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

                          UFO UpDates Mailing List
                                  Jun 2001

  Jun 1:

   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates - Robert Gates [31]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Gates - Robert Gates [32]
   CCCRN News: 05-31-01 - 'Dreamland' Radio Interview - Paul Anderson [31]
   Re: Corso And The Cuban Missile Crisis - Gates - Robert Gates [44]
   EW 2001 Mars Face 3D Model - Kurt Jonach [103]
   Russia: Reseracher Discloses Siberian UFO Crash - Scott Corrales [25]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Easton Threatens - Larry Hatch [48]
   The Flight of the Pelican [was: Easton Threatens - Jerome Clark [43]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [86]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Bruce Maccabee [71]
   Re: Talk And Action - Sparks - Brad Sparks [119]
   Re: Talk And Action - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [91]
   Re: Corso And The Cuban Missile Crisis - Sandow - Greg Sandow [33]
   Re: Corso And The Cuban Missile Crisis - Sandow - Greg Sandow [27]
   Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Velez - John Velez [63]
   Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Dennis Stacy [60]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Brad Sparks [200]
   Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [46]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Brad Sparks [147]

  Jun 2:

   Re: The Truth Is For Sale on Ebay - Bobbie Felder [43]
   UFO Video Goes To Hollywood - Todd Lemire [6]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young - Bob Young [31]
   Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET - Luis R. Gonzlez Manso [64]
   Re: Abductee's Books & Investigators - Luis R. Gonzlez Manso [91]
   Re: THE WATCHDOG - 06-02-01 - Royce J. Myers III [18]
   Re: Crash Retrieval, 9 Bodies, Three UFOs? - - Joe McGonagle [11]
   Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [239]
   Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Morris - Neil Morris [121]

  Jun 3:

   CCCRN News: 06-02-01 Time Change for Study Group - Paul Anderson [53]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rudiak - David Rudiak [155]
   Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [60]
   Puerto Rico: UFO Over Barrio Hoyos (San Juan) - Scott Corrales [83]
   Re: Talk And Action - Sparks - Brad Sparks [68]

  Jun 2:

   Re: UFO Video Goes To Hollywood - Hayes - John Hayes [28]
   Re: Abductee's Books & Investigators - Sandow - Greg Sandow [15]
   Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Sandow - Greg Sandow [52]
   Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Hall - Richard Hall [73]

  Jun 5:

   Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Sawers - William Sawers [53]

  Jun 4:

   Re: The Truth Is For Sale on Ebay - Hatch - Larry Hatch [46]
   Walker and MJ-12 - Grant Cameron [78]
   Re: Talk And Action - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [69]
   Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Sawers - William Sawers [116]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [49]
   More UFOs Seen Over Calama - Scott Corrales [26]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Rudiak - David Rudiak [447]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit -Randles - Jenny Randles [43]
   Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Hall - Richard Hall [104]
   Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Randle - Kevin Randle [318]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak - Bob Young [49]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark - Jerome Clark [190]
   Re: Members of the Press? - Rebecca Keith [9]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer - John Rimmer [82]

  Jun 5:

   Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Morris - Neil Morris [107]
   Re: The Truth Is For Sale On Ebay - Young - Bob Young [23]
   New Articles At 'The Lost Haven' - Roy J Hale [24]
   Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Randle - Kevin Randle [152]
   Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Hall - John Velez [179]
   Secrecy News -- 06/05/01 - Steven Aftergood [88]
   Re: The Truth Is For Sale On Ebay - Felder - Bobbie Felder [33]
   Re: Talk And Action - Dennis Stacy [27]
   Re: Talk And Action - Hall - Richard Hall [35]
   The Will To Believe - Richard Hall [16]
   What's Wrong With MUFON Brazil? - John Velez [85]
   Re: Members Of The Press? - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [30]

  Jun 6:

   Re: r. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [61]
   UFO ROUNDUP - Special Announcement - John Hayes [176]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [36]
   Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [86]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman - Stan Friedman [72]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman - Stan Friedman [65]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Friedman - Stan Friedman [321]

  Jun 7:

   List Direct Delivery Resumed - UFO UpDates - Toronto [7]
   Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET - Wilson - Katharina Wilson [30]
   Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [160]
   SSE Conference & Radio:Free:Elfis Webcast - SMiles Lewis [153]
   Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [92]
   Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates - Robert Gates [73]
   Filer's Files #23 -- 2000 - George A. Filer [473]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak - David Rudiak [303]
   Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Neil Morris [13]
   Re: Talk And Action - Hall - Richard Hall [40]
   Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET - Wislon - Katharina Wilson [144]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [72]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Friedman - Stan Friedman [72]
   Wanted: Humanoid Cases - Luis R. Gonzlez Manso [18]
   Press Release From Natural Light Productions - Kenny Young [58]
   Re: The Will To Believe - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [54]
   Re: Talk And Action - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [75]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Young - Bob Young [20]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young - Bob Young [20]
   Re: Talk And Action - Hall - Richard Hall [64]
   Re: The Will To Believe - Hall - Ed Gehrman [53]
   THE WATCHDOG - 06-06-01 - Royce J. Myers [10]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak - David Rudiak [63]
   Re: Members Of The Press? - Rebecca - Rebecca [43]
   Cydonian Imperative: 6-7-01 - Convex Feature in - Mac Tonnies [20]
   Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Gates - Robert Gates [18]
   UFOs, Chupacabras and Suicides in Calama, Chile - Dr. Virgilio
   Sanchez-Ocejo [84]
   June 1947 'Amazing Stories' For Sale - Paul B. Thompson [20]
   Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET - Cammack - Diana Cammack [44]
   Re: Talk And Action - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [29]
   Getting Down To Cases - Richard Hall [14]
   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [25]
   Re: Another Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa - Dave Ledger [84]
   Secrecy News -- 06/07/01 - Steven Aftergood [94]
   Re: What's Wrong With MUFON Brazil? - Ticchetti - Thiago Luiz Ticchetti
   [34]
   International UFO Research Day - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo [11]
   Disclosure Project IRC Chat June 10th 2001 - Giuliano-Jimmy-Marinkovicc
   [82]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman - Stan Friedman [121]
   MUFON Brazil Responds - Thiago Ticchetti [66]

