus in their squad cars, when they thought
 >they were chasing a UFO. In one case, to make that work,
 >skeptics had to ignore the testimony of officers who say the
 >object passed right over them at close range.)

I can give you a case, personally investigated but unfortunately
not documented, where a witness 'saw' the Moon fly over them.
But that is, of course, only anecdotal testimony. I am curious
as to at what point you *would* question eyewitness testimony. I
am sure you don't believe that all witness reports should be
taken as unchallengable, objective records of events. Just where
would you draw the line, and begin to suspect that things might
not quite have happened exactly as the witness described?

--
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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                   Re: rnold's Fleet - A Question - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 06:17:01 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:36:50 -0400
Subject: Re: rnold's Fleet - A Question - Sparks


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:02:48 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:40:25 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:01:00 EDT
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young

 ><snip>

 >>You're still missing my point.

 >>Johnson brought up the whole issue of how far he could see
 >>"objects" in his telescope in an allusion to the distance at
 >>which he saw _these_ objects, otherwise the point was irrelevant
 >>to bring up and the FBI agents wouldn't have mentioned it
 >>either. Certainly he was giving a clue to a ballpark estimate or
 >>order-of-magnitude impression of the distance which alone might
 >>not be directly observable but in a ratio with the height
 >>impression he had would be a valid and observable quantity
 >>(elevation angle = height/distance in radians approx.). And
 >>Bruce still suspects the objects were even further than what
 >>Johnson "thought" (see the URL for his posting I gave above) but
 >>disagrees on my distance interpretation.>

 >I think the objects were relatively close to overhead, hence
 >Johnsons claim or "interpretation of the data" that they seemed
 >to be 1,000 ft higher than he.


Hi Bruce,

Johnson never said the objects were "overhead." Like Arnold his
attention was caught by a "reflection" which must have been in
the distance near the horizon -- if it had been overhead it is
much less likely he would have seen anything.


 >I think they may have been
 >farther than Johnson thought because I think they were probably
 >higher than he thought, not because I think they were at a great
 >distance and on the horizon.

Well, what is that "farther" distance, 2,000 feet, 3,000 feet?


 >Had they been 10 miles away I think he would have said so
 >directly. I still think he was just trying to impress the FBI
 >agents with the quality of his telescope that allowed him to see
 >things at ten miles.

Johnson never boasted about his telescope in his letter to the
AAF. It only came up in the FBI interview and seems like it was
additional detail supplied in response to questioning.

Johnson's statement sounds like a type of speech pattern I've
noticed in Arnold's speech and writing where statements are
sometimes made by _indirection_, like giving clues or hints or
allusions to indicate uncertainty. So he gives his estimate of
the distance to the object by telling the distance at which he
can see objects in the telescope. Arnold likewise says in his
letter to the AAF in July 1947 that the sky was so clear he
could see almost 50 miles -- this was a hint at his estimate of
the objects' initial distance which he otherwise does not give
in his AAF letter, and elsewhere he says it directly. Arnold's
words are very similar to Johnson's about how he can see objects
at 10 miles.

 >Of course, we all know that being able to
 >"see things" at 10 miles does not tell us the strength of the
 >scope. 3X binoculars help one to see things at 10 miles better
 >than\ one can see them without the binoculars. ertainly the same
 >would be true of a 10X monocular or... pick a magnification!

 >I think it is _less_ likely that the objects were "close" to
 >overhead than that they were 10 miles away nearly on the
 >horizon.

I don't see why it's such a problem to believe Johnson saw the
objects near the horizon when Arnold saw the objects so close to
the horizon.

There is another extraordinary correlation, this time in angular
size. Johnson estimated the objects were about 30 feet in size.
If they were the same objects that Arnold saw, and Arnold
estimated they were about 100 feet in diameter, then why didn't
Johnson get the impression of such an enormous size especially
since they _seemed_ much much closer to Johnson, and should have
impressed him more than Arnold? Of course determining distance
and size is difficult without reference points but the ratio of
size to distance (= angular size) is directly observable.

But if Arnold and Johnson were seeing identical objects far off
in the distance at exactly the same time, then there can be a
more direct correlation. If the objects seemed to be 30 feet at
10 miles to Johnson then scaling this up to Arnold's impressions
of size and distance would be about 70 feet at Arnold's 23-mile
distance estimate. And in fact Arnold estimated the size at that
close approach distance as about 95 to 100 feet, which is very
close to 70 feet when considering typical witness error margins.
(Arnold gave the 100-foot figure explicitly and also compared
the object's size to the furthest engines on a DC-4, 60 feet
wide, at about 15 miles, which scales up to about 95 feet at 23
miles.)

Why does the 10-mile distance work out so nicely whereas your
presumably 2,000-3,000-foot distance for Johnson would make
Johnson's objects about 1,500 feet in size at Arnold's distance
instead of 95-100 feet in size?

Another way to look at it is that Arnold's objects were about
2.5 arcminutes in angular size at their closest whereas with
Johnson they were about 2 arcminutes, a very close matchup.

 >I think it is perfectly possible for Johnson to have tracked one
 >or more of the objects by moving his monocular telescope
 >(assumed, since he didn't say binocular).

This ignores the indisputable fact it strains the neck to hold
up a telescope to one's eye at a high angle and makes it
difficult to hold steady. Holding it level is easier to do and
the horizon line provides a guide to keeping the telescope
steady on an object speeding along near the horizon.

 >I think the main point to emphasize here is that Johnson got a
 >very good look at the objects and saw a detail unnoticed by
 >Arnold: some object, perhaps bar-like, that was swinging back
 >and forth at the rear end of an (each?) object, "like a big
 >magenet" (sic).

I don't think it was unnoticed by Arnold. Johnson's
wagging-tail observation is hinted at when Arnold describes a
"tadpole" shape and the way the objects "flipped and flashed" or
had a "fluttering" and "jerking" motion.

 >>I notice no comment on the extraordinary match between this 2�
 >>elevation angle derived from Fred Johnson's distance/height
 >>impressions and Arnold's 2� elevation angle which I take as
 >>confirmation of each other.

 >I don't think there is a match.

The numbers speak volumes. Both have about 2� elevation angle.
Johnson's objects would have been about 70 feet if at the same
distance as Arnold's, when the latter estimated 95-100 feet. Or,
we have 2.5 arcminutes for Arnold and 2 arcminutes for Johnson.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 08:52:10 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:41:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - McCoy


 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:40:19 -0300
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:29:55 +0100

 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:22:17 -0300
 >>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


 >>>Now if you are on quicksand already with the first sighting then
 >>>47 years later, I think it's a mistake to start writing off
 >>>another sighting [number 2] stating the faulty reasoning of the
 >>>first as a precedent. Again this is a case of the outside agent
 >>>second guessing the witnesses, and very credible and reliable
 >>>witnesses at that... with considerably more experience than the
 >>>"experts" at describing and encountering aerial phenomenon.


 >>I appreciate that point, of course.

 >>But - pilots may be experts at flying. They are not experts at
 >>seeing fireball meteors as these are rare enough for most air
 >>crew never to see one.

Gee, in my 25 or so years as a Pro Pilot, I've seen four, sky
brightening, seeing the whole Cascade Range from Mt Baker to the
Three Sisters events. Bolides, they are called. Hmm, I even know
the name.

I've also experienced a nuts and bolts UFO, as a Teen, with four
others (adults) I can tell the difference.

 >>And ufologists have an expertise at dealing with witness
 >>testimony and how human perception experiences a visual
 >>stimulus.

Do you have a degree in Psychology? Astrophysics? Exobiology?
Meteorology? How do you know what the crew was seeing. I've had
plenty of visual stimuli over my years as a Pilot (including a
windshield full of C-54 and we were at 200' agl.) and I have
seen things that I can't explain, also, but I was alone, or with
someone that didn't want to talk about it to the outside world.
Or is there a Ufology degree available to make one an "Expert"?

 >>So in this case - yes, I respect the abilities of the pilots and
 >>they are indeed very credible witnesses. But that doesn't mean
 >>they should have been any more aware of what happens when a
 >>fireball meteor whizzes past you in mid air.


I've also been an amateur Astronomer since childhood. I haven't
ever seen slow, climbing meteors, and I have seen Leoinds,
Persids, Russian and American space junk - none slow (oh, and a
vapor trail leaving, bright, fast number that I reported last
year, on this List, and NUFROC).

 >>In this case it was the l995 sighting that I investigated. I saw
 >>the Chiles-Whitted case as an interesting precedent and it was
 >>Allen Hynek's expertise on this that I trusted to. He was an
 >>astronomer and a very experienced investigator and certainly not
 >>a skeptic. But the Chiles-Whitted case was not the reason I
 >>regard the l995 incident as solved.

 >The point I was trying to make is that the pilots were on the
 >spot-and pretty good observers.The experts [meaning
 >investigators and or astronomers] were not and when the UFO
 >didn't fit the usual description of a UFO in the new sense of
 >the word, then the pilots must have been mistaken. Once you
 >begin second second guessing the witness [in place] and making
 >assumptions then you risk changing the evidence to make the
 >sighting fit into a category it does not deserve.

Right on, Don. I resent anyone saying "Oh there, there, you
can't have possibly have seen that!" I had a friend, flying air
freight over the high desert of Eastern Washington, near the
Hanford Area, who insists he was followed then trailed a
Metallic Disk,that then shot vertically to parts unknown. He
made the mistake of reporting it to his Idiot boss (I worked for
the same Idiot years later).

The Idiot used this as a sort of media event. and humiliated my
friend who will not talk about it, even to me, today. He was
told by an" expert" that all he saw was the reflection of the
Moon in his windshield, reflecting off the Handford Reach of the
Columbia, (There was -no- moon at the time, it was three hours
before moonrise.) and the Moon doesn't pass you on the right.
The real capper came when the couple from the Unarius Society
showed up at his door spewing "Space Bros" sewage.

"Believers" he had enough,(oh the couple thought he was special
because he was allowed to see a space ship) and he physically
threw them out. His is not an isolated example. there are pilots
who see things regularly, who won't come forward because of
exactly what happened to my friend. Even I got active on the
list only after I changed careers.

 >Like others I do not like the description of this UFO. It does
 >smack of Buck Rogers. Off-List, one investigator mentioned that
 >there could have been embellishment on the pilot's part due to
 >the weight of the press interest. That seems more likely to me.
 >But I still have trouble with a slow, climbing meteor-despite
 >Corliss [ranks up there with unproved ball lightning].

 >Hynek - though an astronomer - again was still not there and
 >likely IMO had little more experience in observing a fireball or
 >meteor train than did the pilots.

<snip>

Not only that, Hynek didn't have the experience, as a
professional he likely didn't spend much time outdoors. probably
in the observatory or classroom. There is a reason that a goodly
number of amateurs find new comets and asteroids. Or see things
like meteors.Or UFO's. Hynek is one I admire greatly, however.

I will use myself as an example of the ineffectual pigeon-holing
of someone who is not an 'Expert' I have a college education,
Training in the Scientific method, Set up two Weather stations,
and maintained them for Noaa and the FAA. As noted above,
professional pilot for some 25 years, amature Astronomer for
some 40 years (I'll allow you to figgure that one out!) .

The only reason I am on this list is to find out about what I
saw so long ago, and other things that I can't explain. I am not
an expert, nor am I a fool, or easily manipulated. There are
times on the, list I act like a fool,just to put some much
needed humor in here. I too, think that Skeptic thought is
necessary, not blatant debunking to the point of mental damage.
I do enjoy the dialogue and have gotten to know a few of you
offlist,

I appreciate those who are experts, but for heaven's sake we of
the great massed unwashed , do not take being "dissed" so
lightly. When, particularly you are not there. I am having to
deal with "expert" assistance with my local server , I am not
impressed by the by.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                 Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 12:33:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:44:35 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Aldrich


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:37:54 EDT
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - >Young

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: High Silliness On UFO UpDates
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:34:52 -0400

Bob, sorry for the delay in answering.

 >>High Silliness on UFO UpDates

 >>83.2% of posts on UpDates concerning debunking, statistics and
 >>skeptic-advocates debates contain silliness, high silliness, or
 >>very high silliness.

 >>"Ultra high silliness" is a new category to encompass a new
 >>silliness which is off the previous charts. The >belief< that
 >>one should not cite one's own works because there might be some
 >>economic benefit to the author or the non-availability of the
 >>work to the disputant requires a new ultra high silliness
 >>category.

 >>So if Dick Hall with nearly 45 years experience has selected a
 >>large number of cases that he feels merit attention in UFO
 >>Evidence II, he shouldn't be allowed to cite them, not from UFO
 >>Evidence II in any case, since the disputants won't cough up the
 >>money for it or won't ask the local library to obtain a copy.

 >Jan:

 >Well, we had to start somewhere, and Dick's December 1999
 >article seemed a good starting point and was accessible to
 >everyone.

 >With 45 years experience investigating UFO reports behind Dick
 >Hall, I don't doubt that the 18 selected fairly represent his
 >proposition. Granted, he has a longer list, but I'm only 57 and
 >there isn't enough time or bandwidth here to simultaneously
 >discuss hundreds (or is it thousands?).

Bob, the problem here is concerns one's view point. I don't
think there is any crucial or critical evidence which proves
anything about UFOs. Therefore, the idea of finding 10 or 20
highly evidential cases is not the solution. The prepondance of
evidence points to something unusal.

Others disagree. McDonald offered the Condon Committee 20
evidential cases, but they turned him down because they said, if
we shoot down his 20, he will just offer 20 more. Welcome to
science, gentlemen. McDonald had done all the weeding which so
discourage Ruppelt's Lieutenants and the Condon Committee's
field investigation teams. Data reduction is hell, that is why
you hire people at low wages or force graduate students to do
it.

Low in his speech at JPL correctly identified that the residuum
of unexplained UFO cases is what must be studied. However, that
was in the beginning. Things changed. Dick Hall was there.
However, search as one might in the final Condon report and you
won't find him mentioned. He became an "unperson." One must look
in Saunder's book or in some of the committee's papers. One of
Hall's idea was a case book of the most credible and interesting
cases.

The idea was swopped around with a case book of anything
including the most trivial cases. So the UFO Evidence II to a
certain extent in Dick Hall's case book. It also goes the
prepondance of evidence route, giving categories of related
cases in behavior, appearance, and effects. So he advocates a
Nineteenth Century natural history approach which is about all
that can currently be mustered with the lack of resources
available.

In any case, someone please give me the ten cases that prove
ball lightning exists. You won't find any such list anywhere and
catalogues of ball lightning cases have all those cases which
are not literate, ambiguous or have weird opinions of the
observers associated with the case excluded. One facet of data
reduction.

No one demands that all ambeguous, claims of spirit entities,
hoaxes, or identified cases be added back into the mix.

 >Everybody else can take on that.

 >Have to start someplace.

Agreed.

I would say, my opinion, that effects cases are the ones which
are the best to use. Again, there was some thought put into how
the Condon committee would deal with these, but the execution
was lacking. Running a compass over a car involved in an alleged
EME case and declaring that there was nothing there, isn't much
like science to me.

 >On statistics, are anybody's UFO statistics useful, in you
 >estimation?

Bob, my estimation has nothing to do with it. Statistics have
rules. Either one uses them properly or one doesn't. We are
taught in grade school how to find percentages and make sure
everything adds up to 100%. In some cases the Air Force could
even accomplish that.

However, doing statistical analyses and obtaining inferences
from data is a little different.

What data are to be used? Should each case be assigned a
weighting such as intelligence reports are and only cases above
a certain weight be considered? If sampling is done how does one
assure randomization?

Now USAF Project Blue Book Special Report #14 was an extensive
statistical study of UFOs. They reviewed all the USAF data from
July 24, 1947 to December 31, 1952. A panel of analysts at
Battelle Memorial Institute reviewed each case and passed on
whether it was a known or unknown. Then, various statistical
analyses were done on the cases.

The Air Force fought tooth and nail to keep this report from the
public. Only Dr. Leon Davidson, a most skeptical person on ETH,
and the CSI, New York going to the Moss Committee finally got
the thing released so the claimed results could be checked.

Ruppelt's evaluation of the study: Useless!

The PBBSR#14 produced statistics on various aspects of UFO
behaviour and appearance and then used a "Chi Square" test to
determine if it could be inferred that the unknowns were
different from the knowns. Opps, they were. Can't have that. So
we have excuses in the text to cast doubt on the results.

The old fudge factor.

Now Battelle also came up with their 12 best cases. Anyone,
skeptic or advocate want to have a look and tell me that they
agree? In any case, the mission was to come up with a model of a
UFO. Since most the 12 "best" were dissemilar they obviously
couldn't do that. Interestingly, going back into the official
pre-1953 official AF documents, there are several references to
what a typical UFO looks like base on cases in the files.

Dr. Bruce Maccabe redid some of the statistics in PBBSR#14. What
caught my eye was his assumption that there were unknowns
lurking among the knowns so they had to be taken into account.
The opposite case is also more likely. More fudge.

Vallee's rather cavalier treatment of data would leave any of
his statistics in question. Many of his databases leave in
proven hoaxes or highly dubious cases. GIGO.

The UFOCAT is more properly a UFO case bibliography. It is
highly useful to me. However, it has an entry for each time the
Arnold case is mentioned in some UFO literature. This is hard to
get much statistical data from that. Saunders claimed that he
had found in his analyses that flyways of UFO across the US.
Perhaps, but are these fly ways of balloons or meteors or
something other. His degree of freedom was one mile and for the
huge distance across the country, this is very small. Something
suggestive might be here, which might takes some following up.

Mark Rodigher did statistical analysis on car interference cases
including Chi Square tests on various elements. I have no
problem with the methods here. I do have problems with some of
the data in the database. Samples are in some categories very
small, also.

In both UFO Evidence I and II Hall does produce some stats on the cases
considered internal stats which I don't agrue with.

Larry Hatch's *U* Database is about the best thing going which I
can see. It allows one to delete and add cases. One can also
flag cases and do displays on maps. Larry continues to prune the
junk from his database, but the way the thing is designed, you
can also do your own pruning. Statistical analyses from this
database might be highly interesting. The program and database
are all contained one disk, a neat trick.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:53:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:46:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:58:26 -0500


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:17:22 -0500


Dennis,

 >For a rather long time, though, I've been musing the matter of
 >eyewitness testimony and how it's treated in the UFO literature,
 >call it "How UFO Books Are Written." Of course it's meant to be
 >awesomely and philosophically profound, but since I haven't
 >quite gotten there yet, here are a few beginning notes.

 >Your account of the Hill case above is typical of how testimony
 >is presented in UFO cases. By typical, I mean everyone does it,
 >myself included. It's called a narrative summary.

Thanks for your interesting and thoughtful observations, with
which I am in close to entire agreement. Still, a few
observations:

As a fellow writer you know that we have to figure out how to
tell the story. In introductions to my books, I often warn
readers that for purposes of readability, I have mostly eschewed
the use of the adverb "allegedly" and the adjective "alleged." I
imply, or suggest directly, that readers supply them mentally.
Frequently, before recounting the testimony of a witness or
witnesses, I will preface the narrative with something such as
"As the story goes...." Afterwards, as I did with the Hill case
in the encyclopedia, I discuss the subsequent controversy in
detail and analyze the pros and cons.

 >The inherent philosophical problem is that it's placed as
 >absolute fact against the fact of the existence of both Saturn
 >and Jupiter and the fact of their existence at some point in
 >space at a specific time.

Bob Young was placing a whole lot of emphasis on the correctness
of eyewitness testimony to prove his point. I was suggesting
that, if one wants to go in that direction, one can use it to
prove quite something else. In fact, as you astutely observe,
there are problems with any kind of certainty here. Yes, Saturn
and Jupiter exist, as you say; so do decades of puzzling UFO
reports, including seemingly credible accounts of close
encounters with humanoids. One is an old fact, and the other may
be a new one struggling to reveal itself. That's the UFO debate
in a nutshell.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 13:52:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:48:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Aldrich

 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:42:53 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:51:41 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy

 >>Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:14:41 -0500 (CDT)
 >>From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:38:23 -0500

<snip>

<snip>

 >It was merely a metaphor, airplanes would have>probably been a
 >better one. Here on humble planet Earth we have>such a large
 >variety of automobile shapes because of>marketing concerns.
 >Different consumers with different needs, etc.

 >You find a wide variety of flying machines, too,>although the
 >general "patterns" are more constrained by the>laws of physics.
 >In other words, you can design it to look anyway>you want, but
 >in the end it has to fly in our atmosphere.

 >As you go up the ladder, however, your design options get
 >increasingly limited. If you want a really, really fast jet, for
 >example, you're not likely to stick a huge ball on the front end
 >of it.

 >If you look at rockets capable of putting a payload in space,
 >you won't find much difference in the fundamental, underlying
 >design from that of the V-2, which is more than 50 years old.
 >To a certain extent, form follows function.

 >The Space Shuttle looks the way it does because>of the need for
 >a cargo bay and the ability to fly in our>atmosphere (as well as
 >no atmosphere, which does away with>aerodynamic design issues
 >altogether, which is why we could land a box like the Lunar
 >Lander on the Moon. Try flying the LL in Earth's atmosphere,
 >however, and you're asking for serious trouble.)

 >Now, if you want to believe (or think, if you prefer) that "out
 >there" is absolutely teeming with ET species and designs capable
 >of visiting the Earth on what seemingly amounts to a whim, using
 >essentially free sources of energy, then I have no answer for
 >you. Or at least not one that you would likely consider.

 >All I can say is that such a world view is>contradicted by any
 >available body of evidence we currently possess,>other than the
 >UFO literature itself. For all the data on one side of the
 >question to be so wrong, one has to pull in other factors to
 >account for the huge gap, beginning with a vast conspiracy and
 >cover up orchaestrated by...who -- and how?


Geez, Dennis, is this bomb throwing, or are you serious?

If you look at the 7th US Fleet there are a wide difference in
vessels, auxilaries, aircraft, and ground vehicles and
submarines as part of the compliment. Even more weird looking
craft waiting in the wings to provide support if called upon.
Floating dry docks, and submarine rescue vessels.

Perhaps you ought to subscribe to Aerospace Projects Review
before you make statements everything converging up the
technological line. Some of the things in that magazine don't
remotely have the appearance of V-2's

I don't want get into defending ETH, but your argument seem
rather weak. And has been dealt with decades ago. Have UFO
Evidence I?  Take a look in the back. (Sorry, Roger.)

The problem with ETH is why have we not observed ground of sea
activity associated with such an expedition. Another words, why
just vehicles in the sky. Why not exotic vehicles on the ground
and in/under the seas?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                  Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:19:38 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:33:43 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Gates


 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:13:12 -0400
 >From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:28:19 -0500
 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

 >>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:29:52 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates
 >>>Wendy Connors rates very high on my credibility scale. I found
 >>>her take on Aldrich, Hall and Clark very refreshing and
 >>>enlightening.

 >>Apologise to Wendy? Not a chance.

 >Just out of curiosity, perhaps I missed it, but has Ms. Connors
 >released her much-anticipated video interview with RAAF Lt. Col
 >Walter Haut wherein he allegedly says (in paraphrase) that while
 >he was the information officer at Roswell that he saw bodies,
 >saw a "disc", saw what happened to said bodies and disc, etc.?

Hi Ron,

Glad you mentioned that video/interview as I was interested in
seeing it or reading the transcripts as it allegedly flies in
the face of every interview he has given, or information he has
passed on to people considered to be his close friends for
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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                 Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:28:17 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:35:52 -0400
Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Gates


 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:36:55 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:21:45 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

Young Bob Wrote:

 >>Tidbit #2 - On the website, Don Johnson's interesting list of
 >>"UFO hotspots" in the U.S. provides some food for thought. I
 >>notice that in Pennsylvania there are only two, the most
 >>prominent being Westmoreland County, just east of Pittsburgh.
 >>Both of these locations are where active UFO investigators are
 >>based. Westmoreland County has been the location of Stan Gordon
 >>and his groups for the past 20 years.
 >
 >>Unless the ETs have redlined the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
 >>for some reason (maybe they are allergic to coal dust), it seems
 >>that the population of potential witnesses is not nearly as
 >>important as the population of investigators who stimulate and
 >>collect reports.

John responded

 >That's not a fair comment on two counts Bob.

 >1. _Of course_ an area where someone is actively working to
 >gather 'local' sighting reports is going to have 'more reported
 >sightings' than an area where no researchers (or information
 >gatherers if you will) are known to exist. (by the locals) If
 >you can "accuse" them of anything, maybe it's for being a bit
 >too "provincial" (local) in their data gathering.

Kind of reminds me of our local paper. We have a bundle of car
wrecks (amongst other things) that happen around town that never
get any coverage... as if they never happened. I would suspect
that if a researcher got interested in car accidents, and
started publishing something about each accident "suddenly" the
local population would discover that their are alot of car
wrecks happening around town.

The point being is the amount of the car wrecks would be the
same if the local paper reported the news, or if a researcher
started researching the subject. But when the subject matter is
not being covered by the local press or a researcher... it's as
if it doesn't happen and might suggest to the ill informed that
accidents are very _rare_ if they even happen at all.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                  Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:33:56 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:38:05 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates - Gates


 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:51:34 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness on UFO UpDates

<snip>

Larry wrote:

 >May I further suggest the Arcturus Book service in Port St.
 >Lucie, FL? Tell Bob Girard you's from Missasippy, and maybe he
 >will send a free catalog.

Hi Larry,

Bob is an excellent source of books and other UFO stuff.

 >Sure beats 'How I Found Jesus' by Harwood Snick III - author and
 >title fictitious.'

I wonder if Larry has read the book (like the one he mentions
above) called "The Run to the Outhouse" by Will E. Makeit? :)


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 >
   Apr > Apr 23

             Re: Cydonian Imperative: 4-23-01 - Oddity in 'City

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 07:42:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Cydonian Imperative: 4-23-01 - Oddity in 'City

The Cydonian Imperative
4-23-01

Enduring Oddity in the "City Square"
by Mac Tonnies

For illustrated and linked version, please see

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

When new images of the "City" in Cydonia became available in
1998, researchers noted a seeming discrepancy in the area dubbed
the "City Square." One of the four mounds comprising the "City
Square" seemed to have changed position since it was last
photographed in 1976. The .gif animation below shows the
"rotated" feature quite plainly.

[image]

Note "rotated" appearance of mound in lower left of top half of
image.

Anomalists are left with three distinct options:

1.) The seemingly "rotated" feature is a trick of camera angle
and lighting.

2.) The feature was indeed physically moved on the Martian
surface by unknown means between 1976 and 1998.

3.) One of the images of the City Square has been digitally
manipulated to give the impression of a "rotated" surface
feature.

Chris Joseph, whose photoclinometric images of the curious
Martian "tubes" appear in earlier installments, writes the
following regarding his attempt to reconcile the 1976 and 1998
images:

[image]

"One is a comparison between the viking image, showing the
points of reference on the grid, the other is the resized and
rotated MGS [see image above]. You'll notice that as close as I
get the reference points to each other, the pyramid, the crater
above it (top right) and the large mound (bottom right) are way
out of place. The image was proportionally resized for a best
fit, and then the height and width were tweaked into place
seperately. The animated gif (for some reason, Flash dithers the
images) is a cutout of the city square overlay.

I would think that if the images were taken at different
angles/aspect ratios, the tweaking should have lined everything
up. Maybe I'm wrong."

SPSR's Lan Fleming notes that the "rotated" mound appears to be
elevated in the Viking image, in which case its seeming
dislocation may be due to the different lighting conditions
present when the Mars Global Surveyor took its picture in 1998.

-end-









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 23

                      Views On The Martian Polar Spring

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 02:12:10 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 07:45:50 -0400
Subject: Views On The Martian Polar Spring


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

The Electric Warrior: Front Page April 23, 2001
http://www.electricwarrior.com/

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

VIEWS ON THE MARTIAN POLAR SPRING
by The Electric Warrior

There is an incredible image of what appears to be trees or
bushes on the surface of Mars. Photographed at the height of
the south polar Spring, what this image actually shows is
widely disputed. There are more of these features, all over
Mars. You have to know where and how to look for them.

The search for life on Mars has intrigued planetary science
for more than half a century. For twenty-five years every
scientific mission to Mars was sent there to look for life.
Yet, as often as not, when evidence for life is actually
found, it is disputed as inconclusive.

------------------------------------------------------------
THE HABITABLE ZONE

Among all the other planets in our solar system, Mars is the
most like Earth.

Not only is the Martian day about twenty-four hours long, but
also the Martian year cycles through the same seasonal changes,
due to the sideways tilt of its planetary axis, which is
almost the same as Earth, and different from any other planet.

Both planets are within what scientists call the habitable
zone, so called because conditions are favorable to life. The
idea is easy enough to understand: too close to the Sun and
the elements are heated to a gaseous state, too far away and
the elements are frozen solid.

Water can exist as a liquid at temperatures in this zone. All
life, as we understand it, depends on water.

But the most provocative thing about Mars is the seasonal
changes of dark green areas on the surface, which become more
pronounced during summer and more subdued during winter, even
as the polar ice caps alternately frost or defrost in due
season.

Some have suggested that the mystery of these changes can be
explained by the seasonal flourishing and decay of Martian
vegetation.

------------------------------------------------------------
PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND THE CASE FOR LIFE ON MARS

The astronomer Gerard Peter Kuiper is regarded by many as the
Father of Modern Planetary Science. In 1948 he focused his
telescopic attention on Mars, in an effort to determine whether
life existed there. Kuiper observed Mars using an infrared
spectrograph, an optical instrument used to separate visible
light into a rainbow of spectral lines, like a prism.

Kuiper analyzed the Martian polar caps, which he said were
composed of water rather than carbon dioxide. Today, the north
polar cap is known to be water ice. Later observations made by
NASA's Viking orbiters showed that temperatures remain cold
enough, even in summer, for the south polar cap to consist of
carbon dioxide.

Kuiper also observed the Martian green areas.  He believed these
spots were low-order plants like mosses and lichens, which "act
like sponges and suck up water vapor present in the air." His
spectral analysis concluded that the dark areas on Mars had a
signature consistent with that of chlorophyll.

This green colored pigment, which explains the color of plants,
is also a key element in the process of photosynthesis. Plants
can synthesize food from carbon dioxide and water, relying only
on sunlight as a source of energy. The byproduct of
photosynthesis is important to life on Earth because higher life
forms, such as humans and animals, must rely on plants for this
basic source of food.

The 1997 Pathfinder mission failed to detect the presence of
chlorophyll on Mars. Exobiologists argue that the geological
color filters built into Pathfinder's camera had such a limited
spectral range that only the most blatant signs of chlorophyll
would be registered.

A Russian scientist, Dr. Serguei Pershin, recently claimed he
discovered evidence for the organic pigment on Mars using images
from the Hubble Space Telescope. Pershin, who was a principal
investigator for NASA's ill-fated Mars Polar Lander mission, had
won a competition that placed Russia's first experiment on board
a US spacecraft.

After the Polar Lander mission failed in 1999, the only option
open to Pershin in resolving the question of chlorophyll on Mars
was remote sensing techniques using Earth-based telescopes.
Essentially, the same thing Kuiper did in 1948.

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

EXTREMOPHILES, WATER ICE, AND LIFE ON THE EDGE

There's a principal among astrobiologists which states, "Where
there's water there's life."

In recent years, the discovery of life in harsh environments has
completely changed our understanding of where life might be
found. Extremophiles are bacteria and other organisms that are
adapted to life in ecological environments too extreme for
mankind. Extreme conditions on Earth would be normal on Mars.

Places like the polar caps on Mars were thought to be too
extreme to support life, but many scientists are now reexamining
the conventional wisdom. The habitable zone, the theoretical
limits between which life can exist, is expanding.

According to NASA's Richard Hoover, "The microbial extremophiles
in the Arctic and Antarctic glaciers and permafrost represent
analogues for cells that might be encountered in the permafrost
or ice caps of Mars." Hoover describes a process of
cryopreservation that explains how even higher plants, such as
moss, remain dormant, yet still alive, for thousands, perhaps
millions of years.

With very low snowfall, most of the Antarctic continent is
technically a desert. These regions on Earth are similar to
environmental conditions on Mars.

Last summer, the Mars Global Surveyor team reported that high-
resolution images showed evidence of liquid water seepage and
ponding in the geologically recent past. Others have argued that
these surface features could be due to the action of carbon
dioxide.

Mars Odyssey, NASA's first mission to Mars since 1999, is the
first spacecraft equipped to detect the presence of near-
surface water. By examining how permafrost changes with the
seasons, NASA hopes to answer the question of whether water
currently exists on Mars.

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

MARS POPULAR SCIENCE

Every NASA mission to Mars is sent with the search for life as
one of its primary scientific objectives, but the historic
Viking missions were the most ambitious effort ever attempted.
Viking landed two fully automated biological laboratories on
Mars.

Two out of three science experiments, mankind's most
knowledgeable efforts to answer this important question,
returned positive results. But, further investigation involving
inorganic chemical reactions determined the results were
inconclusive.

"Some people very much want there to be life on Mars; others
very much want there to be no life on Mars," wrote Carl Sagan in
his 1984 book "Cosmos", summarizing a conflict that continues to
this day. "Some scientists have believed that Mars is inhabited
on what has later proved to be the flimsiest evidence. Others
have concluded the planet is lifeless because a preliminary
search for a particular manifestation of life has been
unsuccessful or ambiguous."

Sagan, Kuiper's pupil, worked on NASA's Mariner and Viking
missions. An enthusiastic supporter of the search for
extraterrestrial life and intelligence, his "Cosmos" television
series popularized science worldwide. Although willing to follow
scientific investigation wherever it might lead, Sagan
nonetheless argued that extraordinary claims required
extraordinary evidence.

So it was that Sagan came to debunk the theories of the first
man to widely popularize the notion of life on Mars. The
astronomer Percival Lowell championed the idea that the dark
regions on Mars contained plant life similar to that of Earth.
But Lowell went far beyond that notion, by also deducing the
existence of extraterrestrial intelligence.

It was Lowell who first popularized the idea of a network of
Martian canals, bringing water from the poles to regions that he
imagined were similar to the deserts of the American Southwest.

Sagan compared Lowell's maps to actual photographs of Mars taken
by Mariner 9, and wrote that he found virtually no correlation
at all. "It was not that Lowell's eye had strung up disconnected
fine detail on the Martian surface into illusory strait lines.
There was no dark mottling or crater chains in the position of
his canals. There were no features there at all."

The Viking Orbiter missions also introduced the first enigmatic
photographs of the notorious Face on Mars, and the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence shifted focus to what many believe
to be the archeological remains of an ancient civilization.

Sagan didn't advocate any linkage between life on Mars and
extraterrestrial intelligence, as Lowell had, arguing instead
that intelligent life on Earth becomes apparent when
photographed from space at a high enough resolution. Viking
orbiters had achieved that tens of meters resolution, and the
Mars Global Surveyor can resolve images at up to one meter.

"Technical civilizations, canal builders, might be easy to
detect. But except for one or two enigmatic features, nothing of
the sort is apparent in the exquisite profusion of Martian
surface detail uncovered by unmanned spacecraft," wrote Sagan.
"However, there are many other possibilities, ranging from
larger plants and animals to microorganisms, to extinct forms,
to a planet that is now and was always lifeless."

It's interesting that Sagan didn't exclude the possibility of
vegetation on Mars, including large plants, even after examining
the scientific data returned by the Viking missions. On the
Internet, there is a controversial topic, first discussed among
independent Mars anomaly researchers, that involves something
besides ancient civilizations.

The Mars Orbital Camera has photographed some unusual surface
features that resemble organic life forms on Mars.

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

SOME INCREDIBLE PHOTOGRAPHS

At the turn of the millennium, on the heels of scientists that
suggested there might be plant life on Mars, an acclaimed author
said that NASA had taken some incredible photographs, which
failed any other explanation but that they showed large forms of
life. Arthur C. Clarke, best known for writing "2001: A Space
Odyssey", didn't expect people to simply take his word for it.
He challenged them to take a look.

There are many similar photographs in the set of images taken by
NASA's Mars Global Surveyor (MGS). But, it is important to
consider technical data such as pixel resolution and geographic
location that accompany each image.

One of the photographs Clarke referred to was taken near the
south pole, at the height of the spring season. Its geographic
location near the temporary ice cap might have an important
bearing on the organic life cycle of its surface features.

It takes two Earth years for Mars to orbit the Sun, and the
Martian spring season lasts for half a year on Earth. There are
dynamic changes at the pole during this time, as the seasonal
ice pack melts away. So, the time of year is significant when
examining these features in the MGS image set. Inorganic
features don't change much over time, but living things do.

Many of the images in the following discussion are analyzed here
for the first time, with reference to the ancillary data.

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

MARTIAN TREES OR BUSHES

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewMarsSpring1.jpg

Figure 1 is cropped from M0804688, captured on October 19, 1999
by the Mars Orbital Camera (MOC) on board NASA's MGS spacecraft.
It was late Spring at the Martian south pole.

This is one of the images which Arthur C. Clarke said was pretty
convincing proof of the existence of large forms of life on
Mars. It's easy to see why. There is a striking resemblance to
Earthy foliage or plant life. The only inorganic explanation for
the fractal, branching patterns would involve the growth of
crystalline patterns that are formed by ice or minerals.

"I do not believe that these will be explained as 'geological
features' or illusions," wrote Clarke in an message forwarded to
the Cydonia mailing list from Dr. Eugene Mallove, who exchanges
email with the acclaimed author on a regular basis. "Only
closer-in imaging will decide the matter. There is much more, as
time will tell."

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

ZOOM-IN

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewMarsSpring2.jpg

Figure 2 is from M0804874, captured the next day, on October 20.
At first glance, the features in this image may appear to have
very little to do with the first.

However, an examination of the ancillary data that is logged for
each image reveals that the second image was taken at a
different resolution. The second image is, effectively, zoomed-
in.

The light, off-white branching patterns against some darker
material present an unmistakable suggestion of organic matter
similar to branched stems or roots.

The dark material might be some kind of pigmented, organic
growth. It's difficult to imagine that the lighter features are
cracks on the surface of Mars, because they clearly overlay and
blend with the dark material, which itself appears to lie on top
of the surface.

It is widely held that water on Mars is subject to sublimation.
That is, water would transform directly from a solid to a
gaseous state, or vice-versa, without becoming a liquid. So, are
these patterns produced by ice?

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

MARTIAN SNOW STORM

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewMarsSpring3.jpg

Figure 3 is from M0902042. Once again, the surface features
appear to be similar, but not quite the same as the plant- like
features in Figure 1.

Yet again, the ancillary data for the images reveals that the
third image was also taken at a different resolution, only this
time the image is effectively zoomed-out. The record also shows
that this image was captured a few weeks later than the first
two, on November 8.

Even though Mars' south polar region was now much closer to
Summer, it should be understood that the climate on Mars is
generally much colder than that of Earth, and temperatures at
the poles colder still.

The Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) science team, which also
has an instrument on board MGS, has done work to show that
atmospheric reflections consist of carbon dioxide sublimating
into dry ice snow. Clouds of dry ice are observed by MOLA at
night, particularly over the Martian polar caps.

When MOC imaged the shrunken south polar ice cap in April of
2000, -- at the height of summer -- it was noted by Malin Space
Science Systems (MSSS) that in Spring the entire scene would be
covered by frost. It is reasonable to suggest that Figure 3
depicts the same kind of surface features as Figure 1, only this
time covered with dry ice snow.

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

INTERPRETING CLUES FROM THE DATA SET

We've seen how the scaled pixel width can be different, so that
the features appear either zoomed-in or zoomed-out. We've also
seen how the surface features might change over time.

The three photographs discussed so far can be mathematically
scaled, so that the surface features can be viewed at
effectively the same resolution. A photographic plate shows
three scaled images, for a side by side comparison.

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewMarsPolarSpring.jpg

When scaled, the surface features in Figures 1 and 2 visually
blend together, almost seamlessly, even though they are actually
kilometers apart. The sparse, apparently tufted growth, and
similar markings on the ground, suggest that that the only
difference between Figures 1 and 3 is that the latter is indeed
covered by ice or snow.

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

DIFFERING MARTIAN POLAR SEASONS

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewMarsSpring4.jpg

If the plant-like objects on Mars are really inorganic
geological features, then the passing of the seasons might have
something to do with their visibility. Their proximity to the
Martian south pole could mean that they are covered by ice for
part of the year, but the features themselves would not change.

However, if these features really are some kind of vegetation,
then a data record which tells us what day and month a certain
image was captured becomes much more important, because in the
case of living organisms, we might expect to see some change or
growth.

Figure 4 is from M0402115, captured on August 20. This date
falls in the early Spring, which on Mars is about six months
long. The image shows an entire field of small dark features,
similar to what can be seen in the open spaces between the large
plant-like objects we've seen so far.

Are these small, jagged dark spots, photographed earlier in the
season, really the same kind of plant life? Do they represent
new growth? The features in Figure 4 are in the same geographic
region as those in our first image -- offset by only one degree
latitude and longitude -- but the Figure 1 image was taken two
months later.

Is it possible that the features in Figure 4 experienced enough
growth in two months' time to end up looking like large tufted,
branching plants? It might be more likely that the larger plants
are more mature, surviving season to season.

The Martian south pole experiences longer and colder winters
than the north, because at that time Mars is near aphelion, the
point in its orbit that is farthest from the Sun. The
eccentricity of the planet's orbit also makes southern
hemisphere summers shorter, but hotter, than northern hemisphere
summers.

So, Martian plant life would have a more favorable spring and
summer at the south pole, but would also have to adapt to a
colder winter and dry-ice frost. Earthly extremophiles remain
dormant for long periods of time when frozen, and resume growth
when thawed.

Both Martian polar caps have a permanent or residual cap, and a
temporary or seasonal cap that disappears in summer. The
seasonal caps extend outward to about 80 degrees latitude.
Interestingly enough, the data record shows that these large
plant-like formations can be found at about 80 degrees latitude,
thriving, perhaps, at the geographic limits of the seasonal ice
cap.

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

MARTIAN FOREST

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewMarsSpring5.jpg

The Mars Orbiter Camera captured MO804580 on the same day as the
first image, M0804688, with the tree-like features. This second
image was shot at the same resolution, and at about the same
distance from the pole, but at a different geographic location.

Figure 5 is split, showing features from the top and center of
the full image. M0804580 is interesting because it shows a clear
relationship between the small dark features in Figure 4, and
the leafy features in Figure 1.

The dark fuzzy, features which sparsely populate the top of this
image, appear to grow both larger and more numerous toward the
middle of the image, at which point these features are virtually
indistinguishable from the tree-like features in Figure 1.

Further down, the features thin out, until they are no longer
found at the very bottom. This image appears to show an entire
forest of the Martian plants, at various stages of growth and
development.

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

FOREST UNDER ICE

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewMarsSpring6.jpg

Image M0801095 was captured a few weeks earlier than the last
image, on October 5. It was captured at the same resolution, in
the same geographic location, but a little closer to the south
pole.

Figure 6 is split. The full image shows the same kind of small,
dark and fuzzy features we have seen before at the top, but this
time the features at the bottom are ice covered. Between these
two cropped sections, the apparent foliage gets progressively
thicker, until it thins out again toward the bottom.

Since this single image shows ground features that are both
covered and uncovered by frost, the idea that Figure 3 may also
be covered by frost no longer sounds so strange or contrived.

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

LIVELY PATTERN ON ICE

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewMarsSpring7.jpg

Figure 7, from M1001442, is different from the other images
discussed so far, because in this case there are plant-like
formations apparently thriving on top of a field of ice, instead
of being covered by it.

This image shows patches of dark, tufted material, bunched into
a swirling fractal arrangement. This paisley pattern is next to
a dark mass of thicker material at the bottom right of the
cropped image. In the full image, this dark mass of thicker
material extends for some distance until it thins out, like the
features in Figures 5 and 6.

M1001442 is also one of the zoomed-in images in this set. It was
captured at the same resolution as Figure 2, so it gives us a
very close-up view. Taken on December 12, a date much later than
any of the images discussed so far, this picture represents the
commencement of Summer at the Martian south pole.

These features are smaller than most of the others, and were
imaged so much later, that they might be entirely new plant
growth that flourished some time during the Spring. The plant-
like features are difficult to explain in anything but living,
organic terms. In this case, the fine, dark, hair-like growth is
seen in stark contrast against a field of ice.

So, are the dark patterns on ice in Figure 7 really the result
of some sublimated or quickly frozen inorganic material? And,
are the similar but light colored patterns in Figure 1 therefore
the result of some different, sublimated inorganic material on
the ground? Or are they all just a bunch of rocks? Strewn here
and there in fancy patterns on the ground, on top of the ice,
under the ice, what have you?

At what point is it easier to say that these features are really
some kind of organic vegetation, rather than reaching for
inorganic explanations? Is it too brash to ask science to
explain whether these features really are, or how it is they are
not, some kind of plant life of Mars?

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

MASSIVE LIFE FORMS

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewMarsSpring8.jpg

The last photograph discussed in this series is from a
geographic location about half the polar circumference away from
the large tree-like formations in Figure 1, but at roughly the
same distance from the pole.

Figure 8 from M1000205 was captured on December 2, at the very
end of the Martian south polar Spring. Although this image has
only half the resolution of Figure 7, it gives us many more
clues about how these lifelike objects interact with the now
shrinking south polar ice cap.

The full image appears to run along at the edge of the temporary
ice cap, with part of the view now covered by dirty ice or snow,
part of the view now showing the exposed, earthen terrain.

The cropped picture in Figure 8 shows a dark mass of apparently
organic growth. This mass looks like a clump or aggregation of
dark, branching tentacles, which give way to light colored,
fiber-like tentacles at its edge.

The light colored tentacles reach down to an area of ice or snow
at the bottom of the figure, which has already melted away at
the top. It looks as if the new, hair like tentacles have grown
out, to take sustenance from a disappearing source of moisture.

 From top to bottom, in the full image, there are many more
examples of this branching, fibrous material, always found near
the edge of layered ice and snow. Here and there, the branching
features can be seen embedded in mud, in places where the
icepack has already melted away.

At the bottom of image M1000205 is another mass of this
apparently organic material, like the dark mass near the top,
growing on top of the ice. The delicate appearance of the
fiber- like material in this photograph contradicts their true
size. According to the data record, each one of the light
colored, features in Figure 8 are actually as large, or larger
than, the most massive life on Earth.

The largest tree on Earth is a giant sequoia in California, its
massive trunk measuring 35 feet in diameter. The tallest living
tree, another California redwood, stands 367 feet tall. These
trees are rivaled only by the giant gums of Australia,
Eucalyptus regnans, which grow to more that 300 feet high.

At a resolution of about four meters per pixel, the anomalous
root-like features on Mars are about 120 meters (393 feet)long
and 12 meters (39 feet) thick. But, a gigantic organism that
sprouted these enormous root-like features, itself has no
Earthly comparison. At approximately 300 pixels high by 150
pixels wide, the anomalous feature would be more than three-
fourths of a mile long (1.2 kilometers) and three-eights of a
mile (0.6 kilometers) wide.

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

LIFE AND LIFE ONLY

Do these lifelike features on the Martian surface have a
straightforward, inorganic or geological explanation? Or are
they exactly as they appear to be, pretty convincing evidence of
large forms of life on Mars?

As strange as that life form may seem, conditions that we call
extreme on Earth would simply be facts of life on Mars. We need
a better explanation of life. Not just where it came from, but
how far it actually reaches.

Imagine a form of life on Mars, which follows its own set rules,
and clings tenaciously to life at the south pole as it plays out
its own life cycle. It doesn't know that it exists, nor care
that it can't be defined by either science or self
interest. It's life, and life only.

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

ABOUT THE IMAGES

The images discussed herein can be viewed at the USGS online
PDS Mars Global Surveyor MOC Image Collection.

http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m08046/m0804688.html
http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m08048/m0804874.html
http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m09020/m0902042.html
http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m04021/m0402115.html
http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m08045/m0804580.html
http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m08010/m0801095.html
http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m10014/m1001442.html
http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m10002/m1000205.html

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

RELATED RESOURCES

Clarke's Believe It or Not
http://www.space.com/peopleinterviews/clarke_believe_010227.html

The Cydonian Imperative
http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
An online effort to assess breaking developments concerning
potential alien artifacts on Mars

The Mars Initiative
http://www.geocities.com/erasproject
A special research project of The Eras Project, advocating
the continued exploration of Mars.

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

THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
April 23, 2001
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

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

Web developers, the URL address for this content is:
http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/MarsOnline00A.htm

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.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                 Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:51:00 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 07:49:57 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Randles


 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 05:22:55 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

<snip>

 >I'm certain that Dick Hall, or Jerry Clark, or Stan Friedman or
 >Jenny Randles etc., have never come anywhere near being properly
 >compensated for all the time and work it takes to research and
 >write their books. Maybe it's because, as you say, you have
 >never written a book, that you have no appreciation for the
 >effort and labor that is involved.

Hi,

Books are indeed very expensive to buy - which is why I don't
blame people for not doing so. I couldn't afford to do this
regularly and use my library a good deal.

In addition I purchase whatever stock I can as soon as a
publisher deletes a title of mine and in this way offer my own
work to anyone who wants to read it for prices that are much
more affordable . The prices at which I can then retail these
books cover costs rather than make me any money. This is only
possible in limited numbers and with some of my books but if I
can then I do this.

Its one way to say thanks.

But authors have no say in what price a book is sold for in a
commercial sense when first released by a publisher. We usually
find out not long before you all do as to what it is being sold
for in the stores.

Nor do authors get a lot of money from that purchase price. A
book that sells for say $10 will bring to me as author only a
few cents once all the discounts are taken off ($1 is the
maximum you would get - but very rarely anything like that finds
its way to the author ). The vast majority of the price of the
book goes to cover publishers/ retailers/ printers and various
other costs.

As for up front payments I don't mind telling you what I get in
that regard. You wouldn't  be living in Rio on the proceeds!

For my first book ('UFOs: A British Viewpoint') I got �250 ($400).

With 'Something in the Air' (my 45th book over 20 years later)
the advance was �1500 (that's around $2300). This is pretty
typical of what I get for my books.

It compensates me for several months or so writing full time -
not to mention the research leading up to it.

I do occasionally get a little more for a book - maybe two or
three times this sum with certain publishers and certain books
(although the better paid ones tend not to be UFO related -
indeed the ones that have made me the most have all had nothing
to do with UFOs).  I just got �7000 ($10,000) for a book to be
released by Readers Digest (which is again not on UFOs) - but
that was as a co-author deal so I only got half this amount and
this sum is a one-off fee. Even if the book sells a million
copies at $100 each I wont get another penny beyond �3500
(about $5000).

You do not have to be a math whiz to figure out that the rate
of pay for writing  UFO books is less than what most of you
probably get for doing your own work. Most writers that I know
live from day to day not knowing where the next bill is going to
be paid from. It is a very precarious profession. You hear about
the big successes. But the vast majority of writers never have
that kind of luck. They write because they want to write not
because they expect to be paid.

I cannot speak for everyone, of course. But serious UFO books
are not actually a huge seller from a publishers perspective and
quite a few have pulled out of the market altogether over the
past couple of years. So their popularity has considerably
reduced since the millennium.

This will not stop me writing - since it is in my blood. But it
does rather dispell the idea that this is a money making racket
- since right now you'd be hard pressed to find a publisher in
the UK to take on a serious new UFO title.

But I write because I am deeply interested in getting to the
truth about the UFO mystery. This is a way to help me put my
thoughts in order and report on what I find for others to read
if they choose to do so.

I do nonetheless feel very lucky  to be paid 'anything' by a
publisher for doing work that I enjoy and so am completely aware
of the debt that I owe to all who have purchased UFO books.
Which is why I have always  refused to cash in on this fact by
charging lecture and appearance fees, for example.  And its why
I have written a lot of things (including books) completely free
for UFO organisations such as BUFORA as a way to put something
back into the community.

And I very much doubt any of this is remotely unusual. I am sure
all UFO writers could tell you much the same thing. There are
very few in this field who are here to 'cash in' by exploiting
public interest in UFOs. Most of us are here for the long haul
and have exactly the same reasons that you have for sticking
around - we are curious and fascinated by these intriguing
phenomena.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 24

               Cydonian Imperative: 4-23-01 - Oddity in 'City

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 07:51:02 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 4-23-01 - Oddity in 'City

The Cydonian Imperative
4-23-01

Enduring Oddity in the "City Square"
by Mac Tonnies

For illustrated and linked version, please see

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

When new images of the "City" in Cydonia became available in
1998, researchers noted a seeming discrepancy in the area dubbed
the "City Square." One of the four mounds comprising the "City
Square" seemed to have changed position since it was last
photographed in 1976. The .gif animation below shows the
"rotated" feature quite plainly.

[image]

Note "rotated" appearance of mound in lower left of top half of
image.

Anomalists are left with three distinct options:

1.) The seemingly "rotated" feature is a trick of camera angle
and lighting.

2.) The feature was indeed physically moved on the Martian
surface by unknown means between 1976 and 1998.

3.) One of the images of the City Square has been digitally
manipulated to give the impression of a "rotated" surface
feature.

Chris Joseph, whose photoclinometric images of the curious
Martian "tubes" appear in earlier installments, writes the
following regarding his attempt to reconcile the 1976 and 1998
images:

[image]

"One is a comparison between the viking image, showing the
points of reference on the grid, the other is the resized and
rotated MGS [see image above]. You'll notice that as close as I
get the reference points to each other, the pyramid, the crater
above it (top right) and the large mound (bottom right) are way
out of place. The image was proportionally resized for a best
fit, and then the height and width were tweaked into place
seperately. The animated gif (for some reason, Flash dithers the
images) is a cutout of the city square overlay.

I would think that if the images were taken at different
angles/aspect ratios, the tweaking should have lined everything
up. Maybe I'm wrong."

SPSR's Lan Fleming notes that the "rotated" mound appears to be
elevated in the Viking image, in which case its seeming
dislocation may be due to the different lighting conditions
present when the Mars Global Surveyor took its picture in 1998.

-end-







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                          Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:52:24 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 07:57:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:40:19 -0300
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


 >The point I was trying to make is that the pilots were on the
 >spot-and pretty good observers.The experts [meaning
 >investigators and or astronomers] were not and when the UFO
 >didn't fit the usual description of a UFO in the new sense of
 >the word, then the pilots must have been mistaken. Once you
 >begin second guessing the witness [in place] and making
 >assumptions then you risk changing the evidence to make the
 >sighting fit into a category it does not deserve.

Hi,

Yes, I do appreciate this is a danger inherent within UFO
investigation.

But, we also need to balance the known fallibility of witness
perception (something for which there is extensive evidence and
experimental data) with the view that witnesses know best what
they saw.

All perception is imperfect and UFO investigators have to
understand some of the problems and consequences of this
imperfection that we all face in daily life. That is an
important part of trying to do our job.

It instinctively seems the right thing to do to simply 'trust'
the witness, but this always has to be tempered with realism as
to what human beings do go through when observing unusual
stimuli - thanks to our proven limitations.

In all honesty it is a tough job being realistic without
appearing to second guess a witness. Don't become a Ufologist to
win friends and influence people!

All you can do is try your best to be fair to both considerations.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                    Jerry Black - Columbus, Ohio Article

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 06:13:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:01:49 -0400
Subject: Jerry Black - Columbus, Ohio Article


 From 'Columbus, Alive!'
April 19, 2001

URL source = http://www.alivewired.com/


"Space invaders"
A close encounter with UFO investigator Jerry Black

by Chris Kemp

Jerry Black is looking for UFOs. A sighting has been reported
somewhere over rural Blanchester, about 60 miles southwest of
Columbus, and, as the cool fields grow dark, he monitors the sky
expectantly. For Black, maybe tonight will be the night.
Perhaps, for just an instant, he will see something unusual
moving above the tree line, blotting out the clean, bright
stars.

More likely, though, like last night and the night before it, he
will see nothing.

Balding, soft-spoken, vowels drawn out by living in the country,
Black has been investigating UFOs for over 40 years. He even met
his wife in 1973 after she claimed aliens abducted her.
Together, they have collected thousands of local eyewitness
accounts of UFO sightings and other close encounters.

"I'm in the business of researching, scientifically and
objectively, UFOs," Black said matter-of-factly. "I just wish I
had an answer for you people. I wish I could tell you that UFOs
are, you know, nothing to worry about. But they've frightened a
lot of people. They've scared a lot of people."

Even so, Black said, there isn't a shred of evidence that UFOs
are extraterrestrial, that they have ever landed on Earth, or
that aliens have abducted people. In 92 percent of cases, UFOs
reported by rattled eyewitnesses turn out to be either aircraft,
mistaken celestial bodies and other natural phenomena, or
elaborate hoaxes, he explained.

But that still leaves eight percent, and it's these remaining
cases that most interest Jerry Black. For four decades, Black
has tried to expose the hoaxes, the false claims, and the
lackluster investigating, and to focus on the cases that, even
after thorough investigation, cannot be explained.

"The industry has kind of gone to pot," 61-year-old Black said
wearily. "It seems like everybody out there is more interested
in money than telling the truth about UFOs."

There's something out there

Whatever the origin of Unidentified Flying Objects, there have
been enough sightings of strange objects in the sky for Jerry
Black to take them seriously and investigate them properly.
"There's something out there," he said. "You can believe what
you want to believe, but there's something out there."

And plenty of people agree. To get some idea of the number of
UFO eyewitness reports logged each year, one need look no
further than the recently published The UFO Evidence (Scarecrow
Press) by Richard H. Hall. Included is an exhaustive and
chronological collection of UFO reports from 1952 to 1995. It's
all here: luminous objects outpacing airplanes, scorched landing
sites and mutilated livestock; cone-shaped objects, cigar-shaped
objects, globes, balls and spheres; silver-suited beings, stocky
humanoids with grayish skin; alien abductions, abrupt
weight-loss, burned skin, and amnesia; secret desert rendezvous,
government cover-ups, conspiracies and interrogations.

Though Hall's accounts date back to 1952, the story really began
five years earlier on July 3, 1947, when something strange
happened in the arid scrubland near Roswell, New Mexico.
According to the U.S. Air Force, a weather balloon crashed in
the desert; but almost immediately, rumors surfaced of
disc-shaped objects, little men, deep gouges in the ground and a
trail of scattered debris.

There in the thin desert air, as confused reports were confirmed
and then abruptly denied, the study of UFOs, or ufology, was
born. Whatever really happened at Roswell in 1947, the incident
and the uncertainty surrounding it still serve as a backdrop of
late-1940s American culture. That same year the House
Un-American Activities Committee convened to blacklist suspected
Communists, the CIA was formed, and the Cold War began in
earnest. As a result, government secrecy, conspiracy theories
and ufology also were conceived, and more than 50 years later,
all three continue to thrive. Today there's even a musical based
on the Roswell incident, imaginatively titled Roswell: The
Musical. It's expected to open for a fifth season this year at
the Roswell Amphitheater.

As for Jerry Black, his interest in UFOs began in the mid-1950s,
while still attending Hughes High School in Clifton, just east
of Dayton. "I was actually researching and investigating UFOs
when I was 16-years-old," Black recalled. Fellow students and
teachers knew Black was the school's resident expert on UFOs. "I
wasn't interested in the Buck Rogers stuff or whatever," he
said. "It really leaves me at odds to explain my interest in the
subject."

To properly investigate cases, Black has assembled what he calls
"a little empire." Its inhabitants include photographic experts,
soil analysts, psychologists, other UFO investigators and staff
in the air traffic control towers of both Lunken and
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky airports who can verify sightings.
Black says that, besides collecting thousands of eyewitness
accounts, he has thoroughly investigated 15 to 20 UFO sightings
or alien abduction claims. In 1988 he had his own sighting of
strange luminous objects while driving along a dark highway with
his wife.

Recalling an early investigation, Black says one of his
schoolteachers claimed she was seeing UFOs regularly, always
from the same window of her house. On visiting the teacher,
Black was surprised by what he found. "I saw what I perceived to
be the moon, a full moon," he said. Disappointed, Black says he
told the teacher that the bright object above the treetops was
just the moon. "She gets real close," he recalled, "and she
whispers in my ear, �How do you know it's the moon?'"

During the late 1980s, Black researched a much-publicized spate
of UFO sightings in Gulf Breeze, a sun-drenched coastal town on
Florida's Panhandle, near Pensacola. Beginning in November 1987,
Gulf Breeze resident Ed Walters captured images that clearly
showed a brightly lit disc suspended in the night sky. Over the
next few years, Walters took several other photographs and also
claimed he was being abducted by aliens on a regular basis.

"Gulf Breeze cost me $2,000 to $4,000, and I didn't even leave
my house," Black said. "I spent four-and-a-half years and almost
lost my wife over it, seriously, because I spent so much time
and so much money. I became obsessed with the Gulf Breeze
sightings."

Black says Walters photographed homemade UFO models and then
double-exposed the film to make it appear as if the UFO was
flying over the trees near his home. "We found one [of the
models] in his home after he moved," Black said. "He took a
picture himself of this model, with a light underneath it, and
then left it in the camera, went outside, took a picture of the
night sky, and there it was�a UFO."

No reason to believe this is a hoax

The Gulf Breeze sightings and those of Black's schoolteacher
represent the 92 percent of cases that can be explained with
careful investigation. Whether by untangling well-wrought hoaxes
or trying to make sense of confused eyewitness accounts, most of
Black's other cases have been resolved too. But in 1976, after
20 years of researching UFOs, Black finally worked on a case
that couldn't be solved, a case that still baffles him today.

On January 6, 1976, at about 11:15 p.m., driver Louise Smith and
passengers Mona Stafford and Elaine Thomas were traveling along
U.S. Route 27 in Stanford, Kentucky, about an hour south of
Lexington, when they claim they were abducted by aliens.

"The women in Kentucky were driving down the highway in 1976
coming back from leaving the Redwood restaurant," Black
explained quietly. "They were leaving the restaurant in a very
happy mood because they had just celebrated Mona's birthday."

"All of a sudden they saw this object in the sky which they
perceived to be an airplane on fire," he recalled. "The object
appeared to be red in color and coming, dropping from the sky.
They assumed this was an airplane on fire and were bracing
themselves to see if it was going to crash somewhere near there.

"All of a sudden, the object stopped on a dime�that's one of the
characteristics of UFOs that we don't have [with human
technology]."

With the disc-shaped UFO clearly visible through the side
windows of Smith's 1967 Chevy Nova, the car began to accelerate,
Black says. Although Smith took her foot off the gas pedal, the
car continued to go faster, reaching speeds of 85 miles per
hour; as Smith struggled to control the car, the women never
lost sight of the brightly lit UFO, keeping pace with them over
the treetops.

"It hung right above the trees less than, you know, less than
100 feet in the air. So the women were terrified," he said. "It
went behind the car, revolving lights going 'round�these were
yellow lights�took the car, pulled the car backwards."

According to Black, the women later recalled that when the car
was pulled backwards: "We could feel these bumps in the road,
like at a Frisch's or whatever."

"They saw a blue light come into the car," said Black, "and
Louise, the driver, said, �Oh, it's the Highway Patrol.' But as
it turned out, it wasn't the Highway Patrol. The blue light was
a UFO. The next thing they remember was back on the highway,
riding in the car, they were quite hot just like they had been
subjected to extreme heat, or put under a sunlamp or whatever."

And, he added, "When they got back home they realized they had
lost an hour and 25 minutes worth of time."

The women, burned and shaken, immediately went to a neighbor's
house, says Black, and the neighbor told them to draw what they
had seen and write down what they remembered about it. "We came
into the case several months later," he recalled. "We contacted
the women, they were reluctant to talk to us and we finally
convinced them with my wife coming down."

Black says his wife believes she was abducted by aliens in 1973
and, by relating her own abduction experience to the women, she
gained their trust. During the investigation, Black subjected
all three women to lie-detector tests, or polygraphs, and they
all passed.

"Under hypnosis all three women claimed that they were taken
aboard this object and given a physical examination," he said.
"Elaine was put in a glass cubicle, it was pretty dark, but she
could see the figures of small beings walking around the glass
outside. She had a skin scraping taken off of her chest. Mona
had her eyes actually removed from her sockets, she claims, laid
on her cheeks and replaced again."

The women claimed their arms and legs were twisted in a very
painful manner, he says, but when they were asked if they felt
like they had been tortured, they all said no. "We've got eight
hours of tapes of hypnosis of these women and, believe me,
they're not pleasant to hear," Black said. "Most of it, they're
crying. To this day I have no reason to believe those women were
perpetrating a hoax."

According to Richard H. Hall's The UFO Evidence, which includes
a report of the incident, all three women suffered eye
inflammation, excessive thirst, abrupt weight loss and skin
burns that took weeks to heal. Following the women's experience,
Louise Smith's watch, alarm clocks, and car malfunctioned and in
1978, two years after the incident, Elaine Thomas died of
unknown causes.

Although he investigated the case almost 25 years ago, Black
still keeps in touch with the two surviving women. As each year
passes, he says he believes less and less that UFOs could be
extraterrestrial in origin. If it wasn't for the Stanford,
Kentucky, abductions, Black says, he might have stopped
believing altogether.

Before the whole earth shakes

The abduction claims of Louise Smith, Mona Stafford and Elaine
Thomas are unusual, says investigator Jerry Black, but not
unique. "There's still thousands of people on this planet,
sincere people like yourself, like me, like anyone walking out
on the street today, who sincerely believe they were abducted,"
he said frankly. "Thousands of women, sitting in their home,
housewives looking out the window, see this strange object in
the daytime approach the house. And all of a sudden the next
thing they remember, the food on the stove is burning or the
kids are home from school and they can't account for the lost
time."

When investigating a case, Black likes to polygraph his subjects
to determine that they are being truthful. "I believe in the use
of a polygraph test in nationally known cases," he said. "That
doesn't mean that if you come to me and say, �Jerry, I'd like to
meet you at Frisch's, I want to tell you about some lost time I
had back 10 years ago.' No, I'm not going to polygraph you."

And scientists probably wouldn't polygraph you either. Recent
research has provided them with several other credible
explanations for UFO sightings and abduction stories, most of
which involve some kind of psychological disorder or
neurological problem. According to a 1993 paper published in the
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, UFO witnesses are either
"psychologically or psychosocially disturbed" or "fantasy-prone
individuals who confuse their vivid imaginings with external
happenings."

Researchers also found that 81 percent of alleged abductions
occur at night and, according to victims' accounts, almost 60
percent are linked with sleep, either occurring as they fall
asleep, while they dream, or when they are waking up. In light
of these results, scientists think many accounts of alien
abduction are just descriptions of sleep paralysis, an episode
of total body paralysis that occurs just prior to sleep or upon
awakening.

Then again, some studies claim that alien abduction experiences
are really fetal memories stored at the moment of birth. Other
findings suggest that the temporal lobes of the brain might be
responsible. Located on either side of the brain, where its
surface crowds into ridges and deep grooves, the temporal lobes
organize sensory information as it first enters the brain.
Acting as a gate to all kinds of incoming information,
especially sound and smell, the temporal lobes tell us a lot
about our surroundings; when they stop working properly,
patients suffer visions, hallucinations, and altered behavior,
and often have intense religious experiences.

Armed with these findings, researchers believe temporal lobe
damage probably accounts for a lot of UFO sightings and alien
abduction claims. In other words, after ruling out psychological
problems, neuroses, sleep paralysis, fetal memories, mistaken
natural phenomena and hoaxes, scientists think faulty temporal
lobes could explain almost all remaining UFO phenomena,
including the people who allege they are carrying alien probes
and the women who claim aliens have impregnated them.

"There are many women out there who claim to have been
impregnated by aliens," Black confirmed. "I'm sure you've heard
these stories, but not one story has ever been authenticated.
Period. Not one story. There's always a hitch."

If a woman claims she is carrying an alien fetus, Black says,
it's important to check her medical records to make sure she is
either pregnant, recently suffered a miscarriage, or had an
abortion. "Some women won't even let you do that," he said. "So,
if they're not even going to let me verify that they were even
pregnant, then I'm out of there."

But the psychological and neurological explanations for UFO
phenomena don't explain every case. For one, they do nothing to
address UFO sightings that involve whole crowds.

Michael Persinger thinks he has the answer there. A professor of
psychology and neuroscience at Laurentian University in Ontario,
Canada, Persinger believes UFOs, or "luminous anomalies" as he
calls them, are generated by movements or stresses in the
Earth's tectonic plates. Persinger has been studying the link
between earthquakes and UFOs since the late 1960s, and says
there is often an increase in the number of UFO sightings in the
six-month period leading up to an earthquake.

"I didn't even begin looking at UFO phenomena," said Persinger.
"I'm primarily interested in luminous displays as predictors of
earthquakes, which are very difficult to predict."

Appearing as strange lights, luminous displays can move around,
change color, rotate and change shape, Persinger explained, but
they are not UFOs; instead, they are little pockets of
electromagnetic energy produced when energy that has built up in
the Earth's crust is released through natural fault lines.

"Their color reflects their temperature," Persinger said. "If
they rotate, different areas will have different temperatures
and different colors which, to the nave eye, may be perceived
as a craft or whatever."

In a paper published in the journal Perceptual and Motor Skills,
Persinger writes that the short pulses of energy that cause
strange moving lights in the sky might also be powerful enough
to affect the temporal lobes of the brain, triggering an
imaginary abduction experience.

"The movement of these phenomena follow local fault lines or
other strain release mechanisms," he said. "That's why you often
find them along riverbeds and, of course, very often riverbeds
became paths, paths became trails, and trails became the
highway. Very often, you find these luminous displays moving
along with cars and the way they interact with cars simply
reflects the dielectric and conductive characteristics of a car
as it travels."