  Jun 8:

   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Grant Cameron - Grant Cameron [37]
   Re: Wanted: Humanoid Cases - Hatch - Larry Hatch [36]
   Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord? - - Don Ledger [42]
   Joint Global Activities - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo [24]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [161]
   Menzel and Gill [Was: Revenna 1966) - Jerome Clark [83]
   Mexico: Strange Light In Nolo, Yucatan - Scott Corrales [44]
   Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord? - - Gary Anthony [61]

  Jun 9:

   Re: Ravenna 1966 - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [13]
   Re: Talk And Action - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [50]
   Re: The Will To Believe - Hall - Richard Hall [96]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer - John Rimmer [42]
   Re: Menzel and Gill - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [42]
   Re: Menzel and Gill - Rimmer - John Rimmer [63]
   Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord? - - Dave Ledger [38]
   Secrecy News -- 06/08/01 - Steven Aftergood [68]
   Astroalert: Martian Flares Sighted - Donald Ledger [62]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Hall - Richard Hall [27]
   Cydonian Imperative: 06-8-01 - Faceted 'Wall' - Mac Tonnies [23]
   Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa Vord - - Brad Sparks [49]
   Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord? - - Don Ledger [49]
   Re: Talk And Action - Sparks - Brad Sparks [84]
   Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa Vord? - - Dave Ledger [73]
   Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa Vord? - - Dave Clarke [44]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman - Stan Friedman [149]
   Alfred's Odd Ode #351 - Alfred Lehmberg [131]
   EW - 06-09-01 NASA Pressed To Photograph Mars - Kurt Jonach [105]
   Re: Talk And Action - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [101]
   Re: Menzel and Gill - Clark - Jerome Clar" [73]
   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Rudiak - David Rudiak [94]
   Re: Talk And Action - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [46]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [198]

  Jun 10:

   Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [151]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [35]
   Re: Talk And Action - Gates - Robert Gates [70]
   Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [67]
   Update Of Greenwood'S UFO Article Catalogue - Jan Aldrich [18]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [35]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder - Bobbie Felder [62]

  Jun 11:

   Re: Talk And Action - Sparks - Brad Sparks [237]
   Re: The Will To Believe - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [122]
   Saxa Vord and Captain Schafer - Anthony - Gary Anthony [56]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer - John Rimmer [24]
   COMETA Media Coverage - Haiko Lietz [43]
   NASA Consults Spain's CSIC Regarding Aeroliths - Scott Corrales [42]
   Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' [was: Serious Research] - - Ron EagleBoy [99]
   Re: Talk And Action - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [44]
   Re: Talk And Action - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [60]
   'The Lost Haven' New Articles - Roy J Hale [22]
   EW - 06-11-01 - Mars Face Update - Kurt Jonach [54]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer - John Rimmer [58]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [71]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman - Stan Friedman [112]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [86]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [25]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder - Bobbie Felder [89]
   Re: SDI Last Saturday Night Deserves An A+ - John Velez [33]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman - Stan Friedman [134]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman - Stan Friedman [89]

  Jun 12:

   More On '75 Saxa Vord UFO Case - Dave Ledger [49]
   Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Velez - John Velez [71]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Bott - Murray Bott [32]
   Two 19th Century Discs? - Chris Aubeck [15]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [62]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman - Stan Friedman [37]
   Electrogavitics: Control Of Gravity Not - Jess Fritch [80]
   Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET - Wilson - Katharina Wilson [27]
   Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [106]
   Stanton Friedman Documentary - Paul Kimball [12]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder - Bobbie Felder [17]
   Re: Talk And Action - Young - Bob Young [30]
   Re: Talk And Action - Young - Bob Young [16]
   Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Young - Bob Young [40]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder - Bobbie Felder [52]
   Chile: Senator Asks For Information On Chupacabras - Scott Corrales
   [68]
   Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Cash-Lundrum - Diana Cammack [50]
   Re: Electrogavitics: Control Of Gravity - Terry Blanton [21]
   On Isle Of Man Mount Snaefell Incident - Chris Rolfe [61]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman - Stan Friedman [42]
   Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Aubeck - Chris Aubeck [33]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hale - Roy J Hale [35]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [68]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [16]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [47]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [77]
   Ufologists Suing Ufologists - Andy Roberts [94]