Lights like these are seen often in California, where there are
lots of fault lines, and also were reported in the Yakima Indian
reservation before the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens in
Washington state. Beginning in November 1981, and continuing for
several years, residents of Hessdalen, Norway reported sighting
hundreds of luminous displays, which also were accompanied by
audible underground rumblings. Most recently, after the Turkish
earthquake in August 1999 that claimed over 7,000 lives,
Persinger received a glut of reports describing similar events.

"Afterwards, our lab was inundated with requests from scientists
in Turkey," said Persinger, "pointing out that, for two weeks
before the big event, fishermen were reporting their nets being
burned and bizarre lights in the sky and strange vibrations and
all kinds of odd things going on." Persinger hopes one day his
research will be used to predict earthquakes, allowing those in
danger to evacuate the affected areas ahead of time.

Meanwhile, as night cools the dusty fields and the yellow rows
of corn, Jerry Black will continue to search the sky over
Blanchester for anything unusual. He says it's a good place for
a UFO investigator to live, away from the city lights and the
highway, where the sky is clear.

He'll continue to collect reports of UFO sightings too, adding
to the thousands he has already managed to accumulate over the
last four decades. It's possible that some of them were just
luminous anomalies, caused by the slow cooling of the Earth, and
maybe others were imagined by psychologically disturbed or
fantasy-prone individuals, or products of faulty temporal lobes
misfiring as they relay information around the brain. And then
again, maybe some of them weren't.

April 19, 2001

Copyright � 2001 Columbus Alive, Inc. 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 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                    Chupacabra Attacks Continue In Chile

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 06:30:58 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:03:53 -0400
Subject: Chupacabra Attacks Continue In Chile



SOURCE: La Estrella de Calama (newspaper)
DATE: Saturday, April 21, 2001

Chupacabras Attacks Continue in Chile


The Chupacabras mystery has intrigued communities all over the
province of El Loa.

Certain invesitgators of the so-called Chupacabras phenomenon,
as well as UFO researchers, believe that the recent attacks
recorded in the province of El Loa are not a coincidence. On the
contrary, they reflect a  definite event that is hard to refute:
The return or reappearance of the allegedly alien beast in the
northern part of the country.

Proof of this, they say, is the fact that no coherent
explanation has been found for the deaths and massacres which
took place this year in urban premises and sectors.

Perhaps the apparent lack of interest evinced by the authorities
plays a major role in all of this, since as simple a matter as
performing an animal necropsy at the right time may have served
to clarify a number of riddles which cannot now be unraveled,
with so many animals having been buried already.

PENDING CASES

Several residents of Calama found their sleep disturbed earlier
this year by some mysterious footsteps on the roofs of their
houses--a phenomenon which was at first ascribed to the
wanderings of cats and dogs. This theory was subsequently
discarded after some persons had face-to-face encounters with a
horrible apparition which they are still unable to explain.

Later on, expectation was transferred to La Banda in Calama,
where several residents claimed having seen a strange presence
wandering among the sectors croplands, bushes and shrubs. What
at first was dismissed as a collective psychosis among the
locals would later become an undeniable fact after the discovery
of footprints which were completely unknown and foreign to the
local fauna.

As if this wasn't enough, Cristin Jimnez,22, underwent a
strange case of temporary paralysis at his home in the Janequeo
sector of El Loa's capital after "something" landed on the roof
and stood directly above him.  The phenomenon moved on to the
Verdes Campinas sector, where a hog was terribly butchered
within his pigpen, a situation that greatly distressed its
owner, who was willing to mount a night watch at the site to
avoid any repetition of the situation.

Things, however, took a darker turn when 17 alpacas were
viciously attacked at Chiu Chiu, forcing locals to put down
three badly injured animals. Just yesterday, thousands were
shocked by the story of a dog that was savagely attacked at
Calama's Barrio Industrial. It's owner, a local businessman, is
still unable to ascertain the kind of force that dragged the
animal from its enclosure and threw it to the street.

#############

Translation (C) 2001. S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology.

Special thanks to Jaime Ferrer, Calama UFO 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 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                  Chile: Shock In Angol Over UFO Sightings

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 07:24:36 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:05:40 -0400
Subject: Chile: Shock In Angol Over UFO Sightings



SOURCE: Diario Austral de Temuco
DATE: Sunday, April 22, 2001

SHOCK IN ANGOL OVER UFO SIGHTINGS
**Alien beings were also seen**
by P. Aburto and P. Santolaya

**The city's scenic lookout has become an attraction to those
devoted to studying close encounters of the third kind**

Three figures standing two meters tall, with red lights on their
hands and a humanoid appearance were allegedly seen on March 16
by five persons at the Las Pias Scenic Lookout over the city of
Angol, a place which has quickly become a favorite for
extraterrestrial visitors. Not only that: according to
researchers, on February 28 two masive balls of light were seen
roaming over the hill before vanishing before the expectant eyes
of twenty witnesses. The latest developments have been kept
confidential because spectators have refused to comment on their
sightings.

Witnesses to this latest sighting of  three strange entities
were five residents of the town of Concepcin who headed to
Angol to see some friends.

"They saw three beings standing nearly 2 meters tall from behind
some vegetation; the beings appeared to talk among themselves,
turned around and disappeared. They had arms and legs, "said
Ernesto Escobar, head of the field research team.

Escobar notes that the witnesses made drawings of what they had
seen and that samples were taken of the soil on which the
figures had allegedly been standing. "I cannot tell you what
they were. I don't know if they were ghosts or
extraterrestrials, but we're interviewing and making videos," he
added.

These events have become a source of fear and expectation in the
community, causing Angol residents to remain on the lookout. In
fact, they acknowledge that it is a well-known secret that
strange events have transpired at the scenic lookout and that
people are increasingly visiting the spot in hopes of seeing
something weird. "I've never seen anything, but everyone's going
to check it out and they're watching to see if something will
appear. It's said that half-human creatures were seen, and
that's the reason for the investigation," said resident Luis
Novoa.

Julia Espinoza, who also lives in the region, stated her
awareness of people who have seen strange phenomena at Las
Pias. "Everything happens at a gate with two decorative metal
wheels, and that's where the creatures appear. Before that the
place was quite calm, but now everyone's talking about it. Even
I went to the lookout after the apparitions occurred."


###################################

Translation (C) 2001. S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special thanks to Rodrigo Cuadra, Tecnologia, Ovnis y Ciencia (TOC)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                        Re: Serious Research - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:10:01 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:08:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Young


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:07:25 -0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:47:52 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 15:46:45 -0000
 >>>Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 15:53:46 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall

<snip>

 >>Even though you do not want to be held to the requirement that
 >>each case offer proof of the ETH, you insist that I must meet
 >>that standard (although for a now, curiously, reduced number of
 >>only 18 cases), and that I must offer a convincing explanation
 >>for each, in order to falsify your ETH hypothesis.

 >Why shouldn't you be required to offer convincing explanations?
 >Is not the fact that they cannot be explained that is important
 >as a basis for the ETH?

Yes, I suppose this would be so, but "unexplained" cases do not
necessarily mean ETH. Here is the rub, you also need proof of
ETH. I'm perfectly willing, and interested, in discussing these
incidents, maybe it's possible to come up with a prosaic
explanation for some.

This is not the same as my being required to offer a convincing
explanation for 18 mysteries, in order to prove that your
hypothesis is false. It's up to you to prove your own
hypothesis, in other words, that the most reasonable explanation
for these mysteries in the ETH.

In fact, in good science it would be up to you to discuss
alternative explanations, and then show why the ETH is a better
explanation, not me.

 >If you are going to approach this debate by merely generalizing
 >about problems of eyewitness testimony and not addressing the
 >specific cases as to how they can be explained in those terms,
 >what good is that? That amounts to a sweeping rejection of all
 >eyewitness testimony (some supported by objective evidence)
 >without bothering to study the individual cases.

No, I would like to examing specific evidence for these cases.
As far as generalizations are concerned, your hypothesis was,

 >>>My position is and always has been that it is the cumulative
 >>>evidence of many hundreds of cases of the type illustrated in this
 >>>article (see UFOE-II), and associated physical evidence of
 >>>various types, and recurring patterns closely similar or identical
 >>>to the cases illustrated in this article, are what make the ETH
 >>>the most likely interpretation. For purposes of the present debate,
 >>>I am willing to base my argument on these 18 cases.

 > By the way, IFOs often are simply applied labels and not
 >necessarily convincing explanations.

We agree here.

 >My "responsibility" is to show you the cases I base my views on,
 >which I have done.

When you say, "cases", this must be more than just a listing of
incidents, but must be a presentation of evidence.

 >>The other thing is that it is really not my responsibility to
 >>offer evidence for alternate explanations, although these may
 >>come to light as the examination of each case proceeds. It is
 >>you, as the proponent of the hypothesis, to do this. For
 >>example, the 1997 Sturrock Panel questioned the presenters about
 >>the evidence for specific cases and this is what would happen if
 >>any other scientific panel were to review your evidence.

 >Bob, are you really serious?

Very.

 >Do you really think good UFO investigators don't screen
 >cases and constantly look for alternative explanations.

The question isn't what good UFO investigators do or do not do,
but whether there is sufficient evidence in these 18 cases for
your hypothesis that the ETH is the best explanation.

 >You are the one claiming or implying (without investigation)
 >that they can be explained.

I made no such claim.

I think that several have had prosaic explanations put forward.
I think that I pointed out that with 50 years of UFO reports to
select from, it is not only possible, but likely that one or
more of these 20 will remain unexplained. Puzzles still remain
puzzles, but a puzzle is not necessarily proof of anything.

<snip>

 >So I'll take you at your word. Let's start "discussion of each
 >of these cases."

OK, we could go round and round, here, for ever. Let's try and
see if we can pare the list down a little.

In 1997 a group of nine scientists took part in a panel which
reviewed evidence put forward by a group of UFOlogists. This
became known as the Pocantico Workshop or "Sturrock Workshop",
after the moderator, Peter Sturrock. A report, "Physical
Evidence Related to UFO Reports" was published in the Journal of
Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, p. 170, and can be found, with
supporting information, at the magazine's site,

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/ufo_reports/
sturrock/toc.html

Among the cases presented to the panel were five on your list:

#3) 4/24/64 Socorra, New Mexico.

#5) 10/18/73 Mansfield, Ohio, helicopter incident.

#12) 4/17/66, Ravenna, Ohio, police chase.

#14) 9/17/76 Tehran, Iran, interceptor incident.

#17 23/27/80, Huffman, Texas, Cash-Landrum incident.

The conclusions of the Sturrock Panel stated,

"It was clear that at least a few reported incidents might have
involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical
activity high above thunderstorms (e.g., sprites) or rare cases
of radar ducting. On the other hand, the review panel was not
convinced that any of the evidence involved currently unknown
physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an
extraterrestrial intelligence."

In an article on June 29, 1998 at ABC News.com, panel member Tom
Holzer, a physicist with the National Center for Atmospheric
Research, said the study stopped well short of making any
conclusions that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial
craft. "You can never rule anything out, but we didn't see
any evidence for that", he said.

Do you know of any new evidence which has surfaced since
1997 that would allow us to profitably reopen the consideration
of these cases? Unless there is some, I propose that they are
not supporting evidence for your hypothesis.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                        University Degree In Ufology?

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 08:11:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:11:53 -0400
Subject: University Degree In Ufology?


In a recent post, I asked that anyone with a University degree
in Ufology scan that puppy and put it up online. Mr. Velez
suggested I contact Dave Jacobs at Temple University. I did
this, and obtained Dr. Jacobs' permission to forward this to the
List:



Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 01:09:19 -0400
From: David M. Jacobs <djacobs@temple.edu>
To: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>

Subject: Re: degree in Ufology?

As far as I know my course, "UFOs and American Society" is the
only regularly scheduled, full credit, undergraduate course in
the country. I have been teaching it since about 1977. There are
other courses in the country taught on a one-time or irregular
basis (John Salter had, before he retired, taught a course in it
at the University of North Dakota) and, of course, there have
been dozens of non-credit courses on the subject offered for the
general public but through the auspices of the local college.

There is no degree course of study in UFOs at any college or
university in the country. It is true, however, that there have
been about 16 or 17 Ph.Ds given to studens UFO related
dissertations. Some of these Ph.Ds have been granted at regular
universities, some at "non-traditional" universities and
occasionally someone will come forth with one from an
unaccredited correspondence "university" and palm himself off as
having a legitimate Ph.D

People with legitimate Ph.Ds have generally been granted them in
the behavioral sciences, although mine is in history and there
have been several granted in political science, sociology,
journalism, and so forth. Unfortunately, the mainstream
universities (which, of course, are most desireable for advanced
degrees) are resolutely hostile to a positive interpretation of
the subject and they are even suspicious of those who come forth
with a negative interpretation because many academics consider
the subject itself to be so illegitimate that any studying of it
whatsoever is a complete waste of time and will only prove the
obvious. My own teaching of the course, and my own controversial
and very public stance toward the subject has, as you can guess,
not been the best career move I could have made. One of these
days I might write up what the consequences of my actions have
been on my career.


Cheers,

David M. Jacobs



Well, there ya have it. Dr. Jacobs clearly states that there is
no degree course of study in UFOs at any college or univeristy
in the country. A course or two taken in college does not equal
a degree in the subject.



Bobbie


==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.com
Point of View Webcast
www.dragoncrest.net
Online publishing
==========









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                  Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 08:13:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:15:07 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Evans


 >From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:30:49 -0600
 >Subject: Re: HHigh Silliness On UFO UpDates

 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:19:08 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

Previously, I had written:

 >>I really think you need to re-read what Wendy wrote, very
 >>carefully:

 >>"I don't see anything by you on the shelf." This pretty much
 >>sums up the problem, John. Attitude.

and, regarding profits from publishing books:

 >>By all accounts, it isn't much. However, it is profitable
 >>enough to get printed in the first place.

Wendy replied:

 >How in the world can you make such a ridiculous and mis-informed
 >statement like this? Profit to have it printed came from normal
 >jobs outside the field of cryptoaeronautics, and not from sales.
 >Nothing Mike and I have written was done so with profit in mind
 >for several reasons.

In your case, I have no doubt that profit takes a back seat to
ego, Wendy. After all, one is a nobody if one doesn't have a
book on the shelf, right? Tell me, if everyone stopped buying
your books, would you still keep printing them?

Beyond that, "Cryptoaeronautics"? I have looked through five
different dictionaries, Wendy, as well as my encyclopedia and I
can not find that term in any of them. Sure sounds important,
though. Kind of like "exoaeronautic studies". Can't find that
word, either. And these are _published_ books, Wendy. I know how
important that fact is to you.

But let's continue un-ringing the bell of arrogance. I had
written:

 >>And since being in print is the _real_ distinction that Wendy
 >>makes for being a "serious contributor", then Bobbie's point
is >>still valid: If you alienate your audience by suggesting
their >>opinions are worthless, then they stop buying your
books. When >>sales drop, then the printing stops. Should the
printing stop, >>then someone might very well say to Ms.
Connors, "I don't see >>anything by you on the shelf."

 >>So it is a bit naive to suggest that sales are not a
 >>consideration in keeping the ETH alive and kicking at all costs.
 >>Wendy just needs to be reminded who butters her bread to replace
 >>the notion that everyone else's opinion takes second fiddle to
 >>the UFO elite. Otherwise, they can just sell their books to each
 >>other, because I'll refuse to buy into such blatant arrogance.

Wendy replied:

 >Since we pay for printing our work out of our own pockets and
 >don't make money off of it, your statement is just plain stupid.
 >And since we pay for our material to be available to
 >researchers, they will always be on the shelf. No, I don't
 >expect you to put my research on your shelf.

 >Nobody butters my bread. I've never stated anywhere that I
 >support the ETH. Show me where I have done so. You won't be able
 >too because you don't know what you are talking about and don't
 >take time to read the literature. When you do read, you add tons
 >of garbage that was not there to begin with.

 >So, where the hell do I go to see this important and well
 >documented research you have done? You want me to be an elitist,
 >which is your favorite word, btw, then fine. I hereby plead
 >guilty to having done real research beyond reading a book,
 >acquired and contributed to the knowledge base of
 >cryptoaeronautics, published at my own expense to share the
 >material for all to use in their own research and gave to others
 >from my own archives and collection at my own expense. If that
 >makes me an 'Elitist', then I plead guilty.

 >Now, if you want me to answer your questions Roger, pay up. I'm
 >a professional and if you want the expertise, pay for it.

Interesting choice of words, Wendy. A "professional" gets paid
for their expertise, yet you maintain not to make any money off
your published works. More to the point, you previously claimed:

 >Nothing Mike and I have written was done so with profit in mind
 >for several reasons.

What hypocrisy. Again, if everyone stopped buying your books,
would you still keep printing them?

Beyond that, you're making a beef where there wan't one. I
respect the fact that _anyone_ goes to the effort to collect
huge amounts of data. No one is dismissing the effort you put
into your work or anyone else's, Wendy. I even respect and agree
with some of your opinions, as do I agree with some of the other
UFO elite. But you don't want respect, Wendy; you want
reverence. Others must admit up front that _your_ opinion is
automatically more correct because of the effort you put in
collecting the data and the fact that you printed a book. Again,
your posts make this point all too easy to prove:

"Now, if you want me to answer your questions, pay up. I'm a
professional and if you want the expertise, pay for it."

"Do people interested in the genre of 'Ufology' have a right to
an opinion based upon their reading and understanding of the
material they have read? Certainly. Does their opinion carry the
exact same weight as the researcher who brought the material to
light and shared some of that material in their writings? Of
course not. Again, that's a no-brainer."

"They do have a more honest right to an opinion on ufology in
all its forms based solely on having done the research, rather
than those who have not or failed to unbiasly read their
contributions. My bookshelf contains many examples of their
acumen and research...I don't see anything by you on the shelf."

The obvious point, here, is that you have a condescending view
of anyone else that draws an opinion from your work. They have a
_right_ to their own opinion, but such an opinion is
automatically considered less important and any questions
resulting from that opinion can be dismissed or avoided at your
whim. _That_ is the issue at hand, despite your best efforts to
skew the subject as illustrated by the following:

 >I do not always agree with certain opinions that they express than
 >I do with the spittle from the pulpits of religion, but I can't
 >foolishly dismiss their positions on ufology because it is based
 >on research they have accomplished and not because I believe
 >they are wrong on principles sake. Huge difference.

If only you admitted the difference here, Wendy. Again, I never
said that I dismissed their positions on ufology. That's
something you've thrown into the mix to try and demonize my
efforts to hold the UFO elite accountable for their attitudes
and non-responsiveness to simple questions that would threaten a
given debate. If you've done your own research on this thread,
then you know that to be true. To be more blunt, you are simply
lying if you imply that I dismiss their opinions. Never have,
never will. But they are, after all, _only_ opinions; not holy
texts. And the fact that money must be paid to access those
works doesn't make them any more valuable to the rest of
society.

Time for a reality check, Wendy: You're not an expert. You are a
collector of data. The opinions you form from accessing that
data is no more "right" than someone else that also reads the
same material. And, unless there is data that you are keeping
secret, then you can't dismiss someone as "uninformed" simply
because they don't agree with some of your opinions, nor is it
acceptable to avoid questions or dodge issues. You have no
"divine rights" during a debate simply because you published a
book about unproven myths.

Again, since you are so familiar with this thread and find
research such an important thing to do before posting, you
should have no problem quoting the questions I asked that
started this whole affair; questions that you objected to. What
were those questions, Wendy?


Roger Evans







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:16:03 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:17:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:52:26 -0500

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:10:49 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:59:14 -0500

 >>>And lest we forget, however much the pelicanists want us to:

 >>>Donald H. Menzel on witness reliability: "I submit that [Dr.
 >>>James E.] McDonald's interviews of more than five hundred people
 >>>who have reported UFOs have no scientific validity whatever."
 >>>(In Sagan and Page, UFOs: A Scientific Debate)

 >>In the above mentioned Menzel quotation, the final period was
 >>actually a comma, followed by, "except to confirm his
 >>[McDonald's] well-known bias in favor of ETH and against the Air
 >>Force and myself and other nonbelievers. Similarly, Hynek's
 >>indexes of 'credibility' and 'strangeness' are equally
 >>subjective." (Sagan and Page, UFOs A Scientific Depate, p. 136).

 >With all due respect, this is crap. What Menzel called "bias"
 >was McDonald's richly merited criticism of Menzel and the Blue
 >Book clowns. Let's recall what McDonald had to say about
 >Menzel's debunking pseudoscience:

Jerry:

There you go, again.

You've completely changed the subject, when it was shown that in
order to find any example of a skeptic who claims that witness
testimony if "worthless", you could only find a fragment of a 30
year-old quote from Old Doc Menzel, which you then severed from
the main part of the sentence.

Nobody here mentioned, or probably even cares, that Menzel and
McDonald thought each other biased.

It seems that we're down to arguing about the difference between
a dependant clause and the empty spaces after the end of a
sentence.

Folks can read the quote for themselves and decide if you have
changed a fragment of an author's quotation into a complete
sentence order to change the meaning of his words.

They probably don't care.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                      Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:27:24 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:19:42 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates


 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:34:58 -0500
 >From: Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:08:20 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Hall

<snip>

 >Dick now responds:

 >>Well, that certainly is a convoluted "definition," but it is
 >>illuminating in ways you may not suspect. You have called me an
 >>"elitist", yet many points of your "definition" do not apply to
 >>me in any way I can see.

 >Hi, Dick!

 >Convoluted? Apparently not!

 >After all, your response wasn't a defiant "None of those points
 >apply to me."

Roger,

What's the matter? Did it throw you off that I didn't fit your
stereotype? Would it have made you happier if I did respond in a
"defiant" tone. Sorry to disappoint you.

 >Instead, you readily admit "many points of your definition do
 >not apply to me."

 >Okay, I give you that. Many do not apply, which mean some
 >remain. Now, which of these remaining points _do_ apply to you?

At least you practice what you preach against others: Changing
the subject and avoiding the issue. You conveniently snipped out
that in this same message I offered to try to answer a few of
your allegedly "simple questions" if you would remind me of some
of the points that I allegedly have avoided in the past.
Instead, you try to pick a quarrel. That seems to be your main
purpose in life.


Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                   Recent Reads [was: High Silliness.....]

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:20:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:28:56 -0400
Subject: Recent Reads [was: High Silliness.....]


 >From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:30:49 -0600


 >>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:19:08 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

<snip>

 >>So it is a bit naive to suggest that sales are not a
 >>consideration in keeping the ETH alive and kicking at all costs.
 >>Wendy just needs to be reminded who butters her bread to replace
 >>the notion that everyone else's opinion takes second fiddle to
 >>the UFO elite. Otherwise, they can just sell their books to each
 >>other, because I'll refuse to buy into such blatant arrogance.

 >Nobody butters my bread. I've never stated anywhere that I
 >support the ETH. Show me where I have done so. You won't be able
 >too because you don't know what you are talking about and don't
 >take time to read the literature. When you do read, you add tons
 >of garbage that was not there to begin with.

 >So, where the hell do I go to see this important and well
 >documented research you have done? You want me to be an elitist,
 >which is your favorite word, btw, then fine. I hereby plead
 >guilty to having done real research beyond reading a book,
 >acquired and contributed to the knowledge base of
 >cryptoaeronautics, published at my own expense to share the
 >material for all to use in their own research and gave to others
 >from my own archives and collection at my own expense. If that
 >makes me an 'Elitist', then I plead guilty.>

 >Now, if you want me to answer your questions Roger, pay up. I'm
 >a professional and if you want the expertise, pay for it.

I paid for it and got a real treat. I just finished reading
'Captain Edward J. Ruppelt: Summer Of The Saucers - 1952', for
which I paid the full elitist price, knowing that diligent
research deserves a reward. Great Job Wendy and Mike! Wish I had
had your book before I finished the text of mine ('UFO-FBI...'
oops, better not mention it; "elitist", you know!). There are some
insights that I could have included. On the other hand the books
are complementary in terms of the information presented since my
book is stronger in some areas and yours is stronger in other
areas.

I have also been reading 'Dark Object: The Shag Harbour
Incident' by "elitist" Don Ledger and Chris Styles. Got that at
a bookstore, by the way. Quite a story. I vaguely recall
something about it from way, way back,] but have heard Styles
speak about it.

It reminds me of the Puget Sound "crash" reported back in the
1980's.

As I recall a ship nearby reported that the bright object zoomed
down close to the surface and ten hovered or stopped its motion
before entering the water. Private divers attempted a recovery a
few days later and actually found a strange object on the bottom.
When they went back to try to retrieve it, they couldn't find it
again. THere were reports of Navy ships nearby after the divers
publicly announced that they had found a strange object on the
bottom. I suspect the Navy actually got something... don't know
what.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                     Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:01:39 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:49:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Young


 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:38:17 -0700
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Have Sceptics Seen One?

 >If I may, a few questions for the sceptics on UpDates.

 >As sceptics on this list are also human (me thinks!) how many
 >UFO sightings have you had to date?

Roy:

How would I know a UFO if I saw one?  I assume that you have
something in particular in mind?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 24

               British UFO Bureau Shuts Down - "Lack Of Flying

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:19:31 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:51:56 -0400
Subject: British UFO Bureau Shuts Down - "Lack Of Flying


Monday, April 23 6:46 AM SGT

British UFO bureau shuts down due to lack of flying saucers

LONDON, April 22 (AFP) - The British Flying Saucer Bureau which
has been hunting for extra-terrestrial activity for half a
century, has closed its doors due to a dearth of unidentified
flying objects (UFOs).

The bureau, which at one time boasted 1,500 members worldwide,
has over the years received weekly reports listing up to thirty
UFO "sightings". These days there are very rarely any such
reports, according to an article in The Times newspaper on
Monday.

The bureau's monthly meetings have now been scrapped due to a
lack of participants.

Denis Plunkett, a 70-year-old retiree from Bristol in western
England, founded the bureau in 1953 along with his father Edgar.

"I am just as enthusiastic about flying saucers as I always was
but the problem is that we are in the middle of a long, long
trough," he told The Times.

There just are not enough sightings to warrant continuing, he
added.

Plunkett beleives that the end of the Cold War was the catalyst for the
current dearth of UFO sightings.

"The number of sightings always rises at times of international
tension and declines in times of peace," he explained.

Also the extraterrestrials themselves have probably finished
their study of the Earth, Plunkett said. These tudies apparently
began following the explosion of the two atomic bombs during
World War II.

"The first atomic explosions all took place on the right side of
the Earth to be visible from Mars."









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                 CCCRN News - 04-23-01 Comparison Crop Study

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:27:34 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:54:56 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News - 04-23-01 Comparison Crop Study


CCCRN NEWS

The E-News Service of the Canadian Crop Circle Research Network

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

April 23, 2001

_____________________________


COMPARISON STUDY OF 'RANDOMLY DOWNED CROP' AND CROP
CIRCLES

Judy Arndt, a field research assistant for CCCRN, has posted a
new report on her Crop Circle Quest web site regarding
comparison studies she has done on internal lay patterns and
node abnormalities found in areas of lodged or randomly downed
crop in the Edmonton, Alberta area in 2000. The report covers
the similarities in many cases between the effects in these
areas and those in 'regular' crop formations.

http://www.CropCircleQuest.com

Go to link entitled  'Internal Patterns in Lodged Grain'

____________________________


CCCRN News is the e-news service of the Canadian Crop Circle
Research Network, providing the latest news and reports on the
crop circle phenomenon in Canada and other relevant updates, as
well as other information on CCCRN-related news, projects and
events.


CANADIAN CROP CIRCLE RESEARCH NETWORK

Main Office:
Suite 202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC  V5T 2M9  Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

Provincial Branch Contacts:
http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/contacts.html


� Canadian Crop Circle Research Network, 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 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                  CCCRN News - 04-23-01 'Ice Pictogram?' in

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:41:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:58:07 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News - 04-23-01 'Ice Pictogram?' in


CCCRN NEWS
The E-News Service of the Canadian Crop Circle Research Network

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

April 23, 2001

_____________________________


'ICE PICTOGRAM' IN MARYLAND, USA?


Another ice ring reported to CCCRN; this one found in
Churchville, Maryland, USA  in February, 2001.

While not a Canadian formation this time, there is a feature
about this ring which makes it unique from other ice rings and
circles previously reported in Canada and elsewhere - a short
rectangular extension coming off of the main ring which is
reminiscent of very early crop formation 'pictograms' in England
which first started showing similar shapes back in the late
1980s. According to the eyewitness, Lyn Winer, the rectangular
piece did look to be part of the ring formation itself, which as
with most ice rings reported, was in very thin ice, on a small
pond. The ring itself was approximately 30 feet in diameter,
making it also somewhat larger than the average size of most
other ice rings reported so far, about 15 - 20 feet. Whether
this represents a new twist to the now-familar ice rings or is a
fluke of nature is not known. The formation was also reported in
a local newspaper. Further details when available.


____________________________


CCCRN News is the e-news service of the Canadian Crop Circle
Research Network, providing the latest news and reports on the
crop circle phenomenon in Canada and other relevant updates, as
well as information on CCCRN-related news, projects and events.


CANADIAN CROP CIRCLE RESEARCH NETWORK

Main Office:
Suite 202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC  V5T 2M9  Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

Provincial Branch Contacts:
http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/contacts.html


� Canadian Crop Circle Research Network, 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 >
   Apr > Apr 24

              Meteorite Crashes Near Mourning Jordanian Village

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:27:23 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:00:23 -0400
Subject: Meteorite Crashes Near Mourning Jordanian Village


Meteorite crashes near mourning Jordanian village
AMMAN, April 23 (AFP) -

http://english.hk.dailynews.yahoo.com/

Residents of a Jordanian village attending a funeral got an
unwelcome surprise when a fiery meteorite crashed down in their
midst, one of them told AFP Monday.

"More than 100 of us were gathered Wednesday at sundown to bury
a village resident when we saw a strange object that looked like
a ball of fire," said Mohammed Nawaf Mikdadi, mayor of Beit
Eidess, some 85 kilometers (50 miles) north of Amman.

"The meteor shot through the sky from West to East before a part
of it came down a half-kilometre (quarter-mile) from the
village, sparking an explosion and then a fire with four-metre
(12-foot) flames for 10 metres (100 feet) straight," Mikdadi
told AFP.

"The villagers thought it was a missile, but when we went to the
spot there weren't any metal scraps," he said.

The mayor expressed relief the meteorite fell on a rocky area
near Beit Eidess and not in a nearby forest, which could have
spelled disaster for the village.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                           The Watchdog - 04-23-01

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:16:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:03:58 -0400
Subject: The Watchdog - 04-23-01


UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open"
http://www.ufowatchdog.com

***NEWS*** http://www.ufowatchdog.com/news.html

~ Crop Circle Study
~ British UFO Group Shuts Down From "Lack of UFOs"
~ Government Documents About ET Discovered in Peru?
~ More on Alleged Roswell Crash Debris
~ UFO and the Philadelphia Experiment

~Ad *First Annual Northwest UFO/Paranormal Conference* Ad~
http://www.seattleartbellchatclub.com/NWUFO.html

***OF INTEREST***

~ WANTED! Your comments: How do you view the current state of
Ufology? Now you have a chance to voice your opinion. Give us
your two-cents and more. Write to: ufowatchdog@earthlink.net

~ UFOWATCHDOG.COM editor on Jeff Rense tonight.
http://www.rense.com

***ON LINE NOW***
Caveat Emptor http://www.ufowatchdog.com/caveat.html

~ Ed Dames: Hocus Pocus
~ The Morton Files

***COMING SOON***

~ Cattle Mutilations: High Strangeness or Mundane Explanation?

~ Richard C. Doty Interview: UFOWATCHDOG.COM's interview with
Richard C. Doty has been postponed but will be completed as soon
as possible. "Of course I believe in extraterrestrials... There
are still some areas of the Government ET operation that is
classified. I cannot reveal the nature of this." -- Richard C.
Doty, Former AFOSI Agent

~UFOWATCHDOG.COM interviews abduction pioneer Budd Hopkins.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                              Re: Belief - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:59:56 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:05:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Belief - Hale


 >>Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:38:58 -0700
 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Belief

 ><snip>

 >>Mac,

 >>Do you believe what you wrote in this mail represents your
 >>views?

 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Belief
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >No. I highly suspect it does.


Mac,

Do you believe in yourself' or are you highly suspect of
yourself?

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 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                     Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Hale

From: royjhale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:03:03 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:11:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Hale


Previously I asked:

 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:38:17 -0700
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Have Sceptics Seen One?

 >If I may, a few questions for the sceptics on UpDates.

 >As sceptics on this list are also human (me thinks!) how many
 >UFO sightings have you had to date?

<snip>

Hi,

Does the silence mean that no sceptics on this List have
personally had any UFO sightings?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 18:59:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:13:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:55:52 EDT
 >Subject: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>We could also make lists of skeptics who declare witnesses
 >>didn't see what they reported, in order to make the skeptic's
 >>explanation of the sighting work. (Klass, for instance, said
 >>Coyne didn't operate the helicopter the way he said he did;

 >So what? He posited that Coyne operated the helicopter the way
 >that an experienced pilot would, by not crashing. Coyne just
 >didn't remember moving a control in the excitement of the
 >moment, but after having avoided certain death, noticed it had
 >been moved. The indisputable fact is, he didn't crash and was at
 >the controls. The ETHers propose that this was because a flying
 >saucer engaged a Tractor Beam to provent the crash. Now that's a
 >fine example of the Razor Of Ockem, if I ever was one.

Please don't bring the ETH into this when no ETH was mentioned in
what you're responding to.

You've demonstrated my point. Coyne said he operated the controls
one way. Klass posits (and you do, too) that this couldn't have
been true, no matter what Coyne said. Because, if Coyne was
right, then something unknown was going on. Doesn't have to be a
tractor beam from an alien craft -- something that nobody but
you, in this debate, has mentioned.

It must be fun, sitting in a room by yourself, inventing things
that you then claim other people believe.

What you and Klass have done is reject Coyne's testimony because
it isn't convenient to you. Which is not to say that you and
Phil couldn't be right. But your certainty isn't warranted. How
can you totally rule out the possibility of anything unknown?

And your sarcasm has no place on this list.

Especially when you're so wrong about Sheaffer.

 >You have this exactlyl backwards, Greg. Shaeffer noted that
 >Betty did claim to see two lights in the sky, just where Jupiter
 >and Saturn were. It's just that she concluded one was a saucer.
 >Another famous example of eyewitness testimony being good enough
 >to turn an exciting saucer tale into just one more boring IFO.

Betty Hill said she saw two bright lights in the sky, which
later she identified as the alleged UFO and Jupiter. She drew a
picture to show where they were . One of the lights in her
picture is where Jupiter was. The other one is not where Saturn
was.

Robert theorizes that the two lights were Jupiter and Saturn.
He's made a drawing to show what he thinks she saw. The lights
aren't in the same positions that they occupy in her drawing.

When I asked Robert about the discrepancy, he agreed with me. For
his theory to work, he said, Betty Hill can't have accurately
reported what she saw. Which is not to say that he's necessarily
wrong. Maybe his theory is correct. But he had to change the
sighting report to make it work.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                        Re: Serious Research - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 19:10:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:15:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Sandow


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:14:13 EDT
 >Subject: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Dick offered his 18 cases as part of the first discussion. If I
 >>read him correctly, he doesn't say he has proof of the ETH. He
 >>does believe he has proof that unknown craft are flying; the ETH
 >>is his hypothesis to explain those unknown craft.

 >Uh, huh.

 >>So he's met the burden of proof. He has 18 cases that he thinks
 >>prove what he's trying to demonstrate. It's now Bob's turn to
 >>show why these 18 cases don't demonstrate what Dick says they do.

 >To quote old Doc Menzel, "This is science?"

 >So, now one only has to proclaim the existence of proof, and
 >that's it?

I'm sorry if what I wrote wasn't clear.

I didn't mean to say Dick had proved anything. What I mean is
that he's supplied an adequate opening for his side in the
debate. It's now up to Bob to respond.

Of course, Bob never mentioned, in his reply to me, the main
point I was making - which is that the debate can't be about
whether these 18 cases prove the ETH. They don't. They might be
offered as evidence that unknown craft are flying around. But
that in itself doesn't prove the ETH. Bob, for instance, might
be flying them himself (about as likely as the Nazi saucers he
offered earlier as a better explanation of the Arnold sighting
than aliens).

Bob, may I ask you, as a matter of common courtesy, not to
assume that those of us who disagree with you are scientifically
illiterate? Please get rid of your sarcasm. It's unpleasant,
unwarranted, insulting, and, most strikingly, a very bad tactic.

If you're able to make your case on the merits, make it.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                          Secrecy News -- 04/23/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:11:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:17:45 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 04/23/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
April 23, 2001

**SUPREME COURT REBUFFS FISA CHALLENGE
**RELEASE OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DAILY SOUGHT
**CIA FILES ON NAZI LEADERS TO BE OPENED


SUPREME COURT REBUFFS FISA CHALLENGE

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most serious
challenge to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
that has arisen since that 1978 statute was adopted, leaving the
government's counterintelligence surveillance authority
completely exempt from adversarial review in a court of law.

The FISA established a secret court to provide authorization for
electronic surveillance and clandestine physical search of U.S.
persons who are suspected of being foreign agents.  The use of
this law was challenged in a petition filed last year on behalf
of Theresa M. Squillacote and Kurt A. Stand, a married couple
who were convicted in 1998 of conspiring to commit espionage on
behalf of East Germany, the Soviet Union, Russia, and South
Africa.

In the course of their investigation of Squillacote and Stand,
the FBI requested and received 20 separate FISA authorizations
for surveillance that lasted 550 consecutive days.  Based almost
exclusively on evidence collected in this counterintelligence
mode, Squillacote was sentenced to nearly 22 years in prison,
and Stand to more than 17 years.

As a matter of law, the accused spies were entitled during their
trial to question the basis for the government's surveillance
and search of their home.  It is part of their constitutional
right to due process and is acknowledged by the language of the
FISA itself.

In practice, however, that right was all but nullified because
attorneys for Squillacote and Stand were never permitted to see
the underlying documentation that the government used to justify
the surveillance, not even on a classified basis.

"To this very day, petitioners... have never seen the
application that the government submitted to receive
authorization to tap petitioners' phones, bug their bedroom,
search their belongings, download their computer, even intercept
their phone conversations while they were staying in a hotel on
vacation," attorneys for the defendants wrote in their petition
last December.  "That is, to say the least, a striking anomaly
in federal criminal law."

"'Sure, you can challenge probable cause,' the government tells
us; 'you just can't look at the affidavits that purport to
establish it'," the attorneys wrote last month.  "'Sure, there
must be sufficient evidence that petitioners were agents of a
foreign power at the time the FISA authority was granted -- but
you have to take our word for that'."

On logical and procedural grounds, the defendants' attorneys
raised objections that are more fundamental and more substantial
than those in any past FISA dispute.  Among other things,
attorneys argued that improper use was made of intercepted
conversations with Squillacote's psychotherapist, and that the
government incorrectly implied that transmission of information
that was in the public domain could be a violation of the
Espionage Act.  "This works a troubling and unjustified
expansion of the espionage law."

The government naturally views the case differently.  Government
attorneys insisted that all required procedures were followed at
all times, and that access to the FISA applications by the
defendants' attorneys was correctly denied on national security
grounds.  They noted further that the investigation and
prosecution of Squillacote and Stand survived multiple layers of
judicial review and that their conviction was upheld on appeal.

But whatever else might be true in this particular case, it
seems clear that the FISA is not working the way Congress
originally intended it to work.

Thus, for example, the FISA specifically permits courts to
disclose all or parts of a FISA application to a defendant who
is being prosecuted so that he or she may challenge the
application's legality.  Yet "there are no reported cases in
which any Court has authorized such a disclosure."

Likewise, the FISA created an appeals court to consider
government applications for surveillance that are denied by the
regular FISA court.  But this three-person appeals court has
never had occasion to meet, since surveillance applications are
almost never denied.  (In 1997, one application was rejected
"with leave to amend," but the government withdrew it from
further consideration.)

The refusal of the Supreme Court to hear the Squillacote case
makes it likely that constitutional due process rights will
remain subordinate to alleged national security concerns for the
foreseeable future.  At issue, of course, are not merely the
rights of suspected spies but of every American.

"This Court has never examined the lawfulness of this FISA
provision, which permits sweeping invasions of privacy against
United States citizens and then permits the government and the
courts to deny defendants access to the applications and
affidavits that purported to establish the probable cause basis
in the first place."

"If this case does not warrant disclosure of the underlying
affidavits, no case ever will," the defense attorneys wrote.
They are probably right.

The December 2000 Petition to the Supreme Court, along with the
government's March 2001 reply, and the petitioners' reply to the
government are all posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/squill/index.html

The Petition was denied on April 16.


RELEASE OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DAILY SOUGHT

The Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) is
preparing to consider for the first time whether to declassify
several issues of the National Intelligence Daily from 1963.

The National Intelligence Daily (NID) is published by the CIA,
in cooperation with other parts of the intelligence community,
and distributed to a limited number of senior policymakers and
military commands.  It is one of the intelligence community's
classification "icons"-- a term that refers to categories of
information that are reflexively classified, without serious
evaluation of any national security threat their release might
pose.  These icons are rarely or never declassified, no matter
what the law, or the U.S. Constitution, might say.

Declassification of NIDs that were prepared immediately prior to
and after President Kennedy's assassination in 1963 was
requested by researcher Michael Ravnitzky.  When the requested
documents were not released by the CIA -- it would be
superfluous to ask why -- Ravnitzky turned to the ISCAP, an
executive branch body created by President Clinton's executive
order 12958 to consider contested classification issues.

The requested documents will be circulated for review to ISCAP
members over the next week or so, said ISCAP executive secretary
Steven Garfinkel, who is also director of the Information
Security Oversight Office, among several other official
positions that he holds.

Mr. Garfinkel would not predict the outcome of the process.  "I
expect the discussion to be active, and a decision may take some
time."

He indicated, however, that it was not a foregone conclusion
that CIA's opposition to declassification of the NIDs would
prevail.  "The ISCAP has previously voted contrary to the
position of the DCI's representative on some appeals.  Until the
ISCAP's records are made public under the Presidential Records
Act, I am not in a position to tell you the specifics."

Background information on the ISCAP is available here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/iscap/index.html


CIA FILES ON NAZI LEADERS TO BE OPENED

The first of several hundred CIA files on Nazi officials will be
released at the end of this week by the Interagency Working
Group on Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government
Records.

"The CIA rarely releases such files, which are diverse
collections of information on individuals considered significant
by the Agency," according to a press release issued by the
Interagency Working Group (IWG).  "The 20 [files] being released
are the first of several hundred related to war crimes or
suspected Nazi war criminals that will be made public by the
IWG."

The documents will be presented at a press briefing at the U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Museum on April 27 and will be available to
the public at the National Archives.

See the April 23 IWG press release here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/04/iwg042301.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]


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 >
   Apr > Apr 24

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 23:26:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:20:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:06:37 +0100

 >>Now let's say the police arrest someone because of your
 >>description. You successfully identify the person in a lineup.
 >>(If you have lineups in Britain - I don't pretend to be an
 >>expert on British police procedure.) But when the case comes to
 >>trial, the defense attorney tells the jury to disregard your
 >>testimony, citing Werner von Braun as evidence that witnesses
 >>are unreliable.

 >>You'd be annoyed, perhaps?

 >As the whole question is based upon a false premise whether I
 >would be annoyed is hardly a consideration!

 >Let me put it simply: we know that robbers exist, we don't know
 >that ETs in rocket ships exist.

 >If the robber has been arrested, fits my description and is
 >present in the identity parade then he or she exists, and may
 >well even confess to the crime.

 >If I had described the robber as an 8ft bright green alien who
 >swooped down in a saucer, snatched my wallet and made off into
 >the night, then the same rules of evidence hardly apply do they?
 >Plus I feel the defence might be justified in dismissing my
 >evidence as "unreliable" !

 >So what I am saying is that a defence attorney would have no
 >case that my evidence was unreliable unless he or she could
 >demonstrate that I was psychotic, that his or her client had an
 >alibi or there was no forensic evidence etc - all fundamental
 >concepts which the judge, defence, prosecution etc share as
 >common values in our society.

No. You might be mistaken because you didn't remember very
clearly. Or because you didn't get a very good look at whoever
robbed you, but have disregarded that in a rush to find a
culprit. If a defense attorney has any reason to think anything
like this can be established, he or she will try to demonstrate
that your memory isn't reliable. You'll face questions like,
"How long did you see the person who robbed you?" Or suppose you
normally wear glasses. If there was any kind of struggle, the
defense attorney might plant the notion that your glasses had
been knocked off. There are many ways to impeach your testimony,
and defense attorneys -- assuming the poor bozo who's charged
with robbing you has decent legal help -- will try every one of
them. Because, you know, witnesses are unreliable.

And you haven't, as far as I can see, addressed my main point.
All of us, since we're human, tend to trust witness testimony
that tells us what we want to hear, and distrust testimony that
tells us things we don't like. My point, in the robbery
scenario, wasn't to pretend that witness testimony in a robbery
is exactly the same kind of discourse as witness testimony in a
UFO case. It was to suggest you'd be more like to accept witness
testimony when it's in your interest to do so. (And why, I'd
like to ask, parenthetically, do skeptics so often talk as if
UFO believers are driven by emotion, and not consider the same
possibility for themselves? Nobody, I think it's safe to say, is
completely objective. But skeptics like to talk as if they're
motivated only by a search for objective truth, and always
proceed by the strictest scientific method. But aren't they just
as human as ufologists?)

 >If I had described the robber as an 8ft bright green alien who
 >swooped down in a saucer, snatched my wallet and made off into
 >the night, then the same rules of evidence hardly apply do they?
 >Plus I feel the defence might be justified in dismissing my
 >evidence as "unreliable" !

Returning now to this amusing bit... not so fast, Dave! What
interests me here is your rather brisk assumption that in some
cases we know what's true and what isn't. In this case, you're
taking for granted that your testimony about an eight-foot alien
would obviously have to be false.

And while you're right, in principle, the very subject we're
discussing here, ultimately, is where we draw the line, and how
we draw it. If you told me you saw a unicorn out your window,
I'd probably distrust that. But if six people from your
neighborhood independently - without knowing of the others'
testimony - also said they saw a unicorn, maybe I'd have to
reconsider. In any case, there are times when new information
surfaces, and something formerly thought to be impossible turns
out to be true. What are your rules for dealing with those very
special moments?

I want to be very careful here, because once, Dave, you have us
agree that a tall, green alien didn't steal your wallet, you may
think it's only a step to further agreement that alien UFOs
aren't very likely. Phil Klass pulled exactly that on me when we
talked. When I asked why he was _certain_ the Chiles-Whitted
sighting was of a meteor, one of his answers was a rhetorical
question: "If something went wrong with your computer, would you
call a technician, or would you assume evil spirits had gotten
into it?" Phil, clearly, was trying to get me to agree that
alien UFOs were just as unlikely as evil spirits. The weird
thing, though, was that he was doing so in order to reject
testimony that might help to establish that alien UFOs really
exist. In other words, he was engaging in circular reasoning -
assuming the conclusion he was trying to prove. "Since there are
no alien UFOs, we can assume that these pilots didn't see one."
He eventually said that to me, almost as plainly as I've stated
it.

And that, Dave, is (in my opinion) what you're doing when you
say:

 >Let me put it simply: we know that robbers exist, we don't know
 >that ETs in rocket ships exist.

The logic, or lack of it, here absolutely baffles me. Your
reasoning seems to go like this, expressed schematically:

1. Someone claims to see something that could be an alien UFO.

2. You, however, don't know that such things exist.

3. Therefore you doubt the person saw what he or she claimed to.

This makes no sense at all. It might work better if you
expressed yourself more strongly - saying not that you don't
know that alien spaceships are here, but that you know
positively that they aren't. Then your reasoning would be:

1. Someone claims to see something that could be an alien UFO.

2. You _know_ that no such thing exists.

3. Therefore you doubt the person saw what he or she claimed to.

That at least would be logical.

But what happens when you start applying reasoning like this to
ufology? Many people claim to see something that might,
conceivably, be an alien UFO. Because you don't know that alien
UFOs exist, you doubt their testimony in every case. And thus
you reject the testimony that might, conceivably, establish that
alien UFOs are here. Circular reasoning, once again.

I know you'll say that you reject UFO cases for more complex,
more carefully investigated reasons. And I'm sure that in many
instances you do. But I think the tenor of your remarks clearly
demonstrates a bias against believing UFO testimony - a bias
that's human enough, but which you seem unwilling to confront.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                      UFO Sightings OZ Files - 04-23-01

From: Diane Harrison <tkbnetw@powerup.com.au>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:19:02 +1000
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:25:52 -0400
Subject: UFO Sightings OZ Files - 04-23-01


UFO Sightings OZ Files 24th 4 2001

Report 1800 Callin Code: 00890. 07.09.2000 NSW

Date: 07.09.2000
Day: Thursday
Time Seen: 8.00-8.30pm & 10.23pm
Location: Kariong (Gosford area)
Reportee: Lisa
Report given to nearest rep: Doug Moffett
Tel: 02 43

Report:

The callin relates to a recent sighting of a stationary bright
light. This has since been proved to be Venus by the witness
thru observation the following night and by cross-referencing
the location of Venus thru a computer program. The witness and
her partner have had three previous experiences. Earlier this
year her partner witnessed a very bright white light stationary
above the tree line over Mooney Mooney hill that vanished after
approx 2 seconds. In May this year the witness reports a
orange/red stationary light just above the tree line that
remained for approx 30 seconds before shooting straight up at
great speed, duration approx 2 seconds. Not long after in
May-June the witness was awakened by a loud humming noise at
10.23pm. The humming appeared to be just above her roof. She
yelled to her partner (who was wearing headphones at the time)
who only heard the humming as it was stopping. The humming left
not as gradual as a jet or chopper, both of which are familiar
to the witness as she grew up near Richmond air base. The
humming lasted approx 2 seconds or perhaps a bit longer.

Regards,

Doug Moffett
NSW AUFORN Director UFOR NSW

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Report 1800 Callin Code: 00916. 14.09.2000 NSW

Date: 13.09.2000
Day: Wednesday
Time Seen: Approx 4.30pm
Location: Eastwood
Reportee: Paul C
Report given to nearest rep: Doug Moffett
Tel: 02 9

Report:

Paul was near the cnr of First Ave and Blaxland Rd at approx
4.30pm watching the Olympic flame travelling thru Eastwood
looking toward the West, in the Parramatta direction, when he
noticed a stationary, slightly larger than, star like object.
The object was observed for approx 10 seconds, very low on the
horizon, approx 5 degrees above the horizon. Paul rubbed his
eyes and moved his gaze to confirm it was not due to a floater
in his eyes. Paul then grabbed a camera but as he brought the
camera to his face he noticed thru peripheral vision that the
object had moved suddenly at great speed to the East toward
Chatswood.

The object was like a 2-inch blur as it left Paul�s vision, he
estimated that the object would have travelled from Parramatta
to Chatswood in 3 to 4 seconds. The object travelled over the
right shoulder of Paul. The object was only visible for a brief
time after moving and Paul estimated where its flight path might
have been. If the rapid movement was not an optical illusion, i
have no explanation for the sighting. If the rapid movement was
an optical illusion, it may have been a plane coming at an angle
that maximised its reflection that then altered it�s flight
path, appearing to disappear.


Regards,

Doug Moffett
NSW AUFORN Director UFOR NSW

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UFO FLAP South Australia

Mt Gambier Follow Ups -
Trevor Rayner - AUFORN rep South Australia


Report 1800 Call in Code: 01243

Date: 20th March
Day: Tuesday
Time: 9:30pm
Location: Mt.Gambier
Reportee: Geoffrey Levine
Tel: 872
Shape: round
Size: golf ball
Objects: 1
Colour: hazy white
Sound: none
Duration: 2 mins.


Report 1800 Call in Code: 01245

Date: 20th Feb.
Day: Tuesday
Time: 9:15 est
Location: Pt.MacDonald (29 km South of Mt.Gambier)
Reportee: Keiran Cairns
Tel: 872
Shape: round
Size: star to cricket ball size
Objects: 1
Colour: white glowing
Sound: none
Duration: 2-3 mins.
Direction: stayed South above the sea then vanished
Witnesses: 4
Direction: came from S/W heading N/E then vanished
Witnesses: 2


Report 1800 Call in Code: 01247

Date: 20th Feb.
Day: Tuesday
Time: 9:00 est
Location: Pelican Beach (39 km South West of Mt.Gambier)
Reportee: Bernie Kuiper
Tel: 873
Shape: round ball
Size: soccer ball /quite large
Objects: 2
Colour: white hazy
Sound: none
Duration: 2-3 mins.
Direction: came from the sea (south) heading North
Witnesses: 3


Report 1800 Call in Code: 01248

Date: 8th March
Day: Thurs.
Time: 11:30pm-2:30am
Location: Nangwarry (22 km North of Mt.Gambier)
Reportee: Allana Dean
Tel: 041
Shape: round
Size: star
Objects: 1
Colour: red and white flashing
Sound: none
Duration: 3 hours
Direction: very erratic movement, stayed high in
the sky over head
Witnesses: 2


Report 1800 Call in Code: 01249

Date: 20th Feb.
Day: Tuesday
Time: 9:30-10:00pm
Location: at sea in between Nelson and Pt. MacDonald
Reportee: Mark
Tel: 873
Shape: round
Size: basketball
Objects: 2
Colour: hazy white
Sound: none
Duration: 3 min.
Direction: S/W to S/E
Witnesses: 2


Report 1800 Call in Code: 01257

Date: 11th Feb.
Day: Sunday
Time: 8:30pm
Location: Pt.MacDonald
Reportee: Murray Horrigan
Tel: 872
Shape: round
Size: golf ball or smaller
Objects: 1
Colour: hazy white
Sound: none
Duration: 2-3 mins.
Direction: came from S/W heading N/E
Witnesses: 2


Report 1800 Call in Code: 01272 19.3.01

Date: 20th Feb.
Day: Tuesday
Time: 9:35 pm
Location: Mt.Gambier
Reportee: Lisa Fry
Tel: 872
Shape: round
Size: star to golf ball
Sound:none
Duration: 3 mins.
Direction: stayed high in the sky moving around,
then shot off into the sky
Witnesses: 2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Independent Follow-Up Report -
Trevor Rayner, AUFORN rep South Australia

No Code-phoned my home at 8:55pm on the 21/3/01
Date: 20th Feb.
Day: Tuesday
Time: 9:20pm est.
Location: farm house 20km South of Mt.Gambier
Reportee: Anonymous (elderly mans voice)
Tel: none
Shape: oval or round
Size: larger than basket ball
Objects: 1
Colour: white foggy colour
Sound: none
Duration: 5-6 mins.
Direction: came from the South heading
Northerly towards Mt. Gambier
Witnesses: 3

Report -

The witnesses were woken by a farm hand who was outside.

They watched a huge white oval object fly silently towards Mt.
Gambier

The cows in the back paddock started running about and bellowing
loudly until the object was a fair distance away.

It flew very low and there were no clouds or wind. They watched
it fly all the way to Mt. Gambier where it disappeared out of
view behind trees. His wife was very frightened and upset from
the sighting.

He asked a few times if he was being recorded on the phone . I
assured him NO. He was not going to report the sighting but
heard I was a local and would take him seriously. He refuses to
be contacted or fill out a form. He had gotten my number from
someone who I have already spoken to.

Trevor Rayner AUFORN SA Area Investigator

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UFO Society West Sydney

From:   ufosocietyws@hotmail.com
To:     tkbnetw@powerup.com.au Save Address
Subject:        Call in code 01280
Date:   Sat, 14 Apr 2001 22:22:17 +1000

Followup UFOSWS Call in code 01280 24.03.2001 NSW

Date: 24.03.2001
Day:
Time Reported: 8:55pm
Location: Macquariefields NSW
Reportee: Mrs T
Report given to nearest rep: UFO Society SWS
Tel:

Message:

On the above date, Mrs T received a call from her daughter who
lives a few streets away. Her daughter was awe struck by an
unusual object that was heading towards Mrs T�s residence. Mrs T
hurried outside to observe. When she looked up, she discovered a
bright orange globular anomaly travelling approx 35-40 degrees
towards Holsworthy (S/E). She described it to be like �the glow
from the back of a fighter jet�. Its speed was no faster than
that of a conventional aircraft. She watched it for about 1
minute before it disappeared over the trees in her line of
sight. Mrs T also mentioned that before she lost visual contact
with the anomaly, it seemed unstable.

I then contacted the daughter�s residence and spoke to ?, the
son-in-law. Apparently ? and his wife first discovered the
object as it passed overhead travelling towards Campbelltown
(S/W). Suddenly they saw the anomaly separate two smaller
objects. They then disappeared with incredible speeds in
different directions (exact direction was not clear). ? ran to
the end of the strata complex to follow the primary object,
which remained stable. According to ?, the object then broke
into three and vanished in separate directions (again the point
of destination was unclear).

Now this final act of separation became suspicious because it
did not fit in with Mrs T�s version. I then made an appointment
to see both Mrs T and her Daughter separately. After my
interviews I concluded the following:

I believe that both parties saw the same object. I have no doubt
that the initial separation occurred. I also believe that the
object took a gradual turn from southwest to southeast. However,
judging both parties geographical location, Mrs T would have had
the final view of the anomaly before it disappeared. ?�s boss
also witnessed the passing anomaly who lives near the Georges
river (S/E and closer to Holsworthy), thus making the secondary
separation invalid.

In addition, there was a fire works display in the neighbouring
suburb of Ingleburn (north of Maquariefields). I don�t believe
that this anomaly was related to the fireworks.

And as ?�s boss is concerned, unfortunately he
refused to be interviewed.

Regards Attila UFOSWS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Report 1800 Callin Code: 01298 5.4.01 SA

Date: 5.4.01
Day: Thursday
Time Reported: 11.13pm
Location: SA
Reportee: Mr H
Report given to nearest rep: Charmaine
Tel:
Message:
Saw two lights come together, please phone.
End Message

Report: Charmaine Ballam - AUFORN State Director - SA

Shape: fuzzy/squarish
Size: approx 100 feet in diameter
Objects: 2 becoming 1
Colour: Flashing red/green/blue/white lights
Sound: Nil
Duration: approx 5 mins
Witnesses: 2 - Mr. & Mrs. H
Location: Port Noarlunga
Direction: South/South West

REPORT:

Whilst Mr. H was outside skywatching he sighted through his
binoculars at around 11.00pm 2 objects in the sky at approx 25
degrees above the horizon. The sky that night was cloudless and
crystal clear.

He noticed that both objects seemed to be flashing
red/green/blue/white lights and were moving towards each other.

Mr. H watched the object(s) for about 5 mins and during this
time, they then appeared to join and become one, about a 100
feet in diameter. Also during this time of 'joining' the objects
hovered, and the coloured lights continued to flash.

Upon joining the object(s) started to move off towards the
south/south-west of Port Noarlunga.

I also spoke to Mrs. Hastings and she confirmed what her husband
had seen, except she only saw it for a couple of minutes and to
her it looked like one big fuzzy squarish object with flashing
red/green/blue/white lights.

Mr. & Mrs. H are a elderly couple, Mr H told me he had been
skywatching 'properly' for over 20 years now, but that this was
not his first sighting. That occurred 40 years ago at a local
drive in. Whilst he was there, he looked into the night sky and
watched a red small light going towards the west, it then
stopped completely in mid air, did a right hand turn and just
disappeared out of sight.

END REPORT

Regards,
Charmaine Ballam
AUFORN State Director - South Australia
[Australian UFO Research Network]
http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw

Thank you to everyone for sharing your reports
--
Regards

Diane Harrison

National Director
The Australian UFO Research Network
and UFO Hotline.

Tel number 1800 77 22 88 a Free Call
Australian UFO Research Network -
http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw


A non profit organisation
P.O Box 805
Springwood Qld 4127










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                    UFOs "In Decline"? - I Don't Think So

From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:15:35 +1000
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:34:34 -0400
Subject: UFOs "In Decline"? - I Don't Think So


For your information - an example of light-weight media
reporting:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0104/24/html/spike.html

I also sent the Sydney Morning Herald journalist (Tony Davis)
yestersday the following( which I suspect you won't see any
mention of, because it suggests UFOs might be serious business):

Hi Tony,

You spoke to me at about 1pm, following up on the AAP story re
the "decline in UFO stories".

The link to both British & internaational groups I mentioned
was:

http://ufoinfo.com/contents.shtml

Scrolled down to the organisations hyperlink, this will bring up
the country link, and will, I think show you how widespread
interest is:

http://ufoinfo.com/organizations/index.html

As to the British Flying Saucer Bureau, there is a listing under
Dennis Plunkett, the chap you indicated. I believe I know most
of the active players in the UK scene, and world scene, and his
name does not come to mind. Sounds to me it is one of the many
organisations, that come and go. There are many more that have
more prominent histories and presences.

As to Australia there is a strong network of interest that is
active. Have a look at their site:

http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw/

As a measure of the level of interest and intriguing material
coming out from Australia, perhaps you might like to look at the
following web links which include details about research I have
been undertaking into DNA evidence:


http://www.cufos.org/IUR_articles.html

for a PDF link on my article "Strange Evidence"


http://www.cufos.org/iur_Spring99_addendum.html

for "a strange aside" to this saga of DNA biological evidence


http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/jan/m09-013.shtml

for an updated summary of this work


http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/jan/m09-015.shtml

for the DNA technique and its implications.


Further to what I mentioned to you on the phone, there is
increasing scientific interest in the subject. For example
consider the following 3 new books on Amazon.com: "UFOs &
Abductions - Challenging the Borders of Knowledge" edited by
David Jacobs, Ph.D, University Press of Kansas, 2000

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0700610324/o/qid=987997239/sr=8-3/ref=aps
_sr_b_1_3/107-6701078-5398938


"The Science of UFOs" by William R. Alschuler Ph.D. St. Martins,
Press, 2001.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312262256/ref=sim_books/107-6701078-5398
938


"The UFO Enigma - A new review of the physical Evidence", by
Peter Sturrock, Ph.D, Aspect Warner Books, 1999

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446525650/ref=pd_sim_elt_l1/107-6701078-
5398938


So from this brief outline, to suggest UFO reports and the
interest in them are in decline, is I think, a tad premature.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                            PRG Update - 04-24-01

From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:38:10 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:42:25 -0400
Subject: PRG Update - 04-24-01




PRG
Paradigm Research Group

April 24, 2001 - Update

PRG Contact Info

The new phone numbers for PRG (and X-PPAC) are
Phone: 301-990-4290
Fax: 301-990-0199

All other contact information remains the same.


The Disclosure Project (CSETI)

The Disclosure Project press conference in the main room of the
National Press Club in Washington, DC has been formally
announced for May 9. See: www.cseti.org

Be prepared to take action. It has been 54 years since the
modern era of UFO/ET phenomena began, and ten years into the
politics of disclosure.

The Disclosure Project press conference will be the most
important single event in the disclosure process to date. The
political and general news media have been primed for ten years.
They can now be seen as a supersaturated solution.

All of you should prepare yourselves to take action in the weeks
immediately following this press conference. Those actions would
include personal letters (don't wait for form letter scripts -
they don't work) to your Senate and House representatives;
letters to your local network news affiliates; letters to the
Chairpersons of the key congressional committees (Sen. Fred
Thompson, Rep. Dan Burton and Rep. Sherwood Boehlert); letters
to the national news figures (Ted Koppel, Tom Brokaw, Dan
Rather, Peter Jennings); and, of course, letters to the
President of the United States.

The message to convey is simple:

..... open, comprehensive, congressional hearings to take the
testimony of the witnesses brought forward in this press
conference and many others, must begin immediately in the House
and/or Senate.....

..... full and vigorous coverage of the issues raised by this
press conference must begin in the American top-tier media
immediately.....

..... timidity or delay with respect to either is not acceptable
to the American people and the national interests.....

To repeat, it has been a long and difficult road to the truth of
this matter. Be prepared to act on May 10 and be a part of
history.


The Paradigm Clock

The Paradigm Clock will be reset on May 15.


Coming events

PRG and X-PPAC will be holding events in the aftermath of the
Disclosure Project press conference. These events will likely
occur in June. Look for announcements.


Meta Research Press Conference

The "Artificial Structures on Mars" press conference of April 5
is archived at: www.connectlive/events/metaresearch


Media Schedule

Regular political column at: www.alienzoo.com

The Zoo is in the process of revamping its site, but back
columns are being archived.

Regular political column in UFO Magazine:

www.ufomag.com

The next column is an updated version of 'The Role Of The Media
In The Politics Of Disclosure'.

___________________________________________________

Paradigm Research Group
URL: www.paradigmclock.com
E-mail: ParadigmRG@aol.com
Phone: 301-990-4290
Fax: 301-990-0199
4938 Hampden Lane, #161
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
___________________________________________________

Spread the word about X-PPAC & the politics of disclosure.
Contribute online at: www.x-ppac.org/Contribute.html
or mail to: 4938 Hampden Lane,161 Bethesda, MD 20814
____________________________________________________

  "There is almost no limit to what you can accomplish,
  if you are willing to give away the credit."
____________________________________________________









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                    UFO Research News In German Newspaper

From: Werner Walter <cenap@addcom.de>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:04:00 +0200
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:06:22 -0400
Subject: UFO Research News In German Newspaper


The UFO Buster gives an identity to the unidentified - in
English.

Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

http://www.faz.com/IN/INtemplates/eFAZ/docmain.asp?rub={B1311FCC-FBFB-11D2-B228-
00105A9CAF88}&doc={27286BCF-37BB-11D5-A3B5-009027BA22E4}


Werner Walter

CENAP-Mannheim, URL: http://www.alien.de/cenap
UFO-Hotline 0621-701370
Herausgeber des Print-Medium CENAP REPORT









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                            Jordanian 'Meteorite'

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:38:52 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:08:29 -0400
Subject: Jordanian 'Meteorite'


Ladies & Gentlemen:

This object almost certainly was not a meteorite, if the witness
accounts of it's impact are accurate. I wonder how close to the
border this town is? My bet is that somebody's rocket went in
the wrong direction, or landed short. A meteorite would be a
good cover story.

http://english.hk.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/technology/afp/article.html?s=hk
e/headlines/010423/technology/afp/Meteorite_crashes_near_mourning_Jordanian_vill
age.html

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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:29:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:13:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:58:26 -0500

 >"The Hills told author John G. Fuller that the object moved
 >closer, now filling the entire field of view through the
 >binoculars. Reportedly, the intense stare of the 'leader,' as
 >Barney said he thought of him, was profoundly unnerving. When
 >interviewed a mere month after the alleged events by Walter
 >Webb, Barney said he could now see the figures without the
 >glasses. He estimated the object to be about 75 feet away at
 >this point."

 >Of course one could argue that putting a qualifier in each
 >statement slows reading and results in a rather stitled and
 >bloated style - probably exactly why the narrative summary was
 >invented in the first place. Too many allegedlys and reportedlys
 >arguably spoileth the broth.

 >The trade-off or alternative, though, is that testimony about
 >the thing is accepted, treated and presented as the thing
 >itself, which it can never be.

I'd like to add my own "amen" to what Dennis is saying here. I
mean to affirm this as a  general principle, not to get involved
in debate about the Hill case or eyewitness testimony.

But the effect of not citing the source of every allegation is
often to make things seem more plausible than they otherwise
might - and sometimes also more dramatic. For an example of
blown-up drama, you can find case summaries in Keyhoe's books
where a pilot sees a "light," which, a sentence or two later,
becomes an "object," and then, a bit further down, a "craft,"
all without any evidence that anything more solid than a light
was involved. Keyhoe, by all accounts, was a careful reporter,
in the sense that he didn't recount anything that he didn't have
good reason to think happened. But the meaning of the encounters
gets a bit inflated in the telling.

One paranormal area that suffered from this badly is the Bermuda
Triangle literature. Writers apparently copied stories from each
other, without ever checking to see if they were true. Finally
Lawrence Kusche went back to primary sources (ships' logs,
newspapers of the time, insurance records) and found that most
of the popular Bermuda triangle tales were myths. Ships that
allegedly disappeared in fine weather, leaving no trace turned
out never to have existed, or to have been unseaworthy wrecks
that sank in violent storms, leaving debris widely scattered.
The books, meanwhile, told far more dramatic stories in a tone
that implies absolute truth. If the writers had cited sources
for every allegation, at least we'd have seen that they were
simply repeating what was in earlier books.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                       2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:27:55 +0200
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:16:25 -0400
Subject: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray


On November 12, 2000 I posted a comment answering (only half
tongue in cheek) Mr. Sandow's petition about a main SF film
showing abduction iconography but predating abductions.

I suggested "2001: A Space Odissey" but Mr. Sandow did not care
to comment, as usual with my arguments.

Well, by pure serendipity, I have discovered a new point for my
case.

We, HPS-ers, have long pointed to Whitley Strieber's best seller
"Communion" as the main culprit for spreading the Grey face
image (with its big black eyes) all over the world, in the cover
of his book.

But now, I have discovered that 20 years before, another alien
face stared to the people (at least in the USA). This face
showed a big head, a small nose, a simple line as mouth and two
big human eyes. It was the Star Child from the 2001 film.

Reading a Spanish book about the Kubrick film (pag. 72, "2001.
La Odisea contina", Raul Alda, Ediciones Jaguar, Madrid, 2001,
ISBN: 84-89960-83-6) I found myself staring at a frontal
close-up of the Star Child's face in an Americam promotional
poster of the time, under the heading "the ultimate trip".

Exactly, up to the _normal_ eyes, as Travis Walton described his
aliens.


Yours,

Luis R. Gonzlez 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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                        Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?

From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:56:59 -0300 (BRT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:20:28 -0400
Subject: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?


Hello friends,

I am looking for images of the dummies used by the Air Force and
then blamed to the the cause of the Roswell beings.

Can someone help me?


Regards,

Thiago Luiz Ticchetti

-----------------------------------------------------
Enviado pelo Webmail OPENGATE - Solues Tecnolgicas









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                       Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:33:29 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:23:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:38:23 -0500

 >>>Jerry, John, Dick, List,

 >>>I hope no one minds if I chime in with my two cents...

 >>>One of the things that has always bothered me about some of the
 >>>best UFO cases (and by extension, the question of eyewitness
 >>>testimony/reliability) is their inherent lack of compatibility.

 >>>Viz, let's take four cases that I assume both Jerry & Dick would
 >>>take as indicative of the ETH:

 >>>1) Kenneth Arnold
 >>>2) Papua, New Guinea
 >>>3) Socorro
 >>>4) Coyne helicopter case

 >><snip>

 >>Dennis,

 >>I would like to preface my reply by saying that I consider you
 >>to be a well-informed, literate, skeptic in the traditional
 >>sense of that word, which I would simply define as, "He doubts,
 >>but he is willing to listen to arguments and examine evidence."

 >>That being said, since when should anyone be tasked with finding
 >>meaningful patterns in only four cases? What I could do would be
 >>to take each of the four cases you cite and show you many dozens
 >>or hundreds of very similar reports (and there is some
 >>objective, physical evidence in many cases). Let's take your
 >>chosen examples one at a time:

 >Dick,

 >Thanks for you comments.

 >And that being said, I didn't task you with "finding meaningful
 >patterns in only four cases." I said you were free to name your
 >own number of cases, be it ten, or a hundred, or more, though
 >the former are nice round numbers.

Dennis,

Sure could have fooled me! That's exactly what you asked, though
it may not have been intended that way. I can name hundreds of
cases, but no one wants to hear about that, much less to
actually read and study those cases, as you and Bob Young both
have amply demonstrated. "Inherent lack of compatibility"
clearly is in the eye of the beholder.

 >What I did ask for was a theory that would encompass the great number
 >of unknown structured objects reported in our skies. I also suggested
 >Roswell, Rendlesham, and a few other cases that I thought would
 >be on your own list. My point was the same one Hynek made when
 >he spoke of an "embarrassment of riches": there are enough
 >disparate objects and behaviors reported to require something
 >more than a simple ET hypothesis. To cite but one example, even
 >the Drake equation has conservative and optimistic
 >interpretations, just as there is a Weak and Strong Anthropic
 >Prinicple, depending on how one wishes to weigh each and all
 >particulars that go to making it up.

Oh, so now I am required to explain why and how they are here?
Also, your statement that "there are enough disparate objects
and behaviors reported to require something more than a simple
[your word] ET hypothesis" continues to brush aside the now
well-established fact that STRONG patterns of appearance,
behavior, performance are clearly visible in the data.

Aside from the fact that I thought "simple" (Occam's Razor) was
good in the skeptical viewpoint, I will make the same challenge
to you that I did to Bob Young (so far unanswered): If the
witnesses are indeed actually seeing what they claim they are
seeing (i.e., distinctly craftlike objects in all respects),
what would your hypothesis be? By the way, I still haven't seen
any indication that you (or Bob) understand what a "hypothesis"
is.

Your only overall rebuttal that I see is, "they can't be,
therefore they aren't."

 >>1. Kenneth Arnold

 >>Silvery objects flying in formation, undulating flight pattern?
 >>Duck soup.

 >You've taken two aspects of the Arnold case and turned them to
 >your advantage. No harm in that, but it dodges the general
 >issues I was raising. How does your ET hypothesis account for
 >_all_ the colors, formations or lack thereof, and flight
 >behaviors to be found in the UFO literature at large? And where
 >did Arnold's actual objects _go_? Were they on a one-time
 >visitor's pass or are they still around? Cite another sighting
 >of the exact same object(s) at a later date, not a reference to
 >patterns.

I have dodged nothing. Arnold's case was not among my chosen
examples. However, cases very much like his in the broad
features have been reported innumerable times. My ET hypothesis
"accounts" for the various colors, shapes, performances by
showing and analyzing the very strong patterns in the hundreds
or thousands of good cases now on record.

If there were no such patterns, the psychosocial theory might
well prevail. The fact that there are such patterns puts the lie
to the psychosocial theory. (If you can dignify it by calling it
a theory, rather than a denial of data.)

 >>2. Papua, New Guinea

 >>Craft-like object with basic disc shape, superstructure and
 >>legs? Many hundreds of cases. Beings associated with "craft." No
 >>problem.

 >The problem is not whether other basic disc shapes have been
 >reported in association with legs and beings, but whether Father
 >Gill's exact same UFO was ever seen or reported again. If not,
 >then your theory must somehow account for all the other patterns
 >that didn't exactly match. Different UFO manufacturers?
 >Different alien species for each ship? It's your theory, you
 >tell me.

I'm not sure what you mean by "exact same UFO," but discs with
domes and legs and very often with visible beings have been
reported lots of times. You're not aware of that? I guess you're
not well-informed after all. Are you taking about tagged animals
here so that we can identify the exact same specimen, or are we
talking about recurring features and patterns? As I re-read your
above comment, I find it hard to believe that you mean it
seriously.

 >>3. Socorro

 >>Elliptical shape (with legs). One of the most common reported
 >>configurations. Beings alongside? Not uncommon at all.

 >Here you're being selective again - and I hope not
 >disingenuously so - as I clearly referenced the roar and blue
 >flames that Zamorra reported. How common are _they_? How common
 >in association with the elliptical shape, legs, and beings? You
 >can no doubt argue that the insignia Zamorra reported is a
 >pattern, too, but I'm greedy - I want all the patterns in place
 >enough times so that that itself is a pattern. Or maybe all I
 >want in patterns is consistency. So where are the tens or
 >hundreds of UFO cases that involve an elliptical object with
 >legs and beings, an insignia on the side, and which emit orange
 >and blue flames when landing and taking off?

Oh, wow! At this point I can only say that to fully answer your
questions and demands would require me writing a book to present
all the evidence in support of my statements. Er, how can I say
this? I have already written that book and it is far too lengthy
to repeat online for your benefit.

In it you will find ample reporting and discussion of shapes,
legs, beings, flames, sounds, other indicators of propulsion,
etc. What you really seem to want, like Bob, is a saucer in the
laboratory. Don't we all?

 >Apart from that, where is the ET theory that would remotely
 >begin to posit the small craft Zamorra saw as capable of
 >interstellar travel? Gonna need one of those Mother Ships,
 >aren't you?

Who knows? Maybe.

 >>4. Coyne helicopter encounter.

 >>Typical configuration, typical body lights and light beam, etc.,
 >>etc.

 >Well, you may think all those things are "typical," but I'm
 >compelled to reach for my quote marks. Again, where is the
 >pattern of UFOs grabbing helicopters with green tractor beams,
 >and how does that fit into your ETH?

See above.

 >>Also, I have "put my name behind" cases that I think are
 >>hardcore, representative examples. I think you acknowledged
 >>reading my ISSO article.

 >>Now, I have said you are well-informed. But if you are not truly
 >>aware of the many hundreds of reports of this type, maybe I will
 >>have to withdraw that statement. Maybe you need to do some more
 >>reading.

 >Dick, you must have forgotten that I edited the MUFON Journal
 >for 12 years: I didn't have time to read the UFO literature!
 ><BG>And then there's The Field Guide to UFOs, which I
 >co-authored with Patrick Huyghe, in which I make some of the
 >same pattern arguments as you do, but about which, late at
 >night, I still have my doubts. Mainly because I could never
 >quite come up with a comprehensive theory for all of them which
 >was convincing enough to convince me of it.

I'm not into "comprehensive theories." As Brad Sparks has
suggested, proper study of this intriguing mystery would require
100 McDonalds fully funded for fulltime work. I'm just a humble
layman who is suggesting a hypothesis based on a lot of data.
It's not my job to "prove" it.

 >Now, you just have to explain why there are so dang many alien
 >Porsches, Cadillacs, Bugattis, Surburbans and Land Cruisers
 >buzzing around out there, as if lithium crystals, or whatever
 >they use as fuel, were as cheap as a barrel of Saudi Arabian
 >crude.

As someone else pointed out, you have answered the question yourself.


Dick










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                       Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:48:20 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:25:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hall


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:31:26 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:40:19 -0300
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:29:55 +0100

 >>>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:22:17 -0300
 >>>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>>Now if you are on quicksand already with the first sighting then
 >>>>47 years later, I think it's a mistake to start writing off
 >>>>another sighting [number 2] stating the faulty reasoning of the
 >>>>first as a precedent. Again this is a case of the outside agent
 >>>>second guessing the witnesses, and very credible and reliable
 >>>>witnesses at that... with considerably more experience than the
 >>>>"experts" at describing and encountering aerial phenomenon.

 >>>I appreciate that point, of course.

 >>>But - pilots may be experts at flying. They are not experts at
 >>>seeing fireball meteors as these are rare enough for most air
 >>>crew never to see one.

 >Hi Jenny, Don, List,

 >I just have to step in here and ask: How is it possible that
 >"most" pilots, air crew, have never seen a single fireball
 >meteor in their entire lives? Considering how much sky viewing
 >pilots must necessarily do, and their ability to cover a much
 >larger volume of space from an unimpeded panoramic view in the
 >air than lay people on the ground, this seems rather incredible.
 >Surely there must be some statistics somewhere. Once upon a
 >time there was a VFON (Volunteer Flight Officers Network) headed
 >by a Herb Roth that compiled reports of satellite/space
 >re-entries and meteors from airline pilots. But I have no idea
 >whatever became of VFON, its files, whether it ever issued
 >reports, etc.

Brad,

Herb Roth was a pilot trainer for United Airlines in Denver, now
retired. The VFON reports exist, one set of them in the Donald
E. Keyhoe Archives, including quite a few very interesting UFO
reports.


Dick







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:01:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:28:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:50:56 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:56:08 -0400

 >>>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:56:00 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


 >Jerry Clark said a while ago, trying to explain the difference
 >between 'good sceptics' and 'debunkers', something like "when a
 >ufologist explains a case it stays explained", with the
 >implication that 'debunkers' explanations soon crumble. But I
 >think a more realistic statement would be "If I agree with the
 >explanation of a case, it was done by a ufologist. If I don't
 >agree, then the explanation is the work of a debunker".

Oh, John, don't you wish it were so? But as all of us (except
debunkers and other true believers) come to understand
eventually, wishing won't make it so.

The historical context of my remark ought to have been clear:
any number of failed debunkings by everybody from Menzel to Blue
Book to Klass to Easton, and on and on. Debunkings, as Bruce
Maccabee and James McDonald, among others, have demonstrated,
are sometimes extraordinary claims in themselves, violating
principles of _known_ science and sometimes reaching to
phenomena that are themselves controversial or disputed (e.g.,
ball lightning). Moreover, as Brad Sparks likes to point out,
debunkers frequently propose multiple explanations, with no
acknowledgement that they or the colleagues they never deign to
criticize have proposed other, mutually exclusive "explanations"
before. They fall all over themselves, in short, but can be
counted on to take extreme umbrage when some impolite soul
remarks on the obvious.

Where debunkers get into trouble is in operating from the a
priori belief that nothing anomalous is going on, and thus any
old explanation, as long as it purports to be conventional, will
do, however much it does violence to whatever evidence is
available. When their critics show that it doesn't, debunkers
get mad and resort to the name-calling with which we are all
sadly familiar. Meantime, all the indignant huffing and puffing
aside, the cases remain unsolved, and the debate about their
significance continues.

In the framework in which ufologists operate, most sightings are
_expected_ to be amenable to prosaic identification, and thus
ufologists have no trouble finding or accepting a reasonable
explanation for any particular case if it is convincingly
demonstrated. That's why ufologists end up as more effective
debunkers than those for whom debunking is the first principle:
every ostensible UFO doesn't _have_ to be a UFO. For the
debunker, though, _every_ UFO has to be some species of IFO
(however imaginatively defined).


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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:59:55 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:31:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:31:26 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:40:19 -0300
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:16:14 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:29:55 +0100

 >>>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:22:17 -0300
 >>>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>>Now if you are on quicksand already with the first sighting then
 >>>>47 years later, I think it's a mistake to start writing off
 >>>>another sighting [number 2] stating the faulty reasoning of the
 >>>>first as a precedent. Again this is a case of the outside agent
 >>>>second guessing the witnesses, and very credible and reliable
 >>>>witnesses at that... with considerably more experience than the
 >>>>"experts" at describing and encountering aerial phenomenon.

 >>>I appreciate that point, of course.
 >
 >>>But - pilots may be experts at flying. They are not experts at
 >>>seeing fireball meteors as these are rare enough for most air
 >>>crew never to see one.

 ><snip>

 >Hi Jenny, Don, List,

 >I just have to step in here and ask: How is it possible that
 >"most" pilots, air crew, have never seen a single fireball
 >meteor in their entire lives? Considering how much sky viewing
 >pilots must necessarily do, and their ability to cover a much
 >larger volume of space from an unimpeded panoramic view in the
 >air than lay people on the ground, this seems rather incredible.
 >Surely there must be some statistics somewhere. Once upon a
 >time there was a VFON (Volunteer Flight Officers Network) headed
 >by a Herb Roth that compiled reports of satellite/space
 >re-entries and meteors from airline pilots. But I have no idea
 >whatever became of VFON, its files, whether it ever issued
 >reports, etc.


Hi Brad,

I'd be very surprised if there were not many fireball/meteor
sightings by pilots. I know the Canadian Govt./National Research
Council was interested enough to set up a network of astronomers
across Canada to track these objects. They took on the
responsibility for "investigating" UFOs in early 1968 - which
they did not-in order to sift out the fireball/meteor reports
from the UFO reports for their own purposes.

There were pilot reports included in that - some of which were
pilot CIRVIS reports. The latter were supposed to be reported
under the NSA up here and subject to the usual penalties for
disclosure to the media etc. Could be that was the reason why
many did not show up here for years and possibly for the same
reason in the States?

The other thing to consider is the actual number of real F/M
reports there are in any event-worldwide. These things have to
be large enough to survive a trip through the atmosphere and if
that's the case then they would probably make it to the ground
or ocean. At mean airliner and military levels of say 40,000
feet and downwards they would not be visible very long before
impact. 2-3 seconds at most?

I know there is much throwing around of fireballs as a possible
reason for UFO sightings, but correct me if I'm wrong but aren't
they a relative rarity?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:13:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:32:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 13:52:11 -0400

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:42:53 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:51:41 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy

<snip>

 >Perhaps you ought to subscribe to Aerospace Projects Review
 >before you make statements everything converging up the
 >technological line. Some of the things in that magazine don't
 >remotely have the appearance of V-2's

<snip>


Jan,

Maybe I will. In the meantime, are all those things in that
magazine that don't remotely resemble V-2s actually flying? Are
they putting payloads into space even as we speak?

Just curious.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:22:56 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:35:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Ledger


 >Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:50:56 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:56:08 -0400

 >>>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:56:00 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

<snip>

 >>We could also make lists of skeptics who declare witnesses
 >>didn't see what they reported, in order to make the skeptic's
 >>explanation of the sighting work. (Klass, for instance, said
 >>Coyne didn't operate the helicopter the way he said he did;
 >>Sheaffer said Betty Hill didn't see lights in the sky in the
 >>positions she said she did.)

 >The Coyne case has been discussed on another branch of this
 >thread. I simply repeat that it is only one small - but vital -
 >part of the witness testimony that is under question. I find it
 >quite plausible that a highly trained helicopter pilot might,
 >without thinking or conscious recall, take action to correct a
 >dangerous situation. Isn't that what being "highly trained" is
 >all about?


Hi John,

First of all, what does Phil Klass know about the operation of a
helicopter?

Second I believe _you_ are referring to dumping the chopper into
a 1,000 foot plus drop.

Do you have any idea what happens in a freefall like that?

What happens during such a violent maneauver is probably the
reason why Coyne is positing the tractor beam possibility. He's
wondering how they pulled that off without some type of
structural damage or failure.

What's your expertise here?

Klass should have known better.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:52:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:37:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:50:56 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >I suppose in the best traditions of this list I should say "Read
 >the Collected Works of... (insert sceptics name here)" and
 >announce that anyone who does not the agree with me is
 >"uninformed" or has not read the literature sufficiently
 >diligently. However, I shall try to be a little more
 >constructive.

 >One example that comes to mind, where sceptical ufologists
 >carefully examined witness accounts and came to conclusion
 >different from the witnesses' assumptions, is the Cracoe Fell
 >case in Yorkshire, northern England. A full account can be found
 >in Clarke, Randles and Roberts's book "The UFOs That Never Were"
 >(one of the 'Collected Works' I would have people read)

Thanks for all of this. Your examples are interesting, and I've
just ordered the book from Amazon.

 >I can give you a case, personally investigated but unfortunately
 >not documented, where a witness 'saw' the Moon fly over them.
 >But that is, of course, only anecdotal testimony. I am curious
 >as to at what point you *would* question eyewitness testimony. I
 >am sure you don't believe that all witness reports should be
 >taken as unchallengable, objective records of events. Just where
 >would you draw the line, and begin to suspect that things might
 >not quite have happened exactly as the witness described?

A fair question. I'd begin my answer by saying that I always
suspect things might not have happened exactly as the witness
described. For instance, I spent some time in Pine Bush, a town
not far from New York famous as an alleged UFO hot spot. It was
easy to find local people who said they'd seen UFOs. Twice
people told me that something passed overhead, silent, blocking
out the sky, all lit up, "as big as the Enterprise" (or, to be
precise, as big as they'd expect the Enterprise to be, since
obviously they've never seen a fictional starship).

My immediate reaction was to wonder whether those reports were
accurate. Could these people be exaggerating? Were they lying?
Making things up? I couldn't come to any conclusion, though the
more I talked to these people, the more it seemed that either
the reports were true, or false - they weren't likely to be a
misinterpretation of something known. (Though I'd welcome being
shown why I could be wrong about that.)

Another group of people told me they'd been in the fields near
the town one night and been frightened by a UFO that came down
from the sky right at them. This I was much more skeptical
about. For one thing, they said they ran away, so they couldn't
amplify their report by saying they saw the UFO actually land.
But, much more important, I myself had an experience that seems
like theirs, but which was easy to explain. There's a busy
airport (Stewart International Airport) right near Pine Bush,
and when you stand at night in the field where these people said
they saw their UFO, you see a plane every minute or so making a
descent to the airport, appearing to fly along a line of hills
some distance behind the field.

At one point, while I was out there, a plane diverged from the
usual pattern, and appeared for one shocking moment to be
heading right toward us. This was essentially an optical
illusion, caused, I'd guess, by the surprise of seeing something
that varied so much from the routine pattern. The plane actually
wasn't anywhere near us. It just turned in our direction, and
briefly came closer. Then it returned to the usual pattern. I'm
willing to guess that those frightened witnesses saw something
like this. It doesn't violate anything in what they told me
(they weren't at all specific in their accounts), and would
explain their fright, since, after talking to them for just a
few minutes, it was clear to me that they were eager to see
UFOs, and could have been wildly suggestible.

In a different category are people who've told me they've seen
classic flying saucers, which they describe in detail, hovering
very close to them. In one case, the craft was allegedly
hovering over a house across the street from the witness's home,
in a New York suburb. In the other case, the craft was allegedly
hovering right outside the witness's window, late at night in
the back of a house on a quiet street in a midwestern college
town. The witness said the craft was close enough to touch, if
her roommate had held her arm so she wouldn't fall out the
window.

To me, there's no way to know if these stories are true or not.
In neither case did the witness seem to have any reason to tell
a lie - but on the other hand, these aren't people I know all
that well, so my view of them may not be worth much. I could try
to find corroboration - people in the area who might have seen
these craft, if they were really there, and especially the
second witness's roommate, who didn't show up on a brief search
I made on the Net.

If the roommate said she didn't see the thing, I'd reject the
story, since the witness said she and her roommate saw it
together. But without any other evidence pro or con, I can't
accept these stories or reject them. I can't accept them,
because I have no way of knowing if they're true. And I can't
reject them, because I don't have any way of knowing that
they're false. I'm certainly not going to reject them simply
because I can make a long list of reasons why people don't
always report the truth. I have no way of knowing whether any of
those reasons apply in these cases.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Cecchini

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:00:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:39:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Cecchini


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 13:52:11 -0400

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:42:53 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:51:41 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy

 >>As you go up the ladder, however, your design options get
 >>increasingly limited.

 >>Now, if you want to believe (or think, if you prefer) that "out
 >>there" is absolutely teeming with ET species and designs capable
 >>of visiting the Earth on what seemingly amounts to a whim, using
 >>essentially free sources of energy, then I have no answer for
 >>you. Or at least not one that you would likely consider.

 >If you look at the 7th US Fleet there are a wide difference in
 >vessels, auxilaries, aircraft, and ground vehicles and
 >submarines as part of the compliment. Even more weird looking
 >craft waiting in the wings to provide support if called upon.
 >Floating dry docks, and submarine rescue vessels.

Hi Jan,

I agree you with you about the potential fallacy in thinking
that all ET crafts would look the same, but I was curious -

 >The problem with ETH is why have we not observed ground of sea
 >activity associated with such an expedition. Another words, why
 >just vehicles in the sky. Why not exotic vehicles on the ground
 >and in/under the seas?

Haven't there been a good number of alleged sightings of craft
plunging into and coming out of the water?

And then, of course, there's Shag Harbour.

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I know I've read about
alleged sightings of crafts actually "diving" into the _ground_.

At any rate...


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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:02:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:43:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 13:52:11 -0400

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:42:53 -0500
 >>UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy

 >Perhaps you ought to subscribe to Aerospace Projects Review
 >before you make statements everything converging up the
 >technological line. Some of the things in that magazine don't
 >remotely have the appearance of V-2's


Jan,

I went to the URL below, and most of the graphics were x'ed out,
but I'll try it again later.

http://www.awc.net/ptm/apr/aprnv0n0.htm

Not exactly mainstream stuff, apparently.

In the meantime, you might ask the folks at APR if they're of a
mind to redesign a new artillerry shell, or three or four, each
one varying significantly from the other. Maybe we could go back
to cannonballs?

I think, though, that you've mostly missed my point, and misread
my post in the bargain. Wanna try again?

I distinctly said that there are any number of ways that you can
move through air and water or over land. If so inclined, you can
put flippers, wheels, and wings on a Kenmore refrigerator if you
want. I assume you could even put some booster rockets on the
Kenmore and shoot it into space, if you were so inclined. So
what?

At some point, form follows function, assuming intelligent
designers.

I was addressing the problem of a design that would perform both
in thin space and a thick atmosphere, among other things.

Care to contribute?

 >I don't want get into defending ETH, but your argument seem
 >rather weak. And has been dealt with decades ago. Have UFO
 >Evidence I?  Take a look in the back. (Sorry, Roger.)

Well, if it was dealt with decades ago, I guess I shouldn't
bring it up again, right?

 >The problem with ETH is why have we not observed ground of sea
 >activity associated with such an expedition. Another words, why
 >just vehicles in the sky. Why not exotic vehicles on the ground
 >and in/under the seas?

Are you reading the same literture I yam? Better watch your
grammar, too, or JC will be all over you. I could barely make
sense out of that last graf.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                            Project 1947 Website

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:18:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:46:47 -0400
Subject: Project 1947 Website


Both the Project 1947 website:

www.project1947.com

and the Sign Historical Group website:

www.project1947.com/shg/

were off line from the 19th of April until late this afternoon.
The outage was caused by several factors, hackers, change of ISP
and other problems. We are back again and foresee no further
problems. A number new items are in the works and should be
announced soon.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                 Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 02:16:19 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:52:42 -0400
Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Young


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:28:17 EDT
 >Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:36:55 -0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:21:45 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >The point being is the amount of the car wrecks would be the
 >same if the local paper reported the news, or if a researcher
 >started researching the subject. But when the subject matter is
 >not being covered by the local press or a researcher... it's as
 >if it doesn't happen and might suggest to the ill informed that
 >accidents are very _rare_ if they even happen at all.

Hi, Robert and John:

My point being that "UFO hotspots", as defined by Johnson, may
simply be artifacts of the number of _reports_ (not necessarily
sightings) received in the vicinity of investigators.

Stan Gordon and I have our differences about UFOs, but the guy
is certainly energetic. He sends out press releases, makes media
appearances, I think he still has a phone hotline, etc., and he
and his friends have been active in Westmoreland County for at
least 20 years (remember the Kecksburg "UFO Crash"?).


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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                 Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 03:00:02 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:55:10 -0400
Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Velez


 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 21:55:08 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line

 >>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:36:55 -0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line
 >
 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:21:45 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Tidbit #2 - On the website, Don Johnson's interesting list of
 >>>"UFO hotspots" in the U.S. provides some food for thought. I
 >>>notice that in Pennsylvania there are only two, the most
 >>>prominent being Westmoreland County, just east of Pittsburgh.
 >>>Both of these locations are where active UFO investigators are
 >>>based. Westmoreland County has been the location of Stan Gordon
 >>>and his groups for the past 20 years.

 >>>Unless the ETs have redlined the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
 >>>for some reason (maybe they are allergic to coal dust), it seems
 >>>that the population of potential witnesses is not nearly as
 >>>important as the population of investigators who stimulate and
 >>>collect reports.

 >>That's not a fair comment on two counts Bob.

 >>1. _Of course_ an area where someone is actively working to
 >>gather 'local' sighting reports is going to have 'more reported
 >>sightings' than an area where no researchers (or information
 >>gatherers if you will) are known to exist. (by the locals) If
 >>you can "accuse" them of anything, maybe it's for being a bit
 >>too "provincial" (local) in their data gathering.

 >>2. I'm not comfortable with your use of the word "stimulate" to
 >>kind of explain the number of reports these local guys gather.
 >>As if their mere "presence" or in the worst case, "influence"
 >>has something to do with the number of reports they receive.

Hi John, hi All,

John wrote:

 >I think you're being oversensitive here, John. The presence of
 >an active investigator certainly stimulates the numbers of
 >reports from a particular area - but not necessarily the number
 >of events.

Maybe I am being a little sensitive, but the distinction you
made above was not made clear in Bob's original statement. I was
"covering the base" (as the boys in the neighborhood used to
say) just in case it was meant negatively. As I have told Bob in
a separate response; I've heard the accusation (negative
connotation) so many times that I may in fact be developing a
kind of 'knee-jerk' reaction to it when I hear it mentioned.
Only human. It's something I'll have to watch for in myself.  ;)

 >One of the problems with getting accurate statistics
 >on numbers of UFO events is that most people who experience them
 >have no clear idea where to report them. Some go to the police,
 >some to the Air Force, some to a local paper or radio or TV
 >station. Many others just keep schtum.

My personal feeling is that the vast majority of folks opt for
keeping their mouths shut. It makes one  wonder how many
(actual) sightings there are each year that go unreported. I'm
certain that the number of reports would instantly quadruple
over night if 'everybody' reported.

 >The presence of an active investigator, especially one who is
 >well-known locally throgh the media, will "stimulate" reports
 >just by his/her presence. There is nothing unfair in pointing
 >this out - it's just commonsense.

It's all in the 'spin' that is put on it when it is being
presented. Bob left it open to a double entende interpretation.
Part of my 'sensitivity' may stem from the fact that
"investigator influence" (negative interpretation) is an old saw
and one that is recycled fairly regularly. Although 'influence'
(negative) from any investigator is a legitimate and valid
concern, it is used all too often in a 'broad brush' fashion
that only seeks to paint all concerned with the same color.
Regardless of 'actual' guilt.

 >Now I am not suggesting for one moment that Ken went around
 >persuading people to produce UFO reports or staged hoaxes, but
 >his presence did "stimulate" reports (reports, note, not
 >events), as is clear from the fact that after moving from the
 >area, the number of reports from Milton Keynes declined rapidly.
 >People just knew who to report UFOs to. Many reports which
 >otherwise would never have seen the light of day were placed on
 >record because of the "influence" of this individual.

All well and good, and I am in complete agreement as _stated_ by
yourself in the preceding.

 >I cannot see how you can object to the suggestion that the
 >presence of an active investigator will have a statistically
 >significant effect on the number of UFO reports from a
 >particular area.

See my last response.  ;)

BTW, thanx for the URL to that polygraph website. It was
informative and a real eye opener. I had no idea there was quite
that much contention within the field and among its
practitioners. Interesting.  :)


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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                     CSETI's Disclosure Project Briefing

From: Steven <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 06:21:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:00:54 -0400
Subject: CSETI's Disclosure Project Briefing


It has now been confirmed that May 9th is the date of the
Disclosure Project Briefing in the National Press Club in
Washington DC.

http://www.cseti.org/
http://www.cseti.org/position/greer/disclosureupdate02.htm

This event is closed to the publics, and apparently the press
will only be allowed to attend by invitation only. A request
from the Fund for UFO Research (FUFOR) for two invitations was
denied; however, it is still hoped that we can get a clear
picture of how the session goes. A "V.I.P." briefing will be
held on May 10th, and a public full day briefing is to be held
on Saturday, May 12th.


Steve Kaeser









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                     Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:37:58 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:04:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Randles


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:31:26 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:40:19 -0300
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:16:14 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Hatch

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:29:55 +0100

 >>>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:22:17 -0300
 >>>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>>But - pilots may be experts at flying. They are not experts at
 >>>seeing fireball meteors as these are rare enough for most air
 >>>crew never to see one.

 ><snip>

 >Hi Jenny, Don, List,

 >I just have to step in here and ask: How is it possible that
 >"most" pilots, air crew, have never seen a single fireball
 >meteor in their entire lives? Considering how much sky viewing
 >pilots must necessarily do, and their ability to cover a much
 >larger volume of space from an unimpeded panoramic view in the
 >air than lay people on the ground, this seems rather incredible.
 >Surely there must be some statistics somewhere. Once upon a
 >time there was a VFON (Volunteer Flight Officers Network) headed
 >by a Herb Roth that compiled reports of satellite/space
 >re-entries and meteors from airline pilots. But I have no idea
 >whatever became of VFON, its files, whether it ever issued
 >reports, etc.

Hi,

Its a question of statistics. Most air crew will have seen
meteors, of course, as they are fairly common. Most Ufologists
will have seen them,too, if they pay any real attention to the
sky. And some meteors can be pretty bright and interesting to
observe.

However, fireball meteors are much rarer and even the majority
of astronomers that I have spoken with regard them as a
once-in-a-lifetime event that quite a few were still waiting to
experience.

So, yes, it is true that pilots have a better chance than you or
I of seeing a fireball meteor, but if you do the back of the
envelope calculations on how many average hours a pilot flies
and how frequent are these spectacular events you will realise
that most pilots statistically will still probably not see one.
Although, of course, more pilots will than people tucked up in
bed!

However, I was impressed by Mr McCoy's statement of his
experience and I admit no actual stats exist  as far as I know.
So his example could mean I would have to rethink this concept
if it were borne out more broadly. Although it remains unclear
if these things he saw were simply bright meteors or fireball
meteors - the latter of which are characterised by their long
trail and much slower motion.  I have seen a spectacularly
bright meteor also (over the same location where the British
Airways sighting occurred) - but it 'was' just a meteor not a
fireball meteor.

Nonetheless, it is over simplistic to suggest that I have sought
to reject eyewitness testimony in this case and impose my view
of what the British Airways crew saw on anybody else. I know the
pilots don't agree with me. I know that the CAA (Civil Aviation
Authority) don't either - because one of their officials told me
- although they did not actually pursue my line of thinking in
reaching their 'UFO' conclusion. So its a case of opinion versus
opinion.

My opinion on this case was formed primarily from past
experience of how other witnesses have described their
perception of an event which is not open to question. In these
instances (eg the Cosmos 1068 burn up) everyone 0 even
Ufologists - accepts  they 'did' see a space junk / fireball
meteor event and yet they 'did' describe it as a structured
rocket shape with windows. The similarities between the
testimony in these cases and the Chiles Whitted and BA sightings
are too clear cut to merely ignore.

 From this it is perfectly reasonable to form the conclusion that
when other cases occur where the same description is offered by
witnesses and circumstances indicate that a space junk / bolide
resolution is feasible that this possibility should be given due
consideration.

That's really all I have ever done. I form this opinion from
facts - not polemics - and have always made clear that it is my
reasoning about the facts of that case with which anyone else is
happy to agree or disagree. Nor have I ever suggested that I am
'right' - although obviously I do personally consider this
explanation to be most likely correct in this instance.

What is wrong is to read into this any attempt to disrespect
witnesses or tell them what they have seen. I don't do either of
those things. But I do know what I think here and why and do not
think there is anything to feel ashamed about in saying that.

After all Ufologists exist to try to find answers - not to
reassure witnesses that they did see what they think they saw.
Sometimes these interests happily coincide, and one should never
openly rebuke a witness, of course. But when the choice is
between saying what you believe to be the truth about a sighting
and soft soaping a witnesses ego, unfortunately Ufologists have
to side with truth.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                 Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:43:15 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:07:25 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Ledger

 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates
 >Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:51:00 +0100

 >>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 05:22:55 -0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

 ><snip>

 >>I'm certain that Dick Hall, or Jerry Clark, or Stan Friedman or
 >>Jenny Randles etc., have never come anywhere near being properly
 >>compensated for all the time and work it takes to research and
 >>write their books. Maybe it's because, as you say, you have
 >>never written a book, that you have no appreciation for the
 >>effort and labor that is involved.

 >Hi,

 >Books are indeed very expensive to buy - which is why I don't
 >blame people for not doing so. I couldn't afford to do this
 >regularly and use my library a good deal.

 >In addition I purchase whatever stock I can as soon as a
 >publisher deletes a title of mine and in this way offer my own
 >work to anyone who wants to read it for prices that are much
 >more affordable . The prices at which I can then retail these
 >books cover costs rather than make me any money. This is only
 >possible in limited numbers and with some of my books but if I
 >can then I do this.

 >Its one way to say thanks.

 >But authors have no say in what price a book is sold for in a
 >commercial sense when first released by a publisher. We usually
 >find out not long before you all do as to what it is being sold
 >for in the stores.

 >Nor do authors get a lot of money from that purchase price. A
 >book that sells for say $10 will bring to me as author only a
 >few cents once all the discounts are taken off ($1 is the
 >maximum you would get - but very rarely anything like that finds
 >its way to the author ). The vast majority of the price of the
 >book goes to cover publishers/ retailers/ printers and various
 >other costs.

 >As for up front payments I don't mind telling you what I get in
 >that regard. You wouldn't  be living in Rio on the proceeds!

 >For my first book ('UFOs: A British Viewpoint') I got �250 ($400).

 >With 'Something in the Air' (my 45th book over 20 years later)
 >the advance was �1500 (that's around $2300). This is pretty
 >typical of what I get for my books.

 >It compensates me for several months or so writing full time -
 >not to mention the research leading up to it.

 >I do occasionally get a little more for a book - maybe two or
 >three times this sum with certain publishers and certain books
 >(although the better paid ones tend not to be UFO related -
 >indeed the ones that have made me the most have all had nothing
 >to do with UFOs).  I just got �7000 ($10,000) for a book to be
 >released by Readers Digest (which is again not on UFOs) - but
 >that was as a co-author deal so I only got half this amount and
 >this sum is a one-off fee. Even if the book sells a million
 >copies at $100 each I wont get another penny beyond �3500
 >(about $5000).

 >You do not have to be a math whiz to figure out that the rate
 >of pay for writing  UFO books is less than what most of you
 >probably get for doing your own work. Most writers that I know
 >live from day to day not knowing where the next bill is going to
 >be paid from. It is a very precarious profession. You hear about
 >the big successes. But the vast majority of writers never have
 >that kind of luck. They write because they want to write not
 >because they expect to be paid.

 >I cannot speak for everyone, of course. But serious UFO books
 >are not actually a huge seller from a publishers perspective and
 >quite a few have pulled out of the market altogether over the
 >past couple of years. So their popularity has considerably
 >reduced since the millennium.

 >This will not stop me writing - since it is in my blood. But it
 >does rather dispell the idea that this is a money making racket
 >- since right now you'd be hard pressed to find a publisher in
 >the UK to take on a serious new UFO title.

 >But I write because I am deeply interested in getting to the
 >truth about the UFO mystery. This is a way to help me put my
 >thoughts in order and report on what I find for others to read
 >if they choose to do so.

 >I do nonetheless feel very lucky  to be paid 'anything' by a
 >publisher for doing work that I enjoy and so am completely aware
 >of the debt that I owe to all who have purchased UFO books.
 >Which is why I have always  refused to cash in on this fact by
 >charging lecture and appearance fees, for example.  And its why
 >I have written a lot of things (including books) completely free
 >for UFO organisations such as BUFORA as a way to put something
 >back into the community.

 >And I very much doubt any of this is remotely unusual. I am sure
 >all UFO writers could tell you much the same thing. There are
 >very few in this field who are here to 'cash in' by exploiting
 >public interest in UFOs. Most of us are here for the long haul
 >and have exactly the same reasons that you have for sticking
 >around - we are curious and fascinated by these intriguing
 >phenomena.

Hi list and Jenny,

What Jenny has written above should be made into a circular for
all that entertain the idea of writing for a living. Reading her
email was like reading a mini story of my writing life. With
only three books under my belt I am struck with the similarities
between Jenny's and my own experiences. There are three reasons
why I will stick with it.

First I'm an old guy with a pension coming up in a couple of
years so then writing will supplement my suddenly reduced
income.

Second I really can't help it. I'm stuck in a groove now and
can't/don't want to get out.

Third being an author helps to open doors when you are
investigating cases. I find you can usually get to go where you
wouldn't be allowed to go before under the guise of research. My
second book Swissiar Down about the crash of Swissair Flight 111
was very technical in nature and none-UFO giving me some juice
and credibility in a field that is very pertinent to research
into UFOs and that is aeronautics. Several hundred RCMP officers
were brought in to support the hundred or so that were in Nova
Scotia to begin with and I was surprised at how many of them
read Swissair Down. Now when I go to a mountie asking for
information re a UFO case I don't get blown off they way I did
previously-at least not in most cases.

If there was a forth reason it would be because I'd somehow made
it to the Grisham, King, Cussler, Clancy, Higgins-Clarke strata
- and I'm sure we all dream of that - and had enough money to
survive on, travel with, do reams of research etc., get a
bigger-faster airplane and winter in warm places.

But for now, it's pretty much a slog. I figure with luck I'm
making about a buck an hour. I could make $6.00/hr. pumping gas.
For what it's worth.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                       Memory And Eyewitness Testimony

From: Kelly <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:59:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:10:03 -0400
Subject: Memory And Eyewitness Testimony


Canada's National Post
April 25, 2001
http://www.nationalpost.com/

Good news about your bad memory
Try this simple test and it'll all be explained

Norman Doidge
National Post

On May 16, John Doe #1 - as Timothy McVeigh, the most notorious
homegrown American terrorist was officially called before his
capture -- is scheduled to be executed. But what about John Doe
#2? He is all but forgotten.

You may remember --vaguely - that during the aftermath of the
Oklahoma City bombing, two composite pictures of likely suspects
were posted. An FBI composite resembling the tall, fair-haired
McVeigh was called John Doe #1. John Doe #2 was short,
square-faced, dark-haired, with a tattoo beneath his left
sleeve. The story of John Doe #2 is only one of the many
fascinating tales in Daniel Schacter's just-released The Seven
Sins of Memory. Schacter is chairman of the psychology
department of Harvard University, but got his training and was
on faculty at the University of Toronto in the '70s and '80s.

It turned out there never was a John Doe #2. So how did he come
about? The FBI tracked a van used in the bombing to Elliott's
truck rental in Junction City, Kan. There, mechanic Tom
Kessinger recalled that two men had rented the van. One fit the
description of McVeigh, and the other, square-faced mug became
John Doe #2. The FBI tracked down McVeigh, but never found John
Doe #2.

What actually happened was that a man fitting the description
Kessinger gave of John Doe # 2 came into the shop a day after
McVeigh rented his van. On that day, U.S. Army Sergeant Michael
Hertig --who was tall and fair like McVeigh - came to rent a van
with his friend, Private Todd Bunting - who was short,
square-faced, dark-haired. Kessinger watched. Since Kessinger
had correctly identified McVeigh, the FBI presumed at first he
was right about John Doe #2. In essence, Kessinger's mind had
associated the short, dark-haired man with a tall, fair-haired
fellow.

This kind of misattribution - in which we confuse the source of
a memory - is not uncommon because our memory works by
association. The implications are staggering for our legal
system. Recent analyses of 40 cases in which DNA evidence
established the innocence of wrongfully imprisoned people showed
that 90% of those convictions had been based on mistaken
eyewitness identification.

Using a technique called the Desse/Roedinger-McDermott
phenomenon, Schacter has experimentally created situations in
which we think we have experienced things that haven't happened.

(If you want to try it, don't read the next paragraph, but
instead ask someone sitting next to you to read the following
two lists of words at the rate of about one word per second. You
try to remember them. Immediately after, your friend will ask
you if you heard just some of the words.)

The words in list one are thread, pin, eye, sewing, sharp,
point, prick, thimble, haystack, thorn, hurt, injection,
syringe, cloth, knotting. The words in list two are bed, rest,
awake, tired, dream, wake, snooze, blanket, doze, slumber,
snore, nap, peace, yeast, drowsy. Now, for some skill-testing
questions. After each of the following words, vote yes if you
are sure it was on the list, no if it wasn't or not sure:
Sewing, door, needle, sleep, candy, awake.

When these tests are conducted in large groups, most people
remember that sewing and awake were on the lists and that door
and candy were not. But what is most interesting is that people
frequently claim with certainty that they heard needle and
sleep.

Clearly, many of the words on the first list activate
associations to the abstract concept of sharpness and along with
that an association to the word needle. The same for list two,
only the associative network activated is to the concept of
sleep.

In misattribution, we mix up the source of a memory (as when we
know a joke but forget who told it to us, then tell it back to
that person). In the above experiment, the source is likely a
mental association that was triggered by the list. Arguably,
this is the kind of mistake Kessinger made in identifying John
Doe #2 as the the accomplice of a tall, fair-haired man.

Schacter shows how many of the "sins of memory" are arguably not
simply defects (though these can occur) but actually make memory
more efficient. So, while the list-of-words experiment shows a
"mistake" is generated, it is a mistake that involves us getting
the gist of the list.

That, Schacter argues, is adaptive, from an evolutionary
standpoint. We don't want our minds cluttered with details.
Russian psychologist Alexandr Luria wrote a book on a savant
named Shereshevsky who remembered virtually everything but could
never function in life because that required the ability to
abstract and separate the important from the trivial. Sometimes
less is more.

At times, remembering certain things makes it harder to remember
others. This is seen in memory blocking. Imagine what life would
be like if every time you had to remember a detail about
something - say, New York - every related association to it
poured suddenly into your consciousness. You'd be overwhelmed.
Blocking prevents that chaos. Schacter describes experiments in
which blocking is produced experimentally. In one, subjects were
asked to memorize the word pairs red/blood and food/radish. Each
time they were given red as a cue, the likelihood they would
recall the word blood increased. But the more the subjects
practised strengthening the tie between red and blood, the
harder it became for them to remember the tie between food and
radish. (Note to myself: Be careful what you choose to
remember.)

The world of memory is filled with paradoxes. We tend to think
that memory is retrospective and relates to the past, but
actually, it is easily understood as prospective, related to the
future. That's what to-do lists and hand-held computers are all
about. Interestingly, when a person has a bad retrospective
memory, we tend to think of them as mentally defective, but when
they forget to do something, we think them irresponsible, i.e.,
morally defective. But Schacter's main point is that each of our
memory sins, including transience of memory, absent-mindedness
(such as the time Yo-Yo Ma left his US$2.5-million cello in the
trunk of a cab), suggestibility and bias, are not always
"failures" of our memory systems, but the product of a system
evolved to select what is most important. To have useful
memories, we must be capable of forgetting.

Dr. Doidge is a research psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. His
column appears every other Wednesday.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:29:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:12:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:16:03 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:52:26 -0500

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:10:49 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:59:14 -0500


Bob,

 >>With all due respect, this is crap. What Menzel called "bias"
 >>was McDonald's richly merited criticism of Menzel and the Blue
 >>Book clowns. Let's recall what McDonald had to say about
 >>Menzel's debunking pseudoscience:

 >There you go, again.

 >You've completely changed the subject, when it was shown that in
 >order to find any example of a skeptic who claims that witness
 >testimony if "worthless", you could only find a fragment of a 30
 >year-old quote from Old Doc Menzel, which you then severed from
 >the main part of the sentence.

I certainly have not changed the subject, nor have I
misrepresented Menzel in the slightest. I accurately
characterized Menzel's view of witnesses, and you have failed to
demonstrate otherwise.

Let's try again:

Menzel did not take witness testimony seriously. That is why he
did not interview witnesses. He held that testimony in such
contempt that he frequently proposed solutions for cases that
were wildly at variance with witness descriptions of what they
had seen - for example, his claim that Lonnie Zamora of the
Socorro CE2/CE3 had seen no more than a dust devil. He alleged
that Father Gill was sufficiently witless that when he thought
he saw a hovering craft with occupants, he was merely looking at
astronomical bodies without his glasses; as for the many native
witnesses, they were just ignorant, illiterate, and
impressionable. Menzel proposed five or six very different
explanations for Arnold's sighting. In coming to these and other
conclusions, Menzel interviewed not a single witness and thus
came to demonstrably unfounded conclusions which even other
debunkers (though naturally without whispering a breath of
criticism about the Grand Old Man of UFO-Bashing) have let slip
into the memory hole.

Menzel's view was that witnesses, being scientifically untrained
unlike himself, had little or nothing of value to contribute to
any real understanding of what was observed. Only he and fellow
scientist/debunkers (or their allies like Philip J. Klass [who,
it should be noted in all due fairness and irony, often
interviewed witnesses]) had that ability. Therefore, they could
solve sightings simply by applying their knowledge of
atmospheric and other phenomena to printed reports, even if the
fit between sighting and explanation was a very loose one
indeed.

 >Nobody here mentioned, or probably even cares, that Menzel and
 >McDonald thought each other biased.

I very much doubt that's true, though I can see why you would
want to turn the subject away from that. In any event, it was
Menzel and you who brought up the subject of McDonald's alleged
bias, not I. It should be noted that for his part McDonald
considered Menzel not merely biased but actively
pseudoscientific, and demonstrated as much in a point-by-point,
never-refuted critique of Menzel's approach.

Beyond that, I tried to make the point, apparently not
successfully, that Menzel used the accusation of "bias" not as
something he could demonstrate against McDonald (he couldn't)
but as a way to denigrate, cheaply and lazily, McDonald's habit
of interviewing witnesses. Among other things, it changed the
subject from Menzel's habit of ignoring witnesses, which would
have raised the eyebrows of most outside observers. In other
words, like everybody else without a better argument, Menzel
sought to kill the messenger (McDonald on witness interviews)
rather than have to deal with the inconvenient details of the
message (witness testimony about phenomena that
to all appearances firmly resisted conventional identification).

 >It seems that we're down to arguing about the difference between
 >a dependant clause and the empty spaces after the end of a
 >sentence.

 >Folks can read the quote for themselves and decide if you have
 >changed a fragment of an author's quotation into a complete
 >sentence order to change the meaning of his words.

I hope they do, and I hope they also study the larger context:
the conflict between Menzel and McDonald and, beyond that, the
conflict between Menzel and the witnesses he held in sufficient
disrespect that he made no effort to elicit information from
them.

Menzel should be remembered, if at all, as a bad example: a
case study in what happens when one's theories about UFO
sightings are seriously at variance with what witnesses have to
say about what they saw. No honest skeptic can defend
Menzel's shoddy practices, which would be universally
denounced if they were applied to a phenomenon less hated
than the UFO.


Clearer skies,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                       Voyager Newsletter No. 17 [1/2]

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:14:41 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:14:39 -0400
Subject: Voyager Newsletter No. 17 [1/2]


Voyager Newsletter No. 17


NEW RENDLESHAM REVELATIONS

During recent discussions on the 'UFO Skeptics' forum, one topic
has been 'silent helicopters'.

The query I raised - how quiet could helicopters conceivably be -
originated from the following narrative [edited here for brevity]
I came across:

I lived at RAF Woodbridge from 84 to 88 and never found out about
that sighting in the early eighties, but now that I think about
it, this might have something to do with it.

It was midsummer and three of my friends liked to spend the night
and camp out in the back yard... and we noticed that they were
having an exercise or something in the bomb dump (I don't think
it really was but that's what we called it).

...We walked through the woods and got behind the brush to see
what they were up to... and what looked like a dark blue
helicopter was just hovering in the middle of the field with a
bunch of MPs circled around it.

We didn't think about what it was that much until it bobbed up
about 100 feet or so and then settled down farther across the
field....with no noise. We didn't know what to make of it but it
was something that couldn't happen...I mean there were only about
five MP trucks out there and this huge solid object(I knew it was
solid cause they had there lights on it the whole time).
[END OF EXTRACT]


One of the knowledgeable forum respondents was Chris Gibson, a
renowned aircraft recognition expert. Noting Chris's comments
about the quiet MH-6 helicopter and NOTAR technology, I
explained:

One reason for my interest in that 1980s RAF Woodbridge, 'silent
helicopter' story, goes back to our December 1980 'UFO' events.
As you may recall, the first incident concerned claims that circa
0300 on the 26th, an unidentified craft had landed in a clearing
within Rendlesham forest. Whether there was ever an actual object
depends on which of the participants you ask, however, if there
had been, it's alleged that it took off again with no noise.

That could of course be no _discernible_ noise.

I was curious to know just how 'silent' helicopters might be. It
seems that under certain circumstances they can be surprisingly
quiet.

The two main, public, witnesses to that initial incident are
Burroughs and Penniston. If we take Penniston's original
statement that he was never closer than 50 metres to the source
of those unidentified lights, plus Burroughs' affirmation that
they never witnessed a structured object at all, only lights
which 'implied' there was one, it remains conceivable that any
'UFO' was simply a helicopter.

As Dale Wagner, SMSgt. USAF Ret. told me in 1998:

"The 67 ARRS flew HH-53 helicopters not HH-3s, and they did do
training manuevers in Rendlesham during day and night. They
actually practiced hovering in clearings in the forest. I do not
know if they ever landed, but their footprint would not leave
round circles. They had two front tires and a double set of tires
for each main gear.

They used the night penetrations to practice with night vision
goggles".
[END]

The 'round circles' Dale refers to are the 'ground indentations'
found, next morning, in that clearing where Burroughs et al
perceived the lights to be.

Dismissed both by the local police and forester, Vince
Thurkettle, as made by rabbits rather than ET, there were three
circular holes in an approximate equilateral, triangular
formation - spaced approximately 2.5 metres apart. It would be
interesting to know if a search might have located other such
'indentations' around the 'landing site' area.

Whilst this perceived 'triangle' of ground markings might be
consistent with the spacing of a helicopters landing gear, I
can't see, as Dale notes, how the wheels would have created
circular holes.

Of course, it remains feasible that the 'UFO' was a helicopter
and those indentations entirely unrelated.


I have a renewed interested in the possibility of helicopters
being involved in both 'UFO' incidents. Following recent
endeavours, I've been able to locate and contact around 20 new,
potential witnesses who were stationed on base as at December,
1980. It turns out that a number of them had some involvement,
even if only during the immediate aftermath.

It's this aftermath which is now proving to be intriguing, with
indications that 'something' of significance did indeed take
place around this time.

A military exercise seems unlikely as it was the Christmas
holiday period, plus, any night-flying operations had effectively
been ruled out. Also during 1998, Chuck Dalldorf told me:

"I was an aircraft maintenance technician with the 81st TFW
working on A-10A and prior to that F-4D's during my tour which
lasted from December 1977 through July 1981. I had also been
assigned several times to the 67th ARRS on temporary duty to work
on both the HC-130N/P's and the HH-53's as well.

[...]

One issue I would like to address right away is, the 67th ARRS
did not scramble any missions (either HH-53 or HC-130 during the
week between Christmas 1980 and New Year's Day 1981).

There were no alerts anytime during the week between Christmas,
1980 and New Years Day 1981 at RAF Bentwaters or RAF Woodbridge.
No alerts for the 81st Tactical Fighter Wing (A-10A) or for the
67th ARRS (HC-130 and HH-53).

[...]

There was a trip that I helped run with my landlord, Joe Haninia
of Woodbridge Town who ran a travel service for the base called
Big Ben Travel. The trip went from RAF Bentwaters to Edinburgh to
celebrate Hogmany in Scotland. We left the base and were not
recalled. There were 28 people on the trip from both the 81st TFW
and the 67th ARRS.
[END]


Apparently therefore all quiet of the Bentwaters/Woodbridge front
during that holiday period - except for when the occasional alien
spacecraft dropped in, of course.

However... only a few miles away from the twin-base complex [USAF
bases located on British soil] and on the coast, it's claimed
that the MoD _were_ up to something in the Ness, Although it's
never to my knowledge been quantified, there are stories of a
naval exercise taking place during this period.

Interestingly, one of the new contacts tells me that some on base
believed the 'UFO' to be a British experimental craft and that
the MoD were responsible for 'putting a lid' on the story.

I rather doubt that and still suspect there's a whole world of
coincidences here, with the full explanation remaining mundane.
Certainly Orfordness lighthouse, the Shipwash lightship and other
coastal lights played their part in the 'UFO' excitement.

Yet, complicating matters, even further than before, is that I'm
now hearing from sources on the base, other than the security
police, about 'certain unusual events' [that's all I can really
say for now] which were contemporary with the UFO incidents and
involved the 81st Equipment Maintenance Squadron and the Weapons
Storage Area.

All still 'under enquiry', and some fascinating new material
being unearthed.


One thing it seems we can safely conclude is that any 'object' in
the forest could not have been a 'secret', experimental USAF
craft located on base. I'm now advised:

"It doesn't make any sense to me that it was an American craft.
Bentwaters or Woodbridge did not have any buildings that an
aircraft could come and go without being seen. When the SR-71
used to land at Bentwaters the plane would do a quick taxi to the
victor alert area and into a hanger. Since I had a top secret
clearance I had access to all areas of the base that could hide
an aircraft and I was never turned away from entering any
aircraft shelters. The investigator seemed too open about giving
me information till the British were involved. As soon as they
got their fingers in the pie everyone shut up, it just seemed to
me the British wanted to keep this a secret".


The stated 'British involvement' is merely a reference to the MoD
later being informed about events - don't take it as evidence of
the Ministry's interest. Not until I've queried this further,
anyway.

The 'investigator' referred to was the 'UFO investigator' which
the above correspondent, because of responsibilities for the
munitions storage area, had been put through to when he made
telephone enquiries about the 'UFO' stories.

Who was this 'UFO investigator', was he stationed on base, or
part of a 'team' which arrived to investigate the 'UFO' scares?

That story will have to wait for now!
[END OF EXTRACT]


And it's an extraordinary story which is unfolding.

Another of the new witnesses was a member of the 81st Security
Police Squadron [SPS] and amongst those who accompanied Master-
Sergeant [MSgt] Ray Gulyas to the believed 'landing site', after
daybreak on 26th December.

It's claimed that amongst the 'trace evidence' were two
particular items. It seems that neither has ever previously been
publicly mentioned by those who visited the site.

If true, one of these finds would be remarkable and could
directly relate this first incident to the second 'encounter',
when Lt. Col. [subsequently Col.] Halt personally investigated
increasing UFO hysteria - Halt acknowledges that, "the police
squadron seemed to be more focused on UFO activity than their
primary duty".


Elsewhere on base, during this 'UFO excitement', other strange
things were happening, as yet another new witness recalls:

"That night was extremely weird. I was working over on the Demand
process side of supply when it happened. One minute everything's
working, the next all the computers go down for no reason. At the
time it was assumed that there was a fault in the system but with
hindsight it obviously wasn't. It did take quite a while for the
computer to come back online but it eventually did a while later.
The phone lines also went nuts with them ringing with no one on
the other end, but it was put down to a power surge in the
system. The typical need to know scenario of what went wrong".

He adds:

"I used to ride a motor bike and enjoyed taking it out the back
of the base during the day to sleep because it was quieter in the
woods then in the dorms and after the incident I did find out
where it was, but for almost half a year it was cordoned off so I
lost my favourite sleeping place!".

Electronic equipment mysteriously failing, telephones ringing of
their own volition and landing sites being cordoned off - it
almost sounds like the script for 'Close Encounters'!

Who were these official 'UFO investigators' and why, directly
after one of the incidents, were security personnel and others in
'plain clothes' so interested in the Weapons Storage Area, with,
as a further new witness now reveals, "everyone being told to not
ask questions, just do our jobs".

If this isn't already sufficiently intriguing, an additional
witness has separately come forward. A member of the 81st SPS and
one of the more senior policeman, he has detailed a soon to be
published story of the late 1980, 'Great Rendlesham Forest UFO
Hoax' and how this was directed at the young and inexperienced
guards stationed at east gate - the location of our UFO
sightings.

With red and blue flashing lights and, incredibly, coloured beams
being directed up into the sky.... is this connected with those
'strange' red and blue flashing lights which started the entire
'UFO scare and 'beams of light' which Lt. Col Halt reported as
apparently coming beaming _down_ on RAF Woodbridge? Well... the
hoax reportedly did take place at Woodbridge and not the joint
Bentwaters base...

Coincidence or not?

All to be revealed!


During March 1998, I published 'Rendlesham Unravelled' and
disclosed the existence of original witnesses statements,
pertaining to the 26 December, 1980 RAF Woodbridge/Rendlesham
forest 'UFO' incident, which was a catalyst for all that followed
- see:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/cover.htm

The full story behind the publication of those testimonies is
contained in 'Voyager' Newsletter No. 15:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/v15.txt


As I explained in 'Rendlesham Unravelled':

In the course of my research, I had identified sources of
previously published material and obtained copies where possible.
It's now known I also acquired a copy of the case file held by US
researcher Barry Greenwood, Director of Citizens Against UFO
Secrecy (CAUS) and the previously unpublished affidavits were
found therein.

In a response to the release of 'Rendlesham Unravelled', Richard
Hall, Chairman of the 'Fund for UFO Research' (FUFOR), in the
United States, confirmed in a statement dated early March, 1998,
"My forthcoming account of the case in the 'UFO EVIDENCE: II' is
based on direct communications with Colonel Halt, who has been
very helpful and cooperative, and on the same set of documents
from the CAUS files that others are talking about".

At the time of writing, I await a reply to my request for
corroboration that the documents, which evidently contain Col.
Halt's hand-written notes, originated directly from the Colonel.

For how long the existence of these sensational documents has
been known about, prior to my realisation of their significance
and resulting publication, is another question which currently
remains unanswered.
[END OF EXTRACT]


And still does...

However, it's since been established the documents were Halt's
own copies of statements he requested at the beginning of
January, 1981, as he confirmed in a 1997 interview with American
journalist Salley Rayl:

Around New Year's Eve, I took statements and interviewed the men
who had taken part in the initial incident. The reports were
nearly identical.

Basically, they reported this: In the early morning hours of
December 26, one of the airmen drove to the back gate at
Woodbridge on a routine security check. He saw lights in the
forest, specifically a red light, and thought maybe an airplane
had crashed. He radioed a report, which was called into the
tower, but the tower reported nobody was flying.

Eventually, a group headed out to the forest. They reported
strange noises - animals, movement, like we heard two nights
later.

As they approached the clearing, they reported seeing a large
yellowish-white light with a blinking red light on the upper
center portion and a steady blue light emanating from underneath.
The tower again reported nothing on radar.

[...]

[END OF EXTRACT]

Indeed, in a later interview, addressing Salley's question, "What
happened in the days following this event? I understand you took
reports from Penniston and Burroughs?", Halt expounded:

"And one other individual that was involved in the first night.
The three individuals that were out, and I also took them from
the Flight Commander and one individual that went out with me, a
Master Sergeant".

Those were the five statements which I uncovered, namely:

Fred A Buran, 81st Security Police Squadron
Typed on USAF form 1169 'Statement of Witness', dated 2 January
1981
Statement signed.

Airman First Class John Burroughs, 81st Security Police Squadron
Hand-written and undated
Statement signed.

Airman Edward N. Cabansag, 81st Security Police Squadron
Typed and undated
Statement signed.

Master-Sergeant J. D. Chandler, 81st Security Police Squadron
Typed on USAF form 1169 'Statement of Witness', dated 2 January
1981
Statement signed.

Staff-Sergeant Jim Penniston, 81st Security Police Squadron
Typed and undated
Statement unsigned.


Despite the overwhelming evidence which factually set out their
origin, a book published last year proclaimed them to be false
and part of some nefarious government 'UFO' cover-up.

The reasoning was evidently that Cabansag and Penniston denied
making their statements.

Seemingly another factor was how these documents confirm a nearby
'lighthouse' was mistakenly identified by Burroughs, Cabansag and
Penniston - all three of them - as a 'UFO'.

This, was purported to be 'preposterous'.

Unfortunately for 'cover up' proponents... it's a fact.


The book in question was entitled, 'You Can't Tell the People',
by Georgina Bruni. As noted, a foundation of Bruni's 'cover-up'
allegations are that two of the participants, Cabansag and
Penniston, now deny writing the statements which exist.

Before publishing such claims, it seems Bruni had never checked
their substance with the other participant, John Burroughs.

However, I have.

Not only does Burroughs confirm being familiar with the
statements, he even recalls when they were released.

At present, my discussions with Burroughs must remain
confidential and I can only say that John confirms:

"As far as the lighthouse goes the statements that everybody made
such a big deal about were first made available by Col Halt
during the filming of Unsolved Mysteries".

"...We did follow a light not knowing what it was but we at no
time did we feel that it was the object we first saw. We had lost
contact with the object we first saw and wanted to see what the
flashing light in the distance was".

Then again, that's all I require to cite in order to prove the
lighthouse was not a familiar landmark - especially within
Rendlesham forest where they wouldn't normally be on patrol at
night - to any of the participants.

If those pivotal, original witness statements had not gathered
dust for so many years, this critical breakthrough could have
been made long ago.


Bruni's mandatory 'cover up' assertions go beyond this and
include some hand-written notes on the documents. I have
mentioned these annotations before, yet never published them in
full as some of the remarks are too personal.

Bruni declared to me:

"For your information Halt had denied he wrote the notes, so much
for knowing so much!".

I know this much... I can prove the notes _were_ in fact written
by Halt.


It's not that difficult to do so and there was a blatant clue
which Bruni should perhaps have spotted. It's claimed she also
obtained the 'CAUS file'. If so, then it contains a letter dated
23, January 1987, written by Halt and addressed to 'Dear Larry' -
'UFO' researcher Larry Fawcett.

As this letter is hand-written, we can easily verify if the
handwriting matches those notes on the statements. The first
striking hint is that both are written entirely in capitals. The
second, immediate clue is that Halt, in his letter, refers to the
names of three witnesses for whom we have statements. As their
names are also mentioned in the statement notes, we can therefore
make a direct, significant handwriting comparison.

As we would expect, the handwriting does match and other words
common to both the letter and statement also exhibit the same,
distinctive hand-writing style - see:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/handwrt.jpg

Proving this, is essentially stating the obvious. The contents of
those notes could only conceivably have been written by Halt.

Although John Burroughs believes the testimonies were first made
available for 'Unsolved Mysteries', broadcast on 18 September,
1991, much of the CAUS material relates to an earlier documentary
about the UFO story - a CNN special feature. As I explained in
'Resolving Rendlesham', the follow-up to 'Rendlesham Unravelled'
and published during August 1988:

"On Cabansag's statement, Halt writes that he discussed his
thoughts about Cabansag with Chuck DeCaro of CNN. DeCaro
investigated the case for CNN in early 1985 and this would imply
that Halt's comments were not added until then, five years after
the event, at the earliest and by which time the 'Rendlesham
forest UFO landing' had become something of a celebrated affair".
[END OF EXTRACT]

Possibly Halt's copies of the statements were initially provided
to CNN.

Aside from expressing his confidence in the reliability of our
witnesses, Halt's notes actually maintain the 'UFO' incident was
significant and suggest that Buran, Cabansag and Chandler might
all 'talk' if approached correctly.

So where was any rationalised 'cover up' supposed to exist in the
first place?


Whether Halt ever denied making these notes, or perhaps there has
been some misunderstanding about a question he was asked, or the
answer he gave, I don't know and it's not my concern. However, as
the facts were easily available, we could perhaps have been
spared these unnecessary publicised accusations by some
elementary detective work.


If needed, further clues to the statements' authenticity are the
covering letter which accompanies Chandler's deposition and the
covering page with Penniston's, marked 'FOR LT COL HALT EYES
ONLY'. Penniston also attached a number of sketches.

Additionally, Halt discussed these statements with Salley Rayl
and specifically referred to their content.

Although Bruni has published Halt's confidential notes in her
book, I'm still loathe to do so and will only make some of the
less personal comments available, plus an extract from Halt's
letter, in order to verify the factual evidence. As follows -

Cover page and statement from Penniston:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/!penn_1.jpg
http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/!penn_2.jpg

Covering letter from Chandler:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/!chan_1b.jpg

Cabansag's statement:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/!cabansg.jpg

Last page of Buran's statement:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/!buran_2.jpg

Extract from Halt's letter to Larry Fawcett:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/halt_let.jpg


Continued... [1/2]








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                       Voyager Newsletter No. 17 [2/2]

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:16:19 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:16:22 -0400
Subject: Voyager Newsletter No. 17 [2/2]


Maintaining the testimonies could not possibly be genuine, Bruni
claims, "the deputy base commander of the Bentwaters/Woodbridge
Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) assured me
that at no time would witnesses be asked to 'type' official
statements".

Not only would this seem to be nonsensical, 'Air Force Form 1169'
is a 'Statement of Witness' document apparently designed for a
typed statement - and was used as such by Buran and Chandler.

If you supposedly can't 'type' witness statements, then perhaps
someone should have pointed this out to the witnesses who so
obviously did!


We now understand what truly occurred during that inaugural 'UFO'
incident during the early hours of 26 December, 1980 and how a
'lighthouse' was at least partly responsible for perceptions of a
'UFO'.

To recap, in early January, 1981, Burroughs wrote:

"We got up to a fence that separated the trees from the open
field and you could see the lights down by a farmers house. We
climbed over the fence and started heading towards the red and
blue lights and they just disappeared. Once we reached the
farmer's house we could see a beacon going around so we went
towards it. We followed it for about 2 miles before we could see
it was coming from a lighthouse".

Documenting these same events, Master-Sergeant Chandler, the on-
duty Flight Chief, who remained with the security patrol's jeep
at the logging track next to Rendlesham forest, testified:

"Each time Penniston gave me the indication that he was about to
reach the area where the lights were, he would give an extended
estimated location. He eventually arrived at a 'beacon light',
however, he stated that this was not the light or lights he had
originally observed. He was instructed to return".

It's a straightforward story, also corroborated in the statement
of Flight (Shift) Commander Fred Buran, who was directing
operations from Central Security Control [CSC].

Although Burroughs and Penniston had publicly commented on the
'UFO' encounter, the other participant, Airman Ed Cabansag, had
never spoken about his involvement.

It was welcomed that Bruni's book featured an interview with
Cabansag. However, his reported recollections do not agree with
what we know to have factually taken place.

According to Bruni, Cabansag claims:

"....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".

If Burroughs confirms - comprehensively documented within a few
days afterwards - "We did follow a light not knowing what it was"
and "We had lost contact with the object we first saw and wanted
to see what the flashing light in the distance was", then how
could Cabansag have identified the lighthouse before they
actually discovered where that 'flashing light' originated?

Alternatively, if Cabansag or his companions knew what the
'beacon' was, why did they have to travel for a further two miles
through the countryside, in the dark of night, before, as
Burroughs says, "we could see it was coming from a lighthouse"?.

It seems impossible to reconcile this, especially as Cabansag
originally testified:

"CSC was not reading our transmissions very well, so we used MSgt
Chandler as a go-between. He remained back at our vehicle. As we
entered the forest, the blue and red lights were not visible
anymore. Only the beacon light was still blinking. We figured the
lights were coming from past the forest, since nothing was
visible as we passed through the woody forest. We could see a
glowing near the beacon light, but as we got closer we found it
to be a lit-up farmhouse. After we had passed through the forest,
we thought it had to be an aircraft accident. So did CSC as well.
But we ran and walked a good 2 miles past our vehicle, until we
got to a vantage point where we could determine that what we were
chasing was only a beacon light off in the distance. Our route
through the forest and field was a direct one, straight towards
the light".
[END]

Proving that all those original testimonies are a cohesive
account, acknowledged by Burroughs to be so, Cabansag's early
confirmation is how the patrol, "ran and walked a good 2 miles
past our vehicle, until we got to a vantage point where we could
determine that what we were chasing was only a beacon light off
in the distance".


Interestingly, Cabansag now reportedly states that the
unidentified lights were, "to the right of the lighthouse".

We know from those original statements where the 'lighthouse' was
perceived to be, with Burroughs and Cabansag, respectively,
writing:

"Once we reached the farmer's house we could see a beacon going
around so we went towards it. We followed it for about 2 miles
before we could see it was coming from a lighthouse".