  Jun 13:

   Crop Circles In Light Of Foot & Mouth? - Werner Walter [10]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [45]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hall - Richard Hall [84]
   Re: Talk And Action - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [36]
   Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [56]
   Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [21]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [38]
   Chile: Has NASA Set Its Sights On The Chupacabras? - Scott Corrales
   [62]

  Jun 14:

   Filer's Files #24 -- 2000 - George A. Filer [490]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder - Bobbie Felder [52]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder - Bobbie Felder [56]
   Strange Glow Over Brisbane, Australia - Glennys Mackay [38]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [25]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Haley - TimHaley [34]
   Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Velez - John Velez [77]
   Re: Ufologists Suing Ufologists - Lowe - Adam Lowe [23]
   New Magazine Of Possible Interest - Georgina Bruni [36]
   Re: Crop Circles In Light Of Foot & Mouth? - Hale - Roy J Hale [21]
   Skywatch News - 06-13-01 - Bill Hamilton [28]
   Official Turkish UFO Statement - Haiko Lietz [11]
   Re: Talk And Action - Hall - Richard Hall [70]
   Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [23]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [25]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [31]
   Re: Talk And Action - Rimmer - John Rimmer [27]
   Secrecy News -- 06/13/01 - Steven Aftergood [61]
   Re: Ufologists Suing Ufologists - Friedman - Stan Friedman [155]
   Re: Chile: Has NASA Set Its Sights On The - Cory Cameron [39]
   Chilean Senator: "Something Fishy" About - Scott Corrales [66]

  Jun 15:

   More Changes - "UFO UpDates - Toronto" [29]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hall - Richard Hall [47]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [68]
   Re: Talk And Action - Hale - Roy J Hale [68]
   The Real X-Files - 06-14-01 - Georgina Bruni [384]
   Nick Pope's Weird World - 06-04-01 - Georgina Bruni [104]
   Re: Ufologists Suing Ufologists - Roberts - Andy Roberts [130]
   New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created - John Rimmer [84]
   Re: Ufologists Suing Ufologists - Bolton - David Bolton [37]
   Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [40]
   UFO In 1863? - Chris Aubeck [25]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [8]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [35]
   Re: COMETA Media Coverage - Fernandes - Joaquim Fernandes [19]

  Jun 16:

   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [88]
   Secrecy News -- 06/15/01 - Steven Aftergood [75]
   X-PPAC Update - June 15, 2001 - Stephen G. Bassett [129]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [28]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hall - Richard Hall [16]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be - Jim Deardorff [45]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer - John Rimmer [38]
   Re: Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created - - Katharina Wilson
   [155]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Randle - Kevin Randle [222]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder - Bobbie Felder [48]
   EW - Mars Activists Fault NASA Spin Doctoring - Kurt Jonach [55]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Roberts - Andy Roberts [42]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be - Katharina Wilson [155]

  Jun 17:

   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hatch - Larry Hatch [23]
   Alfred's Odd Ode #352 - Alfred Lehmberg [134]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [32]
   Re: UFO In 1863? - Aubeck - Chris Aubeck [166]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [20]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be - Steve Owens [43]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [44]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be - John Velez [110]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [83]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be - Jim Mortellaro [139]
   Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter - Paul Kimball [136]
   International UFO Research Day - June 24 - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo
   [154]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder - Bobbie Felder [53]
   Cydonian Imperative - 06-17-01 - Face on Mars: - Mac Tonnies [132]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be - John Rimmer [22]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can - Donald Ledger [69]

  Jun 18:

   Re: Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter - Dennis Stacy [18]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [15]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [13]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be - Mac Tonnies [28]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [56]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [47]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [33]
   Re: Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter - Keith - Rebecca Keith [131]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be - Robert Gates [50]
   UFO Visits Chilean Supermarket - Scott Corrales [54]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Gates - Robert Gates [166]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - McCoy - GT McCoy [60]

  Jun 19:

   Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Richard Hall [104]
   UFO Over Santa Maria, Near Brasilia - Thiago Luiz Ticchetti [15]
   Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - EagleBoy - Ron EagleBoy [81]
   Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [42]
   Dust Bunny Hunt? - John Velez [51]
   Is This The Same As The Mysterious 'Roswell Metal'? - Steven L. Wilson,
   Sr [108]
   Comparison Of Unidentified Triangular Craft - Colm Kelleher [48]
   'Out Of This World' - Ron Cecchini [68]
   Secrecy News -- 06/18/01 - Steven Aftergood [108]
   Cydonian Imperative 06-19-01 - Mac Tonnies [18]

  Jun 20:

   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder - Bobbie Felder [26]
   Friedman Vs. Randles Articles Online - Bobbie Felder [18]
   Re: Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter - Boreham - Robert Boreham [43]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be - Katharina Wilson [39]
   THE WATCHDOG 06-19-01 - Royce J. Myers III [18]
   Re: UFO Visits Chilean Supermarket - Geib - Dan Geib [16]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [41]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be - Greg Sandow [32]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be - Greg Sandow [37]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be - John Velez [179]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be - John Velez [26]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hatch - Larry Hatch [21]
   Filer's Files #25 - 2001 - George A. Filer [476]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Robert Gates [191]
   CCCRN News: Circle Report #3 - Biggar, Saskatchewan - Paul Anderson
   [45]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Velez - John Velez [66]
   UFOs & Science Fiction - Raymond Perrez [13]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [74]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman - Stan Friedman [154]