"We could see a glowing near the beacon light, but as we got
closer we found it to be a lit-up farmhouse".

The beacon from Orfordness lighthouse was indeed visible as a
'beacon light', appearing to be located 'next' to that farmhouse,
although it was in fact several miles distant. Courtesy of Ian
Ridpath, there's a photograph, scanned at various resolutions,
showing the farmhouse and proximity of Orfordness lighthouse, on
my website at:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/ridpath1.jpg
http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/ridpath2.jpg
http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/ridpath3.jpg


Crucially, to the right of Orfordness [or Orford Ness] was
another 'lighthouse', also visible from the same vantage point.
This was the Shipwash lightship.

Conversely, when Lt. Col. Halt observed, from that same vicinity
- the clearing within Rendlesham forest where our 'landing site'
was believed to be - his 'UFO', he attributed a reverse scenario,
as I explained in 'Resolving Rendlesham': -

Halt was asked about the assertion he had been deceived by the
Orford Ness 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. If you
were standing in the forest where we stood, at the supposed
landing site or whatever you want to call it, you could see the
farmer's house directly in front of us. The lighthouse was 30 to
35 degrees off to the right, and the object was close to the
farmer's house and moving from there to the left, through the
trees".

Here, as never before, Halt provides specific details of the
perspective he believed to be accurate. When he states, "If you
were standing in the forest where we stood, at the supposed
landing site or whatever you want to call it, you could see the
farmer's house directly in front of us", that's correct and the
Orford Ness lighthouse is in a direct line of sight, east,
towards the coast.

However, when he claims, "The lighthouse was 30 to 35 degrees off
to the right." that seems to be consequentially incorrect; the
Shipwash lightship was "off to the right", the lighthouse was
straight ahead, where Halt observed the 'unidentified light' to
be.

His comment that "the object was close to the farmer's house",
again places the light source in the line of sight to Orford Ness
lighthouse, whereas he believed the lighthouse to be much further
south.

Jenny [Randles] has provided me with a detailed sketch of the
location, based on her visits and setting out where the
lighthouse, lightship and the then prominent blue lights from the
NSA building at Orford Ness all lay in relation to the 'clearing'
and farmer's house. etc.

 From the clearing which is supposedly the 'landing site', the
lighthouse is shown by Jenny to be directly in line with the
farmer's house, with the lightship distinctly further to the
south-east.

This early familiarity with the site is important as a number of
factors have changed since then, the lighthouse isn't now so
noticeable inland, the NSA facility is no longer operational and
the lightship has been replaced by a buoy.

Science writer Ian Ridpath first proposed that Col. Halt had
mistaken the beam from the nearby lightship to be that of the
lighthouse and consequently thought the lighthouse beacon, which
appears as a small, brilliant, pulsating light through the trees,
to be an unidentified object within the forest.

Ian has also been immensely helpful to my research, making his
considerable experience available.

[...]

During the conference, Halt was also asked to describe the
'object' he personally witnessed, this being seen when in the
'clearing' next to the farmer's house, at the exact spot where
the 'ground indentations' or 'landing site' had been designated
following Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston's adventures:

"We saw a glowing red object, best I can describe it. It was, it
looked almost like a red eye with a black pupil and it was sort
of winking and dripping what appeared to be the equivalent of
molten metal. And we just stood there in awe and watched for
several minutes probably, and decided to try and approach it".

He neglects to mention that some of the 'phenomena' was witnessed
using a 'Starlight scope', or 'Starscope' image intensifier, as
confirmed in his microcassette recording:

[Halt]: "Let's go back to the edge of the clearing so we can get
a better look at it. See if you can get the Starscope on it. The
light's still there and all the barnyard animals have gone quiet
now. We're heading about 110, 120 degrees from site out through
to the clearing now.

[...]

[Halt]: OK, we're looking at the thing, we're probably about two
to three hundred yards away. It looks like an eye winking at you.
Still moving from side to side. And when you put the Starscope on
it, it sorta has a hollow center, a dark center, it's like a
pupil of an eye looking at you, winking.

And it flashes so bright to the Starscope that it almost burns
your eye".

One of the main objections to Halt's party having misidentified
the lighthouse is that the rotating beacon (as opposed to beam
from it) was relatively small from that distance. As Jenny
remarks in 'UFO Crash Landing?', "Frankly, the first time I saw
the lighthouse at night I was 80 percent convinced that this was
the explanation. When I first heard the Halt tape this conviction
rose to 90 per cent. It only plummeted after talking to eye-
witnesses like John Burroughs who were out there, although, I did
have some concern because the lighthouse appears as nothing more
than a tiny pulsing light, not a massive red object....

Halt has now removed that latter obstacle.

In a statement which may prove something of a shock to those who
perceived the 'crucible of terror' to be relatively large, Halt
explained to Sally Rayl:

[Rayl]: "Now, I know it's hard to tell because it was dark that
night, but any idea what size the initial red object was? Any
idea?"

[Halt]: "Nah. I would just have to guess. My guess would be
probably two to three feet, maybe a little less".

[Rayl]: "Two to three feet"?

[Halt]: "From the distance, in diameter".

[Rayl]: "In diameter. So, it's a very small object?"

[Halt]: "It was a very small object, but it was very bright".

[Rayl]: "But not a craft that could hold a human being, for
example?"

[Halt]: "No. It couldn't have been. But it appeared to [be] under
some kind of intelligent control".

Such a small light is now well within the realms of being the
lighthouse beacon, which was intensely bright.
[END OF EXTRACT]


Did Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston therefore believe the
lightship - to the 'right' of Orfordness lightship - was a 'UFO',
whilst Halt placed the lighthouse in that location and his 'UFO'
where Orfordness actually was?

Perhaps significantly, in neither circumstance does anyone seem
to realise there were two 'lighthouses', which, at that time,
were equally visible and from within the forest not easily
recognisable as distant, coastal beacons.


A mainstay of any 'UFO' beliefs is Penniston's assertions that he
examined a landed, triangular-shaped craft for some 15 minutes.
Burroughs, however, remains adamant they never witnessed a
structured object at all, merely enigmatic lights.

In 1991, immediately following the 'Unsolved Mysteries'
broadcast, Burroughs answered some questions put to him by
American researcher John Powell. Jim Speiser, the founder of
ParaNet, was also instrumental in this and the following was
posted by Jim to ParaNet [a 'bulletin board' precursor of the
Internet]:

Powell: Regarding one of the last clips shown, which depicted one
or two airmen prone as a very nearby and clearly craft-like
object rose from a landing position and took off, do you know if
there were any ground traces of this?

Burroughs: First of all, we did not see a structured "craft" as
was depicted. All we saw were lights that seemed to imply a
structure of some kind. Later inspection showed three round
depressions at that spot, forming an equilateral triangle. The
British Police explained these as "rabbit holes.".
[END]


The huge anomalies with Penniston's claims have been highlighted
in my previous publications and I am aware of Burroughs comments
concerning these fundamental discrepancies. This overall,
overwhelming and underlying 'divergence of evidence' requires to
be resolved by Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston before any 'UFO'
scenario remotely implicates an alien visitation.

As easily demonstrated, claims about a related government 'cover-
up' are, no surprise, based on the most specious foundation
imaginable.


During 1997, Penniston produced some sketches which he claimed
originated from his notebook, having been made at the time of
that encounter - see:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/jpdraw1.jpg
http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/jpdraw3.jpg

The obvious questions were how these could possibly have been
drawn in the darkness and how was Penniston able to reproduce
such perfect straight lines and circles when copying the craft's
'insignia'.

Where also were Burroughs and Cabansag and how could they _not_
have seen this 'structured craft'!

In that first sketch, doesn't Penniston show the date as 27
December, 1980?

In Halt's infamous memo to the Ministry of Defence, which wasn't
sent until some three weeks after the 'UFO' events, he mistakenly
reports the incident involving Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston
as occurring on that date.

Why does Penniston's alleged notebook documentation apparently
show the date as 27 December, confirming Halt's erroneous yet
[until recently] accepted dating, and not the 26th December, when
Penniston would actually have been making any such notes?


Although answers to many questions may remain elusive, the key
questions have at least been directly asked of Burroughs and
Halt, the latter being highlighted in 'The Halt Questions', see:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/feb/m21-027.shtml

Eventually, the intriguing new evidence which has 'come to light'
may encourage answers to those old questions.


The proverbial 'bottom line' is that, as proven, those original
testimonies and all contained therein - including the abortive,
two mile lighthouse 'UFO' pursuit - are consummately evidenced as
the factual basis for Britain's 'Roswell'.

As Burroughs adds - and he has clarified much more than I can
announce for now:

"Halt was the one who held back the statements and they were not
changed".

More astounding Rendlesham revelations to follow!


                         O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O


The 'UFO Skeptics' [UFOS] mailing list, operated via ListBot, is
open to subscription from those who advocate and adopt a
consistent, skeptical (the US spelling, rather the UK
'sceptical', will be used by default) appraisal of any purported
'UFO' related evidence. The remit encompasses associated topics
which may be relevant, such as 'black projects', or 'ball
lightning', etc.

There are currently over 100 subscribers.

The UFO Skeptics 'home page' is located on the Internet at URL:

http://debunk.listbot.com/

This provides access to the public list postings. Requests to
subscribe or unsubscribe can also be entered here.


                         O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O


Editor: James Easton
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk

(c) James Easton
April, 2001

This newsletter may be freely distributed provided the above
information and copyright notice are included.


This message was sent by Easymail - http://www.easynet.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 >
   Apr > Apr 25

                 Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 03:02:42 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:16:54 -0400
Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line - Velez


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:06:42 EDT
 >Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:36:55 -0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:21:45 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: UHR Issue #8 Available On-Line
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Nothing wrong with protecting the identity of someone who wishes
 >>to remain anonymous.

 >Since the FOIA went into effect, it's the law.

 >>>Tidbit #2 - On the website, Don Johnson's interesting list of
 >>>"UFO hotspots" in the U.S. provides some food for thought. I
 >>>notice that in Pennsylvania there are only two, the most
 >>>prominent being Westmoreland County, just east of Pittsburgh.
 >>>Both of these locations are where active UFO investigators are
 >>>based. Westmoreland County has been the location of Stan
 >>>Gordon and his groups for the past 20 years.

 >>>Unless the ETs have redlined the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
 >>>for some reason (maybe they are allergic to coal dust), it
 >>>seems that the population of potential witnesses is not nearly
 >>>as important as the population of investigators who stimulate
 >>>and collect reports.

 >>That's not a fair comment on two counts Bob.

 >>I'm not comfortable with your use of the word "stimulate" to
 >>kind of explain the number of reports these local guys gather.
 >>As if their mere "presence" or in the worst case, "influence"
 >>has something to do with the number of reports they receive.

 >No, it probably has more to do with the number of press releases
 >Stan Gordon sends out, and which are reprinted in little papers
 >out in his neck of the woods.

The statement could have read two ways Bob. I was responding to
the 'negative' connotation/interpretation (just in case) that
was how it was meant. I have heard the "investigator influence"
(negative interpretation) used so many times I may be developing
a 'knee-jerk' response to it whenever I hear it mentioned. I'll
have to keep an eye on myself!  <LOL>

 >>Your suggestion of investigator influence seeks to invalidate
 >>them all in one stroke.

 >No, I was commenting on the existence of "UFO hotspots", and
 >suggesting that they may be an artifact of the presence of UFO
 >investigators, and their clubs, not some interest of the ETs.

Otay Banky!  ;)


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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

               Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71 - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:15:13 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 03:53:48 -0400
Subject: Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71 - Balaskas


 >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:39:29 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:22:07 EDT
 >>Subject: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>We were discussing this on the List recently, and I thought the
 >>List might be interested in the below history blurb I ran
 >>accross.

 >>Short excerpt on LBJ's announcement of the existance of
 >>the SR-71 in 1964 from the web.

 >Thanks for posting this Robert, it was very interesting.

<snip>

Hi Robert, Sean and List,

It is interesting to note that the SR-71 Blackbird went on the
drawing boards several years earlier in 1959 shortly after the
AVRO Arrow's demise and the lost of tens of thousands of
Canadian aerospace workers and engineers jobs, many of which
obtained similar employment in the US.

Is it a coincidence that a proposed version of the of the AVRO
Arrow with ramjet assist which would have done better than Mach
3 was first achieved afterwards by the SR-71 Blackbird? Also,
don't you agree that the cockpit external configurations of the
SR-71 Blackbird and the AVRO Arrow look too similar to be
another coincidence?

Our Prime Minister's announcement of the demise of the AVRO
Arrow project was timed to avoid the planned air speed record
which would have made it much more difficult to justify the
destruction of what was becoming a new source of national pride,
in addition to the Montreal Canadiens hockey team.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Blanton

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:01:30 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 04:45:54 -0400
Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Blanton


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:27:55 +0200
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:16:25 -0400
 >Subject: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray

<snip>

 >We, HPS-ers, have long pointed to Whitley Strieber's best seller
 >"Communion" as the main culprit for spreading the Grey face
 >image (with its big black eyes) all over the world, in the cover
 >of his book.

 >But now, I have discovered that 20 years before, another alien
 >face stared to the people (at least in the USA). This face
 >showed a big head, a small nose, a simple line as mouth and two
 >big human eyes. It was the Star Child from the 2001 film.

An even earlier reference might be Aleister Crowley's Lam, whose
sketch was first displayed in 1919 in NYC! See:

http://www.primenet.com/~exclmid/LAMstatement.html

A stylized image appears at:

http://www.geocities.com/antiqillum/welcome.htm

Regards,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

               Re: CSETI's Disclosure Project Briefing - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:39:59 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 04:48:23 -0400
Subject: Re: CSETI's Disclosure Project Briefing - Young


 >From: Steven <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: CSETI's Disclosure Project Briefing
 >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 06:21:40 -0400

 >It has now been confirmed that May 9th is the date of the
 >Disclosure Project Briefing in the National Press Club in
 >Washington DC.

 >http://www.cseti.org/
 >http://www.cseti.org/position/greer/disclosureupdate02.htm

 >This event is closed to the publics, and apparently the press
 >will only be allowed to attend by invitation only.

Ladies & Gents:

I wonder if Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine will
receive an invitation to send someone to cover this "press
event" about things flying around in the sky?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                 Johnson Sighting [was: Arnold's Fleet...] -

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:20:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 04:58:13 -0400
Subject: Johnson Sighting [was: Arnold's Fleet...] -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 06:17:01 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:02:48 -0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Maccabee


 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:40:25 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:01:00 EDT
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Young

 >>Johnson brought up the whole issue of how far he could see
 >>"objects" in his telescope in an allusion to the distance at
 >>which he saw _these_ objects, otherwise the point was irrelevant
 >>to bring up and the FBI agents wouldn't have mentioned it
 >>either. Certainly he was giving a clue to a ballpark estimate or
 >>order-of-magnitude impression of the distance which alone might
 >>not be directly observable but in a ratio with the height
 >>impression he had would be a valid and observable quantity
 >>(elevation angle = height/distance in radians approx.). And
 >>Bruce still suspects the objects were even further than what
 >>Johnson "thought" (see the URL for his posting I gave above) but
 >>disagrees on my distance interpretation.>

 >I think the objects were relatively close to overhead, hence
 >Johnsons claim or "interpretation of the data" that they seemed
 >to be 1,000 ft higher than he.


 >Hi Bruce,

 >Johnson never said the objects were "overhead." Like Arnold his
 >attention was caught by a "reflection" which must have been in
 >the distance near the horizon -- if it had been overhead it is
 >much less likely he would have seen anything.

Obviously we don't know what he was doing at the exact time his
attention was attracted to these objects. He might have been
looking upward at higher mountain peaks, in which case he could
have noticed high-flying "saucers." If he had been gazing at the
ground he might not have seen them at all and there wouldn't
have been a report. Probability arguments used here can be
considered no more than "possibly to probably" correct. I would
not base an argument that they were on the horizon on the
greater probability that he would be looking horizontally or
downward than that he would be looking horizontally or upward.

Note in the FBI report below that he said his compass started
acting peculiar, "waving side to side" before the appearance f
the discs. Should we therefore assume that he could only see
flashes of light from the horizon? He said his attention was
drawn by a flash. Arnold said he saw a flash on his plane.
Perhaps Johnson saw a flash or sudden brightening of the rocks
around him. Something alerted him to look at the sky. Maybe the
objects were initially at a very low angular elevation and he
was gaze incorporated the northward sector of the sky so that he
initially saw them oncoming. Perhaps they hen passed by at a
high angle of elevation.

A big problem is that the FBI did not ask huim exactly where he
was (or at least did not put that into the report). One would
have to go to Johnson's location to see what the situation was.

Before continuing let's put the cards on the table: here is the
information we have on Johnson's sighting. Would be nice if
there had been a newspaper story or interview.

FRED JOHNSON WROTE TO THE AIR FORCE:

Sir.

Saw in the Portland paper a short time ago in regards to an
article in regards to the so called flying disc having any basis
in fact. I can say am a prospector and was in the Mt Adams
district on June 24th the day Kenneth Arnold of Boise Idaho
claims he saw a formation of flying disc. And i saw the same
flying objects at about the same time. Having a telescope with
me at the time i can asure you they are real and noting like
them I ever saw before they did not pass verry high over where I
was standing at the the time.

plobly 1000 ft. they were Round about 30 foot in dimater
tapering sharply to a point in the head and in an oval shape.
with a bright top surface. I did not hear any noise as you would
from a plane.

But there was an object in the tail end looked like a big hand
of a clock shifting from side to side like a big magenet. There
speed as far as i know seemed to be greater than anything I ever
saw.

Last view I got of the objects they were standing on edge
Banking in a Cloud.

  Yours Respectfully
  (Fred Johnson)

*******

(Note: the Blue Book file page which contains this letter is
labelled "A TRUE COPY" that was authenticated by Lt. Col. Donald
Springer. I assume that the errors in the above letter were in
the original letter and were not simply errors in copying.)

At this time during the summer of 1947 the FBI was actively
investigating sightings, at the request of the Army Air Force,
to determine whether or not any such reports could be part of
subversive activities carried on by enemies of the United
States. (Yes, the "X-Files" are real. The FBI ended these
investigations in Sept, 1947,, having found no evidence of
subversion.) Therefore, at the request of the Air Force, an FBI
agent interviewed Mr. Johnson. He sent a copy of his report to
FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, with the title "REPORTS OF
FLYING DISCS, SECURITY MATTER -X." This report was discovered
when the FBI responded to a Freedom of Information Act request
which I made in 1976 for any documents concerning flying
saucers, UFOs, etc. The FBI report on Johnson's sighting reads
as follows:

*******

(Fred Johnson, resident of) First Avenue, Portland (Oregon),
reported without consulting any records that on June 24, 1947,
while prospecting at a point in the Cascade Mountains
approximately five thousand feet from sea level, during the
afternoon he noticed a reflection, looked up, and saw a disc
proceeding in a southeasterly direction. Immediately upon
sighting this object he placed his telescope to his eye and
observed the disc for approximately forty-five to sixty seconds.
He remarked that it is possible for him to pick up an object at
a distance of ten miles with his telescope. At the time the disc
was sighted by Johnson it was banking in the sun, and he
observed five or six similar objects but only concentrated on
one. He related that they did not fly in any particular
formation and that he would estimate their height to be about
one thousand feet from where he was standing. He said the object
was about thirty feet in diameter and appeared to have a tail.
It made no noise.

According to Johnson he remained in the vicinity of the Cascades
for several days and then returned to Portland and noted an
article in the local paper which stated in effect that a man in
Boise, Idaho, had sighted a similar object but that authorities
had disclaimed any knowledge of such an object. He said he
communicated with the Army for the sole purpose of attempting to
add credence to the story furnished by the man in Boise. Johnson
also related that on the occasion of his sighting the objects on
June 24, 1947 he had in his possession a combination compass and
watch. He noted particularly that immediately before he sighted
the disc the compass acted very peculiar, the hand waving from
one side to the other, but that this condition corrected itself
immediately after the discs had passed out of sight.

Informant appeared to be a very reliable individual who advised
that he had been a prospector in the states of Montana,
Washington and Oregon for the past forty years.

*****************


 >>I think they may have been
 >>farther than Johnson thought because I think they were probably
 >>higher than he thought, not because I think they were at a great
 >>distance and on the horizon.

 >Well, what is that "farther" distance, 2,000 feet, 3,000 feet?

I think several thousand feet higher than Johnson. However, we
don't know whether Johnson had nearby high mountains to compare
them with. He saw them banking into a cloud. What was the cloud
height? About a mile? I suppose one could try to find a weather
report for cloud height in the Cascade range on that day at 3
PM!

Also, he said he saw them "banking in the sun" which suggests
that at least at one time they were close to the sun direction,
about 60 degrees elevation. The way the FBI report is written
one might think that he first saw the first object as it was
banking in the sun. If this is true then the sighting began when
the objects were west of him and, if the sighting was at the
time of Arnolds, then they were nearly at 60 degree elevation.
Unfortunately the FBI was not precise enough in these interviews
to dig out important details of the dynamics of the sighting.
NOTE: PELICANIST ALERT. (If you guys had really been thinking
you would have thought of this first.) Johnson said he saw them
"banking in the sun" with the implication that this is when
there was a bright reflection. If pelicanists have learned
anything from the discussion of Arnold, they have learned that
bright reflections from pelicans were not possible in the Arnold
sighting because the objects were east of him... n possibility
for a bright forward reflection such as reported by A. C. larke
and quoted here by some. But now we have the
optimum...perhaps... arrangement for the pelicanist in the
Johnson sighting... assuming you take it as true that Johnson
saw one (or mre) "banking in the sun.", (Oh, I can just imagine
some hearts starting to flutter with excitement!!!!)



PELICANIST PROBLEM: hmmmm, what ELSE can we deduce from the
Candidate Explanatory Hypothesis (CEP) that ARnold and now
Johnson saw pelicans?

Well, Arnold's time pof sighting is well known... abou 3 pm.
Suppose he saw pelicans flying southward and last saw them
heading toward Mt. Adams in the Cascade Range. How long would it
take the pelicans (straight line flight) to arrive?

If they could maintain their assumed top speed of 50 mph, to
travel the 50 miles (about ) would require an hour (about). They
would then perhaps come into Johnson's view about 4 PM.

Johnson said he saw the objects at "about the same time."

The time of Arnold's sighting had been publicized, so Johnson
would have known it was 3 PM when Arnold saw them. Could Johnson
have been off by 1 hour? Well, he did say his compass was acting
funny just before and during te sighting. The compass was
combined in some way with his watch. Hence one might deduce that
he had noted the time on his watch at the time of the sighting.
There was therefore justification for him to say that he saw the
objects at "about the same time."

Could his watch have been an hour slow (reading 3 pm when it was
4 pm?)

Another pelicanist problem:

Could Johnson have noted a tail at the rear end but failed to
note wings flapping and a head with large beak at the front?

 >>Had they been 10 miles away I think he would have said so
 >>directly. I still think he was just trying to impress the FBI
 >>agents with the quality of his telescope that allowed him to see
 >>things at ten miles.

 >Johnson never boasted about his telescope in his letter to the
 >AAF. It only came up in the FBI interview and seems like it was
 >additional detail supplied in response to questioning.

Johnson said "having a telescope I can assure they are real"\
(paraphrase). This suggests that he was emphasizeing the
importance of the telescope giving him a good view of the
objects and because they were seen through a telescope they were
"real." This is not boasting about the telescope, per se, but
using the telescopic observation to buttress his argument about
having seen the objects.

I suppose the FBI asked Johnson how good his telescope was and
he responded that he could see objects 10 miles away. Of ourse,
this does not tell us much about the power of the telescope (see
below)

 >Johnson's statement sounds like a type of speech pattern I've
 >noticed in Arnold's speech and writing where statements are
 >sometimes made by _indirection_, like giving clues or hints or
 >allusions to indicate uncertainty. So he gives his estimate of
 >the distance to the object by telling the distance at which he
 >can see objects in the telescope. Arnold likewise says in his
l>etter to the AAF in July 1947 that the sky was so clear he
 >could see almost 50 miles -- this was a hint at his estimate of
 >the objects' initial distance which he otherwise does not give
 >in his AAF letter, and elsewhere he says it directly. Arnold's
 >words are very similar to Johnson's about how he can see objects
 >at 10 miles.

Yes, well, maybe, or perhaps your reading between the lines is
reading too much into the lines. An alternative might be that he
might have said, "Well, I can see objects at 10 miles, but these
weren't at ten miles, they were closer, so imagine how much
better I could see them."

 >>Of course, we all know that being able to
 >>"see things" at 10 miles does not tell us the strength of the
 >>scope. 3X binoculars help one to see things at 10 miles better
 >>than\ one can see them without the binoculars. ertainly the same
 >>would be true of a 10X monocular or... pick a magnification!

 >>I think it is _less_ likely that the objects were "close" to
 >>overhead than that they were 10 miles away nearly on the
 >>horizon.

OOPS. My error here. Should have written " _more_ likely"
instead of less likely.

 >I don't see why it's such a problem to believe Johnson saw the
 >objects near the horizon when Arnold saw the objects so close to
t>he horizon.

And I don't see why the problem to "believe" (there's THAT "b"
word again) that the objects were, say higher then 45 degrees at
least at one time, especially in view of banking in the sun and
banking into a cloud (clouds maybe 1 miles above Johnson'
elevation)

 >There is another extraordinary correlation, this time in angular
 >size. Johnson estimated the objects were about 30 feet in size.
I>f they were the same objects that Arnold saw, and Arnold
 >estimated they were about 100 feet in diameter, then why didn't
 >Johnson get the impression of such an enormous size especially
 >since they _seemed_ much much closer to Johnson, and should have
 >impressed him more than Arnold? Of course determining distance
 >and size is difficult without reference points but the ratio of
 >size to distance (= angular size) is directly observable.

Again, we don't know where Johnson was or where the objects
traveled relative to him (although "banking in the sun" suggests
west of him at least part of the time).

Mountains in the Cascade range soar over 10,000 ft/ He said he
was at 5000 ft. Hence it is conceivable that they objects passed
between him and a distant (several miles) mountain, or that they
were close enough to the mountain peaks (note Arnold's claim of
flying "in and out" of th mountain peaks south of Rainier) so
that he could compare their size with the known (to him) sizes
of the features on th moutains.

With Arnold we know how he arriaved at an angular size and how
he arrived at an estimated size (which was too small) With
Johnson all we know is that the FBI agents recorded an estimated
size told them by Johnson wict no way of knowing whether he got
that by comparision with something of known size or simply
pulled it out of a well known oriface wen asked "how big was
it?"

 >But if Arnold and Johnson were seeing identical objects far off
 >in the distance at exactly the same time, then there can be a
 >more direct correlation. If the objects seemed to be 30 feet at
 >10 miles to Johnson then scaling this up to Arnold's impressions
 >of size and distance would be about 70 feet at Arnold's 23-mile
 >distance estimate. And in fact Arnold estimated the size at that
 >close approach distance as about 95 to 100 feet, which is very
 >close to 70 feet when considering typical witness error margins.
 >(Arnold gave the 100-foot figure explicitly and also compared
t>he object's size to the furthest engines on a DC-4, 60 feet
 >wide, at about 15 miles, which scales up to about 95 feet at 23
 >miles.)

 >Why does the 10-mile distance work out so nicely whereas your
 >presumably 2,000-3,000-foot distance for Johnson would make
 >Johnson's objects about 1,500 feet in size at Arnold's distance
 >instead of 95-100 feet in size?

 >Another way to look at it is that Arnold's objects were about
 >2.5 arcminutes in angular size at their closest whereas with
 >Johnson they were about 2 arcminutes, a very close matchup.

I think the objects were several thousand feet higher and
perhaps as much as a couple of miles away at their closest.

Note, by the way, that at 1700 mph they would have traveled
perhaps 14 miles during the observation if his time of
observation were only 30 sec (he estimated 45-60 sec). Obviously
diring this time the objects would have reached a considerable
distance from him by the end of the observation.

So at the end of the observation it is reasonable to assume they
were nearly on the horizon.


 >>I think it is perfectly possible for Johnson to have tracked one
 >>or more of the objects by moving his monocular telescope
 >>(assumed, since he didn't say binocular).

 >This ignores the indisputable fact it strains the neck to hold
 >up a telescope to one's eye at a high angle and makes it
 >difficult to hold steady. Holding it level is easier to do and
 >the horizon line provides a guide to keeping the telescope
 >steady on an object speeding along near the horizon.

One can strain for short periods of time if one wants to . If
the objects werer traveling at 1700 mph and the objects were at
cloud height the strain would not last long... they would be
"overhead" for only a short time.

PELICAN PROBLEM: at 1700 mph = 1/2 mile per second the Arnold
UFOs would not take long to pass from "overhead" (or at a high
angle of elevation) to a low angle of elevation. Had they passed
directly overhead 1/2 miles above johnson, then one second later
(one second after being directly overhead) they would be 1/2
mile above and 1/2 mile distant horizontally or at an angle of
45 degrees elevation. In 2 seconds they would reach an elevation
angle of about 26 degrees and so on.

If pelicans at 50 mph = 0.014 miles per second, passed directly
overhead 1/2 mile above, it would take 36 seconds to travel 1/2
mile to reach 45 degree elevation.

It would take 1.2 minutes for the pelicans to travel 1 mile
horizontally and reach 26 degree elevation. It would take many
minutes for them to get out of sight of a person who watched
through binoculars that could see things at "10 miles" not
necessarily pelicans at 10 miles). In other words, had these
been Arniold's pelicans, the sighting would have occurred an
hour or so later and it would have lasted many minutes, not a
minute or less as stated by Johnson.

 >>I think the main point to emphasize here is that Johnson got a
 >>very good look at the objects and saw a detail unnoticed by
 >>Arnold: some object, perhaps bar-like, that was swinging back
 >>and forth at the rear end of an (each?) object, "like a big
 >>magenet" (sic).

 >I don't think it was unnoticed by Arnold. Johnson's
 >wagging-tail observation is hinted at when Arnold describes a
 >"tadpole" shape and the way the objects "flipped and flashed" or
 >had a "fluttering" and "jerking" motion.

 >>>I notice no comment on the extraordinary match between this 2�
 >>>elevation angle derived from Fred Johnson's distance/height
 >>>impressions and Arnold's 2� elevation angle which I take as
 >>>confirmation of each other.

 >>I don't think there is a match.

 >The numbers speak volumes. Both have about 2� elevation angle.
 >Johnson's objects would have been about 70 feet if at the same
 >distance as Arnold's, when the latter estimated 95-100 feet. Or,
 >we have 2.5 arcminutes for Arnold and 2 arcminutes for Johnson.

At 2 degree elevation all the time it is difficult to understand
"banking into the sun."

.....................








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                       Re: Serious Research - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:48:14 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:22:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Maccabee


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:10:01 EDT
 >Subject: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca>

Young:

 >>>Even though you do not want to be held to the requirement that
 >>>each case offer proof of the ETH, you insist that I must meet
 >>>that standard (although for a now, curiously, reduced number of
 >>>only 18 cases), and that I must offer a convincing explanation
 >>>for each, in order to falsify your ETH hypothesis.

Hall:

 >Why shouldn't you be required to offer convincing explanations?
 >Is not the fact that they cannot be explained that is important
 >as a basis for the ETH?

Young:

 >Yes, I suppose this would be so, but "unexplained" cases do not
 >necessarily mean ETH. Here is the rub, you also need proof of
 >ETH. I'm perfectly willing, and interested, in discussing these
 >incidents, maybe it's possible to come up with a prosaic
 >explanation for some.

I have been presenting the following argument for years,
including on this mail List:

There is no point in proposing the ETH as a Candidate
Explanatory Hypothesis (CEP) for a UFO sighting until all CEP's
based on known phenomena have been proposed, analyzed and
rejected. This is science when something truly new is being
claimed: try to explain the new phnomenon interms of what is
known. When the explanation fails, then you have something new.
This is what happened when Placnk proposed the "action quantul"
to explain the blackbody radiation spectrum. Classical physics,
what was "known" at the time, could not explain it. All attempts
at using known physics of the day failed. That meant something
new was necessary.

Unfortunately for the UFO phenomenon it is not as easy to
provide experimental evidence with which to compare to nown
explanations. However, the procedure is the same: given the
information in a UFO sighting, define the characteristics of the
described phenomenon and then ompare with the characteristics of
any and all CEP that might possibly explain it.

In the Arnold case, for example. (since it has been argued to
death here!) pelicans has been proposed as a CEP. Then ask the
question, why couldn't the phenomenon be the CEP?

To answer this question you have to compare carefully the
characteristics of the CEP (pelicans fly at 50 mph max; pelicans
do not reflect like mirrors when _not_ aligned with the sun;
pelicans have a particular shape and flap teir wings) with the
characteristics of the observed phenomenon (appear to travel at
very high speed; flash brightly like mirrors even though NOT in
the direction to the sun; don't look like pelicans and didn't
flap their wings).

This is a highly simplified version of the Anold argument, but I
think it makes the point. In this case a reasonable person could
conclude that pelicans are not the answer because the
characteristics don't match.

(I know, Easton will come charging back with an army of
ornithologists.) Similar analyses can b applied to the mirage
and blowing cloud theories of Arnold's sighting.

_First_ find a sighting that everyone agrees is unexplainable.
If that is impossible, then there is no point in discussing the
ETH.

Richard is claiming he knows sightings that are unexplainable
and he ten goes on to say that the ETH seems a reasonable
non-comventional explanation.

He should not be "accused" of proposing that th ETH is the best
explanation by a person who has offered no explanation himself.

It IS a burden on the doubter of the ETH or any unconventional
explanation to provide a conventional explanation. Got That?
Most sceptics and I guess ALL debunkers (scoffers) don't get
that!

If you doubt the ETH, then propose conventional explanations
forn sightings which _might_ be evidence of the ETH if they can
be explained in No Conventional way.


 >This is not the same as my being required to offer a convincing
 >explanation for 18 mysteries, in order to prove that your
 >hypothesis is false. It's up to you to prove your own
 >hypothesis, in other words, that the most reasonable explanation
 >for these mysteries in the ETH.

Sure. Prove the ETH... but _after_ proving that any one or all
of the 18 sightings can NOT be explained in a conventional
manner. If you doubt the ETH, that is fine. But don't criticize
Richard for suggesting it as a possible explanation while you
offer no explanation of your own fr any one of the sghtings.
And, by the way, if you be so bold as to offer an explanation,
don't expect it to be acepted atface value (that's the
debunker's approach). You will have to defend it against all
attacks (just as the ETH would have to be defended against all
attacks).

 >In fact, in good science it would be up to you to discuss
 >alternative explanations, and then show why the ETH is a better
 >explanation, not me.

That's a good point. And you can bet that Richard has considered
... and rejected... alternate explanations. You have seen the
mental gyrations and analyses that have been carried out before
your very eyes on this list over the Arnold sighting.

You haven't been privileged to see similar intense analyses of
the New Zealand sightings, the Japan Airlines sightings and, I dare
say, some of the Gulf Breeze sightings, all of which have led to the
rejection of conventional explanations.

Perhaps you wuld like Richard to present all the explanations
that were proposed, and he rejected, for the 18 sightings.

For example, balloon for Zamora.

After we are done, what are you left with? Either believing
(there's that "b" word again) that Zamora _did_ see a balloon in
spite of counter-argments, or else that the sighting is
unexplained.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                 Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:27:14 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:24:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ledger


 >From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:56:59 -0300 (BRT)

 >I am looking for images of the dummies used by the Air Force and
 >then blamed to the the cause of the Roswell beings.

 >Can someone help me?


These would be the same dummies that were used for
experimentation in 1952-3 some 5 years later?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:59:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:27:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Velez


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:52:06 -0400

 >>Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:50:56 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>I suppose in the best traditions of this list I should say "Read
 >>the Collected Works of... (insert sceptics name here)" and
 >>announce that anyone who does not the agree with me is
 >>"uninformed" or has not read the literature sufficiently
 >>diligently. However, I shall try to be a little more
 >>constructive.

 >>One example that comes to mind, where sceptical ufologists
 >>carefully examined witness accounts and came to conclusion
 >>different from the witnesses' assumptions, is the Cracoe Fell
 >>case in Yorkshire, northern England. A full account can be found
 >>in Clarke, Randles and Roberts's book "The UFOs That Never Were"
 >>(one of the 'Collected Works' I would have people read)

 >Thanks for all of this. Your examples are interesting, and I've
 >just ordered the book from Amazon.

 >>I can give you a case, personally investigated but unfortunately
 >>not documented, where a witness 'saw' the Moon fly over them.
 >>But that is, of course, only anecdotal testimony. I am curious
 >>as to at what point you *would* question eyewitness testimony. I
 >>am sure you don't believe that all witness reports should be
 >>taken as unchallengable, objective records of events. Just where
 >>would you draw the line, and begin to suspect that things might
 >>not quite have happened exactly as the witness described?

 >A fair question. I'd begin my answer by saying that I always
 >suspect things might not have happened exactly as the witness
 >described. For instance, I spent some time in Pine Bush, a town
 >not far from New York famous as an alleged UFO hot spot. It was
 >easy to find local people who said they'd seen UFOs. Twice
 >people told me that something passed overhead, silent, blocking
 >out the sky, all lit up, "as big as the Enterprise" (or, to be
 >precise, as big as they'd expect the Enterprise to be, since
 >obviously they've never seen a fictional starship).

<snip>

Hi Greg, John, All,

Greg wrote:

 >In a different category are people who've told me they've seen
 >classic flying saucers, which they describe in detail, hovering
 >very close to them. In one case, the craft was allegedly
 >hovering over a house across the street from the witness's home,
 >in a New York suburb.

Peter Brookesmith was in town a few years ago while he was
researching his book, 'Abduction'. We went to the location in
Brooklyn where I lived at the time of the sighting/abduction I
had back in the late 70's. Peter took a series of photos two of
which were used in the book when it was published. Being an
artist all my life I couldn't resist 'doctoring' his photos so
that they depicted the event itself. It was therapeutic for me
to create them because it allowed me to pull those images out of
my head and objectify them. (Get them out of my head and on
paper.)

The pictures represent (to the best of my ability) the UFO
contact and abduction event that I experienced (consciously)
that night. Because Greg mentioned it in his response to John I
posted them on the following webpage at the AIC website:

http://www.spacelab.net/~jvif/myart3.htm

It'll give people a chance to 'see it' the way I did. In the
one depicting the Grey aliens I exercised a little artistic
license in order to create the 'surreal' feeling connected
to such an extraordinary event. I hope it gives folks the
feeling of "being there." The photos that the graphics were
created from were taken 'on site' and represent the actual
location where the events took place. I have made the UFO
sighting as visually accurate as I can. What you see is what
I saw.

Enjoy - if that is possible with this disturbing subject. ;)


Warm 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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:06:11 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:30:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:52:24 +0100


 >>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:40:19 -0300
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook


 >>The point I was trying to make is that the pilots were on the
 >>spot-and pretty good observers.The experts [meaning
 >>investigators and or astronomers] were not and when the UFO
 >>didn't fit the usual description of a UFO in the new sense of
 >>the word, then the pilots must have been mistaken. Once you
 >>begin second guessing the witness [in place] and making
 >>assumptions then you risk changing the evidence to make the
 >>sighting fit into a category it does not deserve.

Hi Don, Jenny,

The UFO investigator is within rights to openly propose a
correction to "change" the evidence, but not to do so secretly
or in such a way that it is not clearly apparent. It needs to be
forthrightly and openly stated so that it may be discussed and
properly evaluated as an explanation or to help in the
explanation of a case. For example, in another recent posting on
UFO UpDates a completely fabricated map of the T-33 flight path
in the classic Ft. Monmouth case of Sept 10, 1951, originally
concocted by Project Grudge in an attempt to see if the sighting
could be force fit into the balloon hypothesis, is now
mistakenly offered up as the _actual_ T-33 flight path. This is
unacceptable.

Philip Klass rejects Jennie Zeidman's careful analysis of the
5-minute duration of the Coyne helicopter case in order to
reduce it to within the time span of a long-duration meteor
fireball. He is perfectly within his rights to do so - and we
are perfectly within our rights to reject his alteration if we
wish - as long as it is openly stated that this is what he is
doing because he believes the time estimation is in error (and
regrettably the crew did not make actual time records and there
are none from air-ground radio communications). He is not within
his rights to simply go around writing up the case as under 1
minute duration as if Zeidman's analysis of a 5-minute duration
didn't exist (and I don't think Phil does that). Phil takes
issue with pilot Coyne's recollection that he was holding the
collective control on the helicopter down in a steep dive and
then suddenly discovered they were rising in altitude not
descending and at unexpectedly high elevation. He is within his
rights to state that Coyne has a mistaken recollection due to
the life-or-death stress of the potentially deadly situation. We
are within our rights to reject that explanation if we wish. He
is not within his rights to simply change the story to ignore
Coyne's testimony (again I don't think Phil does that - he
always carefully states what he believes is Coyne's error).


 >Yes, I do appreciate this is a danger inherent within UFO
 >investigation.

 >But, we also need to balance the known fallibility of witness
 >perception (something for which there is extensive evidence and
 >experimental data) with the view that witnesses know best what
 >they saw.

In the Hynek definition of a UFO report the witness is not the
scientist on his/her own case (unless he/she happens to be a
scientist _and_ wants to serve in that role, of course). The
witnesses in most cases do not know how to investigate UFO's.
The UFO investigator has the responsibility of investigating the
case with scientific and technical competence and/or seeking out
specialists with competence in the necessary fields.

The witness may know best what _observational details_ they saw
but that is not the same thing as knowing "what" they saw, i.e.,
identifying and investigating what it was they saw.

As far as "known witness fallibility" the amount is apparently a
lot less than skeptics want to believe. Skeptics love to pick
out extreme cases to ridicule the "UFO" accounts but they are
usually questionable single-witness cases and they shy away from
statistical analysis of larger numbers of cases (even Battelle
found the higher the quality of the case the higher the
percentages found Unknown).

As I pointed out recently on UFO UpDates the Condon Committee
suppressed a proper statistical analysis of witness
observational accuracy from the various multiple-witness IFO
cases it had investigated or had available that could have
served as control studies for witness perception despite its
loud and dishonest claims of studying exactly that issue.
Instead the Condon project mixed witness conclusions and
interpretations with observational data and then blamed the
witnesses for their own error in doing so - but it never took
the trouble in three separate chapters purportedly on witness
perceptual abilities and other widely mounted attacks on witness
skills to actually study its own project Case data on it (the
Zond-4 doesn't even count because the Condon Committee didn't
investigate it, it wasn't a Case file, the committee just
studied Blue Book's uninvestigated case files, and Hartmann
badly mangled his very poor analysis of the data).

When I analyzed several of these large-witness IFO cases in the
Condon Report for the first time in history two weeks ago - the
Condon Committee didn't do it for the obvious reason it comes
out too "pro" witness for accuracy (see the grudging comments on
Case 18), and nobody else ever had done so on the CR data,
skeptics or proponents alike - I discovered the witnesses were
about 97% to 98% accurate.

See my posts on this:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m11-030.shtml
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m13-017.shtml

Now I'm sure that if one did a similar analysis of these same
witnesses' _interpretations_ and _conclusions_ the accuracy
would be much lower, and that is to be expected because the
witness is not the scientist investigator of his/her case. But
it is unfair and dishonest to mix this in with their
observational data.

Are we to ignore the Condon Committee's very fair summation of
what should be done to screen out most single-witness cases?
Debunkers on the Condon Committee including Roy craig himself
loved to violate his own rule to screen out single-witness cases
as stated below and lambaste UFOlogy because of what silly
things a single witness said in a single-witness IFO case and
ignoring the massive evidence of 97%-98% witness reliability
readily available in their own Case studies. Here is what the
"reasonable" Craig said (CR p. 74):

   "Both Dr. J. Allen Hynek, scientific consultant to the Air
   Force on UFOs, and Dr. Peter M. Millman (1968), who is
   presently in charge of the handling of UFO reports in Canada
   and has had an active nterest in UFO reports for nearly 20
   years, have said they do not favor any field investigation of
   single-observer sightings because of the difficulty in
   deriving useful scientific information from such reports.

   "Such policies and recommendations have grown out of much
   experience and practical considerations."

Yet Craig himself in the very same chapter just one paragraph
earlier (CR p. 73) in effect violated this rule by ridiculing a
very inaccurate "extreme misperception" single-witness IFO case
(Case 45) which by his own admission should never have been
investigated by the Condon Committee in the first place, a waste
of precious field investigation resources. Their excuse for
investigating was that "several" people accurately reported
seeing a hot-air-balloon-like "illuminated transparent object
drifting over the town" - no indication they even called it a
"UFO" and no one bothering to tabulate their accurate reporting
- but one lone nut case claimed it was 75 feet in size. So they
seized on this for the ridicule factor ignoring the accuracy of
the other reports (see snide use made by Craig CR pp. 64, 73,
where Craig couldn't even keep straight the distance the witness
reported, whether 30 or 75 feet). I quote from the Condon Report
(p. 395): "Mainly because the principal witness insisted that
the object appeared to be about 75 ft. long, project
investigators went to the scene." Even though they already knew
it was a hot-air prank balloon.

So they knew it was bogus but wanted to document the nutball so
they could trumpet his crazy testimony to the detriment of
accurate witnesses who were shunted aside and left uncounted. So
that debunkers could forever after seize upon crackpot testimony
such as this as Exhibit A in the Case Against the UFO. Similar
dishonest smear tactics such as this were used in focusing on
other nutball single-witness cases such as the bored security
guard who claimed he fired his gun at a UFO (Case 26) or the
psychic UFO-landing prediction case (Case 19) and the similar
notorious Cadillac-driving Mr. Dixsun psychic-prediction case
Condon personally loved - all lavished with attention despite
the rule that "the project generally did not investigate
single-observer cases" (CR p. 61).


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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                           The Watchdog - 04-25-02

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:20:53 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:46:55 -0400
Subject: The Watchdog - 04-25-02


UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind"

***NEWS***

~ Crash Debris Confirmed: Not of this World!
~ Incredible Chile UFO Sighting, Report of Entities
~ Project 1947 Back On-Line
~ Space Invaders: A Close Encounter With UFO Investigator Jerry Black
~ So-Called "UFO Buster" Debunks UFOs
~ The State of Ufology

*First Annual Northwest UFO/Paranormal Conference*

http://www.seattleartbellchatclub.com/NWUFO.html

***COMMENTS***

Your comments always welcome! Send to ufowatchdog@earthlink.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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                         Re: Serious Research - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:37:02 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:49:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:10:01 EDT
 >Subject: Serious Research
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:07:25 -0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research - Hall

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:47:52 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

I said:

 >>Why shouldn't you be required to offer convincing explanations?
 >>Is not the fact that they cannot be explained that is important
 >>as a basis for the ETH?

Bob replied:
 >Yes, I suppose this would be so, but "unexplained" cases do not
 >necessarily mean ETH. Here is the rub, you also need proof of
 >ETH. I'm perfectly willing, and interested, in discussing these
 >incidents, maybe it's possible to come up with a prosaic
 >explanation for some.

I'm well aware that unexplained (why the quotes?) cases do not
prove ETH. I have said that repeatedly. Also, you seem to be
almost willfully unable to understand my carefully stated
position, which in itself I find very interesting. I am
advancing a hypothesis (which can then be tested) not "proof" of
ET. I have said all along that what I am trying to convey is
that the ETH, when you study the evidence, is a quite reasonable
hypothesis. It will take a lot more scientific study than you or
I (or the entire field of amateur "ufology") can bring to bear
in order to prove anything.

Since you clearly assume that all UFOs would be IFOs if
thorougly investigated (or if truth be known), you obviously
don't feel any need to actually investigate or analyze the best
and most puzzling cases available. As others have suggested,
this leads to circular reasoning on your part which, in
shorthand, amounts to "they can't be, therefore they aren't."

Go ahead and see if you can find prosaic explanations for any of
the 18 or 20 cases. That would be a definite contribution.
However, if nothing else a debate on these cases would at least
help to make overt the assumptions, logic, and reasoning that a
skeptibunker (I like that term) and a UFO advocate use to argue
their respective positions. I think that is worthwhile in
itself, and don't really expect we will change each others (or
anyone else's) minds.

 >This is not the same as my being required to offer a convincing
 >explanation for 18 mysteries, in order to prove that your
 >hypothesis is false. It's up to you to prove your own
 >hypothesis, in other words, that the most reasonable explanation
 >for these mysteries in the ETH.

Already covered.

 >In fact, in good science it would be up to you to discuss
 >alternative explanations, and then show why the ETH is a better
 >explanation, not me.

Sorry, you have this exactly backwards. In science, someone
advances a hypothesis based on analysis of data. In the peer
review process, other scientists who disagree with the
hypothesis try to demonstrate wherein the data, the analysis,
the reasoning is erroneous. A typical counterthrust would be for
someone to try to demonstrate a better explanation for the same
data. So show me! Alternative explanations always are considered
by every serious UFO investigator. Ask anyone who knows what
NICAP's procedures were.

 >>If you are going to approach this debate by merely generalizing
 >>about problems of eyewitness testimony and not addressing the
 >>specific cases as to how they can be explained in those terms,
 >>what good is that? That amounts to a sweeping rejection of all
 >>eyewitness testimony (some supported by objective evidence)
 >>without bothering to study the individual cases.

 >No, I would like to examing specific evidence for these cases.
 >As far as generalizations are concerned, your hypothesis was,

 >>>>My position is and always has been that it is the cumulative
 >>>>evidence of many hundreds of cases of the type illustrated in this
 >>>>article (see UFOE-II), and associated physical evidence of
 >>>>various types, and recurring patterns closely similar or identical
 >>>>to the cases illustrated in this article, are what make the ETH
 >>>>the most likely interpretation. For purposes of the present debate,
 >>>>I am willing to base my argument on these 18 cases.

 >>By the way, IFOs often are simply applied labels and not
 >>necessarily convincing explanations.

 >We agree here.

 >>My "responsibility" is to show you the cases I base my views on,
 >>which I have done.

 >When you say, "cases", this must be more than just a listing of
 >incidents, but must be a presentation of evidence.

Which I have done partially here (ISSO) and fully elsewhere.
This was a condensed article. I gave plenty of references where
the complete details could be found.

 >>>The other thing is that it is really not my responsibility to
 >>>offer evidence for alternate explanations, although these may
 >>>come to light as the examination of each case proceeds. It is
 >>>you, as the proponent of the hypothesis, to do this. For
 >>>example, the 1997 Sturrock Panel questioned the presenters about
 >>>the evidence for specific cases and this is what would happen if
 >>>any other scientific panel were to review your evidence.

 >>Bob, are you really serious?

 >Very.

Round and round we go.

 >>Do you really think good UFO investigators don't screen
 >>cases and constantly look for alternative explanations.

 >The question isn't what good UFO investigators do or do not do,
 >but whether there is sufficient evidence in these 18 cases for
 >your hypothesis that the ETH is the best explanation.

You're getting close.

 >>You are the one claiming or implying (without investigation)
 >>that they can be explained.

 >I made no such claim.

It is a very clear implication of your repeated statements that
every UFO is in principle explainable as an IFO if truth were
known. To the point that you don't even find it worthwhile to
study the cases unless, as you expect, you may find a few
prosaic explanations.

 >I think that several have had prosaic explanations put forward.

Convincingly to you? If so, let's hear you comment on them.

 >I think that I pointed out that with 50 years of UFO reports to
 >select from, it is not only possible, but likely that one or
 >more of these 20 will remain unexplained. Puzzles still remain
 >puzzles, but a puzzle is not necessarily proof of anything.

Zzzz.

 >>So I'll take you at your word. Let's start "discussion of each
 >>of these cases."

 >OK, we could go round and round, here, for ever. Let's try and
 >see if we can pare the list down a little.

 >In 1997 a group of nine scientists took part in a panel which
 >reviewed evidence put forward by a group of UFOlogists. This
 >became known as the Pocantico Workshop or "Sturrock Workshop",
 >after the moderator, Peter Sturrock. A report, "Physical
 >Evidence Related to UFO Reports" was published in the Journal of
 >Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, p. 170, and can be found, with
 >supporting information, at the magazine's site,

 >http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/ufo_reports/
 >sturrock/toc.html

 >Among the cases presented to the panel were five on your list:

 >#3) 4/24/64 Socorra, New Mexico.

 >#5) 10/18/73 Mansfield, Ohio, helicopter incident.

 >#12) 4/17/66, Ravenna, Ohio, police chase.

 >#14) 9/17/76 Tehran, Iran, interceptor incident.

 >#17 23/27/80, Huffman, Texas, Cash-Landrum incident.

You corrected this error in a follow-up post.

 >The conclusions of the Sturrock Panel stated,

 >"It was clear that at least a few reported incidents might have
 >involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical
 >activity high above thunderstorms (e.g., sprites) or rare cases
 >of radar ducting. On the other hand, the review panel was not
 >convinced that any of the evidence involved currently unknown
 >physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an
 >extraterrestrial intelligence."

Which of course, without actually applying these "explanations"
to specific cases, you would prefer to believe.

 >In an article on June 29, 1998 at ABC News.com, panel member Tom
 >Holzer, a physicist with the National Center for Atmospheric
 >Research, said the study stopped well short of making any
 >conclusions that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial
 >craft. "You can never rule anything out, but we didn't see
 >any evidence for that", he said.

Naturally. You can't prove anything with a handful of cases.
Right? Also, you ought to take a look at Bernard Haisch's web
site that someone posted on this list a while back:
www.ufoskeptic.org Haisch is a professional astronomer of
considerable experience who established this site out of concern
that scientists are too readily and glibly discarding UFO
reports without proper study.

Clear thinking,

Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                         Correction & Clarification

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:57:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:53:33 -0400
Subject: Correction & Clarification


Brad Sparks points out that Richard Hall is indeed cited in the
Condon Report a number of times. My statement in the post here
was not precise.

Richard Hall visited the Colorado Project, made suggestions and
presentations, gave advice, and NICAP was initially asked to
help in a number of areas. You will not find any referrals to
any of these proposals, assistance, advice, and presentations
except in the acknowledgements aat the end which say that
Richard Hall and Donald Keyhoe supplied large amounts of UFO
case files.

As for Richard Hall being at the Colorado Project, that was not
mentioned in the report.

Further, as Davidson and others have pointed out, there are some
similar aspects in some of the 12 cases Battelle singled-out, in
Project Blue Book Special Report #14, as being good.

As Brad has pointed, out the rendering of cases 6 and 8 are
similar.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:41:36 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:56:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Balaskas


 >From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:56:59 -0300 (BRT)

<snip>

 >I am looking for images of the dummies used by the Air Force and
 >then blamed to the the cause of the Roswell beings.

 >Can someone help me?

<snip>

Hi Thiago.

Nearly 15 years after the Roswell UFO crash, a 280 foot diameter
shiny metallic looking sphere hovered high above New Mexico.

It was Project Stargazer with a crew of two Earthlings inside
the attached closed gondola.

The gondola, with two full-size human 'dummies', is on public
display at the US Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB in
Dayton, Ohio.

Since these dummies closely resembled those dropped from other
high alititude balloons around that time, I snapped a souvenir
photo of them during my visit to WPAFB.

The dummies, by the way, did not resemble pictures of any aliens
I have seen, with the exception of so-called Nordics with blank
stares.

If you like Thiago, I can mail you a copy of my snapshot but you
can find an equally good picture at:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/space_flight/sf12-1.jpg


Nick Balaskas








                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                 Website Profiles Martian 'Trees' Discovery

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:33:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:43:14 -0400
Subject: Website Profiles Martian 'Trees' Discovery


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

The Electric Warrior: News April 26, 2001
http://www.electricwarrior.com/

------------------------------------------------------------
martian enigmas

WEBSITE PROFILES MARTIAN "TREES" DISCOVERY

http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews001B.htm

Graham Orme says he posted MOC image M0804688 to the Web on
October 15th of last year, and then publicized it at a number of
popular online forums. "I mentioned this at the time at MSNBC,
the Red Planet Roundtable Discussion, and TEM (The Enterprise
Mission BBS). While I have always been careful not to assert
they definitely are plants I believe there is a good chance they
are."

The image got global attention when Arthur C. Clarke told
Space.com about some incredible photographs from NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory. "I'm fairly convinced that we have
discovered life on Mars," said Clarke. Richard C. Hoagland later
credited Orme with discovering the image, in an online article
touching on Clarke's statement.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/mpl.htm

Orme told The Electric Warrior he first noticed another image,
M0902042, as early as February 2000. He has catalogued an
impressive assortment of images with these amazing, life-like
features on his web site.

http://members.fortunecity.com/marsattack1/six/objects.htm

Orme says temperatures in this area of the south pole get very
close to zero degrees, and possibly above in Summer. "You see,
Mars has a tilt to its orbit of about 24 degrees, I think, and
this gives the top 24 degrees no nightfall for part of summer."
MSSS reported that temperatures were about minus 20 degrees not
far from this latitude, and Orme thinks that temperatures stay
high because the sun never sets at this time of year. "This
seems to imply a better environment for life than around the
equator."

For an in-depth analysis of this Martian phenomenon, read
VIEWS ON THE MARTIAN POLAR SPRING
http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/MarsOnline00A.htm

------------------------------------------------------------
ufo & extraterrestrial intelligence

PRG Update
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews001A.htm

Steven G. Basset of the Paradigm Research Group reports:

The Paradigm Clock will be reset on May 15.

The Disclosure Project press conference in the main room of the
National Press Club in Washington, DC has been formally
announced for May 9.

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m25-022.shtml

According to Steve Kaeser, the press will attend by invitation
only and the event is closed to the public.

"It is still hoped that we can get a clear picture of how the
session goes. A "V.I.P." briefing will be held on May 10th, and
a public full day briefing is to be held on Saturday, May 12th."

------------------------------------------------------------
abduction

PUERTO RICO CONFERENCE PRESENTS ABDUCTION BREAKTHROUH
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0019.htm

Scott Corrales of the Institute of Hispanic Ufology (IHU)
reports:

"The "Beln" case is probably the best documented abduction
experience to have emerged from Puerto Rico since the island
underwent a resurgence of UFO activity in the late 1980's."

The Electric Warrior has learned that OVNI.NET expects their
report on the symposium to be available in English in early May.

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
April 26, 2001
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

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

Web developers, the URL address for this content is:

http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews001B.htm
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews001A.htm
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0019.htm

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





                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                          UFO Over Bogota, Colombia

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:15:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:46:33 -0400
Subject: UFO Over Bogota, Colombia


SOURCE: Contacto OVNI (William Chavez)
DATE: April 23, 2001

UFO OVER BOGOTA, COLOMBIA

Today, at 4:15 p.m., three (3) objects of  unknown origin were
seen flying over Bogot (Colombia), where they were witnessed by
more than 3,000 people in the city's business district.

[The objects] were in the vicinity of Cerro El Cable hill and
Monserrate, where they remained motionless for 4 minutes. Radio
broadcaster "Radiodifusora Nacional" and Todelar phoned Contacto
OVNI, our research organization, to discuss this sighting live,
and because in recent years this type of phenomenon has become
increasingly common over Bogot.

Last March, a "mothership" was captured on video over Barrio
Santa Isabel. When the video was analyzed it was possible to see
a large tubular object at an altitude of 10,000 feet.

According to eyewitness statements made at the UFO conference
held by Contacto OVNI, this object headed toward Bogot's Cerro
El Cable, which has been the site of frequent UFO sightings.

Likewise, on April 15th of this year, Mr. Oscar Berrio filmed a
disc-shaped object in the vicinity of El Dorado Airport, and we
are investigating this sighting.

The calls received in recent days regarding this phenomenon in
the Colombian capital have been numerous. We shall keep you
informed of these developments and the preliminary results of
the videotapes in question.


#############
Translation (C) 2001. IHU.
Special thanks to William Chavez
  www.epagos.com/contacto-ovni






                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                     Re: Ft. Monmouth Revisited - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 04:55:55 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:11:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Ft. Monmouth Revisited - Sparks


 >From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 03:00:54 +0200
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:11:07 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Ft. Monmouth Revisited - Borraz

 >On September 10, 1951, while flying at 20,000 ft from a Delaware
 >to a Long Island airbase, two experienced fighter pilots in a
 >T-33 jet spotted an object "round and silver in color" which at
 >one stage of the attempted intercept appeared flat. The T-33 was
 >put into a descending turn to try to close on the object but the
 >latter turned more tightly (the airmen stated) and passed
 >rapidly eastward towards the coast of New Jersey and out to sea,
 >at an estimated speed of around 900 mph.

 >The official explanation pointed to a balloon. In fact, two
 >balloons were launched in the area shortly before the incident.


Hi Manuel,

I am curious (to use one of the favorite words of my friend Phil
Klass) why you suddenly developed an interest in this case at
this time? Are there other similar cases you are planning to
examine?

I am puzzled that you recognize the fact right here at the
outset that there were _two_ balloons not one, launched together
at the same time from the same location (which you fail to
mention), but there was only _one_ UFO, yet you never mention
the two balloons again? In a few places you mention "balloons"
plural vaguely but in several places you misleadingly talk about
"the balloon" and "a balloon." Is there any reason why you
never mention two balloons again? I am impelled to point this
out each time below because this omission is fatal to your
analysis.

How did you know there were two balloons launched? Why didn't
you mention that they were not just vaguely "launched in the
area" _as if_ unrelated to each other and in different
locations, but launched at the exact same time at the exact same
location? Both balloons were tracked by radar together until
they exploded at 104,000 feet some 79 minutes later, at an
average ascent rate of about 1,300 ft/min, which will be very
important for the analysis below.

The facts refuting the balloon theory are many:

1. There were _two_balloons_ ascending together but only _one_
UFO. Two objects were never seen by the two pilots in the T-33.

2. The two balloons were _above_ the T-33 and could never have
been seen "silhouetted" against the ground and water as the UFO
was during the entire sighting, but would _always_ have been
seen against the blue sky.

(The balloons were at about 27,000 feet rising to about 30,000
feet, but the T-33 was at 20,000 feet descending to 17,000 feet.
The UFO was at an estimated height of 5,000 to 8,000 feet
descending to about 2,000 feet.)

3. If the T-33 was located at about 3 miles northeast of Asbury
Park, heading NNE, as shown on an aeronautical chart in the
Project Grudge file, then the two balloons near Asbury Park
would not have been first seen nearly in front of the aircraft
(at 11 o'clock position) as reported but nearly _behind_ the
aircraft (at about 7 o'clock position).

4. If the balloons were somehow at the 11 o'clock position or
slightly to the left of straight ahead, then the T-33 in making
a left turn to head towards the UFO (supposedly the balloons)
would have been haeding straight at them in only 30 seconds and
there would have been no reason to continue the 120� turn off of
course for the Mitchel (not "Mitchell") Field base. Continuing
the turn, the balloons would have been on the _right_ of the
T-33 from then on. Yet the crew always saw the UFO on the
_left_.

5. The two balloons were so small and so far away according to
the Grudge map they would not have been noticed as they would
have been near the threshold of human visual resolution.

6. The UFO was observed descending. The two balloons ascended.

7. The UFO was seen as a flat disc shape when banking. The
balloons were approximately spherical.

8. The UFO was roughly plotted at a speed estimated at about
1,050 to 1,740 mph (30-50 nautical miles in 2 minutes) and the
T-33 at 550 mph was not able to overtake the balloons. As the
T-33 finished its 360� turn it should have ran right into the
alleged balloons.


 >But many years later, J. E. McDonald questioned this
 >explanation, concluding:

 >"The possibility that a pilot can be misled by depth perception
 >errors and coordinate-reference errors to misconstrue a weather
 >balloon as a fast-maneuvering object must always be kept in
 >mind. But in the Ft. Monmouth instance, as in many others that
 >could be discussed in detail, there is a very large gap between
 >the balloon hypothesis and the facts."

 >A good deal of information about this incident and its surroundings
 >can be found at:

 >http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/monmouthdir.htm

Since you very commendably refer to the above NICAP website did
you read over the material there before launching your
revisitation of the long refuted balloon explanation below?

 >I will try to show that the balloon explanation was very
 >probable indeed. To follow the discussion below I strongly
 >recommend to take a look at the map at:

Here are some strong arguments against the weather balloon
theory in the material at the NICAP website which you do not
mention had been made by the T-33 pilot Lt Wilbert S. Rogers
literally on Day One of the public reporting back in 1951. Fifty
years later we should recognize that this faulty theory has been
challenged right from the outset by the key witnesses.

"This couldn't have been a balloon," Rogers said, "because it
was descending and no balloon goes that fast."

(United Press, Sept 11, 1951:

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/fmS10p2.htm


Wash Daily News, Sept 11, 1951:

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/fmS11g.gif


See also NY World-Telegram & Sun, Sept 11, 1951:

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/fmS10p7.htm

-----

      "This couldn't have been a balloon, because it was
      descending" he said. "And besides, no balloon goes that
      fast."

                            Associated Press, Sept 11, 1951:

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/fmS10p4.htm

-----

      "Lt. Rogers reported... It was descending in an arc or
      boomerang fashion dispelling the idea that it might be a
      weather balloon, one of the explanations Air Force and Navy
      officials have given for flying saucers."

                          NY Herald Tribune, Sept. 12, 1951:

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/fmS10p1.htm

-----

      "Said Rogers:

      "'This couldn't have been a balloon. It was describing a
      descending arc as we got within 8,000 feet of it. And it
      was going at twice our maximum spped. No balloon flies that
      fast. Why, we couldn't have caught it in a World's record
      F-86 Sabrejet.'"

                                         INS, Sept 12, 1951:

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/fmS10p3.htm

-----

According to Ruppelt's unpublished papers, "It is interesting to
note that weeks later, when we proved at least to my
satisfaction that the UFO was a balloon, the two officers said
that we were nuts. They found several holes in our analysis."

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/monmouth2.htm


 >http://www.anomalia.org/fort-mon.jpg

 >(I thank Matias Morey -Fundacion Anomalia's webmaster- for
 >putting up the image in the net.)

 >I've taken the map from Willy Smith's book "On Pilots and UFOs"
 >(UNICAT PROJECT, 1997; chapter 1). According to Smith, it's "a
 >copy of the overlay included in Project Grudge, Report No. 1, 30
 >Nov. 1951, p.28, with the exact initial and final locations of
 >the balloons added."

That doesn't make the map accurate - it isn't. It was fudged to
try to fit the sequence of sighting lines to the balloons that
you drew in that was in fact first suggested by Project Grudge.
Grudge personnel could not even agree as to how much of an
alleged discrepancy there was in the T-33 ground track between
the two pilots - in the interrogation report transcript this is
said to be 10 nautical miles, in the Grudge Special Report this
is given as 5 nautical miles. There shouldn't be any difference
in these two numbers at all, it's a simple matter of measuring
with a ruler. The initial location of the T-33 shown on the
aeronautical chart in the Grudge files from interviews with the
pilots is about 10 nautical miles from the Pt. Pleasant location
stated by Lt. Rogers.


 >Let's take, for instance, five equally spaced points along the
 >trajectories of the T-33 and the UFO and let's draw a line
 >connecting each pair of points for a given time (that is,
 >assuming -to do the things simpler - that both the T-33 and the
 >UFO didn't vary their speed; in fact, the object is said to have
 >kept a constant speed, but the jet increased its speed when it
 >started to turn). What we obtain -see the red lines added to the
 >map- are the approximate directions of the line of sight from
 >T-33 to UFO during the incident.

 >Surprisingly, all the lines cross at a small area (the blue
 >triangle marked in the figure).

This is feigned "surprise" and an intentionally designed result.
Project Grudge specifically drew the map so as to see if it
could create a flight path that would cross at approximately the
same location so as to fit the balloon hypothesis.

Everything about this map is wrong - the T-33 is located wrong
and the balloons are located wrong. Your convergence zone in the
triangle is almost directly above the launch site near Belmar
and would require that the winds were only 5 mph or less from
nearly due S instead of about 12-17 mph (10-15 knots) from the
SSW.

 >Therefore it's conceivable that
 >a fixed or slow moving object located there were misperceived as
 >the fast moving and more distant object reported by the airmen.
 >As we can see in the map, the assumed distance to the UFO
 >throughout the incident evolve likewise the distance to this
 >area where the lines of sight cross.

 >Before going on, note that
 >the area in question is near the launching site of the balloons
 >(though it doesn't coincide exactly with their estimated
 >positions.)

Why does it not "coincide exactly"? The intersection area is
several miles too far to the west of where the two balloons
would have been.

 >But if the observers saw a balloon, why did they report it
 >banking? If the balloon was below the jet, it should have been
 >seen "descending" on approach. It's just a perceptive illusion.

The UFO was seen silhouetted against the ground whereas the
balloons were higher and against the blue sky. It's not "a"
balloon or "the" balloon but _two_ balloons and they were ABOVE
the T-33, at about 27,000 feet rising to nearly 30,000 feet in
the two minutes of the _one_ UFO observation.

If the balloons were lower than the T-33 how is it possible that
the T-33 did not fly right over or into the balloons if they
were nearly dead ahead and the T-33 turned left into the
direction of the balloons.

There is no perspective illusion here. If the T-33 made 120� of
its turn in the 2 minutes of the sighting then the T-33 would
have turned the approximately 30� to head straight towards the
UFO (the supposed balloons) in only 30 seconds. Why was the T-33
never able to head straight towards the balloons?

The answer is simple: The UFO made a "banking" left turn and
curved in tow ards the inside of the T-33's left turn. The T-33
could not bring its nose to point straight towards the UFO which
_outmaneuvered_ the T-33.


 >And how to reconcile the estimated altitude of the balloons of
 >about 17,000-18,000 feet and the reported UFO altitude of only
 >5,000-8,000 feet?

The two balloons were _not_ at 17,000-18,000 feet but at about
27,000-30,000 feet. Their ascent rate was about 1,300 feet/min.
They were launched at 11:12 the UFO sighting was 23 minutes
later at 11:35. Do the math.

After 79 minutes both balloons burst at 104,000 feet. Do the math.

 >What the map indicates after calculations is
 >that if the airmen at 20,000 feet over Point Pleasant were to
 >see the balloon aligned with the UFO over Sandy Hook, the
 >altitude of the balloon should be of the order of 15,000-17,000
 >feet. All of this makes sense.

No it doesn't make sense, it's all fabricated, forced to try to
fit multiple balloons that were still in the wrong location and
high above the T-33.

 >What about the disappearance of the object over the ocean? I've
 >found contradictory data about the time of the event (same time
 >quoted as EDST or EDT depending on the source).

These are the _same_ time zones/standards. EDST is the same as
EDT. If the T-33 sighting time was really EST as you seem to
imply then you will have shot your balloon theory in the head
because the Evans Signal Labs teletype clearly reports launch
time of the balloons as "EDST." That means a sighting by the
T-33 at 11:35 EST would be 12:35 EDST and that is 4 minutes
after the two balloons burst at the same time at 104,000 feet at
12:31 EDST. These daylight savings times are also confirmed in
the ATIC interrogation report transcript (see:
http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/fmO16.htm)

So if the T-33 sighting was using EST then the two balloons
would have burst already at extreme altitude totally invisible
to the naked eye.

 >In any case,
 >what matters is that the Sun was S or ESS at about 50� over the
 >horizon. Hence it should be considered the reflexion of light
 >rays on a balloon getting more and more against the sun light,
 >from the position of the moving observers.

If the two balloons were in fact _above_ the T-33 up against the
bright sky background in the sun's glare they might have never
been visible in the first place, aside from being too small in
subtended angular size to be noticeable to the human eye.

 >At this point, we may wonder why did J. E. McDonald reject the
 >balloon explanation. If we reread his arguments the answer
 >becomes apparent.

 >Basically, McDonald stated that "at no time in the interval
 >involved could the line of sight from T-33 to balloon have
 >intersected Freehold" and, also, that the balloon "would have
 >subtended an arc of only 0.6 min, as seen from the T-33 when the
 >latter passed over Pt. Pleasant", an angular size much too small
 >to fit the airmen's descriptions of the object. The problem is
 >that McDonald assumed that the balloons had been released from
 >the Evans Signal Laboratory "near Ft. Monmouth". But according
 >to Willy Smith (who doesn't appear to realize that MacDonald was
 >in error), these facilities were near Belmar, south of Ft.
 >Monmouth. With the correct location of the launching point in
 >mind (see map) the above arguments doesn't apply anymore.

If the T-33 was really at Pt. Pleasant (this is in doubt) and
started turning left immediately (as Lt. Rogers reported he
did), the balloons almost due north near Asbury Park would never
have been seen off farther to the left near Freehold, NJ.
McDonald's point stands. This is simple geometry.

For the T-33 to fly to a position from which the balloons over
Asbury Park could be seen lying to the W towards Freehold, the
T-33 would have had to fly straight along its original course
towards Mitchel Field _without_ turning left _at all_ until
nearly at the end of the sighting (about 1-1/2 minutes into the
2 minutes, so that it could travel the 12 miles or so to a spot
east of Asbury Park). This contradicts Lt. Rogers account that
he had immediately started his left turn towards the UFO upon





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

              Chile: Men-in-Black Appear In Wake of Chupacabras

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 06:33:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:15:04 -0400
Subject: Chile: Men-in-Black Appear In Wake of Chupacabras


SOURCE: La Estrella de Loa
DATE: Wednesday, April 25, 2001

MEN IN BLACK APPEAR IN WAKE OF CHUPACABRAS ACTIVITY

As noted in the last paragraph of an article entitled "A
Revealing Study of the Chupacabras Case" which appeared in
yesterday's Estrella del Loa, Calama UFO Center Researcher Jaime
Ferrer managed to detect - after four days of research in a
sector of El Loa province - the presence of strange individuals
who intimidate those who have had alleged experiences with UFOs
or with the allegedly alien creature known as the Chupacabras.

Although the presence of mysterious characters resembles more
closely a story drawn from the U.S. box office hit "Men In
Black", the expert claims that the events described below
faithfully coincide with the statements made by the parties
involved. He adds: "If I hadn't investigated the case myself, I
would have found it hard to believe.

Yesterday's newspaper chronicle named some individuals who
visited the ranch of a humble resident of El Loa to recover hair
samples left behind by a strange creature which had attacked his
poultry animals.

The farmer stated that areound 11:00 a.m. on the day following
his encounter with a creature that can be described as nothing
short of abominable, he saw three strange-looking but very
well-dressed men appear while he spoke to a friend who had also
seen the creature. They stood some 30 meters away from a group
of acquaintances who were busy sharing a side of flame-roasted
meat.

"We're policemen and we're here to arrest you," said one of the
men - a phrase which shocked the farmer and gave rise to the
following exchange:

Farmer: Why? I didn't do anything wrong..

Person: Look, you can't discuss what you saw last night with
anyone. If you do you'll only make trouble for yourself.

Farmer: If you're policemen, could you please show me your
badges? (he was aware that he had no outstanding matter to
settle with the law).

Person: We'll show them soon enough.

After this brief conversation, the farmer began to observe
closely the odd  behavior and equally odd garb of the unknown
characters.

"These guys were almost two meters tall. I found them very
strange. They were thin and resembled one another, especially in
their bearing and constitution. They wore sunglasses that
concealed their eyes; one of them had eyes that reminded me of
'Spiderman's'. They always kept their left hand in their
pockets - perhaps that's where they kept their sidearms. They
only withdrew their left hands when they were away from each
other to make hand signals; they surveyed the entire area, and
never once did I hear them call out to one another," the farmer
told Ferrer.

He explained that the trio wore a type of glove which left their
ring and smallest fingers exposed, whithe the rest of their
fingers occupied a single space. Their shirt cuffs - he
says - covered part of this "pseudomitten", over which they wore
a thin, shiny metal bracelet.

The farmer also describes a "prosthetic" covering the nail of
the smallest finger, and a ring placed at the tip of the ring
finger.

"Their Spanish was very strange, sloppy, as if they were drunk.
I didn't know if they were Germans or Swedes because they spoke
a language among themselves which I was unable to understand,
but I can tell you it wasn't English. After they left, we
realized that they didn't move their mouths to speak, which
impressed us even more. Pity we didn't realize it at the time.

[The farmer] further noted that the group leader wore a hat
"similar to a bullfighter's" which barely covered one of his
ears, in which he could see a "V"-shaped cut and a darker shade
of color.

He also recalls the following details: a very sharp vocal tone,
short blond hair, broad forehead, high cheekbones, straight
nose, thin neck, small mouth (except for the group leader, who
had thick lips and was wearing a safari-type jacket), a
mechanized walk, similar gestures, lined eyebrows, black ties
and tieclips the same color as the stones on their rings.

One of the men engaged in roasting the side of beef remarked:
"They approached us at one point and looked us up and down, but
said nothing at all. They appeared to walk and spin on the tips
of their feet. They gave the impression of weighing less than a
normal person."

The main witness added: "They didn't accept water from us. They
threatened me again, promising to contact us once more. I went
into the dining room and when I came back, the three men had
already gone. My friend, who is more detail-minded than I am,
says they boarded an ivory-lead colored pickup truck which made
no noise whatsoever and vanished after a certain distance.

Jaime Ferrer claims that after his first conversation with the
resident, neither he nor his friend had seen the strangers
again. A situation which, as our readers will see, did not last
very long....


##################################
Translation (C)2001. S.Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology (IHU)
Special thanks to Dr. Virgilio Sanchez Ocejo.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

             Chile: Chupacabras Researcher in the Crosshairs of

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:21:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:17:06 -0400
Subject: Chile: Chupacabras Researcher in the Crosshairs of


SOURCE: LA ESTRELLA DEL LOA (newspaper
DATE: Thursday, April 26, 2001



Chupacabras Researcher in the Crosshairs of "Men In Black"

A resident who saw the alleged Chupacabras was visited and
intimidated by odd-looking characters not once but twice,
according to Calama UFO Center researcher Jaime Ferrer, who
conducted field research on the phenomenon on March 25,26,27 and
28.

However, and unlike the first time the witness and his wife were
warned not to speak to Ferrer, whose footsteps are being closely
followed by these enigmatic individuals.

The threatened residents - for those who have not had the
opportunity to follow this enthralling story - are the friends
of a third witness to the creature's manifestations, and who
served at the main source of information to the investigator of
this case.

Ferrer himself has the following to say: "On Wednesday the 28th
I returned to continue my interview, but my witness behaved
oddly and steadfastly refused to talk to me. I didn't know what
was going on. I managed to convince him after a while, and he
explained the reason for his attitude.

The resident, a humble farmer, told him that at 8 o'clock that
very same day, his friend turned up in truck along with his
wife, children, worldly possessions and the following story:

"Listen, compadrito, last night at eleven thirty (23:30 hrs.)
the three men from the last time turned up at my house. They
told me a bunch of stuff. My wife heard it all, and we are in a
heap of trouble. Something very bad is going on, and we've got
to be careful. They mentioned the name of one Jaime Ferrer to
me, a guy who researches and makes plaster casts of things, and
they said [his work] will lead nowhere. They said you were
giving him information about them. I don't know what's going on
here, but I'm leaving and won't stay a day longer."

The researcher said that he had in fact discovered and copied
several prints the previous day, while his interviewee played
"rayuela" with a group of friends.

"That evening, around nine o'clock, myself and others who were
with me clearly heard the long, braying sound of the Chupacabras
-  no other animal can sustain such a sound for over 40
seconds."

Far from being intimidated by these MIB-like beings, Ferrer
notes that he shall pursue his research, which is sure to yield
new results before long.

###############
Translation (C) 2001. S.Corrales, IHU.
Special thanks to Jaime Ferrer, Calama UFO 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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                 Re: Jerry Black - Columbus, Ohio Article -

From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@Ms.UManitoba.CA>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:17:25 CST
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:21:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black - Columbus,  Ohio Article -


 >Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 06:13:43 -0400
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Jerry Black - Columbus, Ohio Article

 >From 'Columbus, Alive!'
 >April 19, 2001

 >"Space invaders" A close encounter with UFO investigator Jerry Black
 >by Chris Kemp

<snip>

 >But that still leaves eight percent, and it's these remaining cases that
 >most interest Jerry Black. For four decades, Black has tried to expose
 >the hoaxes, the false claims, and the lackluster investigating, and to
 >focus on the cases that, even after thorough investigation, cannot be
 >explained. "The industry has kind of gone to pot," 61-year-old Black
 >said wearily. "It seems like everybody out there is more interested in
 >money than telling the truth about UFOs."

I like him. He seems like a rational, comon-sense person
studying UFO phenomena. Why don't we get any like him speaking
at UFO conventions?

The article is great and does a good job of portraying Black's
approach and style of research. But then ...

 >Armed with these findings, researchers believe temporal lobe damage
 >probably accounts for a lot of UFO sightings and alien abduction
 >claims. In other words, after ruling out psychological problems,
 >neuroses, sleep paralysis, fetal memories, mistaken natural phenomena
 >and hoaxes, scientists think faulty temporal lobes could explain almost
 >all remaining UFO phenomena, including the people who allege they
 >are carrying alien probes and the women who claim aliens have
 >impregnated them.

Oh - oh. "Researchers?" I can think of only one who believes
this ...

 >Michael Persinger thinks he has the answer there. A professor of
 >psychology and neuroscience at Laurentian University in Ontario,
 >Canada, Persinger believes UFOs, or "luminous anomalies" as he calls
 >them, are generated by movements or stresses in the Earth's tectonic
 >plates. Persinger has been studying the link between earthquakes and
 >UFOs since the late 1960s, and says there is often an increase in the
 >number of UFO sightings in the six-month period leading up to an
 >earthquake.

 >"I didn't even begin looking at UFO phenomena," said Persinger. "I'm
 >primarily interested in luminous displays as predictors of earthquakes,
 >which are very difficult to predict."

Yep, that's him. Despite the fact his theory has had huge holes
shot in it repeatedly by me and others over the years, and
despite virtually no other scientist taking his theory seriously
- including the peers whom he studies under for his PhD - he
still is trotted out to give the "scientific explanation" for
UFOs. This alone undermines Black's credibility, if he's never
examined the criticisms of Persinger's work, after all.

Oh, and did anyone notice that comment by Persinger that he
never studied UFO data before coming out with his theory? It's
true, he admitted it to me and others. He hasn't studied UFO
cases, but has selected a few that support his theory and
therefore can state that his theory explains all aspects of UFO
reports including sightings, trace cases, crop circles,
abductions, etc. <sigh>


Chris Rutkowski

Media Relations Coordinator
Public Affairs Department
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada  R3T 2N2
  voice:  (204) 474-9514
e-mail:  Chris_Rutkowski@umanitoba.ca










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                        Re: Johnson Sighting - Young

From: Bob Young  <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:17:27 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:24:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Johnson Sighting - Young


 >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:20:37 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Johnson Sighting [was: Arnold's Fleet...] - Maccabee
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 06:17:01 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


Bruce, Brad:

I wonder if the article that was in the Portland paper is around?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                More On Jordanian Alleged Meteorite Fireball

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:32:03 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:26:23 -0400
Subject: More On Jordanian Alleged Meteorite Fireball


Courtesy of Jim Oberg:


Jordanian Astronomy Society
http://www.jas.org.jo/mett.html#eng

JAS' English Report

On 18 April 2001 around 19:30 Local Jordanian Summer Time
(UT+3), Mr. Jamal Al-Halabi, the editor in chief of the
Associated Press (who is already a friend of JAS), called JAS
member Mohammad Odeh asking him about an object he saw in the
sky from Amman few minutes ago! From his description it seemed
that what he saw was a fireball! Or better a huge fireball!
Anyhow, later on a Jordanian Newspaper mentioned that residents
of a Jordanian village called Bayt Eides saw a meteorite crash
down in front of more than 100 persons of the residents.

One of the eyewitnesses was Mr. Mohammad Nawwaf Miqdadi, mayor
of Bayt Eides. So JAS had directly phoned him asking him about
some details, and later on JAS decided to visit that place.

A delegation of JAS consisting of Eng. Khalil Konsul (President
of JAS), Mohammad Odeh, and Mohammad Katbeh went to Bayt Eides
on Tuesday 24 April. JAS reached the site around 15 Local Time
(LT). Where Mr. Miqdadi welcomed JAS and joined JAS to the
location.

As JAS arrived the site, we made an interview with him asking
him about the details, and JAS took some photos, as well as
determining the coordinates of the site. According the GPS, the
site is 54.4 Km to the North of Amman (Azimuth 345). Regarding
the details, Mr. Miqdadi said:-

On Wednesday 18 April around 07 pm, which is before sunset
(Sunset occurs around 07:10 pm) at sundown to bury a village
resident, more than 100 persons saw a bright object moving in
the sky with a dark yellowish color. The object was moving from
west to east, and then it broke up into two parts, which felt on
a nearby hill (which is about 1.5 Km from the place at which we
were watching!). As the two pieces hit the ground we saw a fire,
initially with a greenish color, and then the fire reached up to
5 meters! On the very next day I (Mr. Miqdadi) went to that
place and I saw the two locations at which the two parts felt.
(Let's call the first location A, and the second one B).

Now JAS is watching and examining the location A, which no one
entered yet! The ground is full of ash and it is rather black
(from the fire) and so are the stones! What directly brought our
attention were two things, the first was a tree trunk which is
broken into two parts (See Photo). Mr. Miqdadi said this must be
from the object which hit the tree! Actually the appearance of
the broken tree trunk is very strange! I don't guess it is a
man-made break! The other thing was a half burnt tree (See
photo)!

Concerning the location B, which was visited by two persons
before JAS, it was also full of ash and black. "The location was
full of small rock, but when the object hit the area it made a
crater as you can see", Mr. Miqdadi said. Actually there was no
real crater! But it was clear that at certain place the level of
the rocks is lower than the surrounding, and there is a shape of
an arc. Also, a half of a large rock was burnt, while the other
half is normal (See Photo)!

We did our best to find a meteorite but I must say that we
failed! So the question is what felt then? Did the object
totally burnt up? Is this ash the meteorite remnant! Eng. Khalil
Konsul said, this is not possible, because if the ash is a
meteorite remnant, then the meteorite would be very large and
this will make a real trouble! Which was not the case!

JAS took a sample of the ash and soil. So we would be glad if
the reader of this report tell us to whom shall we send the
sample for analysis ?

Lastly, the coordinates of the of the locations are:-

Location A:-


Longitude: 35:42:55 E
Latitude: 32:26:09 N
Elevation: 707 m
Location B (Which is about 50 meters only away of A):-


Longitude: 35:42:56 E
Latitude: 32:26:08 N
Elevation: 714 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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

               Re: "In Decline"? - I Don't Think So - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:28:17 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:47:01 -0400
Subject: Re: "In Decline"? - I Don't Think So - Bourdais


 >From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFOs "In Decline"? - Don't Think So
 >Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:15:35 +1000

<snip>

 >As to the British Flying Saucer Bureau, there is a listing under
 >Dennis Plunkett, the chap you indicated. I believe I know most
 >of the active players in the UK scene, and world scene, and his
 >name does not come to mind. Sounds to me it is one of the many
 >organisations, that come and go. There are many more that have
 >more prominent histories and presences.


Hello from France :

I have been informed this morning by the 'Garon de Caf' at the
corner of my street in Courbevoie (near Paris) that "a big
international UFO organization had closed doors, for lack of
UFOs." He read that in his popular newspaper. Other people here
have heard that on TV.

I am always impressed by the efficiency of any negative
information on UFOS. This is the only information these people
had on ufos in several months, presumably.


Clear skies and muddy waters,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                    Idea For Tv Program On UFO Abduction

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:59:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:49:34 -0400
Subject: Idea For Tv Program On UFO Abduction


From: John <jvif@spacelab.net>
To: <jvif@spacelab.net>
Bcc: <AIC>
Date: Thursday, April 26, 2001 1:17 PM
Subject: Idea for TV program on UFO Abduction

Hi All,

This List reaches many people. Many of which I do not know
because they rarely (or never) post. I am hoping that this
posting reaches the 'right' ears. And by "right" I mean somebody
who can actualize the idea I am about to present.

Terry Hansen and myself were guests on Strange Days, Indeed last
Saturday night and part of the discussion centered on the PBS
NOVA program on UFO abductions. I have mentioned many times in
public, and on this List, about the 'tests' I had
requested/suggested to the segment producer Denise DiIanni. I
have also published (on this list) copies of the letters I
received from her with the laundry list of excuses as to why
NOVA would not be performing any tests on the subjects. They had
a 'problem' with 'tests,' but no problem doing an 'on air'
analysis of the subjects by "experts" who had never met or
interviewed any of us.

Some of the tests I had requested/suggested were:

1. Psychiatric/psychological evaluation.

2. A head to toe physical examination. (To include MRI/CAT scan)

3. A polygraph examination.

4. Test to determine if there is anything unusual in the home or
environment of the abductees. (Maybe these 'events' leave traces
of radiation or 'something' behind. There 'may be' magnetic or
electrical anomalies that can be measured/detected using any
available techniques for measuring such things etc.)

5. And just about any other kind of (non physically invasive)
test that might help to determine if there is any "physical"
evidence of these reported 'encounters' in or around the
abductees.

Researchers like Hopkins and Jacobs claim to have "physical"
evidence. Hopkins has 'evidence' in the form of X-rays of
foreign objects in the bodies of the experiencers, and unusual
soil samples (from a UFO landing site -reported by multiple
witnesses-) or in the case of Dave Jacobs; some articles of
clothing with 'stains' that were reportedly made by aliens
_during_ an abduction. Any and all available 'evidence' can be
shown/discussed/analyzed in full view of the public.

I would like to 'propose' to any producer who may be listening
or interested, that a series of tests be conducted on several
"abductees" and recorded, as well as the results of analysis by
a multi-disciplinary team of experts (expert panel can include
psychiatrists/psychologists, physicians, and just about anybody
whose field of expertise would make them a
necessary/complimentary component. -all to be done in a one hour
(or more) TV broadcast format. We can take say three _solid_
cases/ abductees, examine them carefully, and then present the
results. Pro, neutral, and opposing views can be presented in an
'analysis' segment/ portion at the end of the program. I'm
_certain_ the public would be very interested in seeing an open,
honest exposition and examination of the subject and as much of
the available evidence that can be gathered.

Having a "huge audience" watching will not be a question.

Any 'millionaires' out there willing to finance such a project? ;)

If you are a producer (or you can get to one) or you are someone
in a position to actualize such a program, (and you're
interested in the idea,) please contact me privately at my
e-mail address.

jvif@spacelab.net


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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                          Secrecy News -- 04/26/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:06:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:51:10 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 04/26/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
April 26, 2001

**FREEDOM OF INFORMATION GAINS IN EUROPEAN UNION
**SENATE HEARING ON POLYGRAPH
**DOES THE U.S. SPY TOO MUCH?


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION GAINS IN EUROPEAN UNION

The European Parliament reached agreement yesterday on a new
Regulation governing public access to European Union (EU)
documents that is said to offer an unprecedented degree of
transparency. It provides EU citizens for the first time with a
formal right of access to official documents.

The move is "a roaring rip in the veil of secrecy," said Graham
Watson, the chairman of the Parliament's citizens' rights
committee. See "EU Strikes New Deal on Freedom of Information"
by Ian Black in the London Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4176014,00.html

Some advocates were disappointed by the move. Statewatch, a
London-based civil liberties organization, criticized several
provisions of the new Regulation as ambiguous and termed others
"unacceptable." Members of the Green Party voted against the
measure as inadequate.

Other freedom of information proponents welcomed the agreement
as a marked improvement over previous proposals and a promising
foundation for further development.

The text of the new code of access, which is expected to be
ratified by the full Parliament next week, can be found on
Statewatch's web site, along with critical commentary, here:

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2001/apr/08brussels.htm


SENATE HEARING ON POLYGRAPH

The continuing controversy over use of the polygraph as a
security measure was ventilated at a hearing of the Senate
Judiciary Committee on April 25.

The prepared statements of supporters and critics are posted
here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/index.html#poly

Meanwhile, the Department of Energy is "sharpening up our
policies" on polygraph testing, said Gen. John A. Gordon of the
National Nuclear Security Administration at a hearing before the
Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday. "I expect to come
back to the Congress and ask for some perfections in the
[polygraph] legislation that exists out there."


DOES THE U.S. SPY TOO MUCH?

The question of whether espionage could or should be constrained
by international agreement, discussed in Secrecy News on April
17, is explored further by Fiona Morgan in Salon Magazine today.
See "Does the U.S. Spy Too Much?":

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/04/26/espionage/


CORRECTION

The National Intelligence Daily, mentioned in Secrecy News of
April 23, was not known by that name until 1973. The precursor
publication, some issues of which are now subject to a request
for declassification, was called the Central Intelligence
Bulletin. (Thanks to W. Burr.)

******************************
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]


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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:36:27 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:55:11 -0400
Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Aldrich



 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray
 >Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:27:55 +0200

 >On November 12, 2000 I posted a comment answering (only half
 >tongue in cheek) Mr. Sandow's petition about a main SF film
 >showing abduction iconography but predating abductions.

 >I suggested "2001: A Space Odissey" but Mr. Sandow did not care
 >to comment, as usual with my arguments.

 >Well, by pure serendipity, I have discovered a new point for my
 >case.

 >We, HPS-ers, have long pointed to Whitley Strieber's best seller
 >"Communion" as the main culprit for spreading the Grey face
 >image (with its big black eyes) all over the world, in the cover
 >of his book.

 >But now, I have discovered that 20 years before, another alien
 >face stared to the people (at least in the USA). This face
 >showed a big head, a small nose, a simple line as mouth and two
 >big human eyes. It was the Star Child from the 2001 film.

 >Reading a Spanish book about the Kubrick film (pag. 72, "2001.
 >La Odisea contina", Raul Alda, Ediciones Jaguar, Madrid, 2001,
 >ISBN: 84-89960-83-6) I found myself staring at a frontal
 >close-up of the Star Child's face in an Americam promotional
 >poster of the time, under the heading "the ultimate trip".

 >Exactly, up to the _normal_ eyes, as Travis Walton described his
 >aliens.


'Killers From Space' starring Peter Graves was released 23 Jan
1954. It has medical operation on the abductee, the eyes of the
abductors are constantly bothering Graves' character. The actual
story is retrieved by truth serium.

The aliens are breeding an army of carnivorious monsters to
unlease on the world. (Rebel Reptilians always get a bad rap!)
The Aliens are green not grey and are human size.

Just about this time, as the movie's released, an actual Air
Force accident is investigated using drugs and hypnotism. Realty
imitating Art?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 17

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:39:35 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:01:23 -0400
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 17


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

       UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 6, Number 17
April 26, 2001
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/



CHUPACABRA KILLS FARM ANIMALS IN THE YUCATAN

"A strange event took place on a ranch in San Isidro Dzolla"
near Tizimin in the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico on Thursday,
April 12, 2001, The ranch is owned by Esteban Osorio Mena and is
located to the north of Tizimin ejido (farm commune--J.T.) of
Chan Cenote. There "twenty-three birds (chickens and turkeys)
were mysteriously drained of blood."

"The discovery was made by a young manager, Jose Abraham Canul,
who has worked on the estate for nine years. When interviewed,
he explained that in heading for work last Thursday morning, he
visited the area henhouse, which is completely enclosed by a
cyclone fence" and there "lay dead 23 birds with fang marks on
their half-detached necks.. Their brains also appeared to have
been sucked out."

Hoping to find an answer to the mystery, Canul further searched
the area "and was startled to find the remains of a
two-month-old colt bearing fang marks on its throat. and which
also had been drained of blood."

Canul reported his discovery to Agencia 15 of the ejido's
Oficina de Seguridad Municipal. But because the case did not
involve a homicide, he reportedly stated, the Mexican
authorities did not treat the report seriously.

Startled by the event, Canul "returned to the ranch where some
residents of Chan San Arturo ejido who had turned up" to "view
the macabre scene."

According to Canul, these people "had found the tracks of a
large vicious animal" on their ejido.

"Canul reported that a similar event had taken place at a
neighboring ranch, some three kilometers (two miles) away, only
a month and a half ago (March 2001--J.T.) On said occasion, all
of the animals (poultry--S.C.) had shown many similar
characteristics as penetrating fang marks on their necks."

"Canul reported that on said occasion the person in charge of
the neighboring ranch quit his job for fear of being attacked."

"He added that on the premises of San Isidro Dzolla where he
works there are several caves and a bat may have attacked the
animals." (See the Mexican newspaper Por Esto! for April 13,
2001. Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales, autor de los libros
Chupacabras and Other Mysteries y Forbidden Mexico, y David A.
Triay para eso articulo de diario.)

(Editor's Comment: And welcome to South America Goes Crazy Week
at UFO Roundup. You won't believe what's happening south of the
Rio Grande. The monsters are on the loose this week. Read on...)



MAPINGUARY GOES WILD IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL

A Chupacabra-style bicho beast, called the Mapinguary, is
running wild in Brazil's southernmost state of Rio Grande do
Sul.

"An unknown beast in the state of Rio Grande do Sul attacked and
killed two sheep and 25 chickens on a farm" near Uruguiana,
R.S.G., not far from Brazil's border with Argentina.

"The unidentified animal attacked and killed the sheep and then
the chickens, one by one. The region is sparsely populated and
lies very close to Argentina."

Witnesses described the creature as a biped, "1.5 meters (5
feet, 9 inches) tall. resembling a gorilla" with its anthropoid
features and coarse black fur. (Muito obrigado a Adelmar J.
Gevaerd e Visitantes Cosmicas por eso caso.)

MATAPERRO STRIKES AGAIN IN CALAMA, CHILE

The Mataperro (Spanish for dogkiller--J.T.), another strange
Chupacabra-style predator that first made its appearance two
months ago, has struck again in the city of Calama in northern
Chile.

"A mutilated dog was found in strange and intriguing
circumstances in an industrial neighborhood located on the east
side of Calama's Avenida Balmaceda., causing great concern in
the area which is struggling to find a logical answer to the
mystery."

"Luis Farias Munoz, owner of the Mapeta Co., a machine shop and
sheet metal plant, was stunned when he discovered one of his
guard dogs yesterday (Saturday, April 14, 2001) " came in and
found the dog lying dead in the street beyond the walls of his
property.

The dog showed signs of being mauled and stripped of the skin on
its left side about the entire length of its body, from its back
to its belly.

"'This is a scene of great curiosity, for it was one of the
seven dogs which I leave in the building every night. Yesterday
(Wednesday, March 11) I brought her along with the others
inside, and today (Thursday, March 12) I first found that scene
when I noticed the dog was out on the street at the other end
and in this condition. I cannot understand what might have
happened here.'" Farias said.

Farias "did not find a single drop of blood in the animal's
wounds, nor any blood spilled on the street around his dog."

"'I haven't missed a thing,'" he added, "'Everything is the same
way it was when I arrived this morning.'"

No one can explain how the dog got outside the locked sheet
metal plant. (Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales y Jaime Ferrer del
Centro OVNI de Calama para easa noticias.)

SILVER SPHERE UFOs SEEN IN WESTERN ARGENTINA

"The sudden appearance of the UFOs shocked residents of the area
west of Formosa, who had been waiting since last Monday (April
16, 2001) with still and video cameras to record the object's
next visit as a 'souvenir.'"

"The last two visits took place Monday morning and evening."
Witnesses agreed that "'We had a beautiful sighting (in which
the object) moved around and seen by all of the onlookers,'
stated Hector Perez, a resident of General Mosconi, a town 630
kilometers (395 miles) west of the national capital." (i.e.
Buenos Aires--J.T.)

"'Today (Tuesday, April 17, 2001) when it appeared, (the
sky--S.C.) was still dark, and it was seen as an intensely red
object, very strong, and it remained in the sky for about an
hour at 6 a.m.,' he explained."

"From the village of El Petronillo, close to General Mosconi,
Aidee Elias also indicated that they were able to see 'the UFO
in the sky at 10 a.m. and later at 3 p.m., on Monday, April 16,
2001.'"

"According to the descriptions, the object resembled 'a sort of
silvery balloon that generated white flashes as it ascended. In
the afternoon, it became lost in the sunlight."

"Different residents of nearby Formosa agreed with the shape of
the object and the time of each sighting, but there were
discrepancies regarding the the shade of color, with some
claiming to have seen red, while others say it was white."

"A professional photographer who caught the phenomenon on film
came up with an impressive number of slides while the UFO was
headed towards Oran in the province of Salta."

"Likewise, in the neighboring town of Ingeniero Juarez, Ricardo
Monzon also used a camera to record the phenomenon which caused
such anxiety in western Formosa."

"The witnesses of both General Mosconi and Ingeniero Juarez took
to the streets to observe the phenomenon, 'since 10 a.m.
yesterday (Monday) when a strange, round, silvery and shiny
object appeared in the sky and followed the movement of the
sun.'"

"One local resident remarked, 'We looked at the object through
rifle scopes and we could make out a halo around the object
which emitted multicolored flashes like they show in a
magazine.'" (See the newspaper La Cronica of Buenos Aires for
April 18, 2001, "Formosa shaken by UFOs." Muchas gracias a Scott
Corrales y Mariela Grezner para eso articulo de diario.)

SPHERICAL UFO SIGHTED IN CAMPO GRANDE, BRAZIL

"Many Douradenses (Portuguese slang for people who live in Campo
Grande--J.T.) spent Sunday afternoon (April 18, 2001) looking at
the sky. From all over the city it was possible to observe a
luminous object that was shaped like a futbol (soccer ball in
the USA--J.T.) The OVNI (Portuguese acronym for UFO--J.T.)
traveled over the city from Cabeceira Alegre to the
international airport."

"Many people reported that the object emitted radio waves which
interfered with their cell phones, CD players and pocket
radios."

"Employees at O Dourado International Airport also observed the
phenomenon, which was videotaped by Sergio Quinhones, a
cameraman for Televisao Dourado (TVD)." the local TV station.

Campo Grande is located about 640 kilometers (400 miles) west of
Rio de Janeiro.

""The object flew over other cities of the region and could
clearly be seen."

"In Ivinhema, the residents observed the moving ball of light
for quite some time."

"Disk jockey Toninho Carios of Radio Piraveve said it could be a
Japanese weather balloon which was drifting across the
continent."

"The OVNI remained in sight until 4 p.m." (See the Brazilian
newspaper Noticias do Campo Grande for April 19, 2001. Muito
obrigado a Adelmar J. Gevaerd e Visitantes Cosmicas por eso
articulo do diario.)

ORANGE FIREBALLS SEEN IN SOUTHERN AUSTRALIA

On Thursday, April 19, 2001, at about midnight, Ronda Tosev
reports, "My husband Paul, my son and I were returning home to
Narren Warren, Vic. (Victoria state, Australia--J.T.) from a
night in the city of Melbourne."

"As we pulled into our driveway, we saw bright orange fireballs.
They appeared to be moving straight across the sky but slow
enough to get a good look at them."

"One of the lights broke into two., one disappearing and the
other continuing until we lost sight of it. It was very hard to
tell how high they were because it was quite cloudy., and they
appeared to be below the clouds (12,000 feet or 3,600
meters--J.T.)"

"We watched for about two or three minutes. The neighbor from
across the road came out and had time to cross the road and keep
watching. They were extremely bright and orange in color. They
did not look like solid objects." (Email Form Report)

UFO AND MYSTERY BOOM REPORTED IN ITALY

On Wednesday, April 11, 2001, at 9:45 p.m., a deafening boom was
heard in rural towns and villages in Venezia province in
northeastern Italy.

"People heard the boom and felt the shock wave in Chioggia,
Mira, and from Lido to Quarta d'Alfino. Hundreds of telephone
calls flooded the office of the Carabineri (Italian national
police--J.T.), newspapers and radio stations. Authorities stated
that the noise was not a sonic boom."

One hour later, at 10:45 p.m., "a family standing on their
balcony in Chioggia observed a strong bluish light, very strong,
rising in altitude over the city. Then it stopped and hovered
motionless in the night sky for almost ten minutes.." (See the
Italian newspaper Il Gazzettino for April 12 and April 14, 2001.
Grazie a Roberto Labanti e Edoardo Russo di Centro Italiano di
Studi Ufologici per questo rapporto.)

FIRE POLTERGEISTS GO ON A RAMPAGE IN CHILE

Fire poltergeists went on a rampage, burning items in two
separate homes in Chile last week.

"Tongues of flame often unexpectedly erupt from the bathtub and
bed and the chest of drawers of an apartment building in
Santiago de Chile (the national capital--J.T.) Occupants have
been kept on tenterhook not to mention the firefighters who have
been trying to find a rational explanation for the 'paranormal
event.'"

"According to the story told by the dwelling's owners, who were
on the verge of being burned to death, clothing stored in
furniture, as well as blankets, curtains and even the bathtub
which was full of water at the time, began to burn."

"Last Sunday (April 8, 2001), after Luis Torres and Carmen
Gonzalez returned from their customary weekend jaunt, they were
startled to see smoke emerging from the bathroom, an event that
marked the beginning of their nightmare."

"After extinguishing a burning section of counter, they thought
it had all been the result of carelessnes. They realized an hour
later that more smoke issued from the bathroom, where the shower
curtains were now aflame."

"'The plastic shower curtains were burning. I poured water on
them, and my wife started to become hysterical,' Torres said."

"After a few minutes, the couple noticed that the right side of
the bed, the blankets and the quilt had started to burn."

"As best we could, we took our things out of the apartment and
poured water over them. But, shortly after, the chest of drawers
began spewing smoke,' added Torres, who added that he had lost
most of his clothes which had been stored in the drawers."

"They smelled smoke again around midnight but this time the
police were there to witness the event."

"'The strangest thing was that the clothes hangers were on fire
but the clothes themselves remained intact,' remarked Torres."

"Firefighters reached the apartment before the flames were
extinguished and were able to witness the baffling event.

"Lieutenant Christian Cheneau, a firefighter with 27 years'
experience in the Santiago Fire Department, stated that the
events in the Torres/Gonzalez apartment were ''absolutely
inexplicable.'"

In Penalolon, "a family is the latest victim of the strange
spontaneous combustion that affected people" elsewhere in the
Santiago metropolitan area.

"Irma Ulloa, her husband and their children, Jesus, age 2, and
Moises, age nine months, also have been forced to spend the
night in the open without any shelter or tent beyond a pair of
blankets and some extra clothing."

"On this occasion, the strange event took place in the morning
when Father Alfredo Sousa Pineiro, the family's (Roman Catholic)
priest and the episcopal interfaith delegate, had just stepped
out of the house after saying the Lord's Prayer and a Hail
Mary."

"The father had just said some prayers when a Bible on the bed
started to burn around the edges,' Irma Ulloa said."

"Her husband who is convinced that with family unity faith will
enable them to 'get the Devil out of the house once and for all.
We want to get it to leave us alone. But the Barbed-Tailed One
was not content to take out his wrath on the Holy Scriptures but
also caused a dish of holy water with an image of Christ to burn
and vanish in a matter of seconds.'"

"The La Cuarta reporter and other newspapermen stood by and
witnessed the screams of the family and onlookers at 4:38 p.m.
when a new outbreak of flame engulfed the home, this time on a
wall and part of the ceiling."

"Chilean parapsychologist Carlos Mosconi sees the family as a
victim of a black magickal spell, in which the requesting party
(the diabolist--J.T.) makes a pact with the Devil to do evil in
exchange for the souls of the family."

But Dr. Juan Pardo had a more mundane explanation. Torres,
Gonzalez and the Ulloa family were "suffering from depression."
had merely "imagined" the mysterious fires, and "were in need of
psychiatric treatment," he reportedly alleged. (See the Chilean
newspapers L Segunda for April 14, 2001, "Flames erupt in home
with no apparent cause," and La Cuadra for April 12, 2001,
"Bible burns in 'Hell House.'" Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales,
Gloria Coluchi y Rodrigo Cuadra para esos articulos de diario.)

(Editor's Comment: That's right, Doc. Give them some Prozac.
Why, it worked wonders for Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and Buford
O. Furrow Jr.

AN ETERNAL LIGHT BULB IN CALIFORNIA?

"In power-starved California, one light bulb has burned for 100
years--and nobody is about to turn it off to save electricity."

"Since it was first installed in 1901, the three-watt night
light has steadily cast its pinkish glow over the men and
machines of the Livermore, Cal. Fire Department Station No. 6."

"'It's the world's oldest light bulb and we will keep it burning
forever., if possible,' says firehouse historian Lynn Chaves.
'Turning it off would be like turning off history.'"

"'We hope it lasts another century--even if we do get a bigger
electricity bill.'"

"The hand-blown, pear-shaped bulb was made by Shelby Electric
Co. and donated in 1901 by the utility's president, Dennis
Bernal when he sold his business and gave away equipment and
personal items."

"Authentication by experts at General Electric experts at the
Guinness Book of World Records and Ripley's Believe It Or Not to
certify it as the world's oldest light bulb. Its fame attracts a
steady stream of visitors" to the old firehouse at the corner of
East Avenue and Loyola Way in Livermore.

(See the tabloid National Examiner for May 1, 2001, "World's
oldest light bulb," page 12.)

GET WELL SOON, LOUISE!

Louise A. Lowry, editor of the online newsletter World of the
Strange and a longtime contributor to UFO Roundup, was
hospitalized for surgery on Tuesday, April 17, 2001. She was
released from the hospital on Saturday, April 21, 2001. Readers
can mail your get-well card or personal letter to Louise at the
address below:

                  Louise A. Lowry
                  1203 Spencer Drive
                  Croydon
                  Pennsylvania
                  USA 19021




 From the UFO Files:

1938: SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION...OR BLACK MAGICK?

"On the afternoon of April 7, 1938, three men met fiery deaths
at three separate points many miles apart, and, allowing for
time zones, at almost the same minute."

"The freighter S.S. Ulrich was off the coast or Ireland when
Second Mate P.F. Phillips noticed that the vessel was yawing. He
went to the wheelhouse where he found the helmsman, John
Greeley, a human cinder. Looking around in shocked astonishment,
the mate could see no signs of fire around the body. The floor,
the compass, the wheel and even the shoes on the dead man were
unmarked. Other seamen had been on the deck nearby. They had
heard no outcry."

"The ship returned to port where medical experts examined the
body. Obviously, the flesh had been consumed by exceptionally
intense heat, and Greeley must have died almost instantly. Why,
however, were objects around the charred remains unaffected? The
doctors could only suggest a freak lightning bolt. But the sky
had been clear in the afternoon sunshine, no one aboard had
heard an unusual sound, and the helmsman had been out on an open
deck."

"Several hundred miles to the east, at Upton-by-Chester,
England, (UK) there was an accident. A truck had rolled to a
stop in a ditch. Police opened the cab door and found the
incinerated remains of the driver, George Turner of Birkenhead.
Yet the cab's windows weren't cracked, the cab's cushions
weren't singed, and a grease stain on the passenger side of the
seat hadn't ignited. The gasoline (petrol in UK--J.T.) tank was
intact and undamaged. The jury's verdict: 'Accidental death by
fire of unknown origin.'"

"And again, several hundred miles to the east and about at the
same time, there was another accident. A youth, William Ten
Bruik, died by fire in his Volkswagen near Nijmegen" in the
Netherlands. "Damage to the car was slight and the gas tank was
intact. Although the victim was 'burned beyond recognition,'
there was no indication of any condition that might have caused
the fire."

Three victims, all of them male, utterly consumed by spontaneous
combustion, within one or two minutes of each other, and at
points on Earth hundreds of miles apart.

The mystery was never solved. (See the book Mysterious Fires and
Lights by Vincent H. Gaddis, David McKay and Co., New York,
N.Y., 1967, pages 104 and 105. Also the Newark, N.J. Star-Ledger
for March 13, 1966.)

(Editor's Comment: Spontaneous combustion and black magick
notwithstanding, I wonder if the sun might have had something to
do with it. Remember the strange case of Frank Bertschy a few
weeks ago? All three of these 1938 deaths took place on the
daylight side of the Earth. Perhaps during periods of intense
solar activity, such as the present giant sunspot 9393, the sun
emits "quantum bubbles" into space. If one of these quantum
bubbles materializes on Earth, in the space already occupied by
a human...FWOOSH! Spontaneous combustion! Just an idea...)

Well, that's it for this issue. Join us next week 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 UFO Roundup on their websites
and in newsgroups provided that they credit the newsletter and
its editor by name and list the date of the issue in which the
item first appeared.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

               C.E.: Letter From The Editor Of UFO Magazine UK

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:59:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:59:25 -0400
Subject: C.E.: Letter From The Editor Of UFO Magazine UK




From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:20:18 -0400
From: Tim Edwards <tedwards@TCIA.NET>
Subject: Letter From The Editor Of UFO Magazine UK
To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

Below is a Letter from the Editor of UFO Magazine http://www.ufomag.com

It came to me via another list group.

Tim

-----

Subject: a message from ufo mag


Hi there.

Please read and study the following text and content of a letter
to the editor of The Times 'London'.

I have included a Word File attachment of the letter. If you
feel as strongly as we do, we urge you to endorse the letter and
send it to every newspaper you feel fit.

(There was no Word file accompanying this message. TE)

To have one of the most respected newspaper titles in the world
publish unfounded remarks about the UFO subject on the strength
of a group of individuals who most of you will have never heard
of is 'unfair' to say the least in my mind.

Here's the text, let us know what you think and please tell us
where you have posted the letter.

A mini-debate is taking place over the Internet following a
story which ran in The Times, 23 April 2001, in which journalist
Simon de Bruxelles (whose name from memory has appeared in
debunking articles in the past), reports that Denis Plunkett has
suspended the activities of the Bristol-based British Flying
Saucer Bureau, which he founded in 1953.

To put matters firmly into context, speak with most enthusiasts
today and they will tell you that they have never heard of the
British Flying Saucer Bureau or Denis Plunkett. While the Bureau
was an established organisation throughout the 1950s and 1960s,
thereafter little has been heard from either. Indeed, one will
be hard pressed to discover references to the British Flying
Saucer Bureau or Denis Plunkett in recent times. I cannot recall
when I last met or heard from either Denis or British Flying
Saucer Bureau members, but we are talking 1980s, and possibly
before that. Speaking with my brother, Mark Birdsall, who worked
alongside me on the UFO front for the best part of 30 years (I
began in 1967), he is equally as baffled as the rest of us.

Of course, this is of no consequence to those in the media who
have picked up on Simon de Bruxelles' story and created an
imaginary mountain from a grain of salt.

Let us hope that other newspapers refrain from using the caption
attached to one of the two photographs Simon de Bruxelle chose
to illustrate his piece. The photograph of a Saturn-shaped
flying saucer he credits as being taken over Texas, was in fact
snapped over Trindade Island in early January, 1958 by Brazilian
photographer and journalist, Alimoro Barauna, one of several
civilian passengers on board the former Brazilian training ship,
Almirante Saldanha.

A minor factual error on the face of it, but newspapers like The
Times pride themselves on being factual at all times. Hence, I
drew on several additional facts in a considered written
response to Simon de Bruxelle's piece, and comments contained in
a third leader article by the newspaper's Editor. Whether the
following letter is published remains to be seen, but this is
what I chose to write:

-----

Letters to the Editor

Sir,

Denis Plunkett, founder of the British Flying Saucer Bureau,
suggests that reports and belief in the existence of UFOs is
declining (UFO bureau shuts as aliens shun Earth, third leading
article, Times, April 23). I beg to differ. There are currently
80 recognised UFO groups and organisations evenly spread
throughout the United Kingdom, most of which continue to
generate an abundance of UFO reports by means of active research
and investigation. While it is true to say that the Bristol area
has been relatively devoid of such reports in recent years, the
same cannot be said of the rest of the country.

For example, Fleetwood in Lancashire has experienced a prolonged
three-month 'wave' of UFO activity since late January which has
seen local residents band together to hold mini-skywatches. In
Birmingham, dozens of unidentified objects were seen and video
taped in broad daylight. On 14 January this year, an
unidentified flying object was seen to collide with a
communications mast on the summit of Snaefell Mountain on the
Isle of Man. The total number of alleged UFO sightings recorded
in the first quarter of this year here in Britain shows a 50 per
cent increase when compared to the same corresponding period
last year.

Since July 4, 1974, when President Carter introduced the
American Freedom of Information Act, some 40,000 hitherto
classified UFO documents have been released into the public
domain. Together with similar documentation released by the
Public Records Office, it is patently clear to anyone who
chooses to examine them, that every major military and
intelligence organisation in the West continues to maintain an
active interest in this field. If UFOs and the people who see
and continue to report them are all deemed to have been mistaken
or influenced by external factors, such as the X-Files, how does
that explain the 3,500 military and civilian pilots who have
chosen to report their UFO sighting officially?

When professional and credible observers, such as pilots, risk
both reputation and career by citing 'UFO' in their official
report, it speaks volumes. That the Parliamentary Ombudsman felt
sufficiently compelled to recently instruct the Ministry of
Defence to release 11 such reports, submitted by British
aircrews covering the period 1995- 2000 in the interests of air
safety, it amply demonstrates the seriousness which I and others
attach to this subject.

The prospects for the discovery of extraterrestrial life in our
lifetime has manifestly improved this past decade. There is
genuine optimism expressed among scientists at Nasa, that life
may well have existed on Mars in its distant past. Couple that
with speculation that extraterrestrial life could well exist
beneath the frozen surface of Jupiter's moon, Europa, and
suddenly our local neighbourhood of space looks a lot more
interesting than one could possibly have imagined - least of all
speculated upon - less than a decade ago.

And for those Times readers still unconvinced, one is compelled
to pose a pertinent question: if UFOs are foolish nonsense, why
does the Ministry of Defence continue to operate a 'UFO desk'?
Why indeed.

Yours faithfully,



GRAHAM W. BIRDSALL [Editor]
UFO Magazine,
Lloyds Bank Chambers,
West Street, Ilkley, LS29 9DW.
gwb@ufomag.co.uk

-----

Now of course, there will be some cynics who will declare that
as Editor and co-publisher of UFO Magazine, 'I would say that,
wouldn't I?'

Tosh! I have stated the facts. Nothing more, nothing less.

Take a quick glance through our May issue of UFO Magazine (on
sale in the UK from Thursday, 26 April) and you will see a
lengthy piece on the UFO 'flap' over the Dales and Peaks of
Derbyshire (detailing almost two-dozen sightings); images from a
'UFO' sighting at Rotherham, South Yorkshire; a UFO report from
West London; a UFO report from Malaga, Spain; a UFO report and
photographs from Norfolk; a 'UFO' report from Northern Ireland;
a USO report from Eire; multiple UFO reports from Merseyside;
UFO reports from Oklahoma, Washington State and Alabama in the
U.S.; a UFO report from Scotland; a UFO report from Italy; a UFO
report from Spain; a UFO report from Mexico; a UFO report from
Sutton, Surrey; a UFO report from Hemel Hempstead; a UFO report
of a 'Fleet' and video still images from Birmingham; a major UFO
report with images from Yakima and a UFO report from Aberdeen.

Now take a look at the accompanying major articles that appear
elsewhere in that same issue (Latest Issue) and one can begin to
understand why sceptics and debunkers are keen to elevate Simon
de Bruxelles' story to ridiculous heights.

How I wish Simon could have joined with me last Thursday evening
when I visited Fleetwood, Lancashire. I spent hours in the
company of eight credible people (all from the same street) who
have seen, photographed and independently video taped some
absolutely incredible anomalous UFO activity above their home
and off-shore since the back end of January.

By the same token, I am certain that had Denis Plunkett also
been present, the now retired 70-year-old veteran would have
been given a new lease of life.

Best regards,



Graham W. Birdsall



Please post far and wide.

UFO MAGAZINE is published by:

Quest Publications International Ltd
Lloyds Bank Chambers
West Street Ilkley
West Yorkshire
England
LS29 9DW

ADMINISTRATION, SUBSCRIPTION AND ORDER QUERIES
TO CHRISTINE BIRDSALL

Tel 0113 2604450 (sales & enquiries)
International Callers 44 1943 2604450
Tel 01943 816611 (publishing and advertising only)
International Callers 44 1943 816611
FAX 01943 816622 (all enquiries)
International Callers 44 1943 816622

--
*So much to learn and so little time, will we ever find the truth?*

DreamScape
http://timledwards.users.50megs.com/dreamscape.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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                 Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray - Lewis

From: SMiles Lewis <smiles@elfis.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:22:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:05:43 -0400
Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray - Lewis


 >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:01:30 -0400
 >From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray

 >>From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:27:55 +0200
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:16:25 -0400
 >>Subject: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray


 ><snip>

 >>But now, I have discovered that 20 years before, another alien
 >>face stared to the people (at least in the USA). This face
 >>showed a big head, a small nose, a simple line as mouth and two
 >>big human eyes. It was the Star Child from the 2001 film.

 >An even earlier reference might be Aleister Crowley's Lam, whose
 >sketch was first displayed in 1919 in NYC! See:

 >http://www.primenet.com/~exclmid/LAMstatement.html

 >A stylized image appears at:

 >http://www.geocities.com/antiqillum/welcome.htm


FYI - the updated URL for the LAM image is at one of the many
web sites hosted thru The Elfis Network:

http://www.excludedmiddle.com/LAMstatement.html


SMiles
http://www.elfis.net
http://www.radio.elfis.net
http://www.austin-mufon.com
http://www.nufoc.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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                      Eras News: Petri Dishes on Mars?

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 23:54:47 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:07:01 -0400
Subject: Eras News: Petri Dishes on Mars?


ERAS NEWS
The E-News Service of The Eras Project

http://www.geocities.com/erasproject

April 27, 2001

____________________________


PETRI DISHES ON MARS?


By Paul Anderson

The Mars Initiative
The Eras Project

April 27, 2001


Web version of this report with correlating images:
http://www.geocities.com/erasproject/petridish.html


In recent months, many images from the Mars Global Surveyor
probe have shown features and terrain on Mars which have an
appearance not unlike that of terrestrial fungus or mold
cultures (just think back to your high school biology class
days). It is not being suggested of course, that there are huge
petri dishes on the surface of Mars, being tended to by Martian
juniors (!), but what has been photographed in various locations
does bear an uncanny similarity to primitive growth cultures of
bacteria, molds, etc., the type of lower-level life forms that
may be found on the planet even today.

Another example of this, arguably one of the most interesting,
was recently spotted by TEP in MGS image M0800063 in the MSSS
archives (see below). The full view image strip shows
familiar-looking Martian rocky / cratered terrain, until near
the bottom of the image (in the unmapped version). In the centre
of a large crater is a smaller pit or depression which is filled
with many dark spots, patches, and rings, similar to that seen
in other locations. The pit itself is surrounded by this darker
material. The bottom of the pit appears to be sandy with small
dunes visible. But what are all the spots and rings? It is
possible of course, that these are darker rocks protruding
through the lighter sandy material, but does this explain the
rings, which in particular give this terrain its 'fungus' or
'petri dish' look? Another possibility is frost melting or
sublimating away as temperatures warm during the day, leaving
darker areas exposed beneath, the main theory currently put
forward by NASA to explain these types of patterns.

Similar kinds of spotted terrain have been found in several
locations on the Martian surface. While varying in specific
appearance, they do seem to fall into general 'types' of semi-
random forms, with very dark to almost black coloured areas (as
seen in the grayscale images) with high contrast to the
surrounding ground. They are usually found in the bottoms of
craters or even on sand dunes as in the example below. They
appear to be a different class of feature than the other areas
of possible vegetation previously discussed, resembling
primitive bacterial or mold cultures (as a basic visual
comparison primarily) rather than bushes or larger scale
vegetation.

An interesting 'trend' of sorts has been noted over the years;
while Mars itself is only about half the diameter of the Earth,
many individual features are significantly larger than their
terrestrial counterparts, including the largest of the
volcanoes, Olympus Mons, which dwarfs Mount Everest and the
Valles Marineris which is both much longer and deeper than the
Grand Canyon. Mars itself may be smaller, but everything on it
seems exaggerated in terms of scale. In another odd twist on
this theme, perhaps what we are seeing, in at least some cases,
may be forms of relatively primitive life which visually are
similar to bacterial colonies on Earth, but with a tendency to
spread out over large areas on the surface to take advantage of
weaker sunlight or proliferate in the bottoms of craters or
gullies where more moisture may be available at least
intermittently. Similar theories have been put forward before,
by Carl Sagan and others. Even the 'forests' near the Martian
south pole _look_ like trees or bushes, but are on a larger
scale again. New forms of life are still being discovered on
Earth in environments previously thought too harsh for life of
any kind, even microbes. Any life which might be on Mars today
may be expected to share some similarities with life on Earth,
while developing its own unique characteristics for survival in
the harsh Martian environment. While many or perhaps all of
these intriguing images may turn out to have geological or other
explanations, they serve to remind us nevertheless that Mars is
indeed an alien world, with much left to be explored and much to
learn. As long as there is at least the _possibility_ of life
being found there, we must keep looking.


Original NASA / MSSS images:

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M08/M0800063.html

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0306104.html


Related links:

The Electric Warrior: Views on the Martian Polar Spring
http://www.electricwarrior.com


THE MARS INITIATIVE

The Mars Initiative is a special research project of The Eras
Project, advocating the continued exploration of Mars, including
a manned mission and eventual colonization as part of mankind's
next steps outward into the solar system and beyond; a major
focus of TMI is the search for and examination of evidence for
life, past or present, on this the most earthlike of the nearby
worlds

____________________________


Eras News is the e-news service of The Eras Project, providing
the latest news and reports relating to the leading-edge issues
of our time in science and technology and their possible present
and future implications as we enter the 21st Century and a new
Era, as well as other periodic information and updates on
TEP-related news, projects and events


THE ERAS PROJECT

Suite 202 - 325 East 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC  V5T 2M9  Canada
Tel / Fax (Office): 604.731.8522
Tel (Cell): 604.727.1454
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/erasproject


� The Eras Project, 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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                  Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:47:56 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:09:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Young


 >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:27:14 -0300
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?

 >>From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:56:59 -0300 (BRT)

 >>I am looking for images of the dummies used by the Air Force and
 >>then blamed to the the cause of the Roswell beings.

 >These would be the same dummies that were used for
 >experimentation in 1952-3 some 5 years later?

Hi Don, Theo:

Yes, these would the the ones which the Air Force has suggested
could have been the source for stories which surfaced many years
later.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ticchetti

From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:57:42 -0300 (BRT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:11:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ticchetti


 >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:27:14 -0300
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?

 >>From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:56:59 -0300 (BRT)

 >>I am looking for images of the dummies used by the Air Force and
 >>then blamed to the the cause of the Roswell beings.

 >>Can someone help me?


 >These would be the same dummies that were used for
 >experimentation in 1952-3 some 5 years later?


Yes, Don, they are.

If you could help me I thank you.

Regards,

Thiago










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ticchetti

From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:59:10 -0300 (BRT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:14:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ticchetti



 >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:41:36 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?

 >>From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:56:59 -0300 (BRT)

 ><snip>

 >>I am looking for images of the dummies used by the Air Force and
 >>then blamed to the the cause of the Roswell beings.

 >>Can someone help me?

 ><snip>

 >Hi Thiago.

 >Nearly 15 years after the Roswell UFO crash, a 280 foot diameter
 >shiny metallic looking sphere hovered high above New Mexico.

 >It was Project Stargazer with a crew of two Earthlings inside
 >the attached closed gondola.

 >The gondola, with two full-size human 'dummies', is on public
 >display at the US Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB in
 >Dayton, Ohio.

 >Since these dummies closely resembled those dropped from other
 >high alititude balloons around that time, I snapped a souvenir
 >photo of them during my visit to WPAFB.

 >The dummies, by the way, did not resemble pictures of any aliens
 >I have seen, with the exception of so-called Nordics with blank
 >stares.

 >If you like Thiago, I can mail you a copy of my snapshot but you
 >can find an equally good picture at:

 >http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/space_flight/sf12-1.jpg


Thank you so much, Nick! You helped a lot my friend.

Thiago








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:05:17 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:16:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:06:11 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:52:24 +0100

<snip>

 >So they knew it was bogus but wanted to document the nutball so
 >they could trumpet his crazy testimony to the detriment of
 >accurate witnesses who were shunted aside and left uncounted. So
 >that debunkers could forever after seize upon crackpot testimony
 >such as this as Exhibit A in the Case Against the UFO.>>


Brad:

It isn't enough that UFO proponents insist on generalizing about
what is shown by the "unidentified" residue, while refusing to
consider the implications of the IFOs, now "bogus" cases which
turn out to be IFOs are not even to be considered an IFO?

C'mon, Brad. How did this incident come to the attention of the
Condon people if it wasn't a "UFO" report?  The witnesses
obviously didn't consider it "bogus", or they wouldn't have
bothered to tell anybody.

So, only reports that are called by the code-word, "UFO" are to
be considered?  That's interesting since, according to some
non-skeptical investigators, the actual identity of true UFOs is
unkown.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                 Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Blanton

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:21:17 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:17:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Blanton


 >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:27:14 -0300
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?

 >These would be the same dummies that were used for
 >experimentation in 1952-3 some 5 years later?

Thiago,

These are the ones mentioned in the Roswell press conference by
Col. John Haynes:

http://www.parascope.com/articles/0797/cc01.htm

http://www.iufomrc.com/weatherballoon.htm


Regards,

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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                     Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:31:34 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:18:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Hale


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:01:39 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >Roy:

 >How would I know a UFO if I saw one?  I assume that you have
 >something in particular in mind?


For now Bob, we can go with any of the shapes that you have seen
since childhood.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                  Re: UFO Over Bogota, Colombia - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 27 Apr 2001 09:03:31 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:21:22 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Over Bogota, Colombia - Hamilton


 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:15:16 -0400
 >Subject: Re: UFO Over Bogota, Colombia

 >SOURCE: Contacto OVNI (William Chavez)
 >DATE: April 23, 2001

 >UFO OVER BOGOTA, COLOMBIA

 >Today, at 4:15 p.m., three (3) objects of unknown origin were
 >seen flying over Bogot (Colombia), where they were witnessed by
 >more than 3,000 people in the city's business district.

 >[The objects] were in the vicinity of Cerro El Cable hill and
 >Monserrate, where they remained motionless for 4 minutes. Radio
 >broadcaster "Radiodifusora Nacional" and Todelar phoned Contacto
 >OVNI, our research organization, to discuss this sighting live,
 >and because in recent years this type of phenomenon has become
 >increasingly common over Bogot.

 >Last March, a "mothership" was captured on video over Barrio
 >Santa Isabel. When the video was analyzed it was possible to see
 >a large tubular object at an altitude of 10,000 feet.

 >According to eyewitness statements made at the UFO conference
 >held by Contacto OVNI, this object headed toward Bogot's Cerro
 >El Cable, which has been the site of frequent UFO sightings.

 >Likewise, on April 15th of this year, Mr. Oscar Berrio filmed a
 >disc-shaped object in the vicinity of El Dorado Airport, and we
 >are investigating this sighting.

 >The calls received in recent days regarding this phenomenon in
 >the Colombian capital have been numerous. We shall keep you
 >informed of these developments and the preliminary results of
 >the videotapes in question.


I am wondering if something active can be accomplished by
observers in order to get a response or stimulate some sort of
activity on the part of these unknown objects in order to
observe/record intelligent behavior. Signalling is an idea that
has been tried in order to elicit response signals. An example
would be to use a high candlepower light and flash at the object
3 times and see if you can invoke a response.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

               Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71 - Auchettl

From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:14:20 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:23:25 -0400
Subject: Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71 - Auchettl


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:22:07 EDT
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:53:23 -0400
 >Subject: Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71 - Gates

 >>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >>Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:23:27 +0100
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:02:04 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: 'Military' UFOs - Jones



Hi Robert, Sean & EBK & List,


Robert reproduced the following:

 >>Short excerpt on LBJ's announcement of the existance
 >>of the SR-71 in 1964 from the web.

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m18-009.shtml

                        ***

Sean then asked:

 >But I wonder, was it a slip of the tongue, or was the
 >president trying to just not giving out the right name
 >for the SR71 for a reason?

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m23-006.shtml

                        ***

THE FIRST PUBLIC INFOMATION:
  The Lockheed SR-71 (A-12) is (basic terms) is a story about
  material & engine development, rather than an aircraft with a
  task.

The first & final products produce some wonderful aviation
records, but in the end the aircraft played no (real) role as an
aircraft of defence importance (however, this is open to
debate).

The real public story starts with the development of the
powerful J-58. With such a power plant the engineers soon
realised that they could take on many aviation records. With
afterburner & inlet air ducts, this motor became perfect for
speed, but it was not economical.


THE PUBLIC CRASH:

Then, on the 24 May 1963, long before President LBJ 24 Feb 1964,
public relations scam (?) at a press conference to the general
press took place, an A-12 (60-6926) crashed near Wendover, UTAH.

That was the first public record.

CIA pilot Ken Collins was flying an inertial navigation system
test mission. After entering clouds, frozen water fouled the
pitot-static boom and prevented correct information from
reaching the standby flight instruments and the Triple Display
Indicator.

Collins A-12 stalled and he lost control, Ken Collins found
himself in a horrific inverted flat spin. However, Collins
ejected safely, and was picked up by the community with his A-12
ID Image Logos and pressure Suits. It was quite a spectacle, and
well noted.

The wreckage was recovered in days and the public at the crash
location were identified and obliged to sign secrecy agreements
etc.


THE MAIN POINT & THE CIA JOKE:

A cover story was formulated and given to the main stream press,
that report said, the aircraft in the accident was a F-105, this
tale is still listed on the official records.

But the A-12 (SR-71) system was out in the public domain, as a
real system in aviation circles, but for the public it was still
in a corrupted form.

                        ***

Regards to all,


John W. Auchettl
Director PRA Research

PRA WEB:

http://members.aol.com/praufo/PRA1/Pra1.htm



DATA:
[1]. The Aircraft Family Tree:
      [a]. Archangel
      [b]. Lockheed  A-12
      [c]. Lockheed YF-12
      [d]. Lockheed  D-21 (Drone)
      [e]. Lockheed SR-71

[2]. IMAGES: D-21
http://jpcolliat.free.fr/d21/images/d211.jpg

[3]. IMAGES: YF-12
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PAO/PAIS/HTML/FS-047-DFRC.html

[4]. IMAGES: SR-71, A-12, and D-21
http://www.desertsecrets.com/i.bbirdairpark.jpg

[5]. 1957 - 24 Dec: First J-58 engine run (?).

http://jpcolliat.free.fr/f12/images/yf12_29.jpg

[6]. 1958 - 21 Apr: Project "Archangel" later
      became the A-12.

http://jpcolliat.free.fr/f12/image/a2.jpg

[7]. 1959 - 29 Aug: It was so fast that the CIA
      accepts A-12 as one of its projects.


Phenomena Research Australia [PRA]
P.O. Box 523, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia, 3170
Australian & Asia UFO
1961-2000 - 39 Years Of Research Service
----------------------------------------------------------------









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

             Re: More On Jordanian Alleged Meteorite Fireball -

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:55 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:26:46 -0400
Subject: Re: More On Jordanian Alleged Meteorite Fireball -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:32:03 EDT
 >Subject: More On Jordanian Alleged Meteorite Fireball
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Courtesy of Jim Oberg:

 >Jordanian Astronomy Society
 >http://www.jas.org.jo/mett.html#eng

 >JAS' English Report

 >On 18 April 2001 around 19:30 Local Jordanian Summer Time
 >(UT+3), Mr. Jamal Al-Halabi, the editor in chief of the
 >Associated Press (who is already a friend of JAS), called JAS
 >member Mohammad Odeh asking him about an object he saw in the
 >sky from Amman few minutes ago! From his description it seemed
 >that what he saw was a fireball! Or better a huge fireball!

This reminds me of the incident in Arkansas last March:

http://arkfireball.tripod.com/

Fire, ash but no meteorite! Brilliant Pebble (or other SDI)
testing maybe?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                           Guido Valentich Passes

From: John Velez<jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:56:36 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:03:18 -0400
Subject: Guido Valentich Passes


Hi All,

I received a copy of the following from Syd Byrne in Australia
and I felt it was important to share it with the List.

I'm sure that most of you are familiar with the disappearance of
a young Australian pilot named Fred Valentich. He disappeared in
mid-flight as he reported a 'close encounter' with a large UFO.
No remains, either Fred's or the airplane's have ever been
recovered.

Fred's father 'Guido Valentich' went to his grave believing that
his son had been kidnapped by that UFO. (Whatever 'it' was.)
Such a sad story. It would have been a glorious thing to see
that family reunited with their loved one before departing the
mortal coil. Sometimes, there is_no _justice.

The Valentich case, more than the reports of intermittent
abduction events, points clearly to the _urgency_ involved in
getting some of the UFO questions resolved.

Regards to All,

John Velez

------------------>
24 Apr 2001
19:18 Local - Melbourne, Australia

Copyright: "Not Confidential" & "Post To Anyone"

To:    Glennys Mackay"
         MUFON/QUFON
         glenmack@pacific.net.au


From:  J.W. Auchettl
         Director

Hi Glennys,

                            ***

 >John I had an e-mail from overseas recently stating
 >the Frederick Valentich's father Guido had passed away
 >Is this true?

Yes! Unfortunately this charming man died in 1999. It was all
very sad.

It took everyone down this way by surprise. I had not seen him
for months when I got a call to say that he had died.

Alberta, (Valentich's mother) said that Guido's last thoughts
were about Fred. Alberta told the press that Guido said shortly
before he died:

   "I don't think I'll see him where I am going.."

As you know Guido believed, to his death, that Frederick may not
have been killed.

Oh well, what can I say.

The best we can do is to just keep looking for Fred!



                      "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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ticchetti

From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:43:59 -0300 (BRT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:06:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ticchetti


 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:21:17 -0400
 >From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?

 >>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:27:14 -0300
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?

 >>These would be the same dummies that were used for
 >>experimentation in 1952-3 some 5 years later?


 >These are the ones mentioned in the Roswell press conference by
 >Col. John Haynes:

 >http://www.parascope.com/articles/0797/cc01.htm

 >http://www.iufomrc.com/weatherballoon.htm


I would like to thank all who helped me in my
research. I got what I needed.


Cheers,

Thiago








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                 Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:44:13 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:08:14 -0400
Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Velez


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray
 >Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:36:27 -0400


 >>From: Luis R. Gonz�lez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray
 >>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:27:55 +0200

 >>On November 12, 2000 I posted a comment answering (only half
 >>tongue in cheek) Mr. Sandow's petition about a main SF film
 >>showing abduction iconography but predating abductions.

 >>I suggested "2001: A Space Odissey" but Mr. Sandow did not care
 >>to comment, as usual with my arguments.

 >>Well, by pure serendipity, I have discovered a new point for my
 >>case.

 >>We, HPS-ers, have long pointed to Whitley Strieber's best seller
 >>"Communion" as the main culprit for spreading the Grey face
 >>image (with its big black eyes) all over the world, in the cover
 >>of his book.

 >>But now, I have discovered that 20 years before, another alien
 >>face stared to the people (at least in the USA). This face
 >>showed a big head, a small nose, a simple line as mouth and two
 >>big human eyes. It was the Star Child from the 2001 film.