  Jun 21:

   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [37]
   Re: Secrecy News -- 06/20/01 - Steven Aftergood [119]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Johnson - James Bond Johnson
   JBONJO@aol.com [53]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - McCoy - GT McCoy [104]
   A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Bruce Maccabee [11]
   Re: UFOs & Science Fiction - Hatch - Larry Hatch [26]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - - Serge Salvaille [88]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [38]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Velez - John Velez [92]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [44]
   Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Velez - John Velez [34]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez - John Velez [89]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [27]

  Jun 22:

   Etzikom UGM Site, Alberta - Chris Rutkowski [56]
   FOX News Item - Kenny Young [24]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle - Kevin Randle [102]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Randle - Kevin Randle [215]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer - John Rimmer [66]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle - Kevin Randle [96]
   UFO*BC Updates - 06-21-01 - David Pengilly [35]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [31]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [79]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [34]
   Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee
   [20]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [50]

  Jun 23:

   Re: UFOs & Science Fiction - Perrez - Raymond Perrez [31]
   Beyond Contact - Winners List - Joe McGonagle [8]
   Twilight Photos Of Low-Flying Disc Over Oz? - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [77]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Velez - John Velez [140]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Velez - John Velez [66]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Wilson - Katharina Wilson
   [65]
   Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Velez - John Velez [31]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez - John Velez [133]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Hall - Richard Hall [34]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [33]
   UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Chris Rolfe [90]
   UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Chris Rolfe [88]
   NIDS 'Official Organization' For FAA UFO Reports - Colm Kelleher [26]

  Jun 24:

   Secrecy News -- 06/22/01 - Steven Aftergood [116]
   Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Young - Bob Young [114]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Haley - Tim Haley [49]
   Ira Einhorn On Radio Mysterioso Sunday - SMiles Lewis [55]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Roberts - Andy Roberts [38]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman - Stan Friedman [99]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman - Stan Friedman [122]
   Beckley, West Virginia Oddity - Kenny Young [40]
   Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Young - Bob Young [41]
   Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Young - Bob Young [31]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Wilson - Katharina Wilson
   [65]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [64]
   Cydonian Imperative - 06-24-01 Enigma Of The - Mac Tonnies [50]

  Jun 25:

   Info On Recent Missouri Activity? - Chris Burns [20]
   Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Velez - John Velez [81]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - McCoy - GT McCoy [66]
   Zyziggy - Bob Young [12]
   Re: Beckley, West Virginia Oddity - Hatch - Larry Hatch [56]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle - Kevin Randle [100]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle - Kevin Randle [86]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark - Jerome Clark [39]
   Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee
   [23]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [45]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Randle - Kevin Randle [156]
   E-Mail Addresses? - Thiago Ticchetti [22]
   Re: Ira Einhorn On Radio Mysterioso Sunday - Royce J. Myers III [13]
   Re: E-Mail Addresses? - Wilson - Steven L. Wilson, Sr [20]
   Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - - Jim Mortellaro [49]
   Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [98]
   TUVPO Announcement On 'Disclosure Project' - Ali Erdogan [38]
   Re: E-Mail Addresses? - Sandow - Greg Sandow [21]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [45]
   NIDS - The Case Of The Flying Varistor - Colm Kelleher [18]

  Jun 26:

   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez - John Velez [131]
   Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Velez - John Velez [83]
   Re: UFO UpDate: E-Mail Addresses? - Hayes - John Hayes [44]
   Re: Beckley, West Virginia Oddity - Hall - Richard Hall [67]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Friedman - Stan Friedman [40]
   Chilean Senator: "Chupacabras Must Be Taken - Scott Corrales [130]
   Argentina: Giant UFO Videoed In Cachi - Scott Corrales [56]
   Re: Zyziggy - Friedman - Stan Friedman [21]
   Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee
   [17]
   Re: UFOs & Science Fiction - Hatch - Larry Hatch [26]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Felder - Bobbie Felder [24]
   Re: Beckley, West Virginia Oddity - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [76]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Gates - Robert Gates [28]
   Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Gates - Robert Gates [17]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Gates - Robert Gates [27]
   Cydonian Imperative: 06-26-01 Kurt Jonach - Mac Tonnies [23]
   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman - Stan Friedman [73]
   Re: Zyziggy - Young - Bob Young [15]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories - Wilson - Katharina Wilson [88]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - - Sue Strickland [57]
   Barney Barnett [was: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit] - Ed Gehrman [28]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Velez - John Velez [167]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Velez - John Velez [53]
   Re: Secrecy News -- 06/26/01 - Steven Aftergood [107]
   Re: Info On Recent Missouri Activity? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [43]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [54]
   Humanoid Contact 1993 - Roy J Hale [8]
   UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Kenny Young [29]
   Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [80]

  Jun 27:

   UFO - GROUP 3 - New Telephone Number - Chris Rolfe [13]
   Filer's Files #26 -- 2001 FAA UFO Disclosure - George A. Filer [514]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - - Jim Mortellaro [145]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Lemire - Todd Lemire [57]
   Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate - Scott Corrales [55]
   Re: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate - Hall - Richard Hall [67]
   Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Myers - Royce J. Myers III
   [16]
   Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Blanton - Terry Blanton
   [12]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Randle - Kevin Randle [58]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Sandow - Greg Sandow [42]
   Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Ledger - Dave Ledger [34]
   Re: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate - - Bruce Maccabee [31]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez - John Velez [140]
   Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - - Bruce Maccabee [36]

  Jun 28:

   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [65]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Felder - Bobbie Felder [57]
   Cydonian Imperative: 06-27-01 'Eye' Designed to - Mac Tonnies [93]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - - Jim Mortellaro [121]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [58]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Lemire - Todd Lemire [71]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [19]
   Re: Activist-Enthusiast Or Misanthropist? - Robert H. Williams [76]
   Activist-Enthusiast Or Misanthropist? - Robert H. Williams [76]
   Billy Cox Back In UFO Game? - Grant Cameron [102]
   Re: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate - McCoy - GT McCoy [41]
   Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Young - Kenny Young [13]
   Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Velez - John Velez [53]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Velez - John Velez [63]
   A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble - John Velez [38]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman - Stan Friedman [85]
   Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Ledger - Don Ledger [19]
   'Swamp Gas Times' Is Out - Dennis Stacy [8]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - - Serge Salvaille [107]

  Jun 29:

   British Flying Saucer Bureau - Still Open! - Bill Hamilton [17]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Sandow - Greg Sandow [17]
   CCCRN News: 06-29-01 Circle Report #3 - Paul Anderson [31]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Sandow - Greg Sandow [27]
   PRA - James Randi Headed For Australia - John Auchettl [53]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Velez - John Velez [91]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Velez - John Velez [92]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Velez - John Velez [33]
   Re: Billy Cox Back In UFO Game? - Young - Bob Young [20]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [30]
   'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - Jim Deardorff [85]
   Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Dave - Dave Ledger [101]
   Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - - Bruce Maccabee [32]
   Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Bolton - David Bolton [24]

  Jun 30:

   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [32]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [25]
   Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Lemire - Todd Lemire [59]
   Secrecy News -- 06/29/01 - Steven Aftergood [91]
   Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - - Jim Mortellaro [138]
   Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Blanton - Terry Blanton
   [15]
   Re: Barney Barnet - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [25]
   Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - McCoy - GT McCoy [154]
   Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Velez - John Velez [53]
   Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - Velez - John Velez [57]
   Carter, Sheehan & Menzel - sqquishy@altavista.com [176]
   Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle - Kevin Randle [160]
   Re: Barney Barnett - Randle - Kevin Randle [153]
   Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau - Still Open! - - Larry Hatch [27]
   'Global UFO Alert' - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo [43]
   Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Myers - Royce J. Myers III
   [21]
   Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [7]
   Jaime Maussan - Royce J. Myers III [8]
   Sega On Mars! - John Tenney [19]

   The number enclosed in brackets is the number of lines of new text in





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

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:16:42 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 10:52:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 01:54:20 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>(When pressed for details in letters and other phone
 >>conversations, however, Walker clammed up.)

 >Hello, Brad, David:

 >The obvious reading of Walker's comments, to me, was that he was
 >answering Steinman's questions very tongue in cheek.  At one
 >point he told him that he sure doesn't have any aliens in his
 >office at Penn State.  The so called clamming up seems to have
 >been after Walker realized that he was getting these calls from
 >somebody without a sense of humor who was quite serious about
 >his preposterous questions - a real saucer nut.

I have heard the rationalization over the years about how Walker
was just answering questions tongue in cheek. In years gone by
the people who used that crutch were attempting to explain away
Walkers comments because they couldn't directly discredit him so
the comments have to be explained away by the suggestion that it
was a joke.

As to Bobs comments Walker could have also been trying to
clarify the point that he personally did not have an aliens in
his office.

Having interviewed some people who worked on TS/Codeword
projects for Cold War history research you have to be very
careful what questions you ask and what areas you ask about
because people will just clam up and say no more especially if
they perceive you as going to far and or to direct.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:28:58 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 10:54:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Gates


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:47:41 +0100

<snip>

 >Does this anecdote relate to Zamora's sighting?

 >We will find out shortly.

 >In a major breakthrough, I have been able to locate a source
 >which records every known article ever published about hot-air
 >balloons. During the time-frame Larry states and within two of
 >the magazines he recalls reading, there are indeed related
 >features.

 >I have simply ordered copies of all such material published
 >between 1963 and 1967 - a total of ten articles.

 >One way or another, their overall historical content should
 >fundamentally clarify the question of whether our Socorro UFO
 >was merely a hot-air balloon.

It may turn out to be an absolute load of hot air.

 >All will hopefully be revealed over the next few days.

If it doesn't clearly support the balloon theory, or even
partially support it we likely won't hear another word about it.