 >>Reading a Spanish book about the Kubrick film (pag. 72, "2001.
 >>La Odisea contin�a", Raul Alda, Ediciones Jaguar, Madrid, 2001,
 >>ISBN: 84-89960-83-6) I found myself staring at a frontal
 >>close-up of the Star Child's face in an Americam promotional
 >>poster of the time, under the heading "the ultimate trip".

 >>Exactly, up to the _normal_ eyes, as Travis Walton described his
 >>aliens.

 >'Killers From Space' starring Peter Graves was released 23 Jan
 >1954. It has medical operation on the abductee, the eyes of the
 >abductors are constantly bothering Graves' character. The actual
 >story is retrieved by truth serium.

 >The aliens are breeding an army of carnivorious monsters to
 >unlease on the world. (Rebel Reptilians always get a bad rap!)
 >The Aliens are green not grey and are human size.

 >Just about this time, as the movie's released, an actual Air
 >Force accident is investigated using drugs and hypnotism. Realty
 >imitating Art?


Hi Jan, hi All,

Jan, don't you think that comparing that very human looking
fetus in 2001 to "grey aliens" is 'stretching the taffy' a bit
thin? I agree that there may be 'some' number of folks out there
that have been influenced or affected by 'media contamination.'
But I suspect that the 'contamination' has more to do with the
more recent and detailed reports of UFO abduction rather than in
the obscure imagery of movies from the 50's.

Just a comment if I may. The events I have witnessed in my life
had nothing to do with the "movies" I have seen, either past or
present. The things that I have seen and experienced did not
take place in a 'theater.' An extremely unsettling event
happened to me one night while I was just walking home from a
friends house and minding my own business. I didn't "conjure" it
up out of memory fragments from old sci-fi movies. "It"
(whatever 'it' was) came looking for me. Not the other way
around. (Not 'from' me)

Something big is going on. Folks better stop futzing around and
get serious about investigating some of these reports that are
coming in. (Daily) Blaming it all on subconscious regurgitations
of snippets from old sci-fi movies isn't quite going to get it
even if it managed to explain a hundred abduction reports. It's
way too simplistic and doesn't even begin to address all the
components of what is being reported. It doesn't cover all the
bases Jan.

"Memories" (whether of books or movies) don't leave ground trace
evidence, and physical marks, bruises, and fully healed scars
behind.

Just my two centavos. Carry on my friend. Whatever gets you
through the night,...is alright.   ;)


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 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 20:43:53 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:11:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 23:26:49 -0400

 >No. You might be mistaken because you didn't remember very
 >clearly. Or because you didn't get a very good look at whoever
 >robbed you, but have disregarded that in a rush to find a
 >culprit.

Hi Greg,

First you ask a theoretical question; I try to answer it based
upon the information you have provided. Then you move the
goal posts by adding further hypothetical possibilities that
were not part of the original question!

 >And you haven't, as far as I can see, addressed my main point.
 >All of us, since we're human, tend to trust witness testimony
 >that tells us what we want to hear, and distrust testimony that
 >tells us things we don't like. My point, in the robbery
 >scenario, wasn't to pretend that witness testimony in a robbery
 >is exactly the same kind of discourse as witness testimony in a
 >UFO case. It was to suggest you'd be more like to accept witness
 >testimony when it's in your interest to do so.

Surely you have answered your own point - a point which applies
to disbelievers equally as believers. I don't subscribe to
either camp!

 >(And why, I'd
 >like to ask, parenthetically, do skeptics so often talk as if
 >UFO believers are driven by emotion, and not consider the same
 >possibility for themselves? Nobody, I think it's safe to say, is
 >completely objective. But skeptics like to talk as if they're
 >motivated only by a search for objective truth, and always
 >proceed by the strictest scientific method. But aren't they just
 >as human as ufologists?)

And here you do it again. My point entirely, "nobody..is
completely objective", including myself in the theoretical
robbery you have postulated.

The point I was making is that once we accept that eyewitness
testimony _alone_, particularly where that testimony is
unsupported, is inherently unreliable, then we have to be
extremely careful in using that "evidence" to support wild and
unproved theories where simpler explanations, in the realms of
what is known, are more likely. Hence to use what people claim
alone as "proof" without testable, replicable supporting
evidence is contrary to all scientific methodology.

It's tantamount to accepting at face value the stories of
midnight Sabbats, people flying on broomsticks and animal
familiars told by those accused of witchcraft during the Middle
Ages. These eyewitness statements were equally unsupported, but
were sufficient to condemn many innocent people to death.

You might find this logic baffling, but that's your problem, not
mine!

 >And while you're right, in principle, the very subject we're
 >discussing here, ultimately, is where we draw the line, and how
 >we draw it. If you told me you saw a unicorn out your window,
 >I'd probably distrust that. But if six people from your
 >neighborhood independently - without knowing of the others'
 >testimony - also said they saw a unicorn, maybe I'd have to
 >reconsider. In any case, there are times when new information
 >surfaces, and something formerly thought to be impossible turns
 >out to be true. What are your rules for dealing with those very
 >special moments?

Now here were are on common ground. I'm always willing to
consider new evidence and indeed constantly strive to obtain it
in a whole range of current and historical UFO investigations.

But using your theoretical unicorn, the very example you have
chosen suggests to me that you have little experience of
collecting and comparing witness testimony. I would venture to
suggest that, in my experience, if six other people did
independently report seeing something at the same time as I
spotted my unicorn, you would find that perhaps half of these
would claim to have seen something completely different, or say
they first thought it was something unusual but then realised it
was a balloon or a flock of birds reflecting sunlight.

So what I'm saying is that eyewitness testimony in a UFO context
is a notoriously unreliable beastie. I remember a particular
occasion when I interviewed a chap who claimed he had been
pursued by a UFO whilst riding his motorbike through a dark,
deserted valley in the English Peak District. He described the
UFO in classic terms and claimed that at one point he had pulled
up at a public house, dismounted, and went inside to attract the
attention of the barman. He was sure this man would provide
corroborative evidence.

Unfortunately, when I traced the barman he told me yes, he
remembered the biker entering the pub in a state of excitement
talking about being chased by a strange light in the sky. But
when the biker took him outside and pointed out the "UFO" the
only thing he could see in the sky was an aircraft descending
into Manchester Airport.

Now perhaps the real "UFO" had zipped back to Alpha Centauri in
between my biker friend dismounting and the barman looking up
into the sky - _but_ this is invariably the sort of
contradictory "eyewitness" testimony UFOlogists have to work
with every day.

Given this situation we have to ask - how likely is it the biker
saw an alien UFO? Of course we can't say, but all we have is one
man's testimony, testimony that is contradicted by another
supposed "eyewitness." And to throw in an additional
complication, would it not be an assumption on _your_ part that
the biker actually believed he had seen an "alien UFO" ? For all
we know, he could have interpreted what he saw in a completely
different way, for example in terms of being pursued by evil
spirits or fairies! You might find that unlikely, but I can tell
you that I have interviewed people who have claimed precisely
that

You see, the issues are not as clear cut, black and white as you
assume.

 >I want to be very careful here, because once, Dave, you have us
 >agree that a tall, green alien didn't steal your wallet, you may
 >think it's only a step to further agreement that alien UFOs
 >aren't very likely. Phil Klass pulled exactly that on me when we
 >talked. When I asked why he was _certain_ the Chiles-Whitted
 >sighting was of a meteor, one of his answers was a rhetorical
 >question: "If something went wrong with your computer, would you
 >call a technician, or would you assume evil spirits had gotten
 >into it?" Phil, clearly, was trying to get me to agree that
 >alien UFOs were just as unlikely as evil spirits. The weird
 >thing, though, was that he was doing so in order to reject
 >testimony that might help to establish that alien UFOs really
 >exist. In other words, he was engaging in circular reasoning -
 >assuming the conclusion he was trying to prove. "Since there are
 >no alien UFOs, we can assume that these pilots didn't see one."
 >He eventually said that to me, almost as plainly as I've stated
 >it.

 >And that, Dave, is (in my opinion) what you're doing when you
 >say:

 >>Let me put it simply: we know that robbers exist, we don't know
 >>that ETs in rocket ships exist.

 >The logic, or lack of it, here absolutely baffles me. Your
 >reasoning seems to go like this, expressed schematically:

 >1. Someone claims to see something that could be an alien UFO.

 >2. You, however, don't know that such things exist.

 >3. Therefore you doubt the person saw what he or she claimed to.

Thanks for putting words into my mouth, but that is not what
I am saying at all.

You seem to have a problem, shared by a number of others on this
list, in that you can only categorise 'doubters' in terms of the
American perception of what constitutes a 'skeptic or debunker'
(witness your increasingly convoluted attempts to get me to
comment on something Klass said to you).

Of course I can't say that such things as alien UFOs exist or
don't exist. I can only work in terms of what we _know_, what
is currently accepted and what is _probable._

The best way is the application of Occam's Razor - do not
multiply hypotheses unnecessarily, always chose the simplest
explanation as this is _probably_ correct. Applied to the
Chiles-Whitted case, we chose a fireball meteor because that is
the best fit given current knowledge and bearing in mind the
foibles of human perception. To chose ET when a simpler
explanation is available is neither logical nor scientific.

 >This makes no sense at all. It might work better if you
 >expressed yourself more strongly - saying not that you don't
 >know that alien spaceships are here, but that you know
 >positively that they aren't. Then your reasoning would be:

 >1. Someone claims to see something that could be an alien UFO.

 >2. You _know_ that no such thing exists.

I couldn't say that because I cannot say that no such thing
exists. But then neither can you or anyone else until someone
produces evidence that can be accepted by everyone. All we have
at the moment is unsupported and contradictory eyewitness
evidence.

 >But what happens when you start applying reasoning like this to
 >ufology? Many people claim to see something that might,
 >conceivably, be an alien UFO. Because you don't know that alien
 >UFOs exist, you doubt their testimony in every case. And thus
 >you reject the testimony that might, conceivably, establish that
 >alien UFOs are here. Circular reasoning, once again.

Once again you make assumptions. I don't doubt testimony in
every case, I simply don't accept it at face value unless there
is independent, confirmatory evidence which supports it. Neither
do I reject testimony - my attitude is "interesting, but not
supported by other testimony." Until such supporting evidence
is found, whether someone has observed something genuinely
unusual (why does 'unusual' always equate with 'alien UFO'?)
judgement has to be suspended.

 >I know you'll say that you reject UFO cases for more complex,
 >more carefully investigated reasons. And I'm sure that in many
 >instances you do. But I think the tenor of your remarks clearly
 >demonstrates a bias against believing UFO testimony - a bias
 >that's human enough, but which you seem unwilling to confront.

Yes you're right - I have a bias against 'believing' UFO
testimony, that's a bias based upon almost 20 years collecting
such testimony and finding it wanting!

Whether you like it or not, I am not an armchair skeptic such as
Phil Klass may have been... I have spent the best part of my
adult life investigating UFOs and a whole range of other
supernatural phenomena in the field. I have interviewed many
dozens of witnesses and found few, if any, of their stories can
be corroborated, and few, if any, seem to be describing anything
which could conceivably be attributed to "alien craft" but
rather a range of natural, environmental and psychological
phenomena.

So I'm not unwilling to confront anything, other than the
limitations of human testimony. Belief does not constitute
proof, and until such proof is forthcoming I will continue to
live by the words of Walter Raleigh,

"The Skeptick doth neither affirm, neither denie any position;
but doubteth of it."









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

              Re: Subject: Re: Website Profiles Martian 'Trees'

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:21:43 +0200
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:13:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Website Profiles Martian 'Trees'


 >From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
 >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:33:22 -0700
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Website Profiles Martian 'Trees' Discovery

 >------------------------------------------------------

 >The Electric Warrior: News April 26, 2001
 >http://www.electricwarrior.com/

 >-----------------------------------martian enigmas

 >WEBSITE PROFILES MARTIAN "TREES" DISCOVERY

 >http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews001B.htm

 >Graham Orme says he posted MOC image M0804688 to the Web on
 >October 15th of last year, and then publicized it at a number of
 >popular online forums. "I mentioned this at the time at MSNBC,
 >the Red Planet Roundtable Discussion, and TEM (The Enterprise
 >Mission BBS). While I have always been careful not to assert
 >they definitely are plants I believe there is a good chance they
 >are."

 >The image got global attention when Arthur C. Clarke told
 >Space.com about some incredible photographs from NASA's Jet
 >Propulsion Laboratory. "I'm fairly convinced that we have
 >discovered life on Mars," said Clarke. Richard C. Hoagland later
 >credited Orme with discovering the image, in an online article
 >touching on Clarke's statement.

 >http://www.enterprisemission.com/mpl.htm

<snip>

 >eWarrior@electricwarrior.com

Kurt & Listmembers:

There has been much writing about possible 'plants' on Mars here
lately (see, e.g., above);however, when we look at those 'plant'
photos we must have in mind that the space craft is actually 370
km (approx. 1 mill. feet) above the Martian surface (commercial
jets are flying at 10 km; 33 000 feet). This is quite an
altitude; 37 times higher! And, to be quite honest; it's _not_
possible to see any plants on the ground from that altitude!

What we really see is - most likely (i.e., my subjective
opinion) - large, popped-in (concave) areas, with frosty grooves
inside - leading to a focal point at the bottom (we're at the
south pole!). (But, in addition, I do also have the possibility
to see the areas as mountains, or popped-out areas, as well...!)


Best Regards,

Asgeir








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                   British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding

From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@Ms.UManitoba.CA>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:19:32 CST
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:17:28 -0400
Subject: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding


While everyone is in a dither over Dennis Plunkett's announcment
and subsequent media coverage of his closing of the British
Flying Saucer Bureau, I should point out that this has a
precedent.

On September 1 and 2, 1999, several newspapers in Canada
reported the folding of the UFO Society of Edmonton, announced
by its founder. (I can't recall his name offhand.) He cited
declining UFO numbers to the point of extinction as the reason
for the collapse of the group. He was quoted as saying that the
group had been around for 49 years and faced a lack of sightings
to investigate the past while.

The trouble is that no other research in Canada had ever heard
of that group. It had no public presence, no hotline, no public
meetings and no reporting infrastructure. It never contributed
to the Annual Survey of Canadian UFO cases, which had reported a
steady increase in UFO report numbers in 1999. More than 200
cases had been reported officially that year.

So, when it issued a widely-distributed press release to all
media, the story was picked up and got a huge response. This is
what I suspect has happened in Britian with Plunkett's comments
and the Times coverage.

Since there are no widely-recognized "experts" in ufology, the
media felt no need to question the source of the information.

So, why shouldn't the media listen to CSETI as opposed to UFOIN?
Why should CNN not do a story about Richard Hoagland instead of
Jan Aldrich?

We're facing an uphill battle, people.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 26

                 Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:33:24 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:56:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ledger


 >From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:57:42 -0300 (BRT)

 >>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:27:14 -0300
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?

 >>>From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >>>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:56:59 -0300 (BRT)

 >>>I am looking for images of the dummies used by the Air Force and
 >>>then blamed to the the cause of the Roswell beings.

 >>>Can someone help me?

 >>These would be the same dummies that were used for
 >>experimentation in 1952-3 some 5 years later?

 >Yes, Don, they are.

 >If you could help me I thank you.


Hi Thiago,

I wish I could but Roswell isn't my strong suit. However I have
seen email referring the the US Air Force's attempt to join the
test dummies in the early 50s to the alleged recovery of bodies
from the site in Corona in 1947. Kevin Randle or Stanton
Friedman should have detail on this.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 27

                 Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:36:39 -0300
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 05:14:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:47:56 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:27:14 -0300
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?

 >>>From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >>>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:56:59 -0300 (BRT)

 >>>I am looking for images of the dummies used by the Air Force and
 >>>then blamed to the the cause of the Roswell beings.

 >>These would be the same dummies that were used for
 >>experimentation in 1952-3 some 5 years later?

 >Hi Don, Theo:

 >Yes, these would the the ones which the Air Force has suggested
 >could have been the source for stories which surfaced many years
 >later.


Hi Bob,

The point is that they could hardly have been a source since
they didn't exist when the event took place.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 27

                     Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:55:16 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 05:16:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Young


 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:31:34 +0100
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One?

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:01:39 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Roy:

 >>How would I know a UFO if I saw one? I assume that you have
 >>something in particular in mind?

 >For now Bob, we can go with any of the shapes that you have seen
 >since childhood.

Roy:

Well, despite many thousands of hours observing the night sky
over the past 40 years, no UFOs have ever identified themselves
to me.

How many little lights in the sky have you seen without going to
the local airport to check if they were seen on radar, or
documenting the weather conditions or personally visiting all
the little airports and grass strips where little private
planes, ultralights or balloons take off? Then the police
departments could have been checked to see if anyone else
reported the little light in the sky, etc? You might have issued
a press release to elicit other reports of the little light, or
gone to a local planetarium or observatory and questioned those
worthies about what the little light was. And, if all of this
fails, one could undergo regressive hypnosis just to see if
there was any missing time, etc., to indicate a possible
abduction.

Unless all of this had been done every time I saw a light in the
sky, how would I know if I have ever seen a UFO, instead of just
an IFO?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 27

                        Obituary - Dave Kelly, BUFOSC

From: Carolyn Buckley <cosmiccarrie@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:57:26 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 05:19:24 -0400
Subject: Obituary - Dave Kelly, BUFOSC


It is with great sadness that I must inform you that Dave Kelly,
investigator with the British UFO Studies Centre passed away on
Monday 23rd April 2001 after a long battle with cancer.

Dave was a trusted friend who was never heard to say a bad word
about anybody, either in the world of Ufology or anywhere else.
He was hardworking and  dependable, never missing a BUFOSC
meeting, despite the declining state of his health, and played
an ongoing active part in the group.

Dave was one of the investigators in the infamous Knutsford
Incident in 1999 and his contribution was advantageous in the
solution of this case.

He was an active investigator in many cases, who took part in a
quiet way, never wanting to take the limelight but, as way his
way, wanting the truth to be known.

Dave's main passion in the world of unexplained phenomena was
his love of forbidden archaeology and everything Egyptian.  In
the twilight of his life, he managed to visit his beloved Egypt,
which all his friends are glad about.

Dave was a great animal lover, and some of his friends have
chosen to donate to the Cats Protection League in his memory.

The funeral service was held today, 27th April in Runcorn, and a
large number of friends and family were there to give Dave a
good send-off.

All of us at BUFOSC will miss him terribly, as will his many
friends throughout the world of Ufology and the paranormal.


Eric & Linda Morris
Carolyn Buckley
Dot Buckley
Lynda & Tim Matthews









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 27

                Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:15:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 06:46:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Lehmberg


 >From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:57:42 -0300 (BRT)

 >>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:27:14 -0300
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?

 >>>From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >>>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:56:59 -0300 (BRT)

 >>>I am looking for images of the dummies used by the Air Force and
 >>>then blamed to the the cause of the Roswell beings.

 >>>Can someone help me?

 >>These would be the same dummies that were used for
 >>experimentation in 1952-3 some 5 years later?

 >Yes, Don, they are.

 >If you could help me I thank you.


Maybe that intrepid bunch over at CSICOP could send Thiago a
group photo?

What? Oh... "_Crash_" dummies... never mind.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

~~~~
EXPLORE "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his HostPros URL.
http://www.alienview.net


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
scurrilous skepti-bunkies.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 27

                        Upgraded UFO Book Review Site

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 06:49:08 -0400
Subject: Upgraded UFO Book Review Site


List,

I've added some titles and reorganized my UFO book review page.

Visitors are welcome:

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/ufobooks.html

--Mac Tonnies












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 27

              Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - Bott

From: Murray Bott <murrayb@win.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:12:32 +1200 (NZST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 06:55:09 -0400
Subject: Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - Bott


 >From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@Ms.UManitoba.CA>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:19:32 CST
 >Subject: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding

Greetings List,

Chris Rutkowski wrote:

 >While everyone is in a dither over Dennis Plunkett's announcment
 >and subsequent media coverage of his closing of the British
 >Flying Saucer Bureau, I should point out that this has a
 >precedent.

<snip>

Here are my own notes and entry of my holdings of UFO
Publications:-


7. British Flying Saucer Bureau & Flying Saucer Club This Group
    is an amalgamation of two British Groups - The "Club" having
    been founded in 1952 and the "Bureau" in 1953 - amalgamation
    taking place in April, 1954.

    A small newsletter "Flying Saucer News" was published from
    Winter, 1953/54 (last on file Autumn 1955)

    A few newsletters appeared under the title "Flying Saucer
    News Bulletin" published by the "Bureau" at Bristol
    (February,1955 - last issue in file is Spring, 1956)

    Nothing else is known about the group(s) and their publishing
    history

    Holdings: Partial Set Held

    -(The New Zealand Herald for Tuesday April 12th, 2001 quoting
    an AAP source - from the "Times", told of the closing of this
    group after nearly 50 years.)


So this group was indeed established in the early 1950's but
they must have eventually been only a small group )or possibly
only a one or two person activity.




Email : murrayb@win.co.nz
Voice : 64-9-6345285
Snail : PO Box 27117, Mt Roskill, Auckland 1030, New Zealand









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 27

                                     Re:

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:04:29 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:04:29 -0400
Subject: Re:

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:11:43 -0400


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray
 >Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:27:55 +0200

 >On November 12, 2000 I posted a comment answering (only half
 >tongue in cheek) Mr. Sandow's petition about a main SF film
 >showing abduction iconography but predating abductions.

 >I suggested "2001: A Space Odissey" but Mr. Sandow did not care
 >to comment, as usual with my arguments.

I was under the impression that we had a detailed exchange here.
There might have been one post of yours I didn't reply to - I
can't get to everything, and sometimes literally don't see posts
here for days, when other work takes my time. But we exchanged
views quite a bit, or so I think I remember. One of us, I'm
thinking, is evidently an example of how fallible witnesses can
be. (My apologies if it's me.)

 >Well, by pure serendipity, I have discovered a new point for my
 >case.

 >We, HPS-ers, have long pointed to Whitley Strieber's best seller
 >"Communion" as the main culprit for spreading the Grey face
 >image (with its big black eyes) all over the world, in the cover
 >of his book.

When I first saw this book, in a bookstore, I remember thinking
to myself: "Wow...so he saw these guys, too?" Evidently the face
had already spread at least to me. I don't deny that it then
became much more famous than it had before. But then lots of
things get much more famous when they're publicized in
best-selling books. It doesn't prove much about abductions,
either pro or con, to see this familiar pattern happening with
Strieber.

 >But now, I have discovered that 20 years before, another alien
 >face stared to the people (at least in the USA). This face
 >showed a big head, a small nose, a simple line as mouth and two
 >big human eyes. It was the Star Child from the 2001 film.
 >
 >Reading a Spanish book about the Kubrick film (pag. 72, "2001.
 >La Odisea contina", Raul Alda, Ediciones Jaguar, Madrid, 2001,
 >ISBN: 84-89960-83-6) I found myself staring at a frontal
 >close-up of the Star Child's face in an Americam promotional
 >poster of the time, under the heading "the ultimate trip".

 >Exactly, up to the _normal_ eyes, as Travis Walton described his
 >aliens.

I've attached the poster Luis mentions. We can all compare it
with Travis Walton's description of the small beings he said he
saw, which reads as follows:

"They were short, shorter than five feet, and they had very
large, bald heads, no hair. Their heads were domed, very large.
They looked like fetuses. They had no eyebrows, no eyelashes.
They had very large eyes--enormous eyes--almost all brown,
without much white in them. The creepiest thing about them were
those eyes. Oh, man, those eyes, they just stared through me.
Their mouths and ears and noses seemed real small, maybe just
because their eyes were so huge."

(Normal eyes?)

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 >
   Apr > Apr 27

                Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 20:46:08 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:06:52 -0400
Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Aldrich


 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:44:13 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray
 >>Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:36:27 -0400

 >>>From: Luis R. Gonz?lez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray
 >>>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:27:55 +0200

 >>>On November 12, 2000 I posted a comment answering (only half
 >>>tongue in cheek) Mr. Sandow's petition about a main SF film
 >>>showing abduction iconography but predating abductions.

 >>'Killers From Space' starring Peter Graves was released 23 Jan
 >>1954. It has medical operation on the abductee, the eyes of the
 >>abductors are constantly bothering Graves' character. The actual
 >>story is retrieved by truth serium.

 >>The aliens are breeding an army of carnivorious monsters to
 >>unlease on the world. (Rebel Reptilians always get a bad rap!)
 >>The Aliens are green not grey and are human size.

 >>Just about this time, as the movie's released, an actual Air
 >>Force accident is investigated using drugs and hypnotism. Realty
 >>imitating Art?

 >Hi Jan, hi All,

 >Jan, don't you think that comparing that very human looking
 >fetus in 2001 to "grey aliens" is 'stretching the taffy' a bit
 >thin? I agree that there may be 'some' number of folks out there
 >that have been influenced or affected by 'media contamination.'
 >But I suspect that the 'contamination' has more to do with the
 >more recent and detailed reports of UFO abduction rather than in
 >the obscure imagery of movies from the 50's.

 >Just a comment if I may. The events I have witnessed in my life
 >had nothing to do with the "movies" I have seen, either past or
 >present. The things that I have seen and experienced did not
 >take place in a 'theater.' An extremely unsettling event
 >happened to me one night while I was just walking home from a
 >friends house and minding my own business. I didn't "conjure" it
 >up out of memory fragments from old sci-fi movies. "It"
 >(whatever 'it' was) came looking for me. Not the other way
 >around. (Not 'from' me)

 >Something big is going on. Folks better stop futzing around and
 >get serious about investigating some of these reports that are
 >coming in. (Daily) Blaming it all on subconscious regurgitations
 >of snippets from old sci-fi movies isn't quite going to get it
 >even if it managed to explain a hundred abduction reports. It's
 >way too simplistic and doesn't even begin to address all the
 >components of what is being reported. It doesn't cover all the
 >bases Jan.

 >"Memories" (whether of books or movies) don't leave ground trace
 >evidence, and physical marks, bruises, and fully healed scars
 >behind.

 >Just my two centavos. Carry on my friend. Whatever gets you
 >through the night,...is alright.  ;)

Hi John,

I was responding to the request for abduction iconography prior
to abductions.

The Hill's abductors don't fit the "grey" mold either.

The screen play for Graves' movie was written by Myles Wilder. I
don't know if there is a relationship to the films director W.
Lee Wilder. It is interesting that the film anticipated memory
blocks, operations on vital organs, questioning under drugs, and
the hypnotic eyes of the abductors. Make of it what you will.
The iconography is there.

Graves' character dies in a plane crash so the abductors bring
him back to life. Obviously, something that has not happened
according the abduction scenarios. However, it is a thread
running through a number of science fiction screen and TV
stories.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 27

                Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 20:46:08 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:06:52 -0400
Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Aldrich


 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:44:13 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray
 >>Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:36:27 -0400

 >>>From: Luis R. Gonz?lez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray
 >>>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:27:55 +0200

 >>>On November 12, 2000 I posted a comment answering (only half
 >>>tongue in cheek) Mr. Sandow's petition about a main SF film
 >>>showing abduction iconography but predating abductions.

 >>'Killers From Space' starring Peter Graves was released 23 Jan
 >>1954. It has medical operation on the abductee, the eyes of the
 >>abductors are constantly bothering Graves' character. The actual
 >>story is retrieved by truth serium.

 >>The aliens are breeding an army of carnivorious monsters to
 >>unlease on the world. (Rebel Reptilians always get a bad rap!)
 >>The Aliens are green not grey and are human size.

 >>Just about this time, as the movie's released, an actual Air
 >>Force accident is investigated using drugs and hypnotism. Realty
 >>imitating Art?

 >Hi Jan, hi All,

 >Jan, don't you think that comparing that very human looking
 >fetus in 2001 to "grey aliens" is 'stretching the taffy' a bit
 >thin? I agree that there may be 'some' number of folks out there
 >that have been influenced or affected by 'media contamination.'
 >But I suspect that the 'contamination' has more to do with the
 >more recent and detailed reports of UFO abduction rather than in
 >the obscure imagery of movies from the 50's.

 >Just a comment if I may. The events I have witnessed in my life
 >had nothing to do with the "movies" I have seen, either past or
 >present. The things that I have seen and experienced did not
 >take place in a 'theater.' An extremely unsettling event
 >happened to me one night while I was just walking home from a
 >friends house and minding my own business. I didn't "conjure" it
 >up out of memory fragments from old sci-fi movies. "It"
 >(whatever 'it' was) came looking for me. Not the other way
 >around. (Not 'from' me)

 >Something big is going on. Folks better stop futzing around and
 >get serious about investigating some of these reports that are
 >coming in. (Daily) Blaming it all on subconscious regurgitations
 >of snippets from old sci-fi movies isn't quite going to get it
 >even if it managed to explain a hundred abduction reports. It's
 >way too simplistic and doesn't even begin to address all the
 >components of what is being reported. It doesn't cover all the
 >bases Jan.

 >"Memories" (whether of books or movies) don't leave ground trace
 >evidence, and physical marks, bruises, and fully healed scars
 >behind.

 >Just my two centavos. Carry on my friend. Whatever gets you
 >through the night,...is alright.  ;)

Hi John,

I was responding to the request for abduction iconography prior
to abductions.

The Hill's abductors don't fit the "grey" mold either.

The screen play for Graves' movie was written by Myles Wilder. I
don't know if there is a relationship to the films director W.
Lee Wilder. It is interesting that the film anticipated memory
blocks, operations on vital organs, questioning under drugs, and
the hypnotic eyes of the abductors. Make of it what you will.
The iconography is there.

Graves' character dies in a plane crash so the abductors bring
him back to life. Obviously, something that has not happened
according the abduction scenarios. However, it is a thread
running through a number of science fiction screen and TV
stories.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 27

                        Re: Serious Research - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:27:52 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:10:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious Research - Easton


Regarding:

 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:37:02 -0000

I noticed that discussions under this heading mentioned these
'UFO' cases:

4/24/64 Socorro, New Mexico.

10/18/73 Mansfield, Ohio, helicopter incident.

4/17/66, Ravenna, Ohio, police chase.

9/17/76 Tehran, Iran, interceptor incident.

23/27/80, Huffman, Texas, Cash-Landrum incident.

Some time ago, I posted the following to the 'UFO Skeptics'
forum:

Richard Hall has highlighted the existence of his article, 'The
Science of UFOs: Fact vs. Skepticism', on the 'International
Space Sciences Organization' web site, at:

http://www.isso.org/inbox/science.htm

Hall cites a number of well known 'UFO' cases which are
purported to be consummate evidence of alien visitations - the
usual fare.

We can understand why 'Roswell' isn't included in what strives
to be a 'scientific' presentation. Why no mention of Kenneth
Arnold though - his sighting report is after all the foundation
of 'flying saucers' and 'UFOs'. Is it because any summary of the
case would have to acknowledge that the popularisation of
'flying saucers' is in fact founded on the media's
misunderstanding of Arnold's bizarre phrase, used to describe
the unidentified object's undulating flight and not what they
looked like.

Not exactly a solid, scientific basis to begin with.

It couldn't, in truth, be much worse.


However, some of the referenced cases have been the subject of
new investigations in recent times and this is an update on
developments I'm aware of.

Hall states:

Apr. 24, 1964; Socorro, New Mexico; 5:45 p.m.

Witnesses: Lonnie Zamora, Socorro police officer; Deputy Sheriff
James Luckie; Sgt. Sam Chavez, New Mexico State Police.

Features: Ellipse, small beings, leg-like imprints in ground,
damage to foliage.

Attracted by an apparent explosion, Zamora drove off the highway
onto rough roads to investigate. A white object was visible
which he first thought was an overturned car, so he reported in
to the dispatcher that he would be out of his car "checking the
car down in the arroyo." Two small figures were standing near
it.

As he got out of his car he heard two or three loud "thumps,"
like someone hammering or slamming a door. One of the beings
turned and looked at him. Then they disappeared into the craft
and it took off with a loud roar and blast of flames. Fearing an
explosion, Zamora turned to run for cover, stumbled and fell.
The object rose straight up, and once it cleared the ground the
loud noise stopped. The object, a whitish ellipse with a red
symbol- like marking on the side, flew away horizontally. It
rose gradually until it disappeared in the distance over the
mountains, just clearing Six Mile Canyon Mountain.

[etc.]

[END OF EXTRACT]


As Larry Robinson originally recognised, the object which Zamora
couldn't identify and was rarely able to observe clearly [Zamora
of course also dropped and lost his glasses early on during the
incident] had distinctive characteristics of a hot-air balloon -
which in 1964 would have been a new and exceptional sighting. At
that time, balloons were expected to be silent and not
intermittently exhibit a roaring flame!

In pursuit of the clues Larry mentioned, considerable research
has been undertaken and a summary of some developments were
published in 'Voyager Newsletter No. 7' - see:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/v07.txt

Revealed therein for the first time was the existence of
previously unknown, 'classified' hot-air balloon flights which
had taken place in New Mexico during 1963 and probably extending
into 1964.

These were test flights/training exercises conducted on behalf
of either the CIA or the Office of Naval Research.

However, there was evidently no connection to the Socorro
incident and the other possibility was a privately owned hot-air
balloon.

One balloonist most likely to have been involved in such early
flights was named as Tracy Barnes. He has been contacted and
will hopefully respond. Recently, another hot-air balloon
pioneer and partner of Tracy Barnes has been identified. His
daughter operates a hot-air balloon facility in New Mexico and
has also been contacted.

A reply from either source should help to resolve key questions
and a few other leads are also still being pursued.


Was it Barnes and his partner who were the two 'occupants' of
our 'craft? We should know soon enough.

Richard Hall neglects to mention that the two figures - the
'beings' - which Zamora briefly noticed were described as
wearing what resembled white coveralls. It seems this may have
been common attire for balloonists around that time, as the
following photograph [I believe it dates from 1965] shows:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/balloon2.jpg

The type of platform/basket in use during April 1964 may however
have been different and incredibly basic. See, for example, the
platform used by Ed Yost and Don Piccard during the first-ever
crossing of the English Channel in April, 1963:

http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9512/history
.htm

[this URL will 'wrap around']

The 'Channel Champ' balloon used by Yost and Piccard to cross
the English channel was re-used during those 'covert' New Mexico
flights, which Ed Yost was involved with.

Don Piccard has been most helpful with research into this case
and concludes that Zamora did simply come across an unfamiliar,
hot-air balloon. It's a conclusion strongly supported by the
fact that when the object departed, Zamora radioed to the police
station, "it looks like a balloon".

One question I would like to definitively have answered is what
evidence actually exists concerning the wind direction that day.
It's been claimed this was recorded as coming from the direction
in which the object departed, i.e. it travelled against the
wind.

What is the factual evidence which does exist?


Hall also states:

Oct. 18, 1973; Mansfield, Ohio; 11:00 p.m.

Witnesses: Capt. Lawrence J. Coyne and the crew of an Army
Reserve UH-1H helicopter; separately located ground witnesses.

Features: Cigar-shaped metallic object with dome, body lights,
light beam, apparent lifting force, apparent EM effects.

The helicopter was cruising at 90 knots at an altitude of 2,500
feet above sea level, over mixed woods and farmland en route
from Columbus to Cleveland on a clear starry night. A red light
was observed on the eastern horizon that appeared to be pacing
the helicopter. A minute or so later one of the crew members
warned the captain that the light appeared to be converging on
the helicopter. Capt. Coyne took the controls from the copilot
and began descending, at the same time contacting Mansfield
approach control to request information on possible jet traffic;
he knew there were F-100s based at Mansfield. Before Mansfield
could answer, radio communications were lost.

Meanwhile the red light increased in intensity and appeared to
be on a collision course at a very high rate of speed, so Coyne
increased the rate of descent and dropped to about 1,700 feet.
With the trees coming up fast and the unknown object apparently
about to ram them, the crew members braced for the impact. Just
as a collision appeared imminent, the light suddenly stopped and
assumed a hovering relationship above and in front of the
helicopter.

The object appeared solid, eclipsing the stars behind it. On it
were a red light at the nose, a white light at the tail, and a
distinctive green beam emanating from the lower part of the
body. The green beam swung across the front of the helicopter,
through the windshield, bathing the cockpit in intense green
light. No turbulence was felt and the crew heard no sound from
the object. After a few seconds, the object accelerated and
moved off to the west, showing only the white "tail" light as it
receded, and made a distinct 45 degree course change to the
right, heading toward Lake Erie.

[Etc.]

[END OF EXTRACT]

There's a more detailed account of this case on-line at:

http://www.webcom.com/sturrock/jse/articles/ufo_reports/zeidman/

Ground witnesses reported the object to be "like a blimp" and
"sort of pear shaped".

A silvery, pear-shaped object which looked like a blimp and can
'hover' suggests an obvious candidate for the unrecognised
object encountered.

If a blimp was the source, any 'effects' believed to originate
from the object would presumably be unrelated and have another
explanation.

Having a cursory look at this case, I noticed that near to
Mansfield is Goodyear's 'Wingfoot Lake' blimp facility.

For information - a postcard showing Goodyear's 'Airship
America' and dating from just after the Mansfield incident, can
be seen on my web site at:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/blimp.jpg

I have written to Goodyear, asking if their historical records
confirm whether or not they had a blimp in the area at that time
and I've received a reply from them, which is subject to ongoing
correspondence.

 From the case research I've read, I can't locate any reference
to Goodyear previously being contacted.

Was a possible connection never queried?


Hall also cites:

December 29, 1980; Huffman, Texas; 9:00 p.m.

Witnesses: Betty Cash, Vickie Landrum, Colby Landrum; dozens who
observed the helicopters

Features: Cone-, spindle-, or top-shaped object, body lights,
severe physiological effects

While driving through the Piney Woods of East Texas, about 40
miles northeast of Houston, Betty Cash, Vickie Landrum and her
grandson Colby noticed a bright light ahead. As they approached
to within about 130 feet they were confronted by an intensely
luminous diamond-shaped object emitting exhaust-like flames down
toward the road. Betty stopped the car to avoid the flames, but
the car interior became hot and they were forced outside where
the heat from the object burned their skin. They were terrified
by this apparition.

The object was silvery and metallic-appearing and small blue
lights were visible around the center. Periodically, flames
flared out of the bottom with a "whooshing" sound and each time
this happened, the object rose a few feet, only to settle back
toward the road when the flames ceased. The witnesses could feel
a burning sensation on their faces. Although it was a chilly
evening, the car was too hot to touch.

Just as the object began slowly ascending into the sky, a large
number of helicopters (approximately 12 of them later were
determined to be CH-47 Chinooks) showed up and appeared to be
trying to force the object to land. Instead, it flew away with
more than 20 helicopters in pursuit. Betty was finally able to
resume driving, and she dropped the Landrum's off at their house
and proceeded home. She immediately became ill, experiencing
headache, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea [sic], red and
blistered skin, and swollen eyes.

[...]

An investigation by the Army Inspector General's office could
not find the source of the helicopters, suggesting that some
clandestine special forces unit may have been involved. The case
has profound implications for apparent Government awareness of
UFOs and related secret operations. (Schuessler, 1998) [END OF
EXTRACT]


The almost certain identity of the 'special forces unit'
involved was published in 'Voyager Newsletter No 9', see:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/v09.txt

I wrote:

I believe a military 'special ops' training exercise was at
least in part responsible for another classic UFO encounter, a
drama which was soon to unfold on the other side of the
Atlantic.

During the evening of 29th December, 1980, Betty Cash, Vickie
Landrum and Colby Landrum were travelling along Highway FM1485
in eastern Texas. It was a quiet road in a sparsely populated
area.

They noticed a bright light above the trees and as it descended
towards them, it hovered at tree-top level.

Diamond-shaped and much larger than their car, the object
intermittently expelled a 'cone of fire', apparently downwards.
This caused it to rise slightly, similar to a hot-air balloon
using a burner to keep aloft.

The object also reportedly glowed brightly and something emitted
an occasional beeping noise.

With the object now above the road, the witnesses got out of
their car, reportedly experiencing an intense heat and light
from the object.

Suddenly, a large number of helicopters appeared overhead,
seemingly arriving from all directions. The unidentified object
was then lost from sight behind some trees and the helicopters
left.

Driving further on, the object and helicopters were again seen
in close proximity. The witnesses counted 23 helicopters and
these were identified as mainly CH-47 Chinooks, plus faster
single- rotor helicopters, similar to a Bell-Huey.

The witnesses apparently all suffered from illness afterwards,
with Betty Cash, who was closest to the object, being the most
poorly. It's generally assumed this was directly related to the
incident.

Despite extensive enquiries, no trace of the helicopters'
origins was ever found, with Houston Airport unable to assist
and military bases in Texas and Louisiana denying any possible
involvement.

It remained a mystery.

One statement came from the US Army's Fort Hood press officer,
Major Tony Geishauser, who confirmed no aircraft from that base
were in the Houston area at the time. He commented, "I don't
know any other place around here that would have that number of
helicopters. I don't know what it could be... unless there's a
super secret thing going on and I wouldn't necessarily know
about it".

It's a point which I can maybe help substantiate in this case.
Although there could now be a rational explanation for the
brightly glowing, diamond-shaped object, that's still the
subject of investigation and is left aside for now.

However, of arguably more importance, I can identify the special
operations unit who would appear to be most likely responsible
for the helicopters witnessed.

It seems this was probably 'Task Force 158', a forerunner to the
legendary Night Stalkers.

This is the genesis as told by the Night Stalkers themselves:

"After the failure of Operation RICE BOWL, the attempted U.S.
hostage rescue in Iran in April 1980, the United States Army
began testing and evaluation to develop special operations
aviation capabilities. Volunteers were selected from the 101st
Aviation Group's C/158 and D/158 (UH-60), A/159th (CH-47), and
B/229th (OH-6) to form and develop tactics, techniques and
procedures for aviation in special operations mission profiles.

The 101st Airborne Division (AASLT) provided the UH-60s and CH-
47s while the National Guard initially provided the OH-6s. The
101st was selected because it had recently fielded the UH-60
Black Hawk helicopter, which was already proven to be extremely
reliable and safe while conducting demanding mission.
Additionally, the 101st possessed a large number of CH-47 medium
lift helicopters that could complement the smaller Black Hawks
and agile OH-6.

Beginning in June 1980, intensive training was conducted
focusing on long range, low level, flying at night with
primitive full- faced AN/PVS-5 night vision goggles. As
proficiency increased, mission profiles became more demanding
and complex - challenging the Task Force to develop additional
capabilities of blacked-out and close formation flight. The
testing and evaluation resulted in the development of the light
helicopter company, the extended range and lift UH-60, and the
extended range FARP capable CH-47".

Although I have other reasons to be reasonably confident that
Task Force 158 were involved, this relates to someone else's
research which hasn't yet been published. I'm sure the
additional evidence will become known in due course. [END OF
NEWSLETTER EXTRACT]


So, what's supposedly the 'best ever ET has landed evidence'
involved here?

A diamond-shaped object that "intermittently expelled a 'cone of
fire', apparently downwards" and which "caused it to rise
slightly, similar to a hot-air balloon using a burner to keep
aloft", is hardly grounds for presuming it came from outer
space.

Infinitely more likely is that it was borne of a more
terrestrial origin, for example, perhaps something like this:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/rozier.jpg

The apparent injuries which may, or may not, be related to this
incident are another matter, although there are, unconfirmed,
insinuations of Task Force 158 working on exercises with
Chemical Battalions.

[...]

[END OF EXTRACT]


A quick update on some ongoing Socorro research.

At my request, recently one of the world's foremost balloon
historians - involved with the development of gas balloons, hot-
air balloons and government projects dating back to the cold-war
era - kindly devoted time looking at the Socorro case evidence,
particularly Zamora's full statement. He also answered a number
of related questions I asked.

As our historian has an _expert_ knowledge of balloon technology
in use at the time of Zamora's sighting, his conclusions and
comments about certain details within the evidence have been
exceptionally helpful and informative. As is his suggested
resolution.

When I've clarified some matters further, I'll explain the full
story behind this.

In the meantime, as later highlighted on 'UFO Skeptics':

It's not so much the terrifying, intermittent, roaring flame
that's important. It's how the object was able to fly without
that.

What would be utterly convincing evidence?

What if Zamora noted that the balloon-like object had a large
opening at the bottom, above the flame.

What if he also revealed that the flame, although apparently
being directed onto the ground, mysteriously didn't disturb the
ground at all and, as if by some magic, seemed to be going
straight through it!

In 'Socorro Saucer', by Ray Stanford, which documents his
considerable investigation immediately afterwards, he writes
about Zamora's confirmation of certain details that were not
contained in his 'official report'.

Stanford states:

"Zamora reported that as the craft rose vertically and then
moved away, he observed an estimated four-foot-long elliptical
opening on the bottom of the object, out of which the flame
issued".

He further explains [the asterisks denote Stanford's emphasis]:

"Zamora felt a distinct heat on his body coming from the craft's
exhaust, but *there was not nearly so much heat as there should
have been if this were a rocket's exhaust of equal size and
brilliance*.

The sound made up for it, however, Zamora thought later.

Something else, though, made the 'flame', streaming downward
only fifteen paces from Zamora, seem unusual.

He told me, 'That roaring flame. It looked like it should'a
bounced [deflected] off the ground, *but it didn't*.

In fact, *it was more like some fiery Excalibur, actually
penetrating into the rocks and the earth*, instead of deflecting
off to the side as a gaseous rocket exhaust would have done'."

Stanford adds, "I was puzzled about this as I stood at the
landing site that afternoon...".


What type of flame, accompanied by a tumultuous roar, is emitted
by a landed object which then _slowly_ rises upwards, yet the
flame doesn't evidence any thrust off the ground, instead
seeming as though it must be going straight through the soil.

Answer; a thrust that isn't being blasted downwards at all, it
only gives that expected appearance. The flame is actually being
directed upwards, that's why the object above has a large
opening at the bottom, it's the reason why the object is able to
lift off slowly and subsequently no longer need the burner to
provide 'power'.

It's also the most compelling evidence that the Socorro UFO was
a hot-air balloon, carrying two balloonists wearing customary
white, one-piece, 'parachute' outfits. [END OF EXTRACT]


Also... from 'UFO Skeptics':

Regarding:

 >From: <TPrinty@aol.com>
 >To: "UFO Skeptics" <debunk@listbot.com>
 >Subject: Re: Socorro '64
 >Date: 06 April 2001 01:45

Tim wrote:

 >I am also curious as to something Richard Hall wrote on the case
 >in his recent writing: "The Science of UFOs: Facts versus
 >Skepticism".  He stated the following:

 >"As he got out of his car he heard two or three loud "thumps,"
 >like someone hammering or slamming a door. One of the beings
turned and looked at him. "

 >This is not what Zamora stated.  He stated he saw the figures
 >when going up the hill and when he had stopped he did not notice
 >anyone.  Does Hall know something we don't?

Tim,

Hall is absolutely mistaken. Zamora never observed those two
'individuals', except during the initial 'two second' sighting.

As Zamora confirmed in his statement, "The persons were not seen
when I drove to the scene area".

Incidentally, although Zamora's report states, "possibly they
were small adults or large kids" and this has been construed as
'small creatures', it's lesser known that Capt. Holder from
White Sands - one of the first to investigate the trace evidence
- noted that apparent footprints were, "about the size of a
footprint a bigfooted teenager would make".

Bigfoot at Socorro?

You heard it here first... :)
[END OF EXTRACT]


Having detailed the necessary background, this is a summary of
some pertinent questions which arise:

1. We now understand why a hot-air balloon is the _most_ obvious
explanation for key Socorro evidence and significantly the
original case investigators - Holder, Hynek etc. - were
seemingly oblivious to this probability. They were certainly
unaware of the contemporary New Mexico test flights, otherwise
they would readily have pursued such a promising lead.

What therefore indicates that the object which wasn't identified
is _more_ likely to have an ET origin, to an extent it's cited
as foremost evidence of same?


2. During initial investigations. were Goodyear ever contacted
to eliminate a blimp as being responsible for the blimp-like
Mansfield object?

If not, then again, what therefore indicates that the object
which wasn't identified is _more_ likely to have an ET origin,
to an extent it's cited as foremost evidence of this?


3. A central aspect of the 'Cash-Landrum' case is an apparent
military exercise involving 'Task Force 158' - I understand one
book describes how they were conducting exercises in Texas
around this time.

As the unidentified aerial object also exhibited similar
characteristics to a hot-air balloon, then, once more, what
implies that object - especially in the context of a military
exercise - was _more_ likely to have an ET origin than not?


The questions relate to an ET explanation being _more_ likely
for these paramount 'ETH' examples, indeed it has to be
strikingly so and not merely conceivable.

Otherwise, is it now blatantly obvious and acknowledged that
such previously believed, archetypal ETH evidence demonstrably
has a greater probability of actually exposing the ETH's
fundamental, vapid foundation?

Oh, just one more question... what if all three of these pivotal
cases could now be shown to have an incredibly simple
explanation.

Where does that leave the 'ETH'... refuted, devastated, damaged,
or impervious?


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk

Join UFO Skeptics or read the list archives at:

http://debunk.listbot.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 >
   Apr > Apr 27

                 Looking For Kitchener, ON, Canada Ufologist

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 20:56:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:12:59 -0400
Subject: Looking For Kitchener, ON, Canada Ufologist


Errol and List,

I'm looking for a phone number for Sid McKinnon, a Ufologist
from the Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, area. Someone I know wants
to get in touch with him regarding publishing materials.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 27

                  Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gonzlez Manso

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:58:39 +0200
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:19:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gonzlez Manso


John Velez wrote:

 >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:59:31 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >Peter Brookesmith was in town a few years ago while he was
 >researching his book, 'Abduction'. We went to the location in
 >Brooklyn where I lived at the time of the sighting/abduction I
 >had back in the late 70's. Peter took a series of photos two of
 >which were used in the book when it was published. Being an
 >artist all my life I couldn't resist 'doctoring' his photos so
 >that they depicted the event itself. It was therapeutic for me
 >to create them because it allowed me to pull those images out of
 >my head and objectify them. (Get them out of my head and on
 >paper.)

 >The pictures represent (to the best of my ability) the UFO
 >contact and abduction event that I experienced (consciously)
 >that night. Because Greg mentioned it in his response to John I
 >posted them on the following webpage at the AIC website:

 >http://www.spacelab.net/~jvif/myart3.htm


Dear John,

Please, clarify. You wrote that the pictures represent what you
had experience _consciously_ that night. But in Brookesmith's
book, he clearly stated that your only conscious memories were
of seeing a big football-shaped light above the roofs, you began
running, getting near your home... "and the next second, it's
daylight, and I'm sitting bolt upright in bed....". So,
according to that version, you did not have any conscious recall
of the Greys you depicted in your second work of art.

Please, be careful in the future. For instance, it is not clear
if you awoke in bed still dressed with all the same clothes
(shoes included?) you wore the night before (just a teeshirt?)

Now, just thinking aloud I could suggest a trivial escenario for
your conscious memories. You did see something strange, even a
UFO (it being really a police helicopter or a real alien
spacecraft, that it is not important for the moment), you
panicked and run, and you tripped on anything (the proverbial
banana's peel) and hurt yourself (it would explain why you did
not get robbed) in the nose. Maybe an small piece of any
irritant matter got inside your eye and stayed there time enough
to give you your symptoms, before being ejected during the
sleep.

I would like to hear your comments about this possibility.


Yours,

Luis R. Gonzalez Manso
(non-abductee dust provider)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 27

             Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray - Gonzlez Manso

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:58:51 +0200
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:22:31 -0400
Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray - Gonzlez Manso


 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:44:13 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray


 >Jan, don't you think that comparing that very human looking
 >fetus in 2001 to "grey aliens" is 'stretching the taffy' a bit
 >thin?

<snip>

 >Something big is going on. Folks better stop futzing around and
 >get serious about investigating some of these reports that are
 >coming in. (Daily) Blaming it all on subconscious regurgitations
 >of snippets from old sci-fi movies isn't quite going to get it
 >even if it managed to explain a hundred abduction reports. It's
 >way too simplistic and doesn't even begin to address all the
 >components of what is being reported. >


Dear John,

Nowadays it is very usual to forget that the very first
abductions did not depict Grays. Vilas Boas' helmeted or ginger
(with blonde-dyed head hair) aliens, Hill's Nazi-like beings
wearing scarf and cap, Zanfretta's "Swamp Moster", Pascagoula's
"mummies", etc., etc.

Yes, I have read how Hopkins himself convinced Charles Hickson
under hypnosis that his "mummy" was a Gray under disguise, but
such "screen memories" did not convince me.

My comments about "2001" were a half-joking response to the
outrageous demand by Mr. Sandow that HPS-ers should provide a
main SF film depicting all and every one of the features in an
abduction, but the "Star Child" is _really_ almost identical to
the beings described by Travis Walton, specially in having
normal human eyes, not entirely black as nowadays Grays.

We, HPS-ers did not "blame it all on subconscious regurgitations
of snippets from old sci-fi movies". Certainly, many features
had appeared there, as Martin Kottmeyer has demonstrated once
and again - read his "REALL series":

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/index.html

but our thesis did not rely in abductees seeing old sci-fi
movies. These examples just want to show that the alien
phenomena has already been imagined by humans before! There is
nothing new and really alien in them! What one unknown script
writer thought decades ago, can be imagined again unconsciously
by a present abductee.

As for the mechanisms, Kevin Randle's proposal about the
iatrogenic effects of UFO researchers and abductee support
groups deserve merit IMHO.

I know there are several abductees in the list, and would like
to ask them some questions:

Do you still got abducted?
Do you have conscious recall of them or just "vivid dreams"?
If so, have you bother trying to document such incidents?

Centering on you, John (without malice, of course). I remember
reading a few years ago in the IF Bulletin your vision of an
enormous "alien" walking thru Manhattan Godzilla-like. My
question is: have your abduction's conscious memories the same
"reality quality" that such vision? (please, excuse my English)

You see, you have just provided me with an example. I would love
to learn about real extraterrestrial beings visiting our planet
(even if they are plotting our destruction!) but my problem is
that I realize that if I accept as real any abduction, I will
not be able to stop. Next thing I will have to believe in going
thru walls, or in giant aliens walking around New York, or in
six-digits aliens being vivisectioned and filmed.

When to stop?


Yours,

Luis R. Gonzalez










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 27

                        Mars-Style 'Tubes' On Earth?

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:25:27 -0400
Subject: Mars-Style 'Tubes' On Earth?

The Cydonian Imperative
4-27-01

Martian "Tubes"--On Earth!
by Mac Tonnies


Please see

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

for corresponding images and links.


Reader David Robisnon has kindly supplied the following image,
taken from the 1980 book "Flights of Discovery." The photo
caption from "Flights of Discovery" appears below the
provocative image below.

[image]

"The Klondike near Dawson City in the Canadian Yukon. The
discovery of alluvial gold in the Klondike sparked off the gold
rush of 1896. Whatever escaped the gold washers and nugget
hunters of the old days is now extracted from the diminishing
gold deposits by mining companies using huge floating dredges.
The systematically churned waste shows where the dredges have
passed."

[image]

The most famous of the alleged Martian "tubes." Other, similar
features can be seen intersecting and nestled near each other
much like in the Klondyke image above.


Rather than representing an ancient transportation system, could
the Martian "tubes" be the remains of a vast (possibly global)
mining operation, as suggested by the Klondyke photo?

-end-








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 27

                         TLC - BFSB Is "Legendary"!

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:47:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:47:40 -0400
Subject: TLC - BFSB Is "Legendary"!



From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


Source: TLC News

http://tlc.discovery.com/news/news.html

Hard Times for UFO Watchers

A sharp drop in the number of reported sightings closes a
legendary organization.

Hard Times for UFO Watchers


April 25 - The British Flying Saucer Bureau is closing after
chronicling UFO activities for nearly 50 years - because of a
sharp decline in the number of reported sightings.

The group, which once had 1,500 members worldwide, used to
receive at least 30 reports a week of sightings of unidentified
flying objects, but they had now virtually dried up, the Times
newspaper reported on Monday.

"I am just as enthusiastic about flying saucers as I always was,
but the problem is that we are in the middle of a long, long
trough," Denis Plunkett, 70, who founded the bureau in 1953 with
his late father Edgar, told the Times.

"There's only so many times you can pick over old bones. There
just aren't enough new sightings," he said.

Plunkett, a retired civil servant, believed there may be a
rational explanation for the decline in sightings. Perhaps alien
visitors had completed a survey of Earth, he said.

He acknowledged, however, that the greatest threat to amateur
alien-watchers who once congregated in pubs to discuss grainy
black and white photographs came from cyberspace.

"Rather than trekking out to some draughty hall to see my old
slides, it is a lot easier for people to plonk themselves down
in front of a computer screen in the comfort of their own home,"
he 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 >
   Apr > Apr 28

                            Alfred's Odd Ode #347

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 07:46:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:49:12 -0400
Subject: Alfred's Odd Ode #347


Apology to MW #347 (For April 28, 2001)

I'm logging in a skywatch of the stuff that flies up there; I
won't pretend what I have found -- report what isn't there. And
I don't mean to scare you or detract from what you think, but
I'm compelled by questions that can make you gasp and blink.

It's winners write the history clearly missing all its thorns.
It's how we've kept posterity on the UFOs suborned. It's why
we've lied to spare ourselves; it's why we won't look up; its
why we ask no questions of the men we know corrupt. That's why
they can ignore us. This is why we're so unsure. It's why we
trod the paths we take (to which we've been inured).

And still the lights traverse the sky, and strangeness DOES
abound.  Their speed is slow and variable. Their appearance is
profound.  And yes, they flash and tumble, and they vanish --
reappear. They cannot be mere pelicans -- too peculiar, odd, and
queer. And I mean this in a good way; if included by the stars?
It's an _infinite_ diversity that we've trifled with so far!

The Christians call them "demon's spawn" of he "who dwells
below."  They haven't copped to Enki, or Enlil, don't you know.
But, they've assigned their histories to a label they
maintain... must move control from human hands to that which
they've ordained. It's all just razzle-dazzle of a faith that
they've abused... with Gods who love and hate them so the flock
will stay confused.

The Skeptics are the valued lot, but bunkies crawl with fear.
They've got a lot *invested* in a *future* they hold dear.  "The
crown of all creation, we're alone..." they would maintain, and
reports of flying saucers come from "crazy (misled) brains."
They're like a well worn watch that measures time they must
presume to be a list of all their wishes for a world-view they'd
consume.

The Pundits bury tongues in cheeks and sneer up ruffled sleeves.
They front for corporate interests that would do just what they
please. They've sold their souls to Mammon, are reluctant with
the truth, so _they're_ the part and parcel of control we should
dispute!  They're slick and coifed, articulate, and too well
dressed it seems. And THEY maintain the status quo composed of
shallow dreams.

It's true the colored lights portend, for them, a non-event!
Cops report real UFOs... take pictures they present! We see them
all across the world; we see they've been recorded in the
paintings of the masters who revealed what's reported! We see
them in the photographs -- to old to have been faked. We read
them in the written word the sages wrote for fate. We hear them
on the radio.  We see them on TV.  Content, we're sold a bill of
goods, contained, betrayed -- you see?

So, I'm logging in a sky watch.  I report what I perceive.  I'm
not a crass believer OR a skeptibunky... please.  I have my own
possession.  I'm beholden to myself.  I'll make my observation
as I will, right off the shelf. I'll strike the sun if it
offends me, but it's fairness rules my soul.  I'll move towards
the evidence, but then where it leads I'll go.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

Though the heavens fall...

  Hey. If they fell _at all_ then they must not have been a real
  enough heaven! Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel?

The last seven days have resulted in four of them providing
sightings of the previously described type. Nocturnal lights,
tumbling, flashing, appearing and disappearing in clear skies
are observed to vary speed and direction across an inky
starfield... What Dr. Hynek might have termed a CE-1... all you
have to do is rock your head back and refuse to forecast what
you might see... they're THERE, damn it!

Somebody knows...


~~~~
EXPLORE "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his HostPros URL.
http://www.alienview.net


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 scurrilous
skepti-bunkies.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 28

                   Re: TLC - BFSB Is "Legendary"! - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 05:57:23 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:14:35 -0400
Subject: Re: TLC - BFSB Is "Legendary"! - Hatch


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Source: TLC News

 >http://tlc.discovery.com/news/news.html

 >Hard Times for UFO Watchers

 >A sharp drop in the number of reported sightings closes a
 >legendary organization.

 >Hard Times for UFO Watchers

 >April 25 - The British Flying Saucer Bureau is closing after
 >chronicling UFO activities for nearly 50 years - because of a
 >sharp decline in the number of reported sightings.

 >The group, which once had 1,500 members worldwide, used to
 >receive at least 30 reports a week of sightings of unidentified
 >flying objects, but they had now virtually dried up, the Times
 >newspaper reported on Monday.

 >"I am just as enthusiastic about flying saucers as I always was,
 >but the problem is that we are in the middle of a long, long
 >trough," Denis Plunkett, 70, who founded the bureau in 1953 with
 >his late father Edgar, told the Times.

 >"There's only so many times you can pick over old bones. There
 >just aren't enough new sightings," he said.

 >Plunkett, a retired civil servant, believed there may be a
 >rational explanation for the decline in sightings. Perhaps alien
 >visitors had completed a survey of Earth, he said.

 >He acknowledged, however, that the greatest threat to amateur
 >alien-watchers who once congregated in pubs to discuss grainy
 >black and white photographs came from cyberspace.

 >"Rather than trekking out to some draughty hall to see my old
 >slides, it is a lot easier for people to plonk themselves down
 >in front of a computer screen in the comfort of their own home,"
 >he said.


Thank you EBK for reposting this, it saves some lookup time.

Is there somebody in the UK that can sort this all out?

Ostensibly, we have this rather likeable sounding chap who is
taking a well-earned retirement from UFO matters.

I get a picture of a fairly large UFO organization which
dwindled in numbers from the 1950s until recent years, when all
that was left were a few old-timers with their slide projector -
Bell and Howell perhaps?

I am troubled however by a few nagging details.

1) The newspaper account above does not make clear what part of
Britain the "legendary" group came from. Tabloids play tricks
like that, it sets off alarm bells.

2) How is it that nobody seems to have heard of the legendary
BFSB in the first place?

3) How many members (approx.) did the BFSB have recent years?

4) What is the date, name, place of publication of their most
recent newsletter or whatever?

5) How can such a group create news by folding its tent, when
nobody knew it existed in the first place?

6) If Mr. Plunkett understands how easy it is to get mesmerized
by a computer screen, is there some chance he has a personal
email address?

Perhaps Plunkett himself can fill in some of the blanks for us!

Then we can more properly kick around the press treatment of the
matter as a separate issue.

Please forgive my complete ignorance of British UFO groups. I
usually leave such matters to people watchers, but this one has
me curious for some reason.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 28

                  Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:37:10 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:37:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Young


 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:36:39 -0300
 > From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:47:56 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >The point is that they could hardly have been a source since
 >they didn't exist when the event took place.

Don:

Right, but they could have been the source of stories which
didn't _surface_ until later, a key consideration being the date
that the story first made its appearance.

For example, the first known appearance of the story that the
Army threw a cordon around the site was Frank Edwards in 1955 or
56 in one of his popular saucer lectures. He said people could
find this info in old newspaper clippings. No one has ever found
such a newspaper report. The implication is clear: Edwards made
it up.

If one assumes that these are real events, then there had to be
a chronology from event to story. But if the story is only that,
well, who knows?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 28

                        Snaefell, Isle Of Man Update

From: Chris Rolfe <astratech@supanet.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 14:01:02 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:48:32 -0400
Subject: Snaefell, Isle Of Man Update



ISLE OF MAN UPDATE

The mystery surrounding the Snaefell Mountain incident, may very
well be solved in the not too distant future. This is due to a
breakthrough in the case, thanks to a tip off.

Suffice to say that we are on the trail of a pair of drones, and
have possibly identified a Royal Navy frigate which was ordered
to turnabout and begin a covert search. We have also discovered
a possible remote base that these two drones came from.

We even have a possible US/UK name for the secret proect, linked
to a Research & Development facility on mainland Scotland, as
well as a link to another incident in the Scottish Highlands.
That being the Isle of Lewis incident, that occurred on 26
October, 1996 when many witnesses on the Island heard an
extremely loud explosion, and witnessed smoke and debris falling
from the night sky into the sea, which resulted in a two day
search involving RAF Nimrods, RN ships, along with fishing
vessels, and possibly USN ships. As in the Isle of Man incident
_nothing_ was found!

We have also been tipped-off that a certain defence contractor
on mainland Britain, took receipt of a damaged drone, which had
navigation and guidence system problems.

It now seems clear that some kind of cover up has occurred with
regard to the IOM incident. We also know of a woman on the
Island whose son works for the police, who was involved in the
search for whatever struck the communications mast on top of
Snaefell mountain. When his mother asked him about the incident
he told her he could not talk about it.

When we receive more information we will of course let you know.


Chris Rolfe

Director Research/Investigations
UFO Monitors
East Kent













   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 28

                  Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Cuthbertson

From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:15:19 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:50:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Cuthbertson


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:55:16 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Unless all of this had been done every time I saw a light in the
 >sky, how would I know if I have ever seen a UFO, instead of just
 >an IFO?


How would you know? Well, in the end, whatever you may choose to
do or not, is the light identified? If not, then as far as that
incident is concerned, its a UFO.

Repeat 10 times after me: "If you don't know, its a UFO"

Folks sure do seem to try to put more into those letters than
are there.

The U stands only for "unidentified", you know. Unless, like me,
you prefer Paul Hill's alternate definition "unconventional", a
minimal filter which at least implies some sort of abnormal
behavior, something you can begin to work with.


-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 >
   Apr > Apr 28

             Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Gonzlez Manso

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:58:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:58:31 -0400
Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Gonzlez Manso

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto"<updates@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:26:48 +0200


Greg Sandow wrote:

 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray
 >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:11:43 -0400

 >I was under the impression that we had a detailed exchange here.

Sorry, Greg, this time my memory serves me correctly. I have
consulted UFO UpDates Main Index and you did not answer my post
dated November 12, 2000. Your next post was in December 8, so
maybe you were out of town. I would suggest you re-read my post
and answer some of the questions I posed then.

Besides, our precedent exchanges were quite short. I posted my
comments about Linda's abduction and its precedents in the
Reeves-Stevens novel, and you just said that you did not see
those similarities as important. A matter of opinion... as
usual.

<snip>

 >I've attached the poster Luis mentions. We can all compare it
 >with Travis Walton's description of the small beings he said he
 >saw

I would like to know the reference of that quote. I attached two
images. One from the Spanish UFO bulletin where I first learnt
about Walton's abduction (STENDEK # 25, September 1976) and
other taken from The Official Travis Walton web site:

http://www.traviswalton.com/

Let's compare:

 >they had very large, bald heads, no hair.

Yes

 >Their heads were domed, very large.

Yes

 >They looked like fetuses.

Yes

 >They had no eyebrows, no eyelashes.

Yes

 >They had very large eyes - enormous eyes -

Maybe. Considering the rest of the facial features, the eyes of
the Star Child are bigger than usual.

 >almost all brown, without much white in them.

No. But this contradicts the drawings at the time.

Whose fault?

Curiously the 2001 poster shows a brown color in general, that
could be applied even to the pupils, which are bigger than usual
for the human eye, too (without much white in them)

 >Their mouths and ears and noses seemed real small,
 >maybe just because their eyes were so huge

Yes.

Once again, just a matter of opinion?

I will put it in another way. There are more differences between
the heads of the aliens described by Walton and those of the
late 90's Grays than with the head of the Star Child depicted in
1968.

Let's vote. How many readers agree?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 28

                       Re: Monmouth Revisited - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:05:43 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:13:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Monmouth Revisited - Ledger


 >From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Ft. Monmouth Revisited
 >Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 03:00:54 +0200

 >On September 10, 1951, while flying at 20,000 ft from a Delaware
 >to a Long Island airbase, two experienced fighter pilots in a
 >T-33 jet spotted an object "round and silver in color" which at
 >one stage of the attempted intercept appeared flat. The T-33 was
 >put into a descending turn to try to close on the object but the
 >latter turned more tightly (the airmen stated) and passed
 >rapidly eastward towards the coast of New Jersey and out to sea,
 >at an estimated speed of around 900 mph.

 >The official explanation pointed to a balloon. In fact, two
 >balloons were launched in the area shortly before the incident.
 >But many years later, J. E. McDonald questioned this
 >explanation, concluding:

<snip>

 >Glad to hear further comments on the whole affair.

Hi Manuel,

I often wonder why when doing research on these supposed pilots
chasing weather balloons cases why researchers don't ask pilots
about the feasibility of doing this. Having come across at last
count 8 weather balloons while flying [always by chance and
zipping by the aircraft at very close range-visibly acquired
only scant seconds before at 115 mph indicated] the whole
concept of pilots in jets chasing weather balloons seems silly.

Do all the math you want but first explain to me after the first
pass how does a pilot in a jet re-acquire the same 4-5 foot
weather balloon again. Does anyone have any idea how hard that
is. Do you Manual know the turning radius of a T-33 at speed
[400 knots] once a pass has been completed. How far past the WB
the jet will fly and the nearly impossible task of picking the
object out of the sky a second time-let alone [by chance] seeing
it in the first place.

If you knew anything about subject you would see all of your
cute little theories go out the window. Many go on about science
as it pertains to the investigation of UFOs but in some cases
just plain common sense would be helpful too. It's one thing to
be stationary on the ground and watch a slow moving WB passing
overheard, quite another to re-aquire that little dot [now over
a mile or two away] in three dimensional space with varying
backgrounds such as the horizon, the ground, clouds and that bug
on your canopy/windscreen.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 28

                    Filer's Files #17 -- 2000 [Complete]

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:17:54 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:30:30 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #17 -- 2000 [Complete]


Filer's Files #17 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
April 24, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com


UFO WAVE IN MIDWEST -- UFOs were seen in Florida, Virginia,
Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri,
Wisconsin, Michigan, California, Alaska and Chile.

Maryland MUFON researcher George Reynolds reports that he is
monitoring high magnetic activity in the earth's field around
his home in Maryland with his magnetic anomaly detector
instruments. Ed Stork of Denver, Pennsylvania designed and built
the instruments. On April 11, 12, 13, and 14 both instruments
located 40 miles apart were very active measuring considerably
higher than normal readings. The units were designed to pick up
UFOs, but have been reliable in predicting both UFOs and
earthquakes. Their research has discovered that earthquakes
often follow high magnetic activity. In recent weeks there has
been unusually powerful coronal mass ejections or solar storms
that often cause high magnetic activity on Earth as well as in
space. This intense solar storm activity appears to create an
increase in reports of huge 'motherships' aircraft carrier size
craft that take refuge in our dense atmosphere or underwater.
The following Midwest wave of reports indicate a mothership may
have moved into the Lake Michigan area. This was followed by
numerous sightings of disc shaped UFOs often seen departing and
moving into the large motherships.

FLORIDA A VERY LARGE UFO SPOTTED

ORLANDO -- A very large dark UFO with two red lights hovered
over the Deseret Ranch, just east of the city on Thursday night,
March 28, 2001. According to the eyewitness, "I observed two
slow-flying red lights that appeared to be hundreds of yards
away, just above the tree line. The two red lights were moving
very slowly from east to west." The lights moved in a very
exacting detail, as if they were connected to each other, which
would have made it one extremely big object if we could have
seen the superstructure." " The object made no sound as it
passed. This was observed at the Deseret Ranch, just east of
the Orlando International Airport." The Church of Jesus Christ
of the Latter-Day Saints, also known as the Mormons owns the
ranch. A new Mormon Temple is being built. Thanks to Rev. Billy
Dee

VIRGINIA FIVE SIDED CRAFT SPOTTED

CHARLOTTESVILLE -- On April 3, 2001, I was walking my dog at
8:30 PM when I looked up and almost directly above was some type
of craft with five rounded sides, with a light at each of the
five points. It was a bit like a pentagon, but rounded enough to
say that it was round - with five distinct edges. The lights
were yellowish in color and not very bright. The craft was low
to the ground compared to the air traffic. The craft was moving
slowly to the east/northeast. There was a large cloud in its
flight path, and as it disappeared behind the cloud, I stood
there to watch it come out the other side. Given its speed and
the size of the cloud, I expected to see it come out the other
side relatively quickly. When it did not, I looked around, and
saw the craft now moving in a south/southeast direction,
looking like it made a 90-degree turn when the cloud hid it. The
lights lit the craft enough to make the five sides clearly
visible. I am a professional and student in my late 20's. I've
never seen anything like this before, and was not under the
influence of any substances - it was a fascinating experience.
Thanks to Peter Davenport Director or National Reporting Center
NUFORC National Reporting Center

MARYLAND CONTRAIL VIDEO

BALTIMORE -- Researcher Bill Bean sent me a video of unusually
fast moving craft flying moving over the city on March 28, 2001.
The actual craft could not be seen, but it was at the beginning
of a developing contrail that flew probably twice as fast as
other jet aircraft from north to south at 3:19 PM. Its altitude
is estimated 35,000 feet. No structure could actually be seen as
it created a new contrail across the sky. Perhaps even more
remarkable it flew beneath a contrail that had expanded and
clouded up a huge five mile wide and hundreds of mile long
contrail with thick clouds. Both contrails with quickly forming
clouds were very strange. Thanks to Bill Bean

NEW JERSEY FOUR BLUE FLYING DISCS

NEW BRUNSWICK -- The witness reports seeing four flying objects
flying east on April 7, 2001, that suddenly reversed direction
during flight. They looked bluish when spotted at 8:21 PM. The
weather was cloudy and I could not see the shape very clearly,
but they looked round. They were flying low just above ground.
The witness stated, "The reason I think they were UFO is because
of the way they changed flying direction. They suddenly reversed
their direction and the acceleration was just not possible for
any known man-made machine." They seemed to play with each other
for about two minutes. When I went inside to get a cam recorder
and to record them, they were gone. As a scientist who majored
in Physics, I must admit those UFOs I saw could be lighting.
However, I have never seen any lighting like that! Thanks to
Peter Davenport NUFORC

PENNSYLVANIA DISK SHAPED OBJECT RETURNS

FRANKLIN -- While patrolling the campgrounds where he works at
11:47 PM on April 4, 2001, the witness saw the same disc shaped
object he had reported last summer on July 11, 2000. The disc
was just over the tree line again--but a little farther away in
the same area. It hovered in place for about five minutes, and
then sped over ten miles to the west and hovered for another
fifteen minutes. The witness stated, "It then shot straight up,
and I lost all sight of it." Thanks to NUFORC  Peter Davenport
Director of the National Reporting Center.

INDIANA A DIAMOND SHAPED CRAFT WITH FOUR BRIGHT LIGHTS -

WESTVILLE - A retired Chicago teacher who taught for 35 years
and lives on a small farm reported she saw a very bright light
in the eastern sky traveling straight west on April 4, 2001. It
passed almost directly over the teacher at approximately 11:30
PM, and continued in a straight westward path until the trees
obscured it from view. The witness states, "The light was like a
motorcycle headlight, - single, not double as an airplane's."
There was no accompanying jet noise or airplane motor noise -
only a soft after" hum" - like a furnace running, or wind
through trees. This craft did not have red and green running
lights. I saw four distinct lights arranged in a diamond shape
(or a triangle with a tail). There was also the suggestion of a
few smaller lights around the back of the craft. The front and
rear lights were cream colored, while the sidelights were amber
and chartreuse. It was traveling rapidly - from initial sighting
to the point where I lost it in the trees. It took less than 30
seconds to cover 3/4 of a mile. The sky around my farm usually
has many moving lights - all attached to regular aircraft. The
speed of this craft astonished me, making me realize that it
was not one of the "regulars." Editor's Note: I spoke with Peter
Davenport Director of NUFORC who had interviewed the witness at
length. He found her to be quite credible, sober-minded witness.
It was totally silent. Thanks to Peter Davenport. NUFORC

OHIO THREE EGG SHAPED OBJECTS SEEN

CANTON -- The witness spotted a large egg shaped craft that had
a strange blue glow that he observed on April 7, 2001. There
were three traveling very fast in circles, up and down, side to
side at 5:00 PM just before sunset. They just sat there and
hovered. One of the large UFOs had four smaller objects fly out
of it. The first three large egg shaped UFOs disappeared
completely, while the smaller four took off extremely fast.
Before they left, all the battery clocks in my house, such as my
watch stopped working at the same time. After the UFOs departed,
the clocks worked again.

MIDDLEFIELD - A week later while driving westbound on State
Route 87 by the Geauga and Trumbull County line on April 13,
2001, another car was approaching towards the east at 11:37 PM.
A bright beam of light appeared in between our two cars, and
suddenly both vehicles lost power. My engine, lights, etc. cut
out immediately. At first I thought it was a problem with my
truck, but then noticed that the other car was "dead," too. This
lasted for approximately three minutes. There was just bright
light with no sound at all. Then, the light disappeared and
electrical power turned back on in both of our vehicles. Nothing
major happened, just lost radio presets and the clock. Now,
neither seems to want to be reset. Thanks to NUFORC

INDIANA FLEET OF DISCS

EVANSVILLE -- It was like seeing a fleet of plates all gray
except for the lights flying through the air on April 13, 2001.
We saw the visitors real early in the morning at 2:37 AM. The
discs were hovering there for about twenty seconds then they
took off toward the north. They had numerous lights on the
bottom that were a reddish color and turned green when they
left. They had many weird looking fins that were in the shape of
a spiral that led into the center, which constantly opened and
closed. . They were very quiet except when one dropped a few
hundred feet and that only sounded like a jet engine far in the
distance.

MICHIGAN TRIANGLE FORMATION OF THREE SAUCERS

WARREN - It seemed as though heaven spilled a bucket of
fireflies according to the witness. On March 22, 2001, he first
saw a wave of lights traveling west and breaking into separate
'V' shaped formations. At 8:10 PM, they were moving at about the
speed of a passenger jet at altitude. I heard the roar of jets
north of them probably coming from Selfridge National Guard Air
Base. A neighbor who thought the world was ending also witnessed
the spectacle. After he settled down, he stated, "As they were
descending they seemed to see the police chopper on its rounds
and slowed till it passed. This occurred behind me as I was
turning to look at the chopper (which is why I saw the UFOs) so
I cannot confirm this. This I can confirm as they traveled west
and became distant I could see clearly that the assembled on an
even place, prior they were at varying heights. They didn't
speed up or slow down they moved constant. Then they vanished at
light speed once they were all in a nice little row.

EAST LANSING -- I was walking around my town at night around
10:30 PM on April 13, 2001. I glanced up in the clear sky and
saw a triangle formation of 3 saucer shaped objects. The saucers
flew overhead silently and very quickly. I have seen these
saucers more times than I can remember in East Lansing. They
seem to be a common occurrence. They always fly silently, but at
varying speeds. Sometimes they fly so fast it seems impossible.
Thanks to NUFORC

MICHIGAN TEN SAUCERS SEEN

RIVERVIEW -- My two friends and I were standing outside at 1:00
AM on April 11, 2001, when we observed ten saucers flying close
to the ground, rapidly switching places with one another. We
were swinging on my old swing set when all of the sudden, my
friend pointed into the sky. There were ten bright orange
colored saucers. They weren't all that far from the ground only
100 to 300 feet. We stood in awe of them. They moved fast,
constantly switching places with each other. When we went
inside, it was still 1:00 AM. We are three, thirteen old girls.
We come from a rather normal upbringing, although my parents
passed away and I fear aliens and UFOs to the extreme, but I
never talked about it before.

GAYLORD - The witness reports they are located at 45 degrees
North Latitude in Northern Michigan. They were sitting in their
hot tub at 10:15 PM, looking at the sky on April 14, 2001. The
witness said to her husband, pointing "Is that Cassiopeia? As I
was looking, I saw what I at first thought was a shooting star.
But as I watched, it didn't fade like most shooting stars." As I
focused on it, I saw a cluster of four "lights" and a cluster of
three, both in a "V" formati on, moving swiftly across the sky,
east to west, not fading. I thought, as they approached the
rooftop of my house, that they seemed to move closer together,
but the light from them never dimmed. There was no sound. While
watching, I immediately stood up so that I could see them
longer. Thanks to Director Peter Davenport NUFORC .

WISCONSIN DISC DOES 180 DEGREE TURN

DePERE - The witness reports a disc approached from south to
north flying over us and then made a hair pin 180 degree turn
above us heading south again on April 11, 2001. The disc passed
less than 300 feet above us. We could see it was darker than
background night sky. It was out lined with many small red
lights. The craft made no sound, but we could feel its presence
getting stronger as it came closer and diminish as it left.

ROTHSCHILD -- An object with four lights was seen hovering and
when approached it sped away at an extreme speed on April 13,
2001, at 12:00 AM. The object had four bright lights on it and
it appeared to be hovering about 100 feet above the ground as we
approached. When we got close the object sped away. We tried to
pursue it but as we did the object speed was too fast and within
seconds it was out of sight. A second witness describes probably
the same craft. We were driving home Friday night April 13,
2001, and when we got near our house in Rothschild we looked up
and saw four bright lights that resembled stadium lights. The
lights were hovering over a bunch of trees at 12:00 AM. As we
turned the corner the UFO made rapid movements and suddenly
disappeared. We tried to follow and find it but it quickly
disappeared. Thanks to NUFORC

ILLINOIS FLYING TRIANGLE

CANTON -- On April 7, 2001, we were outside eating at 7:00 PM
since it was so nice. We were looking up, but the stars were not
out yet but something caught my eye. I pointed it out, so we all
looked and saw a flying triangular ship like thing. It was
flying with four or so lights spinning they were red lights!
Then there was smoke like stuff near it, like from an engine.
Thanks to NUFORC

MISSOURI FLYING SPINNING UFOs

WASHINGTON -- While driving north on Jefferson Street through
town, my 9-year-old daughter noticed an object in the sky on
March 29, 2001, during daylight hours around 3:30 in the
afternoon. She said, "Dad what is that? It's really shiny." I
looked and couldn't see it at first, but she continued to talk
about it and soon after I spotted it too. I pulled the car over
and got a very good look at it. The object was square from a
frontal view, but thin from a side view. The front of the
object, while square, contained 4 circular shapes within it
(like 4 dinner plates placed side by side, two across, two
down, to fill the square.) The front was "chrome-like" and
extremely shiny. The backside of the object was black and flat
with no other markings. The object was on end and slowly
spinning horizontally, so that to look at it while spinning was
to see the shiny side of the square, then the thin, then the
black side, and so on; a pattern of thick & thins. While
spinning, the object traveled north towards downtown at 125
feet, then made a turn to head west near Busch Creek. The
craft's speed was varying from 10 to 25 miles an hour. The
overall size estimate would be 5+ feet with the thinner side
maybe 1 foot thick. We tried to follow, but it soon vanished.

ST.LOUIS -- On April 5, 2001, the witness and his son saw a
flying object in the night sky at 9:56 PM. At first there was a
very large bright oval shape light coming words them from the
southeast. The light was much brighter than any airplane I had
ever seen before. So, I called for my son to come and join me
outside as I thought he might know what type of aircraft it was.
By the time he arrived outside the craft was over our heads.
Neither he nor I had any idea as to what type of aircraft it
was. We live close to an airport so we see many airplanes and
jets but we have never seen anything like this before. The
object was very large; perhaps two or three full moons in size.
There was a large bright oval shaped light in the front of the
craft and several other lights forming what appeared to be a
triangular shape craft. In the center of the object was a red
light, none of the lights flashed. The object was very large but
made a little soft humming sound. It wasn't until the object was
overhead that we heard a sound. It seemed to be gray or black in
color, moving rather slowly for we were able to view it for
about three minutes. There was haze around it, perhaps due to
the brightness of the front light. It flew over our heads
heading in a N.W. direction. ((NUFORC Note: We have spoken with
the two witnesses on several occasions now, and they seem to be
very good observers, and they seem quite insistent that what
they witnessed on this night was not an aircraft. They live not
far from Lambert Field in St. Louis.

ST. LOUIS -- On April 21, 2001, I received a report from a
witness. It was approximately 8:10 PM (Central) and I was
looking to the northwest from Southern St. Louis. I saw a light
coming from over the tops of the trees. It looked strange with
three to five lights on the front of the craft. The lights were
closer together than an airplane's and they were not blinking at
all. It made no sound as it approached straight toward me. As it
came closer and was almost overhead I saw a circular outline of
the craft. It was definitely not an airplane shape. It flew
directly over me, and behind the building I was in. There was
never any sound, and my windows were open. The craft was flying
lower than any airplane should have been, but I cannot guess the
altitude. I would say it was a bit smaller than a commercial
airplane, as well. The weather was cloudy and there was a mild
thunderstorm approaching from the southwest. If anyone could
please let us know if they happened to see this object on
4-21-01 Thanks to Nancy @ Dunning01@aol.com

CALIFORNIA FLYING TRIANGLE

SADDLEBACK BUTTE -- Bill Hamilton wrote: My anonymous witness
sent the following information concerning sightings of on March
28, 2001. These sightings are very low altitude and on the
average 10 to 15 minutes in duration. The objects always come
from the Edwards Air Force Base area. I noticed that before the
object is observed there are a number of small Cessna type
aircraft and sometimes helicopters that fly in the area,
originating from the base. Then all is quiet, and after a half
hour two an hour the object reappears. There is never any sound,
although the sound of the aircraft or especially helicopters is
always quite audible. The normal farthest southern distance
traversed before returning is in the area of Saddleback Butte.
The only name I have found for this butte is Blue Rock. There is
a large water tank on the northern end of it. The sightings
themselves have been very erratic, sometimes two a month and
usually less. Due to the close proximity of Edwards, I have a
hard time believing that they are not aware of this." See image
drawing on at: http://home.earthlink.net/~skywatcher22/main.html
Thanks to Bill Hamilton Director Skywatch International, Inc.

ALASKA MUFON INVESTIGATION

SEWARD -- J. Glen Harper, the Alaska State Director reports
that on April 18, 2001, he drove to Seward to investigate
reports originated from Robert Mackey (humper_0007@hotmail.com)
of massive nightly sightings of black triangle shaped,
battleship sized, UFO's. I talked by phone with Mackey at 9:30
PM on Tuesday, April 17. He assured me he was "seeing things"
nightly. Therefore, I told him I would be in Seward between
12:00 and 1:00 AM. I drove the 125 miles from Anchorage and
knocked on his door at 12:15 AM. I did not persist in knocking
because I knew he had a child and a wife, presumably trying to
get some sleep. I waited outside in the parking lot next to his
apartment on Third Avenue. The lights were on but no one
appeared to be home. I stayed there an hour looking toward the
southwest, but also in all directions. I was hoping Mackey might
come out. I saw no planes and no UFOs, there was nothing flying
over Seward. I am a pilot and I have flown all over this area.
The visibility at the surface was very good. In Alaska, that
means 80 miles plus and often 200 miles visibility. There was a
high haze. I could see all of the mountaintops around Seward,
which range from 5 to 8000 feet. The temperature was around
freezing. The stars of the major constellations were visible. I
had 7X50 binoculars that zoom to 29 power, a 35 mm camera with
night film, and a Sharp 8 mm video. At 1:30 PM. I drove to an
all night Texaco and got coffee. I drove around the town for the
next half-hour. I would see another car about every minute but I
did not see anyone looking up or stargazing. I estimate that one
hundred people were awake and outside that night. Seward is a
town of several thousand residents with a small boat harbor with
several hundred yachts and fishing boats.

At about 2:00 AM, I parked my car in an empty RV park next to
the waterfront by the small boat harbor. This was a large area,
several acres, away from buildings and streetlights, so that I
could focus on the dark sky. I constantly scanned the sky by eye
and with binoculars for the next several hours. I saw nothing
move in the sky. With the binoculars on the widest setting to
enhance available light, I could clearly see the mountain ridges
and other major features in the dim light. I believe I would
have seen any small-unlit aircraft within five miles in all
directions. I saw nothing move in the sky. After that, I dozed
off for the rest of the night, but awoke about every 20 minutes
and had a good look for several minutes each time in all
directions. I saw nothing move in the sky. It became light
around 6:00 AM; I stayed in town until noon. I waited until
11:00 AM to call Mackey, because I assumed he slept late. His
wife answered the phone, said she would get Robert, and then
asked me to call back in five minutes. I called every ten
minutes for the next hour but the phone was busy. I then drove
back to Anchorage and checked my e-mail. I was forwarded a copy
of an e-mail Mackey wrote last night. Mackey reports that
between midnight and 1:30 AM. Quote [sic]: .."Military aircraft
here tonight for the first hour kept flying back and forth
across the bay, however sightings were meager the first hour
then boom here it comes.... A large UFO out of the southwest
moving north west another UFO smaller coming from south to north
west area they met and merged in the sky together then headed
west." In summary, I didn't see any of it, and I was looking.
Thanks to J. Glen Harper, the Alaska State Director
clearwater@gci.net (glen Harper)

CHILE IN SHOCK OVER UFO SIGHTINGS

ANGOL -- On April 22, 2001, the newspaper Diario Au ANGOL stral
de Temuco carried a story about Alien Beings written by P.
Aburto and P. Santolaya. The city's scenic lookout has become an
attraction to those devoted to studying close encounters of the
third kind. According to researchers, on February 28 two massive
balls of light were seen roaming over the hill before vanishing
before the expectant eyes of twenty witnesses. On March 16,
three figures standing two meters tall, with red lights on their
hands and a humanoid appearance were allegedly seen by five
persons at the Las Pias Scenic Lookout. The latest developments
have been kept confidential because spectators have refused to
comment on their sightings. The beings were standing behind some
vegetation; appeared to talk among themselves, turned around and
disappeared. They had arms and legs, " said Ernesto Escobar,
head of the field research team. Escobar notes that the
witnesses made drawings of what they had seen and that samples
were taken of the soil on which the figures had allegedly been
standing. "I cannot tell you what they were. I don't know if
they were ghosts or extraterrestrials, but we're interviewing
and making videos," he added. It is a well-known secret that
strange events have transpired at the scenic lookout and that
people are increasingly visiting the spot in hopes of seeing
something weird. "Everything happens at a gate with two
decorative metal wheels, and that's where the creatures appear.
Thanks to S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology and Rodrigo
Cuadra, Tecnologia, Ovnis y Ciencia (TOC)

THE UFO - JESUS CONNECTION

David E. Twichell writes, "The ancient astronaut and Biblical
UFO hypotheses are not new. However, no one seems to want to
take the matter to the next logical step. If Ezekiel's, "wheel
within a wheel," and Moses', "pillar of fire and cloud," were
forerunners of today's UFOs, then the Star of Bethlehem and the
brilliant cloud to which Jesus ascended must be treated in the
same vein. When Biblical descriptions of anomalous aerial
phenomena are overlaid on that of modern-day UFO reports, the
picture seems to meld as one. Once the evidence has been
presented, the reader is led to a conclusion that is at best
convincing and at least thought provoking. Are you willing to
risk having your worldview shaken? Read the preface free at:
http://hometown.aol.com/fi4mufon/myhomepage/index.html. To
order your copy of THE UFO - JESUS CONNECTION, go to:
http://www.buybooksontheweb.com Or Save the shipping charges
and order your autographed copy by sending a check or money
order for $13.95 (US) per copy to: David Twichell, P.O. Box 511,
Trenton MI. 48183-0511

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. 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

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 2001 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. 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. Caution, most of
these are initial reports and require further investigation.

Regards, George Filer








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 29

             Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:31:01 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:21:45 -0400
Subject: Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - McCoy


 >From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@Ms.UManitoba.CA>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:19:32 CST
 >Subject: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding

 >While everyone is in a dither over Dennis Plunkett's announcment
 >and subsequent media coverage of his closing of the British
 >Flying Saucer Bureau, I should point out that this has a
 >precedent.

 >On September 1 and 2, 1999, several newspapers in Canada
 >reported the folding of the UFO Society of Edmonton, announced
 >by its founder. (I can't recall his name offhand.) He cited
 >declining UFO numbers to the point of extinction as the reason
 >for the collapse of the group. He was quoted as saying that the
 >group had been around for 49 years and faced a lack of sightings
 >to investigate the past while.

 >The trouble is that no other research in Canada had ever heard
 >of that group. It had no public presence, no hotline, no public
 >meetings and no reporting infrastructure. It never contributed
 >to the Annual Survey of Canadian UFO cases, which had reported a
 >steady increase in UFO report numbers in 1999. More than 200
 >cases had been reported officially that year.


Well, they said the Saucers are gone didn't they? This is big
news, it means you don't have to look up there is-nothing-
there. Now go back to your placid grazing. Pay no attention to
man behind the curtain.

 >So, when it issued a widely-distributed press release to all
 >media, the story was picked up and got a huge response. This is
 >what I suspect has happened in Britian with Plunkett's comments
 >and the Times coverage.

 >Since there are no widely-recognized "experts" in ufology, the
 >media felt no need to question the source of the information.

Well, they wouldn't get the likes of Hall ,Freidman,Maccabee, or
any one else that showed a reasonable competence in matters of
UFO analyisis. They tend to favor the folks who ride into the
center ring in the little car on Bell's and Streibrer's Klown
corner. Or, the ''Balance" of a Klass, to help digest that bit
of beef.

 >So, why shouldn't the media listen to CSETI as opposed to UFOIN?
 >Why should CNN not do a story about Richard Hoagland instead of
 >Jan Aldrich?

Because they wouldn't find these people/organizations as
interesting as, say, Hoagland's rantings about 19 and 7/8ths
degrees latatude, being the inverse square of the base of the
pyramid of Cheops outhouse. Or Greer's ability to "whistle down"
UFO's This is one I've had a fantasy about: Greer actually gets
one- aTrafalmadorian version of Darwin's HMS Beagle, and gets to
swing on a Tire for the rest of his days at the  Royal
Trafalmadorian Zoo.

 >We're facing an uphill battle, people.

Amen.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 29

             Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:54:44 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:23:13 -0400
Subject: Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - Young


 >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:51:21 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding

<snip>

 >More oddly, public interest in UFOs is at or near all-time
 >highs! This last statement is my personal take only, I have no
 >numbers to back it up.

 >Thus my question, and fodder for a nice little study!

 >Can anyone suggest a cheap-and-dirty measure or gauge of "Public
 >Interest in UFOs" (PIU)? (public awareness?)

Hi Larry, Chris:

Public opinion surveys are not perfect, but it was my impression
that the Gallup Polls periodically asked about the same
questions (an important consideration) related to UFOs, and that
this began in the late 40s. If this has continued, it might
provide some sort of baseline on public attitudes.

I know that the National Academy of Sciences has been doing
annual public opinion polling on public attitudes on science for
about ten years, and that UFOs have been in the questions.

According to an editorial last year by Bob Girard in his catalog
the UFO book publishing business went flop.  I don't know
whether this has continued, but commercial book publishers are
pretty wired in to sales figures and public interest.

Before I get mugged here for the above comment, we are obviously
talking here about "public attitudes", not whether the subject
"deserves study".

My own impression is that there are not many inquiries nowadays
from school kids re UFOs at the planetarium.  I think that the
peak curve topped out in 1997 with the Roswell stuff.  That, of
course, is only my impression.

Does the National UFO Reporting Center or MUFON publish numbers
of sightings?  That might be something.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 29

                     Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:08:14 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:24:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Young


 >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:15:19 -0500 (CDT)
 >From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One?

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:55:16 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Unless all of this had been done every time I saw a light in the
 >>sky, how would I know if I have ever seen a UFO, instead of just
 >>an IFO?

 >How would you know? Well, in the end, whatever you may choose to
 >do or not, is the light identified? If not, then as far as that
 >incident is concerned, its a UFO.

Hi, Brian:

Yep, that's one definition. I call those "UFO reports", some
call them the things, themselves. Of course, this it's about
IFOs, and some folks don't want to think about those.

I think we had a thread around here that went this a way
recently, I guess it gets down to the matter of, "UFOs are in
the eyes of the beholders".


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 >
   Apr > Apr 29

                 Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray - Aubeck

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@email.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:27:14 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:26:08 -0400
Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray - Aubeck


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto"<updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray
 >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:26:48 +0200


 >Greg Sandow wrote:

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odyissey - In Gray
 >>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:11:43 -0400

 >>I was under the impression that we had a detailed exchange
 >>here.

 >Sorry, Greg, this time my memory serves me correctly. I have
 >consulted UFO UpDates Main Index and you did not answer my post
 >dated November 12, 2000. Your next post was in December 8, so
 >maybe you were out of town. I would suggest you re-read my post
 >and answer some of the questions I posed then.

<snip>

 >>I've attached the poster Luis mentions. We can all compare it
 >>with Travis Walton's description of the small beings he said
 >>he saw

 >I would like to know the reference of that quote. I attached
 >two images. One from the Spanish UFO bulletin where I first
 >learnt about Walton's abduction (STENDEK # 25, September 1976)
 >and other taken from The Official Travis Walton web site:

<snip>

 >I will put it in another way. There are more differences
 >between the heads of the aliens described by Walton and those
 >of the late 90's Grays than with the head of the Star Child
 >depicted in 1968.

 >Let's vote. How many readers agree?

 >Yours,

 >Luis R. Gonzalez Manso


Hi Luis, Greg and all,

Obviously Walton's aliens resemble more the 2001 starchild than
the typical Gray of today. This is an important point, though no
less important than (a) the fact that aliens with wraparound
eyes were exceedingly rare prior to 1964 and (b) grey-skinned
beings of today's kind were not reported before the early 1980s.
(We could do a finger-count, too, but I honestly wouldn't know
where to start.)

The trouble with any attempt to deal with these matters is that
the discussion rapidly dissolves into a philosophical debate,
hinging entirely on one's preconceptions.

While it can be shown that alien morphology seems to change with
the same ease and spontaneity as the design of their ships,
theories can always be invented to explain this. For example,
perhaps some aliens have pupils as a result of genetic
experiments. Maybe some aliens were designed that way
intentionally. Or maybe the ones with pupils have more humanlike
genes.

Personally I side more with Luis on this subject than with Greg,
though I reserve the right to change my mind as often as I
consider necessary.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 29

                Re: Cydonian Imperative - 4-27-01: Mars-Style

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:28:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Cydonian Imperative - 4-27-01: Mars-Style


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Cydonian Imperative - 4-27-01: Mars-Style 'Tubes' On Earth?
 >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 06:47:55 -0700

<snip>

 >Want to see what made those tailings? look at this
 >example of a
 >Gold Drege still in exisitance at Sumpter, Oregon:

 >
http://www.easy-finder.com/states/or/sumpter/index.htm

 >Yes, the valley that Sumpter sits in has tailings very like the
 >Klondike example given. The big deal is, this area was
 >relativley Arid and what passes for a river in Eastern Oregon
 >would be a creek elsewhere. The point is this thing "floated" on
 >very little water and had a shallow draft.

 >It might be worthwhile for someone to look for the remains of
 >large, derlect, equipment, possibly under the sand at the head
 >of these anomalies.

 >The whole valley was churned up by this dredge in Sumpter,
 >Oregon. And it still shows the scars today. Somewhere in my
 >family pictures there is a good scene of myself and my Sourdough
 >wannabe Grandpa standing on that thing looking back at the
 >tailings. If I can find it I'll post it. And, anything else that
 >I can find.

 >You may be on to something Mac.


Thanks! This is really interesting. I'll post your
input on my site.

--Mac

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bio.html
Mars: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.html
Esoterica: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/ufos.html
Transhumanism: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/trans.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 >
   Apr > Apr 29

               Re: Cydonian Imperative: 4-28-01 - Did Ancient

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:30:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Cydonian Imperative: 4-28-01 - Did Ancient


The Cydonian Imperative
4-28-01

Did Ancient "Martians" Dredge for Gold?
by Mac Tonnies

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html


G.T. McCoy, posting on UFO UpDates, relates the following
concerning the possibility that the infamous Martian "tubes"
might be debris from an ancient mining operation:

"Want to see what made those tailings? Look at this
example of a gold dredge still in existence at
Sumpter, Oregon:

http://www.easy-finder.com/states/or/sumpter/index.htm


[T]he valley that Sumpter sits in has tailings very like the
Klondyke example given [see article and photo above]. The big
deal is, this area was relatively arid and what passes for a
river in Eastern Oregon would be a creek elsewhere. The point is
this thing 'floated' on very little water and had a shallow
draft.

It might be worthwhile for someone to look for the remains of
large, derelict equipment, possibly under the sand at the head
of these anomalies."

The fact that the dredging machines described by McCoy were
capable of operating in shallow conditions actually correlates
some of what we know about Mars' conditions in the remote past
(i.e. dwindling surface water). Could a civilization intent on
harvesting material from the Martian surface have used similar
machines?

Readers of Zechariah Sitchin will probably be the first to
recognize the emphasis on gold related in the last two
installments. According to Sitchin's theories (described in "The
12th Planet" and "Genesis Revisited," among others), an
extraterrestrial species colonized Mars (and Earth) driven by a
dire need for gold--(although I personally disgree with
Sitchin's supposed engineering uses). But perhaps the notion is
testable.

-end-








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 29

                     EW UFO & ETI News Update - 04-28-01

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:54:40 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:32:47 -0400
Subject: EW UFO & ETI News Update - 04-28-01



Dear UFO List readers,

A number of recent news stories are formated for the Web,
for easier reading...

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

The Electric Warrior : News April 27, 2001
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/

------------------------------------------------------------
ufo & extraterrestrial intelligence

ET DISCLOSURE PROJECT STATEMENTS POSTED

The Disclosure Project, a non-profit research organization, is
calling for open Congressional hearings on the
UFO-Extraterrestrial presence, and for legislation that will ban
space-based weapons.

WE, THE PEOPLE, CALL ON THE U.S. CONGRESS

- To hold open, secrecy-free hearings on the UFO-
Extraterrestrial presence on and around Earth.

- To hold open hearings on advanced energy and propulsion
systems related to the subject that, when publicly released,
will provide solutions to global environmental and other
challenges.

- To enact legislation which will ban all space-based weapons.

- To enact comprehensive legislation to research, develop and
explore space peacefully and cooperatively with all cultures on
Earth and in space.

more...

http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews001E.htm

------------------------------------------------------------
ufo & extraterrestrial intelligence

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR OF UFO MAGAZINE

A mini-debate is taking place over the Internet following a
story which reports that the Bristol-based British Flying Saucer
Bureau has suspended activities.

To put matters firmly into context, speak with most enthusiasts
today and they will tell you that they have never heard of the
British Flying Saucer Bureau or Denis Plunkett.

Of course, this is of no consequence to those in the media who
have picked up on Simon de Bruxelles' story and created an
imaginary mountain from a grain of salt.

more...

http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews001D.htm

------------------------------------------------------------
ufo & extraterrestrial intelligence

WORLD'S FIRST INTERNET ONLY UFO CONVENTION

On May 12th, at 7:30 PM Pacific Time, the world's first UFO
Internet convention will make history! From the convenience of
your own home, you'll watch former military insiders,
world-renowned UFO researchers, scientists and doctors gather
for one event, the unveiling of what could be physical proof of
alien contact.

For the highlight of the conference, the Roswell New Mexico
crash debris will be shown to the public. Is this an actual
piece of a flying saucer?

more...

http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews001C.htm

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
April 27, 2001
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Web developers, the URL address for this content is:
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews001E.htm
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews001D.htm
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews001C.htm

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.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 29

                 Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71 - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:03:12 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:35:55 -0400
Subject: Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71 - Jones


 >From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:14:20 EDT
 >Subject: Re: LBJ's Announcement Of The SR-71
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snipped the lot <g> >

Thank you John for some very interesting material.

I am no aviation buff, and at the moment I have very limited
time to go looking for details such as you provided, so thank
you for your time and effort.

I will however reiterate another of my points that I raised on
this thread;

If they could build the SR-71 back in the sixties, what can they
build now??

Regards

--

    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 >
   Apr > Apr 29

                       Re: Monmouth Revisited - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:34:42 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:42:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Monmouth Revisited - Sparks


 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:05:43 -0300
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:13:39 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Monmouth Revisited - Ledger


 >>From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Ft. Monmouth Revisited
 >>Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 03:00:54 +0200

 >>On September 10, 1951, while flying at 20,000 ft from a Delaware
 >>to a Long Island airbase, two experienced fighter pilots in a
 >>T-33 jet spotted an object "round and silver in color" which at
 >>one stage of the attempted intercept appeared flat. The T-33 was
 >>put into a descending turn to try to close on the object but the
 >>latter turned more tightly (the airmen stated) and passed
 >>rapidly eastward towards the coast of New Jersey and out to sea,
 >>at an estimated speed of around 900 mph.

 >>The official explanation pointed to a balloon. In fact, two
 >>balloons were launched in the area shortly before the incident.
 >>But many years later, J. E. McDonald questioned this
 >>explanation, concluding:

 ><snip>

 >>Glad to hear further comments on the whole affair.

 >Hi Manuel,

 >I often wonder why when doing research on these supposed pilots
 >chasing weather balloons cases why researchers don't ask pilots
 >about the feasibility of doing this. Having come across at last
 >count 8 weather balloons while flying [always by chance and
 >zipping by the aircraft at very close range-visibly acquired
 >only scant seconds before at 115 mph indicated] the whole
 >concept of pilots in jets chasing weather balloons seems silly.


Hi Don,

Did you see my response?  It's here:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m26-015.shtml

Since it is not clear whether you're going to get a response or
a satisfactory one let me respond:


 >Do all the math you want but first explain to me after the first
 >pass how does a pilot in a jet re-acquire the same 4-5 foot
 >weather balloon again. Does anyone have any idea how hard that
 >is. Do you Manual know the turning radius of a T-33 at speed
 >[400 knots] once a pass has been completed. How far past the WB
 >the jet will fly and the nearly impossible task of picking the
 >object out of the sky a second time-let alone [by chance] seeing
 >it in the first place.

The T-33 was apparently put into a shallow turn of about 16
miles radius (120� in 2 minutes at about 500 mph;  pilot said he
started turn at 450 mph and increased speed to 550 mph).

He was headed almost straight towards the UFO which was at his
11 o'clock position. Simple math shows that in 30 seconds his
turn would would put it dead ahead -- if it was a balloon.  In
the two minutes of the sighting he would have hit the balloon.
However he said the UFO maneuvered on the inside of his turn so
he could not put it dead ahead.

The other contradictions with the balloon theory are mammoth --
beginning with the fact there were TWO balloons launched
together and only ONE object seen.


 >If you knew anything about subject you would see all of your
 >cute little theories go out the window. Many go on about
science

And here the science and math are formidable -- against the
balloon theory.

Brad


 >as it pertains to the investigation of UFOs but in some cases
 >just plain common sense would be helpful too. It's one thing to
 >be stationary on the ground and watch a slow moving WB passing
 >overheard, quite another to re-aquire that little dot [now over
 >a mile or two away] in three dimensional space with varying
 >backgrounds such as the horizon, the ground, clouds and that bug
 >on your canopy/windscreen.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 29

                 Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 23:03:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:45:32 -0400
Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray - Sandow


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: 2001 A Space Odissey - In Gray
 >Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:27:55 +0200

 >On November 12, 2000 I posted a comment answering (only half
 >tongue in cheek) Mr. Sandow's petition about a main SF film
 >showing abduction iconography but predating abductions.

 >I suggested "2001: A Space Odissey" but Mr. Sandow did not care
 >to comment, as usual with my arguments.

I was under the impression that we had a detailed exchange here.
There might have been one post of yours I didn't reply to -- I
can't get to everything, and sometimes literally don't see posts
here for days, when other work takes my time. But we exchanged
views quite a bit, or so I think I remember. One of us, I'm
thinking, is evidently an example of how fallible witnesses can
be. (My apologies if it's me.)

 >But now, I have discovered that 20 years before, another alien
 >face stared to the people (at least in the USA). This face
 >showed a big head, a small nose, a simple line as mouth and two
 >big human eyes. It was the Star Child from the 2001 film.

 >Reading a Spanish book about the Kubrick film (pag. 72, "2001.
 >La Odisea contina", Raul Alda, Ediciones Jaguar, Madrid, 2001,
 >ISBN: 84-89960-83-6) I found myself staring at a frontal
 >close-up of the Star Child's face in an Americam promotional
 >poster of the time, under the heading "the ultimate trip".

 >Exactly, up to the _normal_ eyes, as Travis Walton described his
 >aliens.

The poster Luis mentions is at:

http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/posters/1960s/

This is a page of links to many 1960's movie posters. This one
is in the 2001 section (scroll down to find it), labelled
"USA-1-Sheet (Style E - Starchild)."

We can all go to this site, look at the poster, and compare it
with Travis Walton's description of the small beings he said he
saw, which reads as follows:

"They were short, shorter than five feet, and they had very
large, bald heads, no hair. Their heads were domed, very large.
They looked like fetuses. They had no eyebrows, no eyelashes.
They had very large eyes--enormous eyes--almost all brown,
without much white in them. The creepiest thing about them were
those eyes. Oh, man, those eyes, they just stared through me.
Their mouths and ears and noses seemed real small, maybe just
because their eyes were so huge."

(Normal eyes?)

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 >
   Apr > Apr 29

                 Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 23:40:14 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:51:18 -0400
Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray - Sandow


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: 2001 A Space Odyssey - In Gray
 >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:58:51 +0200

 >My comments about "2001" were a half-joking response to the
 >outrageous demand by Mr. Sandow that HPS-ers should provide a
 >main SF film depicting all and every one of the features in an
 >abduction, but the "Star Child" is _really_ almost identical to
 >the beings described by Travis Walton, specially in having
 >normal human eyes, not entirely black as nowadays Grays.

Of course I never asked for (or "demanded") such a thing.

I hate to say this, but it's difficult to debate these things
with people who don't appear to know much social science. I'm
hardly an expert, but at least - from wide reading,
conversations with people who know more than I do, and, God help
me, my college studies (a long time ago) - I have some idea of
how social scientists go about establishing hypotheses.

What they don't do: They don't say, "Aha! I see a resemblance
between A and B. And A came first. Therefore A caused B."

What they do: If they think A might have caused B, they try to
prove it. This is difficult. In physical science, you can create
a controlled experiment, in which you eliminate other factors
that might cause B. Then, with A (you hope) the only factor in
play, you can see whether removing A also removes B. And,
conversely, whether the presence of A always is associated with
B.

It's harder in social science, because many factors are in play
at once. Even identifying what they might be is hard. For an
example, go to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/14/arts/14ABOR.html?searchpv=site14

and read an April 14 article from the New York Times, on a very
controversial social science theory - that abortion leads to
less crime. Apparently crime rates in the US dropped 18 years
after abortion was legalized. Some social scientists have
theorized that legalized abortion is the cause of those lower
crime rates. That would be because the aborted children would
have been unwanted. Unwanted children, goes the theory, are
unhappy. Unhappy children are more likely to grow up to be
criminals. Thus, 18 years after abortion was legalized, children
conceived that year would have grown up - and fewer of them
would have been unwanted. Hence, less crime.

As you can imagine, there were huge objections to that theory.
The Times article does a nice job summarizing the arguments pro
and con, and especially the factors people on both sides of the
debate cited in support of their views. If you read the article,
you'll see how complex the debate is.

There's no reason to assume that a serious debate on the effect
of science fiction imagery would be any less complex. It might be
simpler if there were a science fiction film in which many
elements of the abduction scenario occured together. I suggested
that, if I remember correctly, as part of a larger point, which
I'll be happy to resurrect if anyone's interested. I was trying
to develop a way we might actually approach the question of
science fiction films and abduction imagery with some scientific
rigor.

Because - or so it seems to me - Luis unfortunately doesn't
know much about scientific rigor in social science, he
trivializes what I said. He imagines I'm "demanding" he produce a
science fiction film with all the abduction imagery in it.

Sigh. As Casey Stengel said of the hapless 1962 New York Mets:
"Doesn't anybody here know how to play this game?"


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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                  Re: Have you ever heard of this UFO case?

From: Errol <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:11:32 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:11:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Have you ever heard of this UFO case?


 >I was talking to my friend on the IM and he told me about a
 >UFO case/largest abduction case in history. I am wondering
 >if you ever heard of this case before?

The following may help,

ebk


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

UFO: The Complete Sightings
By: Peter Brookesmith

Brown Books
255-257 Liverpool Road,
London N1 1LX
United Kingdom

1995
ISBN 1 897884 16 8

Pages 29-30

THE REGIMENT THAT VANISHED

Cloud-shaped UFO abducts a British unit at Gallipoli

TYPE:  Close encounters of
        the fourth kind

PLACE: Suvla bay, Gallipoli,
        Turkey

DATE: 28 August 1915

BACKGROUND
In one of the most famous and ill-starred actions of World War
1, French, British, Australian and New Zealand troops first
landed on the Gallipoli peninsula in April 1915, in an attempt
to seize Turkish forts overlooking the narrow Dardanelles
entrance to the Black Sea. The mysterious events related below
were first reported as late as 1965.

THE EVENTS
According to three eyewitnesses serving with the New Zealand
Army, 28 August 1915 was clear and bright but for a group of
clouds that, oddly, did not move despite a breeze of about 4-5
mph (6-8 km/h). One cloud - an 'absolutely dense, solid-looking
structure' - seemed to be resting on the ground across a creek
near Hill 60 on Suvla Plain. A battle was raging between Turkish
and British troops for possession of the hill. The New
Zealanders, whose post was on Rhododendron Spur, some 300 ft
(100 m) above the hill, then
observed the following:

'A British regiment, the First-Fourth Norfolk... marching up
this sunken road or creek towards Hill 60. However, when they
arrived at this cloud, they marched straight into it, with no
hesitation, but no one ever came out to deploy and fight at Hill
60. About an hour later, after the last of the file had
disappeared into it, this cloud very unobtrusively lifted off
the ground and, like any cloud or fog would, rose slowly.... As
soon as the singular cloud had risen to their level, they all
moved away northwards..... In a matter of about three quarters
of an hour they had all disappeared from view.

'The regiment mentioned is posted as "wiped out" and on Turkey
surrendering in 1918, the first thing Britain demanded of Turkey
was the return of this regiment. Turkey replied that she had
neither captured this regiment, nor made contact with it, and
that she did not even know that it existed..... Those who
observed this incident can vouch for the fact that Turkey never
captured that regiment, nor made contact with it.'

ASSESSMENT
Records show that two of the three 'eyewitnesses' had been
evacuated from Gallipoli by 28 August because of illness. The
First-Fourth Norfolks was not a regiment but the First Battalion
of the Fourth Norfolk Regiment. The unit did not disappear on
that day or any other, but went on to fight with distinction in
Gallipoli until the end of 1915, when it was evacuated. However,
on 12 (not 28) August, the First Battalion of the Fifth Norfolk
Regiment's Colonel, 16 officers and 250 men did vanish. They
were in hot pursuit of the enemy when night fell; the next day,
there was no trace of them. Sir Ian Hamilton, the commanding
general, called the incident 'a very mysterious thing.' But they
were operating over four miles (6 km) from the New Zealanders,
and nowhere near Hill 60.

New Zealand researcher I. C. McGibbon suggested that the memory
of Frederick Reichardt, the main witness (who had indeed been on
Rhododendron Spur), became confused. He concludes that at some
point Reichardt did see soldiers disappear into a (normal) mist
on the battlefield - for instance, one official report noted:
'By some freak of nature Suvla Bay and Plain were wrapped in a
strange mist on the afternoon of 21 August.' He also probably
heard of the 'disappearance' of some of the First-Fifth and
confabulated the two events. His imagination supplied the rest. In
the early Eighties, however, one of Reichardt's sons stated that
he had heard his father tell the story 'from the earliest days I
can remember (I was born in 1932).'

[PHOTO CAPTION] Troops go 'over the top' during the disastrous
Gallipoli campaign of 1915. The disappearance of a Norfolk
infantry unit's colonel, with 16 other officers and 250 men,
during a battle in August 1915 has been promoted for years as a
mass abduction by UFOs, but the grim truth is that at least half
the missing men died in battle, and the rest were probably taken
prisoner and shot in cold blood by their Turkish captors. The
British, intent on fostering good relations with Turkey after
the war, kept the soldiers' murder secret for many years - and
so gave the UFO myth fertile ground in which to grow.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                       UFO Sightings OZ File 04-29-01

From: Diane Harrison <tkbnetw@powerup.com.au>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:09:13 +1000
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:40:05 -0400
Subject: UFO Sightings OZ File 04-29-01


UFO Sightings OZ file 29th 4 2001
______________________________________

Follow up UFOSWS 1800 001055 or 001057

Date: 9th/10th 12 2000
Witness: Mr Lloyd
Suburb: Albion Park
State:NSW

Date/ Time of sighting
9th/10th. Dec.2000
Time: approx 9.00 pm
Shape: /
Size: /
Objects: 1 split into 2
Colour: White?
Sound: /
Speed: constant pace, similar to any commercial aircraft
Duration: /
Direction: North travelling East to West
Witnesses: 1


The witness was sitting outside his front porch observing the
night sky when he noticed a brilliant light towards the north,
traveling from east to west at a constant pace, similar to any
commercial aircraft. What surprised him was when he saw the
object split in two. According to the witness, the secondary
object took a three second vertical fall to the ground. The
witness suggested that the secondary object might have
disappeared behind a distant escarpment and took off in an
unknown direction.

The primary object continued its course for a short period
(exact time not remembered) before disappearing into the clouds.

Second report:

Lloyd also mentioned an encounter he had in the early 1980�s.
Around 3:00 am, he was traveling in a motor vehicle with his son
Towards Tamworth when a bright disc-like object abruptly
appeared before them.

The anomaly played cat and mouse as it disappeared and
reappeared a number of times at tremendous speeds. One instant,
the object came so close that Lloyd swore to have seen
porthole-like features around what is believed to have been the
object�s outer rim. When they returned home and told their
story, they were subject to ridicule and rejection. He kept it
to himself for nearly 20 years until he contacted the 1800
number.

Comments:
This sighting occurred the same evening as callin code 001056
from Albion Park. There is no doubt that the object behaved in a
peculiar way. However, military aircrafts from HMAS Albatross,
Nowra, travel as far as Albion Park, according to the Albion
Park aerial patrol. There is a possibility that the event was
caused by a military aircraft dispatching a flare. However,
early December 2000 was regarded as a high fire danger period.

Would the military be so careless and risk a regional bush fire?
I will be contacting HMAS operations at Albatross in the second
week of January 2001, as well as Albion Park aerial patrol and
Wiroolla police station.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UFOR NSW Website thank you Doug Moffet UFOR NSW

Time reported: 06:04:56
Date: 20th 3 2001
Day Tuesday

Title: Mrs. ?
Suburb:?
State: NSW

Date: 25th. Jan.2001
Day:Saturday
Time: approx. 2.10am
Shape: lights
Size: ?
Objects: 8
Colour: glowing white
Sound: no
Speed: fast
Duration: 2-3 mins
Direction: ?
Witnesses: 2
Weather_conditions: Grey night, white cloud cover.
Location: Five Dock/Drummoyne/Balmain/City
Physical_stuff: I think that the dancing and hovering lights
were perhaps, say as big as a standard house and the bigger
light was about 20 times larger. They seemed to travel in
seconds, a distance of 10-15kms.

REPORT:

At approx. 2.10am myself and another family member noticed about
8 bright lights dancing in the sky, not making any particular
pattern or formation. We disregarded for a few seconds thinking
it might be a light show, but then realising the time and then
noticing no beam of light projecting this image from the
direction of the earth but rather it appearing to be project
from behind the clouds. The lights appeared to move around from
one point to another, say 10-15kms, in seconds (if that) then
stopped and hovered for a few minutes at a time before moving
around again. We then noticed a much larger, brighter light from
behind some clouds. Suddenly the 8 lights seemed to zoom, some
30kms, into the this light joined by another 20 or more which
seemed only visible at 5-10km range around the bigger light and
within 2 seconds they scattered from this light and spread out
again to dance and hover at 2-3 minutes intervals. This went on
for about 1/2 hour and then the lights again zoomed into the
large?

We did see a helicopter at one point during this sighting. We
noticed that in terms of altitude that these lights must have
been at least 2-3 times as high.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Follow up 1800 Callin Code: 01303 07.04.2001

Date: 07.04.2001
Day: Saturday
Time Reported: 11.27 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW
Reportee: No name given
Report given to nearest rep: Doug Moffett
Tel: 0249

Time: 10.45 pm
Shape: straight line
Size: small
Objects:3
Colour: Bright yellow
Sound: No
Speed: ?
Duration: 30 minutes
Direction: Due west
Witnesses: 3

Report:

My daughter was driving home from friends house when she noticed
at least 4 cars by the side of one of the main roads of
Newcastle.

She stopped to see what was going on, she noticed as the others
had, three bright yellow lights moving due West away from the
observers. They formed a straight line, 9 o�clock to 3 o�clock.
This was at approx 10.45pm, she was home 5 minutes later and
alerted her mother , sister and a friend.

All three watched for a further 30 minutes approx as the objects
grew smaller in the distance, not moving side to side but simply
away. This was viewed against the backdrop of a hill with
housing below the upper peak. The objects were low on the
horizon with an altitude lower than a plane, there was no noise
heard. There was no wind to speak of and the lights were solid
in colour, not flickering. They left view as they became too
small to see. The witness�s had feelings of disbelief, amazement
but no fear or sense of threat. Could be lighted garbage bags
but unusual that they did not deviate or flicker.

Doug Moffett AUFORN NSW State Director


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UFOR NSW Website thank you Doug Moffet UFOR NSW

Time reported: 23:48:07
Date: 7th 4 2001
Day /
Title: Mrs. Kylie
Suburb:Singleton Hunter Valley
State: NSW

Date sighting: 28th. March.2001
Day:/
Time: 5.30pm
Shape: No discernable shape
Size: Small
Objects: 8
Colour: metallic
Sound: no
Speed: too fast to be a plane/RAAF jet (see a lot of them go
        over),
Duration: 15 seconds
Direction: East
Witnesses: 2
Weather_conditions: Clear skies, sun beginning to set but still
approx 35 degrees up into the sky. Slight haze

Report:

The date is wrong, but it was the same day that Mir came to
earth. Husband and I were outside gardening, thought we'd keep
an eye out in case we could see something of Mir as it came down
(we saw it go over the previous night) We heard it was to happen
around 5.30pm EDST. Spot on 5.30pm I was looking up and saw
something I called my husband over and he tried the binoculars
but it was moving too fast. It came from the west, heading east,
almost directly overhead. It was a small, bright object, moving
very fast. It was metallic as it flashed in the sunlight. The
sun was still up a bit as I had to shield it with my hand to
see. It was going faster than a plane/jet and was gone in about
15 seconds, and I felt was up very high.

I continued searching for it towards the east, and thought I saw
a bright spot stationary, but that could have been my eyes
dazzled from the sun.

We felt elated thinking we'd seen Mir, but after watching the
news that night realised it wasn't coz Mir came down around 5pm
EDST and was nowhere near where we live (Hunter Valley, NSW).

My only thought is it may have been a low level satellite, but
part of me thinks no coz it was moving too fast (I've seen
satellites go over at night, and you can usually watch them for
at least half a minute or more) and there was still a lot of
daylight around.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Follow up 1800 Callin Code: 01327 16.04.2001

Date: 16.04.2001
Day: Monday
Time Reported: 5.00 pm
Location: Nth Ryde
Reportee: Kevin D
Report given to nearest rep: Doug Moffett
Tel: 02 9801


Time: 5.00pm
Shape: V shaped
Size: 6 inches
Objects:1
Colour: grey hazy cloud
Sound: no
Speed: like a satellite
Duration: 30-40 seconds
Direction: North to South
Witnesses: 2

Report:

Kevin was out viewing the clear night sky when he noticed a
ghostly grey, hazy cloud like figure of a V shaped object
travelling across the sky at satellite speed. The object
travelled in a straight line North to South and did not deviate
in trajectory. The object had a clear outline and was squared
off at the end of the V as it travelled with the point of the V
at the front of the object. It was observed for 30 to 40 seconds
and kept uniform size and formation. It was lost to view in the
distance and seemed to be very high. Apparent size was at arms
length 6 inches each side of the V with 75 to 80 degree arc
between the two at the rear. This seems abnormally large but I
did check with the witness on this matter several times.

Doug Moffett AUFORN NSW State Director

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UFOR NSW Website thank you Doug Moffet UFOR NSW

Date: 26th 4 2001
Time reported: 01:12:14

Title: Michelle
Suburb: Corrimal North of Wollongong
State: NSW

Date/ Time of sighting
23rd 4. 2001

Time:8.00pm
Shape:Square V SHAPE
Size: /
Objects: 1
Colour: dull orange
Sound:/
Speed: faster than a plane
Duration: 4 mins
Direction: south, south easterly
Witnesses: 2
Weather_conditions: Clear crisp night.

Report:

My sister and I were standing on the sidewalk talking when I
looked up and saw a group of square dull orange lights arranged
in a V shape flying through the sky. It was not moving in the
direction of the v point but moving like this V ---> with one
side of the V as the front of the object. There were approx. 4
lights on each side and my sister and I watched it until it
disappeared until the light from the city made it disappear. It
was heading in a south, south easterly direction. We were in the
suburb on Corrimal just North of Wollongong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UFOR NSW Website thank you Doug Moffet UFOR NSW

Date: 26th 4 2001
Time reported: 07:36:42

Title: Mr John
Suburb: Mount Gambier
State: South Australia

Date/ Time of sighting
26th 4. 2001

Time: 19.45hrs
Shape: Ball
Size: one? One big
Objects: 2
Colour: orange
Sound: no
Speed: slowly
Duration: Several minutes
Direction: Easterly direction towards Victoria
Witnesses: 2
Weather_conditions: Reasonably clouds

Report:

My son Jon rang me telling me to go outside as he had seen an
object in the sky some minutes before,and that now an other one
was approaching.

He lives less than 2 kms from our place,so I went onto our front
veranda from where you look right over the city center,and saw
an orange coloured ball moving slowly in a easterly direction,it
seemed to be on fire.I watched it for several minutes,then it
suddenly disappeared,5 or 6 minutes later,an other one appeared
over the city coming from the west and moving slowly east,that
also disappeared. Being late night shopping,my wife and I got
into the car to go to Woolworths.as soon as we turned into the
street,we saw this big orange ball coming over the city from a
north westerly direction, this too seemed to be on fire. By the
time we got to the shop it was moving in a easterly direction
towards Victoria.Other people at Woollies had seen it.

Unusual: Clouds were reasonably high,but the objects appeared to
be below them.Time lapse between each of the four appearances
was about 10 minutes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UFOR NSW Website thank you Doug Moffet UFOR NSW

Date: 28th 4 2001
Day Sat,
Time reported: 05:26:28

Title: Mrs. D
Suburb: Caulfield East
State: VIC Postcode: 3145

Date/ Time of sighting
1st. Oct.1999
Day:Saturday

Time: ?
Shape: Elongated cigar
Size: ?
Objects: 1
Colour: metallic
Sound: ?
Speed: ?
Duration: 4 mins
Direction: 50 degrees heading towards north at a steady pace
Witnesses: 2 ?

REPORT:
We were on a family weekend get away in MOAMA NSW..I'm not sure
about the day, but it was October 1999. At sunset we were
heading towards the west towards RICH RIVER resort when I
spotted an elongated cigar shaped object..one thing my husband
and I were certain about is that it was NOT a light
aircraft..although it was well in the distance its outline was
well defined which made us believe it was metallic..it was at a
low angle to the horizon..approx 50 degrees heading towards
north at a steady pace..although the early evening was clear it
soon disappeared into the only cloud in the sky..after that we
tried to located it but it was gone ..I will say here that a few
days later I heard ERNIE SIGLEY talk about sightings in southern
NSW..hes on 3AW Melbourne.. hope my sighting is useful..Mrs D


Unusual: the craft had a golden orange glow..as the sun was
setting behind it i dont believe it could possibly be reflected
from the suns rays...

Location: we were heading north when i spotted the craft in the
west.I say north..we were travelling north before we reached our
turn off towards the west..at this time we lost the sighting

Other_people: unfortunately only our family..

Weather_conditions: clear and sunny...as i said before the only
cloud I noticed all day was when the craft disappeared into a
cloud


Physical_stuff: estimate only...a few thousand feet..north is
certain...very slow

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you to everyone for these reports. Who said sightings are
slowing down.

It would appear the orange ball phenomenon is right on queue
April to May seems to be our busiest time for these sightings
each year.

I have been informed that Mt Gambier is again having a UFO flap
this time of the Orange Ball phenomena. I will keep you all
informed.

--
Regards

Diane Harrison

National Director
The Australian UFO Research Network
and UFO Hotline.

Tel number 1800 77 22 88 a Free Call
Australian UFO Research Network -
http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw


A non profit organisation
P.O Box 805
Springwood Qld 4127







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:23:38 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:42:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sandow


 >From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 20:43:53 +0100

 >Hi Greg,

 >First you ask a theoretical question; I try to answer it based
 >upon the information you have provided. Then you move the
 >goal posts by adding further hypothetical possibilities that
 >were not part of the original question!

1. I ask a question.

2. Dave misunderstands it.

3. I explain what I meant.

4. He thinks I've "moved the goal posts."

This is tiring. As is:

 >But using your theoretical unicorn, the very example you have
 >chosen suggests to me that you have little experience of
 >collecting and comparing witness testimony. I would venture to
 >suggest that, in my experience, if six other people did
 >independently report seeing something at the same time as I
 >spotted my unicorn, you would find that perhaps half of these
 >would claim to have seen something completely different, or say
 >they first thought it was something unusual but then realised it
 >was a balloon or a flock of birds reflecting sunlight.

Of course I meant six people who said they'd seen a unicorn, and
whose testimony held up under serious scrutiny. I respect Dave's
investigations, as recounted (for instance) in "The UFOs That
Never Were," a book John Rimmer suggested I read and which I
received a few days ago from Amazon.com. But his chapters in the
book are riddled with disparaging remarks about ufo believers
and ufologists, which resemble things he says here on UpDates,
and in this post. These don't make his arguments any stronger
(and contrast oddly with Jenny's chapters in the same book,
which simply state the facts, without any polemics).

I don't claim to have Dave's experience in talking to UFO
witnesses. But he's also not the only one in the world who's done
it.

 >You seem to have a problem, shared by a number of others on this
 >List, in that you can only categorise 'doubters' in terms of the
 >American perception of what constitutes a 'skeptic or debunker'
 >(witness your increasingly convoluted attempts to get me to
 >comment on something Klass said to you).

 >Of course I can't say that such things as alien UFOs exist or
 >don't exist. I can only work in terms of what we _know_, what
 >is currently accepted and what is _probable._

 >The best way is the application of Occam's Razor - do not
 >multiply hypotheses unnecessarily, always chose the simplest
 >explanation as this is _probably_ correct. Applied to the
 >Chiles-Whitted case, we chose a fireball meteor because that is
 >the best fit given current knowledge and bearing in mind the
 >foibles of human perception. To chose ET when a simpler
 >explanation is available is neither logical nor scientific.

Exactly my point. This is a misuse of Occam:

1. We're in no position to assess how likely an alien visit
would be. Maybe the universe is full of aliens, zipping from
planet to planet, especially in our stellar neighborhood. Or
maybe that's not true at all. We simply don't know. So it's just
a prejudice on our part to assume that alien visits are
unlikely. It would also be a prejudice to assume that they _are_
likely.

2. The decision isn't between ET and a meteor. Brad Sparks and
Bruce Maccabbee have written eloquently about this on UpDates.
The pilots saw something. What? Do we think it's a meteor? Then
we need to establish that hypothesis. We do that -- as Dave
himself demonstrates in his investigations -- by looking at the
idea on its own merits.

As Marcello Truzzi has noted, Occam's Razor can easily be
misused to reject the possibility of new knowledge. (Truzzi, for
those who might not know him, is a sociologist whose very smart,
informed skepticism can be pretty searing to both believers and
disbelievers in subjects like UFOs. He's particularly good on
the sociology of science and knowledge -- a subject we ought to
know more about here on UpDates.) OF course, Dave has said he
doesn't reject anomalous UFOs in principle. But in practice
Occam's Razor can have that function, when it's used to reject,
one by one, the cases that might bring us new knowledge.

If the Chiles-Whitted sighting was the only UFO report, we could
shrug, and say, "Who the hell knows? Probably a meteor." But
it's not. In the context of other reports, it gains substance
as, possibly, a sighting of something unknown. Or maybe it isn't
that. We don't know.

But the danger here is this: We invesitgate a lot of UFO
reports, and find explanations for most of them. Others we can't
explain, in the sense of proving the explanation -- proving that
Chiles and Whitted saw a meteor, because a known meteor was
visible from where they were. So now we reject all these other
sightings, one by one, or in a group, because, as long as
there's any doubt, we're told we need to accept the simplest
explanation, the one that fits with current knowledge. So we
remain with current knowledge, until....but I think I've made my
point. (For a fine case study, see Ron Westrum's paper in the
"UFOs and Abductions" book from the University of Kansas press.)

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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                     Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:34:32 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:44:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Hale


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:55:16 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Roy:

 >Well, despite many thousands of hours observing the night sky
 >over the past 40 years, no UFOs have ever identified themselves
 >to me.

 >How many little lights in the sky have you seen without going to
 >the local airport to check if they were seen on radar, or
 >documenting the weather conditions or personally visiting all
 >the little airports and grass strips where little private
 >planes, ultralights or balloons take off?


Hey, I think we have actually found one human on this planet who
has never seen a UFO! It seems Bob, that even in your childhood
you were highly trained as an observer of the skies!

Shake that man's hand, he has the answer to this question. When
is a UFO not a UFO - when Bob's looking! ( id I mention Aliens
anywhere?)


Roy

"Can someone please cut the grass, I can't see the ants anymore"









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                         'The UFOs That Never Were'

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 01:18:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:46:25 -0400
Subject: 'The UFOs That Never Were'


As I mentioned in a reply to Dave Clarke, I've been reading an
interesting book, 'The UFOs That Never Were', which John Rimmer
recommended to me. It's about UFO reports that could be
explained, with chapters by Dave, Jenny Randles, and Andy
Roberts about cases they've investigated. These are supplemented
with short accounts of classic IFO cases.

The investigations are convincing. One oddity, as I mentioned in
my reply to Dave, is that Dave and Andy make scathing remarks
about ufology, ufologists, and "UFO buffs" (along with other
demeaning terms for people who believe UFOs might represent
something unknown). Jenny doesn't make remarks like that. I'd
call this an editing problem - the book, taken as a whole, comes
off as inconsistent. Nor do I think Dave and Andy's remarks do
much for the credibility of their investigations - they protest
too much. But then they're probably laughing as they read this,
saying, "Of course he'd think that!"

This, though, isn't what most interests me about the book. I've
been greatly struck, as I've read, by differences in what I
might call the UFO culture of Britain and the US. I'm getting
the impression that Britain goes through waves of UFO excitement
of a kind we don't have in the US any more. This seems (as Dave
points out in one of his chapters) to be fed by UFO stories in
the press.

Here a couple of differences between Britain and the US might be
relevant. First, in the US we don't have national newspapers of
the kind that exist in Britain. Please correct me if I'm
mistaken, but it seems to me that the main British papers - from
the Times and the Independent to tabloid rags like News of the
World and the Sun - are available throughout Britain. Certainly
I've been able to buy them both in London, and in Dent, a
village far to the north, in Cumbria. Only one American paper is
available nationally, USA Today (though really serious newspaper
readers can probably find the national edition of the New York
Times in most large cities). And USA Today seems monumentally
uninfluential, though it's perfectly good and serious. I can't
remember any story it broke that caused any excitement, or even
interest.

And certainly in musical situations I've known about, the
existence of strong national media has made things possible in
Britain that aren't in the US. For a long time - I don't know if
it's still true - reviews in British pop music publications like
New Musical Express could put new bands on the charts, something
that just about never happens in the US. And in the early '90s,
when Gorecki's Third Symphony went up to No. 6 on the pop album
charts - which obviously is almost unheard of for a classical
work - one explanation I was given (by the Warner Music
marketing guy who made it happen) had to do with the power of
national media in Britain, as opposed to the US.

Second, we don't have anything in America like the British
tabloids. An American in Britain is likely to be shocked by the
Sun and News of the World. Our tabloids are tame by comparison.
Every day I read the New York Daily News, the American tabloid
with the largest circulation. It's lively, but it's also a
serious newspaper, a lot closer to the Times (the London one, I
mean) than the Sun. It never runs UFO stories. (What separates
it from, say, the New York Times, is a livelier tone, more local
reporting, brasher and more opinionated sports columnists, and
more interest in celebrities.)

Our "supermarket tabloids" (as the expression goes), like the
National Enquirer, are also tame by British standards. They're
also not newspapers, by which I mean they don't cover the news
of the day, as British tabloids do. Mostly they print celebrity
gossip. They never run UFO stories. (Yes, the Enquirer once did,
but that was years ago.) Of course, the Weekly World News prints
UFO stories, but it makes them up, as it makes up almost all of
its content. It's more like a circus than a newspaper, and plays
absolutely no role in American ufology, or - almost needless to
see - in developing any kind of national interest in anything at
all.

Our tabloids never stir up hysteria, as the News of the World (I
think it was this paper) did last summer, when it encouraged
violence against suspected sex offenders.

Because of these two things - a strong national media, and
irresponsible tabloids - it's possible that silly UFO stories
may spread much faster in Britain than they currently do in the
US. Our British friends might reply by citing the spread of
abduction reports in America, but that certainly doesn't happen
in the press. None of our papers, including tabloids, have given
much, if any, space to abductions. Abductions _do_ get talked
about on tabloid TV, which is yet another phenomenon. But it's
not a phenomenon with much influence, as far as I can see.

For instance, the alien autopsy film was shown here on tabloid
TV, but never spread - not even news stories about it - into the
rest of the media. Anyone already interested in UFOs got drawn
into the debate over it, but the country at large remained
unaffected. Abductions draw more attention, it's true, but my
sense still is that tabloid TV shows - the only mass media in
America that regularly cover UFOs - are viewed largely as
entertainment, and don't seriously affect the national mood.
(How interest in abductions does spread is another, very
interesting story. The model is probably the spread of new age
phenomena, from channeling to alternative medicine. Books may be
more influential than newspapers or TV. But that's another
discussion.)

(It's also true that most Americans know about Roswell, at least
to judge from the way it crops up in films and TV shows. But
there isn't in any way a national obsession with it, or even any
great interest, looked at nationally. It's rarely been talked
about in newspapers, even tabloids, or on non-tabloid TV. People
know about it, in more or less the same way they know weird
stories about Michael Jackson. It's one of those things that
seems kind of fun, but may or may not have happened. Only in the
ufological teacup does it get discussed with any heat.)