<snip>

 >Having done so, this is my last contribution to 'UFO UpDates'  -
 >I will no longer receive UpDates mail either - as I need to
 >avoid inane distractions from actual research which is being so
 >productive.

Didn't we hear something like this around the time the skeptics
UFO List was lifting off?

It will be interesting to see if the balloon theory floats or
not... even if the ballon is only partially inflated.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 1

             CCCRN News: 05-31-01 - 'Dreamland' Radio Interview

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:33:10 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 10:56:14 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News: 05-31-01 - 'Dreamland' Radio Interview


CCCRN NEWS
The E-News Service of the Canadian Crop Circle Research Network

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

June 1, 2001

_____________________________


'DREAMLAND' RADIO INTERVIEW

Discussion on the Canadian and worldwide crop circles with CCCRN
founder and director Paul Anderson and Linda Moulton Howe.

'Dreamland' with Whitley Strieber
Saturday, June 2, 2001
Live, 8:30 pm - 10:00 pm PT

http://www.unknowncountry.com/dreamland

Also now available on TVRO analog satellite for home dish owners
- GE-3, also known as W-7, Transponder 18, 6.8 Wideband audio


____________________________


The Canadian Crop Circle Research Network is a non-profit
organization which investigates the crop circle phenomenon and
possibly related phenomena in Canada, creating a liason between
researchers, farmers, the public, the media and scientists in
trying to solve this ongoing enigma


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 Branches:
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 >
   Jun > Jun 1

               Re: Corso And The Cuban Missile Crisis - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:52:18 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:00:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Corso And The Cuban Missile Crisis - Gates


 >From: Williams Sawers <syntax@slingshot.co.nz>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Corso And The Cuban Missile Crisis
 >Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 13:00:51 +1200

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 03:14:34 EDT
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Corso And The Cuban Missile Crisis

 >>Someone recently asked what was available that shows JFK and top
 >>level officials _knew_ that soviet equipment was being put into
 >>Cuba. (in connection with Corso book) I mentioned that people
 >>knew about this long before October 15, 1962.

 >>If interested I suggest that you go to this web link:

 >>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/03-01.gif

 >>Of additional interest see the classification of the document,
 >>i.e. Top Secret & Sensitive.

 >>There are many other documents around, especially just after the
 >>infamous Bay of Pigs fiasco in which people were alleging that
 >>soviet equipment and troops were being dumped into Cuba.

 >Robert,

 >You keep saying the same thing Robert, and the only answer is to
 >repeat....

 >No one is saying the top brass didn't know equipment was being
 >moved into Cuba. It wasn't the fact that JFK, CIA or the
 >military didn't _know_, you have shown that, over and over
 >again, that they did! I believe you Robert and agree. What has
 >been said by Ed and myself is that the administration _chose_
 >(at that time), to ignore it, as JFK didn't want a confrontation
 >with the Russians at this point in his term

Key thing is that long before Corso fell out of the wood work
there were both storys at the public level and classified intel
estimates showing that Russian military equipment was being
introduced to Cuba and as you mentioned JFK choose to do nothing
about it _until_ he had proof positive, in hand, of the
introduction of _offensive_ military equipment.

 >It wasn't untill Corso was _secretly_ leaked the photographs
 >(not that he was the only one that knew) of the Nuclear

The photos of the missile cannisters were not "secretly leaked"
nor did the press ever have the photos _until_ the
administration choose to publicly reveal them at the UN to
illustrate to the world how the Soviets were lying about having
missiles in cuba.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                         EW 2001 Mars Face 3D Model

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 03:06:44 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:08:16 -0400
Subject: EW 2001 Mars Face 3D Model



------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE GALLERY

The Electric Warrior : Gallery June 1, 2001
http://www.electricwarrior.com/gallery/

------------------------------------------------------------
A TRICK OF LIGHT & SHADOW
2001 Mars Face 3D Model

http://www.electricwarrior.com/gallery/ewArtWorks000A.htm

There are titanic geological features on a hill in Cydonia,
whether shaped by natural processes or arranged by an unknown
hand, which at the right time of day yield the unmistakable
impression of human features. If it wasn't so, there wouldn't be
a landform we call the Face on Mars.

This 3D model of the enigmatic Martian anomaly is based on a
photograph by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, taken in
April of 2001. The image, captured under bright, overhead
sunlight, is a boon to scientific analysis on either side of the
argument, for or against artificiality. Researchers need these
kind of images for scientific analysis. After all, we already
knew it looked something like a face.

The low contrast, but highly detailed new photograph is a
reasonably good candidate for computer generated shape-from-
shading. It's true that there are very accurate digital
elevation maps, but data from MGS doesn't resolve the Cydonia
landform with the same accuracy as the on-board camera. Another
way of saying this is that the digital wireframe mesh is too
widely spaced to render any significant details on the mile long
Martian mesa.

The artist used software that employed sophisticated ray-tracing
algorithms to simulate the effect of various lighting
conditions. The process unavoidably creates exaggerated ridges
and trenches, but the results are unsurprisingly similar to
historic Viking Orbiter images, which first brought the
face-like features to our attention.

There are two views offered, one from the viewpoint you are
probably most familiar with, and another from a viewpoint east
of the mesa. Features on the east side of the Face on Mars are,
for the first time, now clearly visible in the new photograph.

------------------------------------------------------------
ETI & THE BODY POLITIC

http://www.electricwarrior.com/gallery/ewArtWorks0009.htm

UFOs OVER WASHINGTON DC

This image recalls the UFO flap over Washington DC in July of
1952. The week-long series of sighting was corroborated by both
radar and ground-based observations.

Following national attention by the press, the Air Force's
official explanation was that hot air had caused temperature
inversions resulting in unidentified radar targets.

This image is based on a photograph from the National Archives,
taken on the occasion of Eisenhower's inauguration to the
Presidency.

BLACK OPS

A wide variety of almost mythological imagery has become
associated with the phenomena of unidentified flying objects
(UFOs) and extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI).

 From the plausible to the untenable, they include highly
classified experimental aircraft, shadow governments funded by
questionable financing, mysterious off-world technologies, and
covert operations covered-up by intimidating men in black.

WHY DON'T THEY LAND ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN?

A classic UFO question posed by skeptic and Ufologist alike.

This view of the White House, based on a photo from the National
Archives, is from Pennsylvania Avenue, facing Washington DC's
Lafayette Park, which is perhaps somewhat less accessible than
the more familiar view from Constitution Avenue.

THOSE WHO KNOW DON'T TALK

The letters "SOM1-01" on the document held by Truman and
Eisenhower's alien companion represent the notorious MJ-12
Operations Manual.

The MJ-12 documents are a set of allegedly highly classified
government documents relating to the UFO cover-up.

Note that Truman wears sun-glasses at night, indicating both the
covert nature of the meeting, and an implicit approval of
their strange collaborator's appearance and agenda.

------------------------------------------------------------
MARS BECKONS

http://www.electricwarrior.com/gallery/ewArtWorks0008.htm

Two false-color images of anomalous plant-like features on Mars
are juxtaposed with images of scientific investigation.

The artist has colorized two NASA photographs of features
captured at the Martian south pole during the spring season.
Scientists have suggested that the mystery of the dark green
areas on Mars could be explained by the seasonal flourishing and
decay of Martian vegetation.

The astronomer Percival Lowell went far beyond that notion, by
also deducing the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence.
Lowell and his map of the south pole are superimposed over an
actual photograph of the residual polar ice cap, taken by the
Mars Global Surveyor at the height of Summer.

The Hubble Space Telescope is shown against one of its full
color, visible light photographs of Mars.

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
June 1, 2001
Silicon Valley, CA

http://www.electricwarrior.com/

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

Web developers, the URL address for this content is:

http://www.electricwarrior.com/gallery/ewArtWorks000A.htm
http://www.electricwarrior.com/gallery/ewArtWorks0009.htm
http://www.electricwarrior.com/gallery/ewArtWorks0008.htm

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 >
   Jun > Jun 1

               Russia: Reseracher Discloses Siberian UFO Crash

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:53:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:19:44 -0400
Subject: Russia: Reseracher Discloses Siberian UFO Crash


SOURCE:  "El Diario" Newspaper, Bolivia
DATE: 1 June  2001 (International Edition)


INTERNATIONAL

Researcher Discloses UFO Crash in Siberia

Moscow, May 31 (ANSA).-  A mysterious spherical object and built
with technology that does not exist on our planet was discovered
some time ago in the vicinity of Dalnegorsk in Siberia's
Primorye Region, according to Lyudmila Tselina, a researcher
with the Russian space center..

Tselina, who has been studying the UFO phenomenon for quite some
time and has been engaged in collecting documents and amterial,
told the Russian newspaper Trud that the object "fell at a
velocity fo 15 meters per second over Mount Isumrudnaia,"
proving that it was not a meteorite.Se trataba de una esfera
rojiza que fue examinada escrupulosamente por los mejores
expertos de varios institutos de la academia rusa de las
ciencias, los cuales coincidieron en su origen no terrestre .

The object, whose function is unknown and whose diameter and
present whereabouts are unknown, was made of materials unknown
on Earth and which resisted the action of all known chemicals.

Tselina confirmed other sightings and UFO discoveries, among
them the landing of one measuring 3 meters in diameter between
Moscow and St. Petersburg.


####################################
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 >
   Jun > Jun 1

               Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Easton Threatens

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 05:08:28 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:21:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Easton Threatens


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:31:28 -0500

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:30:08 -0000

 >Dick,

 >>In a private communication received today, James Easton has
 >>threatened me (and two other parties) with a lawsuit for alleged
 >>"defamation" in regard to criticism of his position on the
 >>Socorro case as posted on the NICAP web site.

 >>I think the List should know of the depths to which debunkers
 >>sometimes will sink when you disagree with their statements.
 >>Nothing I said is even remotely personal or actionable, and I
 >>strongly stand by what I said.

 >>This is very reminiscent of an incident a couple of years ago
 >>when Gary Posner, barely noted CSICOP debunker, threatened me
 >>with a lawsuit after I publicly (knowingly in his presence)
 >>criticized CSICOP's unscientific behavior.