If it's true that silly UFO stories can spread widely and
quickly in Britain, then I have a lot of sympathy for Dave,
Andy, and Jenny. I can also understand why ufology might seem so
silly to them. (I also wonder whether Britain has as prominent a
tradition of sober UFO research - NICAP, Hynek, McDonald, CUFOS,
and so forth - as we have here. I don't mean that Britain
doesn't have sober UFO researchers. Obviously it does. But if I
compare what strike me as flagship national UFO institutions of
the past, I might come up with NICAP, in America, and Flying
Saucer Review in Britain, and FSR seems a lot more credulous.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here!)

In no way do I mean any of this as anti-British. I only mean
that "The UFOs That Never Were" seemed, to me, to describe a UFO
world that doesn't exist in the US. And, also, that this UFO
world rather naturally might evoke the kind of response Dave and
Andy have demonstrated.

Clearly a UFO world like this once did exist in America - the
American UFO waves of 1947, 1952 and so forth did get the kind
of national coverage Dave, Andy, and Jenny describe, and did
create real excitement, complete with many episodes of
looniness. But lately the closest thing to any of that I can
think of was the Phoenix lights of a few years ago, which got
people in Phoenix excited, but left the rest of the nation
generally uninvolved (except, of course, for those already
interested in UFOs).

Comments welcome.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                  Re: Obituary - Dave Kelly, BUFOSC - Hayes

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:45:45 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:50:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Obituary - Dave Kelly, BUFOSC - Hayes


 >From: Carolyn Buckley <cosmiccarrie@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Obituary - Dave Kelly, BUFOSC
 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:57:26 -0000

 >It is with great sadness that I must inform you that Dave Kelly,
 >investigator with the British UFO Studies Centre passed away on
 >Monday 23rd April 2001 after a long battle with cancer.

<snip>

Dear Carolyn,

I am sorry to hear the sad news about Dave Kelly and would like
to pass on my sympathy to his family and those at BUFOSC.


I would be grateful if you let me know if the following
information for BUFOSC is still okay to use. I would not like to
have his relatives being contacted if it is his address and
phone number:

British UFO Studies Centre (BUFOSC)
78 Greenall Road
Northwich
Cheshire
CW9 5RN

Phone: (01606) 330567
E-Mail: bufosc@yahoo.com

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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding -

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:09:23 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:53:12 -0400
Subject: Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding -


 >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:51:21 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding

 >>From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@Ms.UManitoba.CA>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:19:32 CST
 >>Subject: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding

 >Agreed Chris, and hello Gildas:

 >I was going to toss out some half-baked theory to Gildas; namely
 >that UFO groups going out of business for lack of sightings made
 >news because it was rather unprecedented.

 >Then along comes Chris, with a very interesting and very
 >parallel story from Canada! Hmmm!

 >In each case, it is a group so obscure one wonders about it...
 >and its folding makes news an otherwise uninterested Garcon at
 >the cafe is talking about.

 >Oddly, and I base this on database numbers, it would appear that
 >quality sightings have indeed been in a trough since the early
 >1980s, improving only marginally in the 1990s. I don't see what
 >I would call a "major UFO wave" since the 1970s.

 >More oddly, public interest in UFOs is at or near all-time
 >highs! This last statement is my personal take only, I have no
 >numbers to back it up.

 >Thus my question, and fodder for a nice little study!

 >Can anyone suggest a cheap-and-dirty measure or gauge of "Public
 >Interest in UFOs" (PIU)? (public awareness?)

Well, I recently made a little inventory of public opinion
polls, both in the United States and in France, for my speech at
the last cinference in San Marino (Italy), the theme of which
was on Ufos and the Media.

I have gathrered the main results on a Excel grid, which I am ready to
send as attached file if it is readable (can someone confirm that ?)
Her is aa little excerpt of it, to give an idea.

On the question "Do you believe UFOs are real?" (the question
implies of non human origin), I found the following percentages
of positive answers :

For the United States
1964 : 20%
1965 : 33%
1966 : 48 %
1973 : 51%
(then, there is a huge gap without polls)
1996 : 48%
1999 : 32% (note : NIDS poll)
2000 : 43% (Yankelovitch, Life, March 2000)

So, after a sharp rise in the 60's, it rather looks like a
slow, moderate decline.

For France :
1979 : 25%
1980 : 35%
1985 : 26%
1993 : 51% (this one seems out of line)
1997 : 18%

To be honest, skepticism (and cynism) is alive and well in my
country. Not only on ufos, on about everything.

I would like to have figures from other countries for
comparison, but it does not look like a big advance in recent
years.

On the other hand, the figures are on the rise for the "belief"
in ET life, and that might have an impact on ther ufo trend in
the coming years.

And there is no question that aliens are more present than ever
in SF, and in all forms of popular culture, including
advertising.


Best wishes

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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

              Lights In The Sky: Satan's Great Modern Deception

From: Kelly <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 20:41:00 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:56:23 -0400
Subject: Lights In The Sky: Satan's Great Modern Deception


[For those who don't know, the author of this article is a very
popular, and I would say influential charismatic Catholic
writer. I find his books fascinating because he chronicals his
life and weird experiences in detail and his eventual conversion
(back) to Catholiscm. I haven't read his books in years but they
are certain to be of interest to forteans. 'The Final Hour' is
one - I forget the other titles off hand. --Kelly]


http://www.spiritdaily.com/ufos.htm

LIGHTS IN THE SKY: SATAN'S GREAT MODERN DECEPTION

By Michael H. Brown

Since 1947, when a pilot named Kenneth Arnold spotted strange
objects near Mount Rainier, Washington, mankind has been
barraged by the reports: lights in the sky, "flying saucers,"
even alien abduction. It's no longer the stuff of the "lunatic
fringe." It's out there on the radio, in the mainstream
bookstores (where it now has its own section), and on network
shows. In 1997 the nation was transfixed by reports on CNN and
other news shows of inexplicable lights over Arizona.

In the coming days and weeks we'll be reporting aspects of this
phenomenon because it has now reached a dangerous level. As we
will show, there's a deeply spiritual aspect - an aspect that
figures into the signs of our times - to unidentified flying
objects, or UFOs. Some of them may be hallucination; some of the
reports may be satellites; and for all we know, there may be
life on other planets. We're not ruling out any of those
possibilities - not even the chance that in cases like a strange
crash at Roswell, New Mexico (which also occurred in 1947),
reports of UFOs may be caused by the sighting of secret Air
Force craft.  Indeed, many of the reports come from the vicinity
of military bases.

But there is a spiritual aspect here - a demonic deception - and
it is as old as humanity.

You can go back to Cro-Magnon times and see caves painted with
what look like otherworldly creatures and when you study them
they begin to look like modern "ETs." In Sumerian, Babylonian,
and Egyptian times was the belief in "gods" that were half
human/half beast, bred with humans, and came from the stars. On
the islands of Cyclades to the east of the Greek mainland is a
statue of a goddess from 2500 B.C. that bears remarkable
resemblance to wide-eyed "UFO" aliens. In 1500 B.C. Pharaoh
Thutmose III saw silent, "foul-smelling" discs in the sky. The
same was indicated in South America - where Indians likewise
built pyramids thought to have occult powers. In Noah's time
aliens were called Nephilim (Genesis 6:4) and immediately
preceded the Flood.

They are as old as time itself and have the purpose of
corrupting mankind. In our modern age, we are told that they are
"legion" (Mark 5:9). In April of 1984 the National UFO Reporting
Center in Seattle recorded four sightings for the month. By 1996
the same month of April had 83 sightings. And last month - March
2001 - there were 238.

Although some of this is due to the internet and better
reporting - and although we see just recently news that a UFO
group disbanded in England for lack of sightings - from all
indications the cases worldwide have continued to skyrocket.
They are running parallel to societal evil as well as with signs
in nature and they were foreseen at LaSalette, France, in 1846 -
where the Virgin Mary allegedly told two shepherd children that
a time would come when "the demons of the air together with the
anti-Christ will perform great wonders on earth and in the
atmosphere, and men will become more and more perverted."

Whether or not we are in the final age of anti-Christ, we are in
a very special time in which all manifestations of the
supernatural are reaching a crescendo and we need to remember
that as superintelligences demons are supremely deceptive. Just
as they once masqueraded as gods or nature spirits and then as
elves and fairies, so do they come in our own time as "spacemen"
in accordance with current culture.

It is how they best deceive us. They are now loveable ETs
acclimating us to their presence. And in olden times many of the
people - adherents of the faith - were wise enough to see it.
Charlemagne, who coalesced Christianity in Europe - and defeated
the barbarians - was severely injured when a large sphere
descended from the sky like lightning and caused his horse to
rear up. During his reign there were so many "tyrants of the
air, and their aerial ships," as he put it, that he declared
them "evil." During the High Middle Ages, around the time of the
bubonic plague, in the 1300s, there was an eruption similar to
that of our own age. Eerie fireballs were seen above Paris,
Florence, and Avignon, France - where the papal palace had
moved. In some locales the plague was even said to descend like
a ball of fire. "One such ball was fortunately spotted while
hovering above Vienna and exorcised by a passing bishop," wrote
an historian named Philip Ziegler. "It fell harmlessly to the
ground and a stone effigy of the Madonna was raised to
commemorate this unique victory."

It's no coincidence that art of this period shows the air full
of devils pointing plague-tipped arrows nor is it a coincidence
that during this time there had been eruption of materialism,
sensuality, Church corruption, and witchcraft - which now also
haunt our age.

In Kilkenny, Ireland, a friar named John Clyn sensed "the whole
world, as it were, placed within the grasp of the Evil One."

Our mission - the mission of Christians everywhere - is to
prevent this from happening again, and we must know the enemy to
defeat him. We caution that no one should delve into UFO books,
radio shows, or websites. Curiosity can kill the cat. Most such
sites have an occult energy, and some are outright satanic. It's
no happenstance that ufologists and New Agers go hand-in-hand.
They come from the same source, and the fact that Satan is
deceiving us with lights in the sky is obvious when we look at
certain details. For example: UFO outbreaks and repeated
sightings often occur over land where Indians performed rituals,
or where modern witches have their woodland covens. This has
been seen in places like Upstate New York (on a Tuscurora
reservation near Niagara Falls, and near the Taconic Parkway
north of New York City); at the Allagash watershed in northern
Maine (where a so-called "abduction" occurred); Crestone,
Colorado (where a New Age center now stands and where strange
creatures have been reported since Indian times, including 'ant"
people);  and Arizona - where, in areas like Phoenix, there is
not only a history of ritual but massive burial mounds.

This is hardly to say that all the spirituality of Indians was
evil. It's to say that the pagan aspect was in error. If you
want to know what a demon looks like, recall the creatures in
Star Wars (or the faces on some totem poles) and you'll get a
fairly good idea.

Those who claim to have "close encounters" often find the
experience terrifying. Afterward they report psychic phenomena -
including ESP, precognition, and levitation, which indicate the
preternatural nature of it - and also a sulfur smell, which
since time immemorial has been associated with the demonic.

Aliens are often said to materialize and dematerialize, to even
walk through walls, and so we have more evidence of their
spiritual nature. If we believe such reports - if there is any
credibility to such things - we must ask ourselves why a
"spaceman" who can walk through walls and teleport would need a
flying saucer.

As one expert, Guy Malone of Roswell, New Mexico (whose ministry
is called "Alien Resistance") points out, aliens not only look
demonic but in certain cases have fled when the name of Jesus is
invoked.

Why would an extraterrestrial - if it was really an
extraterrestrial - run from the name of God?

And why would an alien be created in such an ugly, frightening
form?

Why do people wake up to find such creatures in a circle with
their hands raised over the person?

Why do they cause nightmares?

And why do they return day after day and night after night for
years - even haunting generations?

Why is it that we read reports of people who have had these
experiences only after dabbling with the occult, and why do
"abductees" need deliverance afterward?

Why are "crop circles," thought to come from UFOs (and most
prevalent in England), often formed into what look like occult
or ancient Egyptian or masonic symbols?

The descriptions of aliens connect to past artwork of demons
(including old voodoo statues) and are anything but an image of
God. This should be enough to raise our spiritual antennae. But
as we will report in coming
articles, there is more...much more... stay tuned...








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                          The Politics Of Monmouth

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 20:56:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:59:19 -0400
Subject: The Politics Of Monmouth


In 1948 then US Navy Commander Bernard Barauch, Jr.,
intelligence officer for the Military Air Transport System and
son of the famous financial genius, proposed and got the joint
military communications staff to issue Joint Army Navy Air
Publication 146. USAF intelligence and General Cabell especially
felt they were blind sided by this intelligence collection
procedure which came out of the communications staff. After
vigorous objections by the USAF intelligence the procedures were
suspended and since the objections were from the USAF, they were
given the task to fix it. (UFOs were not one of the original
intelligence items but were added shortly afterward.) For the
next two years General Cabell and USAF intelligence wrestled
with JANAP 146, including political maneuvering by Cdr Barauch
putting pressure on Symington and Vandenberg. Cabell found this
task none too pleasant, like fighting a bear, but in early 1951
JANAP 146 was working with reports were flowing through the
system.

Just as everything was working well, in April 1951 along came
this complaint from Col. Harold Watson at Wright Field. He isn't
getting UFO reports which came in through the CIRVIS system of
JANAP 146. JANAP 146 has created dual reporting systems for
UFOs. He offers several solutions. One was to turn the UFO
project over to the Air Defense Command which was one of the
primary addressees of CIRVIS reports.  Air Force intelligence
decided to do a staff study on the problem which languished.

In September 1951, the Fort Monmouth report got out to the
press. The report caused some problems at USAF intelligence, and
they called the newly independent Air Technical Intelligence
Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) for an
explanation. General Cabell did not like what he heard and had
LTC Rosengarten and 1LT Jerry Cummings dispatched to
investigate. When they told General Cabell they could not make
the briefing at the pentagon, he told them to charter a private
plane to come to Washington and LTC Rosengarten did so.

At the briefing LT Cummings, according to Ruppelt, told the
General about the poor state of Project Grudge. So General
Cabell chewed everyone out stating that he had been lied to and
ordered "open minds." The ire of general officers get things
done. So Project Grudge was "revitalized" and 1LT Edward Ruppelt
was made project officer. Obviously, things don't stand still.
In October personnel at the General Mills balloon facility in
Minneapolis made two sightings of UFOs on consecutive days. A
General Mills official wrote to then Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force Zuckert about the sightings by J. J. Kaliszewski and
the 1949 sighting by C. B. Moore.

About this time the USAF intelligence informed ATIC that UFOs
are a technical intelligence problem and investigations will
remain at WPAFB. USAF intelligence said the problem created by
the dual reporting system would be fixed, but it never was
during Ruppelt's tenure and he complained about this problem
later.

Obviously, the Monmouth incident that caused all the trouble was
high on the priority list to get done by the revitalized
project, so a rather interesting balloon explanation is
presented. Ruppelt, an aeronautical engineer, can't calculate
balloon ascension rates?  (Why would a weather balloon descend?
Either it has a small leak or it gets caught in a down draft.
Now if one of the balloons got caught in a down draft how did
reach the altitude where it burst with the other balloon later
on?)  So the Grudge balloon explanation is a way to get General
Cabell off the backs of the officials at ATIC so they can return
to the important work of technical intelligence involved with
the Korean War and the Soviet and Chinese threat.

Now to lie to General Cabell >again< is pretty brave for 1LT.
Some briefing officer can now tell General Cabell that this
case, after extensive analysis, was a balloon.

Ruppelt's whole philosophy is that the good ones fall apart on
examination. Despite Gregory's characterization of Ruppelt as
Keyhoe's alter ego, Ruppelt told Capt. Bob White, Air Force
Public Relation Officer in letters that his True article and his
book are both anti-UFO.

End of the Monmouth incident. The UFO problem is in good hands!
Just one problem, those pesky aerographers at General Mills. Now
if anyone believes that one day in January 1952 that Ruppelt
decided to visit General Mills and take along a physicist from
Battelle, I have some land in Florida for you, it only needs
draining on four sides. The UFO officer at the 4602d AISS had to
get pr emission to make a long distance telephone call. Ruppelt
was out there as damage control and on orders from higher
authority.

He didn't like these guys as his original manuscript shows, and
they were unimpressed by him. Moore characterized the General
Mills operation as the biggest producer "unidentified floating
objects" and wrote Keyhoe that many of his UFO sightings in
"Flying Saucers Are Real" were General Mills balloons. The
General Mills personnel knew more about the atmosphere and
meteorology then just about anyone. About a dozen aerographers
had reported UFOs.  Moore, always the gentlemen, greeted
Ruppelt, but left to do other things. J. J. Kaliszewski was
completely unimpressed.  Ruppelt left them with instruction on
how to make a CIRVIS report to the ADC. Kaliszewski figured that
if the USAF were really interested they would want the reports
at Wright Field, and no one at General Mills made another report
to the USAF.

At the risk of offending Roger, where did all this information
come from? Interviews by Sign Historical Group members with LTC
Rosengarten, C. B. Moore, J. J. Kaliszewski, correspondence on
CIRVIS and JANAP 146 in USAF intelligence and other files,
Project Blue Book files, USAF intelligence files correspondence
on UFOs and other material in Prof. C. B. Moore's, Dr. James
McDonald's and Edward Ruppelt's files.

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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

             Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - Young

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:38:56 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:01:00 -0400
Subject: Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - Young


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:54:44 EDT
 >Subject: Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:51:21 -0700
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding

 ><snip>

 >>More oddly, public interest in UFOs is at or near all-time
 >>highs! This last statement is my personal take only, I have no
 >>numbers to back it up.
 >
 >>Thus my question, and fodder for a nice little study!

 >>Can anyone suggest a cheap-and-dirty measure or gauge of "Public
 >>Interest in UFOs" (PIU)? (public awareness?)

 >Hi Larry, Chris:

 >Public opinion surveys are not perfect, but it was my impression
 >that the Gallup Polls periodically asked about the same
 >questions (an important consideration) related to UFOs, and that
 >this began in the late 40s. If this has continued, it might
 >provide some sort of baseline on public attitudes.

 >I know that the National Academy of Sciences has been doing
 >annual public opinion polling on public attitudes on science for
 >about ten years, and that UFOs have been in the questions.

 >According to an editorial last year by Bob Girard in his catalog
 >the UFO book publishing business went flop. I don't know
 >whether this has continued, but commercial book publishers are
 >pretty wired in to sales figures and public interest.

 >Before I get mugged here for the above comment, we are obviously
 >talking here about "public attitudes", not whether the subject
 >"deserves study".

 >My own impression is that there are not many inquiries nowadays
 >from school kids re UFOs at the planetarium. I think that the
 >peak curve topped out in 1997 with the Roswell stuff. That, of
 >course, is only my impression.

 >Does the National UFO Reporting Center or MUFON publish numbers
 >of sightings? That might be something.


Hello Bob:

Roper and Gallup type opinion polls might make a fine indicator.
Problem is, they usually come back to the UFO questions every 5
years or so, not every year, unless I have that all wrong.

I need some rough number set with at least one value per year,
consistently applied over a long period, say from 1940 to the
present.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                    Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:44:44 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:02:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:08:14 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:15:19 -0500 (CDT)
 >>From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One?

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:55:16 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Unless all of this had been done every time I saw a light in the
 >>>sky, how would I know if I have ever seen a UFO, instead of just
 >>>an IFO?

 >>How would you know? Well, in the end, whatever you may choose to
 >>do or not, is the light identified? If not, then as far as that
 >>incident is concerned, its a UFO.


 >Yep, that's one definition. I call those "UFO reports", some
 >call them the things, themselves. Of course, this it's about
 >IFOs, and some folks don't want to think about those.

 >I think we had a thread around here that went this a way
 >recently, I guess it gets down to the matter of, "UFOs are in
 >the eyes of the beholders".


Geez Bob,

You're not dragging out that tired old saw again are you? UFOs
are all in the mind? And who are the ones on this list that
don't want to talk about IFOs?

Look if it makes you feel comfortable to think that-and I'll
admit it is an easy cop-out, then carry on. But it's only worthy
of the tripe Menzel used to come up with.

BTW you avoided the gist of Brian's statement.

I feel like I've peeped into a time warp and I'm reading that
smug suedo-science from the fifties. Do-do-do-do


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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                  Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Young

From: Bob Young  <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:45:11 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:05:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Young


 >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:20:50 -0300
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:37:10 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>If one assumes that these are real events, then there had to be
 >>a chronology from event to story. But if the story is only that,
 >>well, who knows?

 >You lost me. What site are your referring to? Certainly not
 >Corona.

Don:

I wasn't referring to any particular iteration of the "Roswell
Crash" but to an example of how a _story_ (as opposed to a real
event) can have a different chronology.

For example, see my posting last year about Frank Edward's role
in apparently generating several key parts of the "Roswell"
tale:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/dec/m30-014.shtml


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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                  Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 20:43:46 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:06:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Hatch


 >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:20:50 -0300
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:37:10 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:36:39 -0300
 >>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:47:56 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>The point is that they could hardly have been a source since
 >>>they didn't exist when the event took place.

 >>Right, but they could have been the source of stories which
 >>didn't _surface_ until later, a key consideration being the date
 >>that the story first made its appearance.

 >>For example, the first known appearance of the story that the
 >>Army threw a cordon around the site was Frank Edwards in 1955 or
 >>56 in one of his popular saucer lectures. He said people could
 >>find this info in old newspaper clippings. No one has ever found
 >>such a newspaper report. The implication is clear: Edwards made
 >>it up.

 >>If one assumes that these are real events, then there had to be
 >>a chronology from event to story. But if the story is only that,
 >>well, who knows?

 >Hi Bob,

 >You lost me. What site are your referring to? Certainly not
 >Corona.

 >Don


Hello Don and Bob:

I couldn't find anything like that without a place name or
approx. date. There was nothing similar in three books by
Edwards, and attributes searches for (Landing and Military) led
nowhere.

Can you (Bob) recall any other details to help track this one
down?


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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                  Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:21:07 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:08:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'? - Gates


 >From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:57:42 -0300 (BRT)

 >>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:27:14 -0300
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?

 >>>From: Thiago L. Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Roswell 'Crash Test Dummies'?
 >>>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:56:59 -0300 (BRT)

 >>>I am looking for images of the dummies used by the Air Force and
 >>>then blamed to the the cause of the Roswell beings.

 >>>Can someone help me?

 >>These would be the same dummies that were used for
 >>experimentation in 1952-3 some 5 years later?

 >Yes, Don, they are.

 >If you could help me I thank you.

 >Thiago

Hi Gang,

I recall when the "crash test dummies" report/theory came out.
The associated Press carried a story by the commanding officer
of the unit who worked with these crash test dummies.

He lived in New Mexico and was outraged that they would be
blamed. As I recall he didn't have much pro or con to say about
Roswell, but he stated that they recovered the crash test
dummies, that none were left on the deseret and that the dummies
were very clearly marked, i.e. there could be no mistake about
what they were.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                 Re: 2001 A Space Odessey - In Gray - Ledger

From: Don Ledger  <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 01:30:43 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:10:32 -0400
Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odessey - In Gray - Ledger


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 2001 A Space Odessey - In Gray
 >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 23:03:51 -0400

 >>From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: 2001 A Space Odessey - In Gray
 >>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:27:55 +0200

 >>But now, I have discovered that 20 years before, another alien
 >>face stared to the people (at least in the USA). This face
 >>showed a big head, a small nose, a simple line as mouth and two
 >>big human eyes. It was the Star Child from the 2001 film.


Hi Luis,

Many of us earthlings have been known to call that a "baby". Or
pushed a fetus. I now bow out.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                  Re: Have You Ever Heard Of This UFO Case?

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:49:09 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:12:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Have You Ever Heard Of This UFO Case?


 >>Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2001 21:19:25 -0400
 >>From:         Joni Ferris <jferris@MINDSPRING.COM>
 >>Subject:      Have you ever heard of this UFO case?
 >>To:           CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

 >>I was talking to my friend on the IM and he told me about a
 >>UFO case/largest abduction case in history. I am wondering
 >>if you ever heard of this case before?

 >The following may help,


Hi Errol,

So funny that you should mention this case. I recently saw the
oddest program (can't recall title but I think it aired on PBS)
about this very disappearance case.

Apparently some people went to Turkey to investigate this
disappearance recently. What they discovered was 'some' of the
skeletal remains of the British soldiers that belonged to that
unit. They were massacred by the Turks in a small village not
far from the battle field where they disappeared into the cloud.
It turns out they were 'captured' and then tortured for
information and killed in small groups until they were all dead.
The people of the Turkish village where it all took place showed
the British investigators the huts where the men were murdered
and they managed to produce some of the skeletal remains of the
men. Which the Brits brought back to England for analysis and
identification.

That's all I remember about the program. When I watched it I had
no idea it was connected to a "UFO" case at all. In any event,
the 'mystery' surrounding the disappearance of this military
unit appears to have been 'solved.'

Regards,

John

                      "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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                       Re: Monmouth Revisited - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 01:56:34 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:15:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Monmouth Revisited - Ledger


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:34:42 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Monmouth Revisited
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:05:43 -0300
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:13:39 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Monmouth Revisited - Ledger

<snip>

 >>Hi Manuel,

 >>I often wonder why when doing research on these supposed pilots
 >>chasing weather balloons cases why researchers don't ask pilots
 >>about the feasibility of doing this. Having come across at last
 >>count 8 weather balloons while flying [always by chance and
 >>zipping by the aircraft at very close range-visibly acquired
 >>only scant seconds before at 115 mph indicated] the whole
 >>concept of pilots in jets chasing weather balloons seems silly.

 >Hi Don,

 >Did you see my response?  It's here:

Yes I did Brad. Thanks. A timed turn though would bring you back
to a point in the sky and with the power of an aircraft that the
balloon does not enjoy and perhaps a different altitude. I
wouldn't argue an object of about 20 to 30 feet in diameter as
being easy to re acquire but a 4 foot balloon is tremendously
difficult. Then whoosh, you are past it again. You can't turn
tight enough to stay close and still keep the balloon in sight
in the T-33. You'd have to keep flying passes on it. A J-3 Cub
now would be a different matter.

That timed turn you spoke of-as you probably know-is used to fly
IFR [Instruement Flight Rules] patterns when aquiring an
approach to a runway in the dark or at minimums or better.

Whatever was piloting the UFO was obviously knowlegeable about
air tactics in a dogfight if it continously stayed inside of the
T-33's turn.

That's one theory shot down Brad, now we have to contend with
several planets, stars, the Crab Nebulea, dust motes in the eye,
mass hysteria, mass hypnosis, occulation, overactive
imagination, and congealed methane gas farted out by herds of
flatulent cows.

You first.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                 Re: Have You Ever Heard Of This UFO Case? -

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 02:08:55 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:19:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Have You Ever Heard Of This UFO Case? -


 >>Date:         Sat, 28 Apr 2001 21:19:25 -0400
 >>From:         Joni Ferris <jferris@MINDSPRING.COM>
 >>Subject:      Have you ever heard of this UFO case?
 >>To:           CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

<snip>

 >>I was talking to my friend on the IM and he told me about a
 >>UFO case/largest abduction case in history. I am wondering
 >>if you ever heard of this case before?

 >The following may help,

 >ebk

[...]

 >UFO: The Complete Sightings
 >By: Peter Brookesmith

 >Brown Books
 >255-257 Liverpool Road,
 >London N1 1LX
 >United Kingdom

 >1995
 >ISBN 1 897884 16 8
 >
 >Pages 29-30

 >THE REGIMENT THAT VANISHED

 >Cloud-shaped UFO abducts a British unit at Gallipoli

 >TYPE:  Close encounters of
 >the fourth kind

 >PLACE: Suvla bay, Gallipoli,
 >Turkey

 >DATE: 28 August 1915

[...]

 >ASSESSMENT

[...]

 >The disappearance of a Norfolk
 >infantry unit's colonel, with 16 other officers and 250 men,
 >during a battle in August 1915 has been promoted for years as a
 >mass abduction by UFOs, but the grim truth is that at least half
 >the missing men died in battle, and the rest were probably taken
 >prisoner and shot in cold blood by their Turkish captors. The
 >British, intent on fostering good relations with Turkey after
 >the war, kept the soldiers' murder secret for many years - and
 >so gave the UFO myth fertile ground in which to grow.

<snip>

For the sake of a little history and the respect of the ones who
experienced the Galipoli campaign...

And <sigh>, can we show some decency here? Is it so difficult to
do a little research?

The Gallipoli campaign is nearly 500,000 allied troops, with
more than 40,000 Brits killed, along with 12,000 New-Zealanders,
5,000 French and 65,000 Turkish.

Count at least 4 times those numbers for the wounded.

266 missing men are a freaking negligible drop in that blood
bath.

This kind of speculation about some British diplomatic scruples
would have its proponent crucified in any intellectual
discipline... except ufology, of course.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                    'X-Files' Creator Talks About Aliens

From: Steve Wilson Snr. <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 02:19:44 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:21:15 -0400
Subject: 'X-Files' Creator Talks About Aliens



'X-Files' Creator Talks About Aliens


.c The Associated Press


BOZEMAN, Mont. (AP) - 'X-Files' creator and executive producer
Chris Carter believes in government conspiracies, but not in
aliens.

"But I want to believe," he told an audience at Montana State
University.

Carter was invited to speak at the college by his cousin, Shari
(Mulder) McCoy, the administrative assistant to MSU President
Geoff Gamble. Carter borrowed his mother's family name for FBI
agent Fox Mulder, played by David Duchovny.

One of the big questions during this season: Who is the father
of agent Dana Scully's baby?

"Watch the next four episodes," Carter replied.

AP-NY-04-29-01 1518EDT
Copyright 2001 The Associated Press. The information contained
in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten
or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of
The Associated Press.  All active hyperlinks have been inserted
by AOL.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 30

             Re: Have You Ever Heard Of This UFO Case? - Chalker

From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:38:23 +1000
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:23:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Have You Ever Heard Of This UFO Case? - Chalker


 >From: Errol <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:11:32 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:11:32 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Have you ever heard of this UFO case?

Hi Errol,

The Norfolk "missing saga" should perhaps be laid to rest.  It
wasn't even resurrected for our Anzac day celebration over here
in OZ on April 25th.  Read the 2 1999 UFO Update messages and
you'll see why:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/jan/m28-016.shtml
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/jan/m29-007.shtml

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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding -

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:26:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:26:26 -0400
Subject: Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding -




From: UFO UpDates Toronto

[Response dictated to ebk via phone - Chris Rutkowski's' system
  is currently down --ebk]

 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:54:44 EDT
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding - Young

 >>Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:51:21 -0700
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding

 ><snip>

 >>More oddly, public interest in UFOs is at or near all-time
 >>highs! This last statement is my personal take only, I have no
 >>numbers to back it up.

 >>Thus my question, and fodder for a nice little study!

 >>Can anyone suggest a cheap-and-dirty measure or gauge of "Public
 >>Interest in UFOs" (PIU)? (public awareness?)


 >Public opinion surveys are not perfect, but it was my impression
 >that the Gallup Polls periodically asked about the same
 >questions (an important consideration) related to UFOs, and that
 >this began in the late 40s. If this has continued, it might
 >provide some sort of baseline on public attitudes.

 >I know that the National Academy of Sciences has been doing
 >annual public opinion polling on public attitudes on science for
 >about ten years, and that UFOs have been in the questions.

 >According to an editorial last year by Bob Girard in his catalog
 >the UFO book publishing business went flop. I don't know
 >whether this has continued, but commercial book publishers are
 >pretty wired in to sales figures and public interest.

 >Before I get mugged here for the above comment, we are obviously
 >talking here about "public attitudes", not whether the subject
 >"deserves study".

 >My own impression is that there are not many inquiries nowadays
 >from school kids re UFOs at the planetarium. I think that the
 >peak curve topped out in 1997 with the Roswell stuff. That, of
 >course, is only my impression.

 >Does the National UFO Reporting Center or MUFON publish numbers
 >of sightings? That might be something.


Dear Bob,

The Canadian UFO Survey produces numbers of exactly this
relevance! Isn't anyone listening?

The URL for the Annual Surveys since 1989 is:

www.geocities.com/aristotl.geo

and in addition the most dedicated Canadian researchers, who are
part of our network, co-operated in a 'Gallup-style' poll a few
years ago asking these questions and the results were reported
on UFO UpDates and elsewhere.

The gist is that we have found that UFO Sightings are
increasing slightly in number over the past ten years and that
this empirical data is what should be considered when discussing
relative UFO sightings.


Chris Rutkowski
[via 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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                     Abductions, The Brain And Genetics?

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:59:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:59:35 -0400
Subject: Abductions, The Brain And Genetics?





Mary Castner, over on P-47, posted the URL for the following
article - she suggested that she: "...thought this article
interesting. Also it was suggested a possible genetic connection
which might explain why abductions run in some families. It
maybe old hat to some of you."


ebk

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Source: MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.com/news/566079.asp?cp1=1


Mystic Visions Or Brain Circuits At Work?

Religion And The Brain

In the new field of 'neurotheology', scientists seek the
biological basis of spirituality. Is God all in our heads?

By Sharon Begley

NEWSWEEK


May 7 issue -  One Sunday morning in March, 19 years ago, as Dr.
James Austin waited for a train in London, he glanced away from
the tracks toward the river Thames. The neurologist - who was
spending a sabbatical year in England - saw nothing out of the
ordinary: the grimy Underground station, a few dingy buildings,
some pale gray sky. He was thinking, a bit absent-mindedly,
about the Zen Buddhist retreat he was headed toward. And then
Austin suddenly felt a sense of enlightenment unlike anything he
had ever experienced. His sense of individual existence, of
separateness from the physical world around him, evaporated like
morning mist in a bright dawn. He saw things "as they really
are," he recalls. The sense of "I, me, mine" disappeared. "Time
was not present," he says. "I had a sense of eternity. My old
yearnings, loathings, fear of death and insinuations of selfhood
vanished. I had been graced by a comprehension of the ultimate
nature of things."

Call it a mystical experience, a spiritual moment, even a
religious epiphany, if you like - but Austin will not. Rather
than interpret his instant of grace as proof of a reality beyond
the comprehension of our senses, much less as proof of a deity,
Austin took it as "proof of the existence of the brain." He
isn't being smart-alecky. As a neurologist, he accepts that all
we see, hear, feel and think is mediated or created by the
brain. Austin's moment in the Underground therefore inspired him
to explore the neurological underpinnings of spiritual and
mystical experience. In order to feel that time, fear and
self-consciousness have dissolved, he reasoned, certain brain
circuits must be interrupted. Which ones? Activity in the
amygdala, which monitors the environment for threats and
registers fear, must be damped. Parietal-lobe circuits, which
orient you in space and mark the sharp distinction between self
and world, must go quiet. Frontal- and temporal-lobe circuits,
which mark time and generate self-awareness, must disengage.
When that happens, Austin concludes in a recent paper, "what we
think of as our �higher' functions of selfhood appear briefly to
�drop out,' �dissolve,' or be �deleted from consciousness'."
When he spun out his theories in 1998, in the 844-page "Zen and
the Brain," it was published not by some flaky New Age outfit
but by MIT Press.

Since then, more and more scientists have flocked to
'neurotheology', the study of the neurobiology of religion and
spirituality. Last year the American Psychological Association
published 'Varieties of Anomalous Experience', covering enigmas
from near-death experiences to mystical ones. At Columbia
University's new Center for the Study of Science and Religion,
one program investigates how spiritual experiences reflect
"peculiarly recurrent events in human brains." In December, the
scholarly Journal of Consciousness Studies devoted its issue to
religious moments ranging from 'Christic visions' to 'shamanic
states of consciousness.' In May the book 'Religion in Mind',
tackling subjects such as how religious practices act back on
the brain's frontal lobes to inspire optimism and even
creativity, reaches stores. And in 'Why God Won't Go Away',
published in April, Dr. Andrew Newberg of the University of
Pennsylvania and his late collaborator, Eugene d'Aquili, use
brain-imaging data they collected from Tibetan Buddhists lost in
meditation and from Franciscan nuns deep in prayer to... well,
what they do involves a lot of neuro-jargon about lobes and
fissures. In a nutshell, though, they use the data to identify
what seems to be the brain's spirituality circuit, and to
explain how it is that religious rituals have the power to move
believers and nonbelievers alike. What all the new research
shares is a passion for uncovering the neurological
underpinnings of spiritual and mystical experiences-for
discovering, in short, what happens in our brains when we sense
that we "have encountered a reality different from-and, in some
crucial sense, higher than-the reality of everyday experience,"
as psychologist David Wulff of Wheaton College in Massachusetts
puts it.


Outside Of Time And Space

What all the new research shares is a passion for uncovering the
neurological underpinnings of spiritual and mystical
experiences-for discovering, in short, what happens in our
brains when we sense that we "have encountered a reality
different from - and, in some crucial sense, higher than - the
reality of everyday experience," as psychologist David Wulff of
Wheaton College in Massachusetts puts it. In neurotheology,
psychologists and neurologists try to pinpoint which regions
turn on, and which turn off, during experiences that seem to
exist outside time and space. In this way it differs from the
rudimentary research of the 1950s and 1960s that found, yeah,
brain waves change when you meditate. But that research was
silent on why brain waves change, or which specific regions in
the brain lie behind the change. Neuroimaging of a living,
working brain simply didn't exist back then. In contrast,
today's studies try to identify the brain circuits that surge
with activity when we think we have encountered the divine, and
when we feel transported by intense prayer, an uplifting ritual
or sacred music. Although the field is brand new and the answers
only tentative, one thing is clear. Spiritual experiences are so
consistent across cultures, across time and across faiths, says
Wulff, that it "suggest[s] a common core that is likely a
reflection of structures and processes in the human brain."

There was a feeling of energy centered within me... going out
to infinite space and returning... There was a relaxing of the
dualistic mind, and an intense feeling of love. I felt a
profound letting go of the boundaries around me, and a
connection with some kind of energy and state of being that had
a quality of clarity, transparency and joy. I felt a deep and
profound sense of connection to everything, recognizing that
there never was a true separation at all.

That is how Dr. Michael J. Baime, a colleague of Andrew
Newberg's at Penn, describes what he feels at the moment of peak
transcendence when he practices Tibetan Buddhist meditation, as
he has since he was 14 in 1969. Baime offered his brain to
Newberg, who, since childhood, had wondered about the mystery of
God's existence. At Penn, Newberg's specialty is radiology, so
he teamed with Eugene d'Aquili to use imaging techniques to
detect which regions of the brain are active during spiritual
experiences. The scientists recruited Baime and seven other
Tibetan Buddhists, all skilled meditators.


Testing For The Timeless And Infinite

In a typical run, Baime settled onto the floor of a small
darkened room, lit only by a few candles and filled with jasmine
incense. A string of twine lay beside him. Concentrating on a
mental image, he focused and focused, quieting his conscious
mind (he told the scientists afterward) until something he
identifies as his true inner self emerged. It felt "timeless and
infinite," Baime said afterward, "a part of everyone and
everything in existence." When he reached the "peak" of
spiritual intensity, he tugged on the twine. Newberg, huddled
outside the room and holding the other end, felt the pull and
quickly injected a radioactive tracer into an IV line that ran
into Baime's left arm. After a few moments, he whisked Baime off
to a SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography) machine.
By detecting the tracer, it tracks blood flow in the brain.
Blood flow correlates with neuronal activity.

The SPECT images are as close as scientists have come to
snapping a photo of a transcendent experience. As expected, the
prefrontal cortex, seat of attention, lit up: Baime, after all,
was focusing deeply. But it was a quieting of activity that
stood out. A bundle of neurons in the superior parietal lobe,
toward the top and back of the brain, had gone dark. This
region, nicknamed the "orientation association area," processes
information about space and time, and the orientation of the
body in space. It determines where the body ends and the rest of
the world begins.

Specifically, the left orientation area creates the sensation of
a physically delimited body; the right orientation area creates
the sense of the physical space in which the body exists. (An
injury to this area can so cripple your ability to maneuver in
physical space that you cannot figure the distance and angles
needed to navigate the route to a chair across the room.)


Self And Not-Self

The orientation area requires sensory input to
do its calculus. "If you block sensory inputs to this region, as
you do during the intense concentration of meditation, you
prevent the brain from forming the distinction between self and
not-self," says Newberg. With no information from the senses
arriving, the left orientation area cannot find any boundary
between the self and the world. As a result, the brain seems to
have no choice but "to perceive the self as endless and
intimately interwoven with everyone and everything," Newberg and
d'Aquili write in "Why God Won't Go Away." The right orientation
area, equally bereft of sensory data, defaults to a feeling of
infinite space. The meditators feel that they have touched
infinity. I felt communion, peace, openness to experience...
[There was] an awareness and responsiveness to God's presence
around me, and a feeling of centering, quieting, nothingness,
[as well as] moments of fullness of the presence of God. [God
was] permeating my being. This is how her 45-minute prayer made
Sister Celeste, a Franciscan nun, feel, just before Newberg
SPECT-scanned her. During her most intensely religious moments,
when she felt a palpable sense of God's presence and an
absorption of her self into his being, her brain displayed
changes like those in the Tibetan Buddhist meditators: her
orientation area went dark. What Sister Celeste and the other
nuns in the study felt, and what the meditators experienced,
Newberg emphasizes, "were neither mistakes nor wishful thinking.
They reflect real, biologically based events in the brain." The
fact that spiritual contemplation affects brain activity gives
the experience a reality that psychologists and neuroscientists
had long denied it, and explains why people experience
ineffable, transcendent events as equally real as seeing a
wondrous sunset or stubbing their toes.


Pinpointing Spiritual Experience

That a religious experience is reflected in brain activity is
not too surprising, actually. Everything we experience - from the
sound of thunder to the sight of a poodle, the feeling of fear
and the thought of a polka-dot castle - leaves a trace on the
brain. Neurotheology is stalking bigger game than simply
affirming that spiritual feelings leave neural footprints, too.
By pinpointing the brain areas involved in spiritual experiences
and tracing how such experiences arise, the scientists hope to
learn whether anyone can have such experiences, and why
spiritual experiences have the qualities they do.

I could hear the singing of the planets, and wave after wave of
light washed over me. But...  I was the light as well...  I no
longer existed as a separate 'I'...  I saw into the structure of
the universe. I had the impression of knowing beyond knowledge
and being given glimpses into ALL.

That was how author Sophy Burnham described her experience at
Machu Picchu, in her 1997 book "The Ecstatic Journey." Although
there was no scientist around to whisk her into a SPECT machine
and confirm that her orientation area was AWOL, it was almost
certainly quiescent. That said, just because an experience has a
neural correlate does not mean that the experience exists "only"
in the brain, or that it is a figment of brain activity with no
independent reality. Think of what happens when you dig into an
apple pie. The brain's olfactory region registers the aroma of
the cinnamon and fruit. The somatosensory cortex processes the
feel of the flaky crust on the tongue and lips. The visual
cortex registers the sight of the pie. Remembrances of pies past
(Grandma's kitchen, the corner bake shop... ) activate
association cortices. A neuroscientist with too much time on his
hands could undoubtedly produce a PET scan of "your brain on
apple pie." But that does not negate the reality of the pie.
"The fact that spiritual experiences can be associated with
distinct neural activity does not necessarily mean that such
experiences are mere neurological illusions," Newberg insists.
"It's no safer to say that spiritual urges and sensations are
caused by brain activity than it is to say that the neurological
changes through which we experience the pleasure of eating an
apple cause the apple to exist." The bottom line, he says, is
that "there is no way to determine whether the neurological
changes associated with spiritual experience mean that the brain
is causing those experiences...  or is instead perceiving a
spiritual reality."


Producing Visions

In fact, some of the same brain regions involved in the pie
experience create religious experiences, too. When the image of
a cross, or a Torah crowned in silver, triggers a sense of
religious awe, it is because the brain's visual-association
area, which interprets what the eyes see and connects images to
emotions and memories, has learned to link those images to that
feeling. Visions that arise during prayer or ritual are also
generated in the association area: electrical stimulation of the
temporal lobes (which nestle along the sides of the head and
house the circuits responsible for language, conceptual thinking
and associations) produces visions.

Temporal-lobe epilepsy - abnormal bursts of electrical activity
in these regions - takes this to extremes. Although some studies
have cast doubt on the connection between temporal-lobe epilepsy
and religiosity, others find that the condition seems to trigger
vivid, Joan of Arc-type religious visions and voices. In his
recent book "Lying Awake," novelist Mark Salzman conjures up the
story of a cloistered nun who, after years of being unable to
truly feel the presence of God, begins having visions. The cause
is temporal-lobe epilepsy. Sister John of the Cross must wrestle
with whether to have surgery, which would probably cure her -
but would also end her visions. Dostoevsky, Saint Paul, Saint
Teresa of Avila, Proust and others are thought to have had
temporal-lobe epilepsy, leaving them obsessed with matters of
the spirit.

Although temporal-lobe epilepsy is rare, researchers suspect
that focused bursts of electrical activity called "temporal-lobe
transients" may yield mystical experiences. To test this idea,
Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Canada fits a
helmet jury-rigged with electromagnets onto a volunteer's head.
The helmet creates a weak magnetic field, no stronger than that
produced by a computer monitor. The field triggers bursts of
electrical activity in the temporal lobes, Persinger finds,
producing sensations that volunteers describe as supernatural or
spiritual: an out-of-body experience, a sense of the divine. He
suspects that religious experiences are evoked by mini
electrical storms in the temporal lobes, and that such storms
can be triggered by anxiety, personal crisis, lack of oxygen,
low blood sugar and simple fatigue - suggesting a reason that
some people "find God" in such moments. Why the temporal lobes?
Persinger speculates that our left temporal lobe maintains our
sense of self. When that region is stimulated but the right
stays quiescent, the left interprets this as a sensed presence,
as the self departing the body, or of God.

Those most open to mystical experience tend also to be open to
new experiences generally. They are usually creative and
innovative, with a breadth of interests and a tolerance for
ambiguity (as determined by questionnaire). They also tend
toward fantasy, notes David Wulff...

I was alone upon the seashore... I felt that I...  return[ed]
from the solitude of individuation into the consciousness of
unity with all that is... Earth, heaven, and sea resounded as
in one vast world encircling harmony... I felt myself one with
them.

Is an experience like this one, described by the German
philosopher Malwida von Meysenburg in 1900, within the reach of
anyone? "Not everyone who meditates encounters these sorts of
unitive experiences," says Robert K.C. Forman, a scholar of
comparative religion at Hunter College in New York City. "This
suggests that some people may be genetically or temperamentally
predisposed to mystical ability." Those most open to mystical
experience tend also to be open to new experiences generally.
They are usually creative and innovative, with a breadth of
interests and a tolerance for ambiguity (as determined by
questionnaire). They also tend toward fantasy, notes David
Wulff, "suggesting a capacity to suspend the judging process
that distinguishes imaginings and real events." Since "we all
have the brain circuits that mediate spiritual experiences,
probably most people have the capacity for having such
experiences," says Wulff. "But it's possible to foreclose that
possibility. If you are rational, controlled, not prone to
fantasy, you will probably resist the experience."


Measuring Spiritual Force

In survey after survey since the 1960s, between 30 and 40
percent or so of those asked say they have, at least once or
twice, felt "very close to a powerful, spiritual force that
seemed to lift you out of yourself." Gallup polls in the 1990s
found that 53 percent of American adults said they had had "a
moment of sudden religious awakening or insight." Reports of
mystical experience increase with education, income and age
(people in their 40s and 50s are most likely to have them).

Yet many people seem no more able to have such an experience
than to fly to Venus. One explanation came in 1999, when
Australian researchers found that people who report mystical and
spiritual experiences tend to have unusually easy access to
subliminal consciousness. "In people whose unconscious thoughts
tend to break through into consciousness more readily, we find
some correlation with spiritual experiences," says psychologist
Michael Thalbourne of the University of Adelaide. Unfortunately,
scientists are pretty clueless about what allows subconscious
thoughts to pop into the consciousness of some people and not
others. The single strongest predictor of such experiences,
however, is something called "dissociation." In this state,
different regions of the brain disengage from others. "This
theory, which explains hypnotizability so well, might explain
mystical states, too," says Michael Shermer, director of the
Skeptics Society, which debunks paranormal phenomena. "Something
really seems to be going on in the brain, with some module
dissociating from the rest of the cortex."


The Neural Basis For Religious Experience

That dissociation may reflect unusual electrical crackling in
one or more brain regions. In 1997, neurologist Vilayanur
Ramachandran told the annual meeting of the Society for
Neuroscience that there is "a neural basis for religious
experience." His preliminary results suggested that depth of
religious feeling, or religiosity, might depend on natural - not
helmet-induced - enhancements in the electrical activity of the
temporal lobes. Interestingly, this region of the brain also
seems important for speech perception. One experience common to
many spiritual states is hearing the voice of God. It seems to
arise when you misattribute inner speech (the "little voice" in
your head that you know you generate yourself) to something
outside yourself. During such experiences, the brain's Broca's
area (responsible for speech production) switches on. Most of us
can tell this is our inner voice speaking. But when sensory
information is restricted, as happens during meditation or
prayer, people are "more likely to misattribute internally
generated thoughts to an external source," suggests psychologist
Richard Bentall of the University of Manchester in England in
the book "Varieties of Anomalous Experience."

Stress and emotional arousal can also interfere with the brain's
ability to find the source of a voice, Bentall adds. In a 1998
study, researchers found that one particular brain region,
called the right anterior cingulate, turned on when people heard
something in the environment - a voice or a sound - and also
when they hallucinated hearing something. But it stayed quiet
when they imagined hearing something and thus were sure it came
from their own brain. This region, says Bentall, "may contain
the neural circuits responsible for tagging events as
originating from the external world." When it is inappropriately
switched on, we are fooled into thinking the voice we hear comes
from outside us.

Even people who describe themselves as nonspiritual can be moved
by religious ceremonies and liturgy. Hence the power of ritual.
Drumming, dancing, incantations - all rivet attention on a single,
intense source of sensory stimulation, including the body's own
movements. They also evoke powerful emotional responses. That
combination - focused attention that excludes other sensory
stimuli, plus heightened emotion - is key. Together, they seem to
send the brain's arousal system into hyperdrive, much as intense
fear does. When this happens, explains Newberg, one of the brain
structures responsible for maintaining equilibrium - the
hippocampus - puts on the brakes. It inhibits the flow of signals
between neurons, like a traffic cop preventing any more cars
from entering the on-ramp to a tied-up highway.


�Softening Of The Boundaries Of The Self'

The result is that certain regions of the brain are deprived of
neuronal input. One such deprived region seems to be the
orientation area, the same spot that goes quiet during
meditation and prayer. As in those states, without sensory input
the orientation area cannot do its job of maintaining a sense of
where the self leaves off and the world begins. That's why
ritual and liturgy can bring on what Newberg calls a "softening
of the boundaries of the self" - and the sense of oneness and
spiritual unity. Slow chanting, elegiac liturgical melodies and
whispered ritualistic prayer all seem to work their magic in
much the same way: they turn on the hippocampus directly and
block neuronal traffic to some brain regions. The result again
is "blurring the edges of the brain's sense of self, opening the
door to the unitary states that are the primary goal of
religious ritual," says Newberg. Researchers' newfound interest
in neurotheology reflects more than the availability of cool new
toys to peer inside the working brain. Psychology and
neuroscience have long neglected religion. Despite its
centrality to the mental lives of so many people, religion has
been met by what David Wulff calls "indifference or even apathy"
on the part of science. When one psychologist, a practicing
Christian, tried to discuss in his introductory psych book the
role of faith in people's lives, his publisher edited out most
of it - for fear of offending readers. The rise of neurotheology
represents a radical shift in that attitude. And whatever light
science is shedding on spirituality, spirituality is returning
the favor: mystical experiences, says Forman, may tell us
something about consciousness, arguably the greatest mystery in
neuroscience. "In mystical experiences, the content of the mind
fades, sensory awareness drops out, so you are left only with
pure consciousness," says Forman. "This tells you that
consciousness does not need an object, and is not a mere
byproduct of sensory action." For all the tentative successes
that scientists are scoring in their search for the biological
bases of religious, spiritual and mystical experience, one
mystery will surely lie forever beyond their grasp. They may
trace a sense of transcendence to this bulge in our gray matter.
And they may trace a feeling of the divine to that one. But it
is likely that they will never resolve the greatest question of
all - namely, whether our brain wiring creates God, or whether God
created our brain wiring. Which you believe is, in the end, a
matter of faith.

With Anne Underwood

� 2001 Newsweek, Inc.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 30

             UFO Polls & Surveys [was: British Flying Saucer...

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 03:58:52 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:22:29 -0400
Subject: UFO Polls & Surveys [was: British Flying Saucer...


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:09:23 EDT
 >Subject: Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:51:21 -0700
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau's Folding

 >>Can anyone suggest a cheap-and-dirty measure or gauge of "Public
 >>Interest in UFOs" (PIU)? (public awareness?)

 >Well, I recently made a little inventory of public opinion
 >polls, both in the United States and in France, for my speech at
 >the last cinference in San Marino (Italy), the theme of which
 >was on Ufos and the Media.

 >I have gathered the main results on a Excel grid, which I am ready to
 >send as attached file if it is readable (can someone confirm that ?)
 >Here is a little excerpt of it, to give an idea.

<snip>


Hello Gildas:

Much appreciated! I cannot read Excel files. There should be
some way to convert the data to Plain Text (ASCII code) as in
this email.

A lot depends on the wording of the polls and the gaps present a
terrible problem of course.


Thanks again

- 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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                 Re: Lights In The Sky: Satan's Great Modern

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:19:21 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:24:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Lights In The Sky: Satan's Great Modern


 >Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 20:41:00 -0400
 >From: Kelly <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Lights In The Sky: Satan'S Great Modern Deception

 >[For those who don't know, the author of this article is a very
 >popular, and I would say influential charismatic Catholic
 >writer. I find his books fascinating because he chronicals his
 >life and weird experiences in detail and his eventual conversion
 >(back) to Catholiscm. I haven't read his books in years but they
 >are certain to be of interest to forteans. 'The Final Hour' is
 >one - I forget the other titles off hand. --Kelly]

 >http://www.spiritdaily.com/ufos.htm

 >LIGHTS IN THE SKY: SATAN'S GREAT MODERN DECEPTION

 >By Michael H. Brown

<snip>


Hello Kelly:

Looks like the Devil has been especially busy since 1947.

Michael Brown's mention of Pharaoh Thutmose caught my eye. The
Tulli Papyrus of PT is the very first (and one of the best)
entries on my 'Poubelle List' of discredited UFO sightings:

  http://www.jps.net/larryhat/DISCRED.html

Edoardo Russo wrote at length about this one, I only put in a
very brief description.

Brown wants accounts of such experiences "... only after
dabbling in the occult" which would therefore support his
spiritualist theories.


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 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                         UFO CE-II in Granada, Spain

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:14:09 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:29:41 -0400
Subject: UFO CE-II in Granada, Spain


SOURCE: Sociedad de Investigaciones Biofisicas (SIB-Betelgeuse)

DATE: April 29, 2001

Date: April 13, 2001

Time: 08:30 hrs

Place: Finca Buenavista, vicinity of Cortijo de La Polilla.
Municipality of Alhama de Granada.

Witness: Jesus Maldonado, approximately 40 years old. Single.
Tractor driver (on an hourly basis, working for the owners of a
number of farms).

Information about the area: The Alhama Spa, a source of hot
springs, is located in the vicinity. Alhama is one of the
geotectonically most active places in Europe.

Research team: Jos Antonio Martn Framit, Oscar Iborra, Antonio
Salinas. (and Juan Rodrguez as an assistant)


Description of the Incident:

Jesus Maldonado headed to work at the Buenavista farm early that
morning. Curiously the road leads him to the point by which the
tractor driver would later encounter the landed object and the
witness cannot explain why he was unable to see it at that time.

Maldonado boarded his tractor and began plowing. At 8:30 a.m he
became aware of an intense light toward the east, facing him. At
first he thought the light belonged to a motorcycle owned by one
of the area's goatherders, who was coming toward him for a chat.
Suddenly the light went off and he was able to see how a
trunco-conical object began rising from the ground to an
altitude of three meters. The object might have been three
meters in diameter by two meters tall. Its appearance was
metallic and a reddish-orange color. It was able to split in two
parts, a lower one (roughly 1/3 of the object) which remained
fixed and unmoving, and an upper part (roughly 2/3 of the
object) which rotated very slowly from left to right. The object
was windowless and lightless, and lacked signs or emblems on its
structure. It was located at a distance of some 200 meters. At
the time, the farm was cropland at the time. Normally barley is
cultivated and there were still remains of last year's barley
around, since the tractor had not yet started its work.

Maldonado stopped the tractor's motor and observed the object.
Something appeared to protrude from the lower, non-rotating part
- a sort of appendix which could not be clearly seen because the
sun was directly behind the object and the appendix was almost
on its back. He also noticed that object was not completely
circular - rather, it had some sort of gentle ondulations to its
structure. The objeto began to fly toward the witness without
making a sound, and moved at an extraordinarily slow rate of
speed. The witness was standing in a location slightly higher
thatn the object, so as the object moved toward him, it was also
rising very slowly to match the terrain. Maldonado suddenly felt
afraid and states in his own words that "I didn't know if to
start crying or run the away." The object placed itself at a
distance of 50 meters from the witness, stopping its forward
motion, and began to recede at exactly the same maddeningly slow
speed. It went beyond its landing point and placed itself near a
cattle farm known as La Polilla. It then stopped and began
heading toward the witness once more, however, when it passed
over him (heading westward) it was now quite high in the air.
The witness kept looking at it until the object seemed very
small in the sky 30 minutes elapsed from the initial sighting
until it disappeared completely. The witness composed himself
and continued with his work. He drove the tractor to the
object's landing area and finds an imprint measuring
approximately 3 meters in diameter with a wedge (measuring
approximately 1.5 meters) protruding through one of the sides of
the circle. All of the grass (last season's barley) was crushed
within the circle, although not extensively.Maldonado, por
desconocimiento, contina con su trabajo y ara la zona de la
huella.

That very same day, feeling rather scared and nervous, he told a
friend at Alhama de Granada about the incident. The friend
(Antonio Cerezo) hada also had a UFO experience a few years ago.
After thinking it over for several days, he decided to tell his
story to a journalist from the IDEAL newspaper to see if other
witnesses will step forward.

No further witnesses to this event have been found. The sighting
took place at 8:30 in the morning and although neighboring farms
are usually quite busy. Given the fact that it was Good Friday
very few people went outside to work the fields.

  S.I.B. rebuilt the landing print based on the witness's
  recollections and descriptions. We headed to the site and made
  some elecromagnetic readings which did not yield positive
  results. Soil samples were taken and shall be analyzed shortly
  in spite of the problem posed by the soil's tilling.

A visit to the S.I.B. page is recommended to see updates and
photograps of this case, which shall be made available to the
UFO community shortly.

Antonio Salinas Director,
Departament de Ufology/Exobiology
Sociedad de Investigaciones Biofsicas

http://listen.to/sib



##################
Translation (C) 2001. S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology (IHU).
Special thanks to Antonio Salinas, S.I.B-Betelgeuse












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clarke

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:59:19 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:31:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clarke


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:23:38 -0400

 >>The best way is the application of Occam's Razor - do not
 >>multiply hypotheses unnecessarily, always chose the simplest
 >>explanation as this is _probably_ correct. Applied to the
 >>Chiles-Whitted case, we chose a fireball meteor because that is
 >>the best fit given current knowledge and bearing in mind the
 >>foibles of human perception. To chose ET when a simpler
 >>explanation is available is neither logical nor scientific.

 >Exactly my point. This is a misuse of Occam:

 >1. We're in no position to assess how likely an alien visit
 >would be. Maybe the universe is full of aliens, zipping from
 >planet to planet, especially in our stellar neighborhood. Or
 >maybe that's not true at all. We simply don't know. So it's just
 >a prejudice on our part to assume that alien visits are
 >unlikely. It would also be a prejudice to assume that they _are_
 >likely.

 >2. The decision isn't between ET and a meteor. Brad Sparks and
 >Bruce Maccabbee have written eloquently about this on UpDates.
 >The pilots saw something. What? Do we think it's a meteor? Then
 >we need to establish that hypothesis. We do that -- as Dave
 >himself demonstrates in his investigations -- by looking at the
 >idea on its own merits.


Hi Greg,

The only misuse of Occam here is your own - the poor guy
must be turning in his grave.

Against your Brad Sparks and Bruce Maccabbe I'll place my RV
Jones of British Scientific Intelligence who helped us win a war
correctly using the principles of Occam's Razor to predict
advances in German V-weapons.

Of which he writes, with reference to essentia non sunt
multiplicanda praeter necessitatem "...if you start allowing
more complicated hypotheses than are essential to explain
the facts, you can launch yourself into a realm of fantasy
where your consequent actions will become misdirected..."
(Most Secret War, pp 371-2)

Jones is even more specific in his application of the Razor to
ufological buffery viz:

"Of all the possible explanations for a set of explanations, the
one with the minimum of supposition should be accepted, until it
is proved wrong. Otherwise one lives in a fearsomely imaginative
world in which rational conduct becomes impossible...Keeping all
these facts in mind the balance of evidence regarding flying
saucers - viewed against the critical situations in which I used
to have to decide on courses of action based on evidence from
eye-witnesses and other sources - is heavily against them being
intelligently controlled vehicles. But I also know that, even if
the current American and Russian investigations come to this
same conclusion or even a stronger one it will not discourage
the flying saucer believers. For these investigators are faced
with the impossible job, if flying saucers do not exist, of
proving a completely negative case. This is one of the most
difficult of all Intelligence tasks, and even if the
investigation is as thorough as humanly possible, the flying
saucer exponents will always be able to conjure new hypothesis
that had not been considered." (Natural Philosophy of Flying
Saucers, 1968)

That, Greg, just about sums up my thoughts on your continually
multiplying hypotheses...don't cut yourself on that razor!

And before I go, many thanks for your perceptive comments
concerning "The UFOs that Never Were." At least we now know that
at least one copy of the book has reached the United States.

As for only the British being subject to the influence of the
tabloid Press version of UFOlogy - who are you kidding?  How
about the National Enquirer - weren't they offering a prize for
the best UFO yarn shortly before Travis Walton was 'abducted' ?

Of course, that sort of media hype couldn't happen back home,
only to the Brits!

With regards to your point about our denigratory swipes against
"UFO buffs" - your point is?  I would point out that the book
was not written for 'UFOlogists,' we don't try to preach to
those who are already 'converted' - I was writing for the mass
of ordinary folk who don't necessarily 'buy' the idea of ET UFOs
on faith alone, and who may have a taste for critical thinking
noticeably absent from the monotous and servings receive from
the Ufological choir.


Best,

Dave Clarke








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                 Re: Lights In The Sky: Satan's Great Modern

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:27:46 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:26:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Lights In The Sky: Satan's Great Modern


 >Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 20:41:00 -0400
 >From: Kelly <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Lights In The Sky: Satan'S Great Modern Deception


 >[For those who don't know, the author of this article is a very
 >popular, and I would say influential charismatic Catholic
 >writer. I find his books fascinating because he chronicals his
 >life and weird experiences in detail and his eventual conversion
 >(back) to Catholiscm. I haven't read his books in years but they
 >are certain to be of interest to forteans. 'The Final Hour' is
 >one - I forget the other titles off hand. --Kelly]


 >http://www.spiritdaily.com/ufos.htm

 >LIGHTS IN THE SKY: SATAN'S GREAT MODERN DECEPTION

 >By Michael H. Brown

 >Since 1947, when a pilot named Kenneth Arnold spotted strange
 >objects near Mount Rainier, Washington, mankind has been
 >barraged by the reports: lights in the sky, "flying saucers,"
 >even alien abduction. It's no longer the stuff of the "lunatic
 >fringe." It's out there on the radio, in the mainstream
 >bookstores (where it now has its own section), and on network
 >shows. In 1997 the nation was transfixed by reports on CNN and
 >other news shows of inexplicable lights over Arizona.>

 >In the coming days and weeks we'll be reporting aspects of this
 >phenomenon because it has now reached a dangerous level. As we
 >will show, there's a deeply spiritual aspect - an aspect that
 >figures into the signs of our times - to unidentified flying
 >objects, or UFOs. Some of them may be hallucination; some of the
 >reports may be satellites; and for all we know, there may be
 >life on other planets. We're not ruling out any of those
 >possibilities - not even the chance that in cases like a strange
 >crash at Roswell, New Mexico (which also occurred in 1947),
 >reports of UFOs may be caused by the sighting of secret Air
 >Force craft. Indeed, many of the reports come from the vicinity
 >of military bases.

What this guy is saying is merely the updating of religious
interpretation that has been around since the 1960's at least.
Clifford Wilson, I recall correctly, had some book(s) on this
level of demonizing UFOnauts./ Others have referred to TRUFOs as
Angels, i.e. good,.

Perhaps he's right.

Perhaps not.

Perhaps TRUFOs/sightings, etc. have nothing to do with religion.

Perhaps TRUFOs are the source of religion. To ancient peoples the
abilities of TRUFOs to appear anywhere, anytime and to have extreme
capabilities could lead them to TRUFOs the three big O's
presumably characteristic of The Creator:

Omniscience

Ominpotence

Omnipresence

What we have to find out is whether we face love, hate or
indifference.

love: they made us and love their creation (angelic?)

hate: they did not make us and cannot figure us out (demonic?)

indifference: they didn't make us, they find us an interesting
               study, but they really don't care about us
               (humanity) one way or another


I go into this in more depth in my new book coming out this week
which I won't mention in order to avoid charges of "elitism" on
this List. Will be happy to mention the name to private
contacts for information.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 30

              Cydonian Imperative: 4-30-01 - 'Octagon' & 'Dome'

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:40:31 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 4-30-01 - 'Octagon' & 'Dome'


The Cydonian Imperative

4-30-01

For linked, illustrated version, visit:

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html


An Octagon on Cydonia
by Mac Tonnies


Yet another unusually symmetrical and geometric feature has been
located in the Cydonia region, site of the Face, City, Cliff and
D&M Pyramid.

[image]

Interesting Cydonia feature discovered by Trish Anderson.

Much like the six-sided feature located adjacent to Mound P, the
octagon appears highly eroded but distinctively "out of place."
The internal structure appears un-craterlike, arguing against
its being a shallow, buried crater (although this option remains
a possibility). As with The Eras Mounds discovered by Paul
Anderson, the "Octagon" may be a component of the Mound Geometry
Hypothesis developed by Dr. Horace Crater and Dr. Stanley
McDaniel.

[image]

The apparent geometric message conveyed by the Cydonian Mounds.

Careful study should tell us whether these features indeed
conform to aesthetic/mathematical tolerances or if they are
randomly placed, as would be expected of natural formations.


Dome-like Feature Next to Eras Mounds
by Mac Tonnies


Chris Joseph has detected a bizarre dome-like anomaly next to
the Eras Mounds identified by The Eras Project's Paul Anderson.
The Dome, at first take, appears crater-like, but decidedly less
so when seen in stereo.

[image]

The strange dome-like feature adjacent to the Eras
Mounds presented in stereo format. Note "groove": a
ramp of some kind?

Like many fine-scale enigmas found in the Cydonia region, the
"dome" exhibits angles and inconsistencies with the surrounding
terrain that suggest possible architectural origin. Moreover,
the "dome's" context near so many other small anomalies of
differing morphology (such as the Mounds, discussed in the
previous article) argue that the Cydonia region is worth looking
at from an archaeological perspective.

[image]

The equally spaced, linear (terraced?) mounds
discovered by Paul Anderson.

If any of the above features are in fact artificial, what do
they represent? The Dome may well be a building. Certain detail
along what can be seen of its shadowy perimeter may indicate a
deep foundation. Any number of reasons can be imagined why a
Martian civilization would build partially buried structures,
from the desire to maximize insulation from cosmic rays to the
need for subsurface water ice. Aesthetic implications are much
more difficult to postulate given the available data. The Eras
Mounds certainly suggest a certain mathematical redundancy, but
is this their raison d'etre or a by-product of their function?


[image]

The Eras Mounds, Dome and nearby "tube" seen in context.
"Widescreen" stereo presentation courtesy of Chris Joseph.

It's my position that the anomalies found in Cydonia alone
warrant close-up, preferably manned, surface exploration. We
seem to be looking back in time at artificial structures so old
they have begun to regress into the landscape (not an alien
phenomenon, I might point out; many formations here on Earth,
long considered "natural," have proven to be artificial upon
careful, high-tech inspection). The Cydonian Mounds and
associated anomalies deserve the same cautious approach.

-end-










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Apr > Apr 30

                Parkes Observatory In Oz Detects 'ET Signal'?

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:00:41 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:00:41 -0400
Subject: Parkes Observatory In Oz Detects 'ET Signal'?



From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

Source: http://sightings.com/general10/obz.htm

Swiss Radio Says ET Signal Detected By Parkes Observatory In Oz

By Gregory Palast <gregory.palast@observer.co.uk>

The Observer - London

 From Rumor Mill News
http://www.rumormillnews.net

4-29-1

Note - The Swiss radio report indicates the signals have been
picked up by the Parkes Observatory in Australia. The Swiss
site's announcement is in French. -ed


 From Patrick Goss in France
http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/indexe.htm 4-30-1

In the news section of this site you will find some English
translated information relaying a strange series of announcement
on Swiss Radio RSR "Premiere", their announcements are on:

http://212.74.180.17/lapremiere/parkes/index.htm

(This RSR page is sometimes not reachable)

In short, RSR announced the detection of an ET signal.

This is an ongoing affair, it started yesterday 4-29-01

I just thought you might like to echo this in your news section.

Of course the whole affair seems ridiculous, and the RSR radio
does not seem to be able to handle this at all. I have seen zero
media attention to this true or false announcement, so far.


All the best

Patrick Gross
France