 >When I worked for Fate many years ago, James Oberg threatened to
 >sue over a critical article on UFO debunkers that David M.
 >Jacobs wrote in a book we put together (Proceedings of the First
 >International UFO Congress, Warner Books, 1980). Our publisher
 >was sufficiently scared that it canceled an intended second
 >printing of the book. Oberg had no case, but as we all know,
 >there is no "winning" in a slander suit by the time you've paid
 >off all the lawyers.

 >CUFOS and I went through a legal ordeal from the self-same
 >self-important Gary P. Posner, after I'd written a hard-hitting
 >IUR editorial on the excesses of CSICOP and its debunking fellow
 >travelers. Pelicanists love to dish it out, but some of their
 >number aren't much good at taking it. I guess they figure that
 >it's better to silence critics than to engage them in rational
 >debate - a debate that, I suspect, even they must fear they'd
 >lose.


Hello all:


Before this thread wanders further away, and not that its any of
my business really... I'm curious as to the substance of
Easton's threatened lawsuit.

Can someone provide URLs to the specific web pages with the
'defamatory' material, and possibly the specific nature of
Easton's complaints?

I suppose I could browse it up, but then I'm left guessing, as
most of us no doubt are.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 1

              The Flight of the Pelican [was: Easton Threatens

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:33:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:23:11 -0400
Subject: The Flight of the Pelican [was: Easton Threatens


 >Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:44:37 -0300
 >From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca (Donald . Ledger)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:47:41 +0100

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:30:08 -0000

 >>It was, after all, Dr Jacqueline Mitton, media spokesperson and
 >>Press Officer for the prestigious Royal Astronomical Society who
 >>wrote, "your detailed research adds strong weight to the
 >>interpretation of Arnold's sighting as birds" and expressed how
 >>she would like to inform the British Association for the
 >>Advancement of Science.

 >>Dr Mitton, the Society's spokesperson for the past ten years, is
 >>highly knowledgeable about the subject of 'UFOs' and has written
 >>a children's book called 'Aliens' (Walker Books) which covers,
 >>"UFOs, aliens in fiction, the possibility of life elsewhere in
 >>space, and SETI".

Since when does writing a children's book on something make one
an authority on that subject? All it tells me is that Easton's
beloved Dr. Mitton has a child's-level understanding of the UFO
problem's many complexities. No wonder she claims to take
seriously Easton's hilarious pelican speculation about the
Arnold sighting.

 >>Having done so, this is my last contribution to 'UFO UpDates' -
 >>I will no longer receive UpDates mail either - as I need to
 >>avoid inane distractions from actual research which is being so
 >>productive.


"Inane" is any opinion contrary to Easton's own, and
"productive" -- given what we've seen of his work to date -- is
purely a product of his own self-stroking imagination. From now
on, he need not worry about challenges to his own beliefs,
otherwise known as reality checks. Now, as the pelicanist flaps
his way back home to the nest, he can remain blissfully deaf to
dissenting views and and inconvenient data and wrap himself in
the warmth of his own child's-level grasp of ufology. One
doesn't know whether to laugh or weep.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:49:29 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:26:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Maccabee


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:47:41 +0100

 >Regarding:

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:30:08 -0000

<snip>

 >Any critical remarks borne of earnest beliefs in the Arnold or
 >Zamora cases and directly relating to case evidence, wouldn't
 >trouble me in the slightest.

 >It was, after all, Dr Jacqueline Mitton, media spokesperson and
 >Press Officer for the prestigious Royal Astronomical Society who
 >wrote, "your detailed research adds strong weight to the
 >interpretation of Arnold's sighting as birds" and expressed how
 >she would like to inform the British Association for the
 >Advancement of Science.

 >That's _the_ Royal Astronomical Society and _the_ British
 >Association for the Advancement of Science.

 >Dr Mitton, the Society's spokesperson for the past ten years, is
 >highly knowledgeable about the subject of 'UFOs' and has written
 >a children's book called 'Aliens' (Walker Books) which covers,
 >"UFOs, aliens in fiction, the possibility of life elsewhere in
 >space, and SETI".

 >A full length feature on that research and its startling
 >conclusions was scheduled to be published in The Times
 >newspaper. That's _the_ London Times. For reasons I won't go
 >into, it's currently 'pending' and will appear in due course.
 >This is amongst other ongoing publication developments which
 >will be announced in future.

 >It was a foremost 'debunker' and highly regarded writer within
 >the 'Skeptical community', who commented on my 'Fortean Times'
 >article, "Don't tell Phil Klass this, but I think that
 >'pelicans' sound MUCH more plausible to me than meteors. Keep up
t>he good work". Along with many other comments from those who
 >were not fanatical about Arnold's 'flying saucers', I've always
 >therefore been aware of the meaningful feedback and an accurate
 >perspective of my case research. The conclusions of course also
 >met with approval from Martin Kottmeyer.>

 >It has occurred to me that Dr Mitton's favourable review is
 >possibly the only instance of a ufologist's research being
 >endorsed by such an august scientific body.

Easton may never see this, but what the heck, I'll write it
anyway,.

1) Dr. Jacquiline Milton may be highly knowledgeable about
UFOs, but if she accepts Eastons pelican explanation without

(a) solving the bright reflection problem and

(b) solving the dynamics problem (DRAW A MAP Prove that

Arnold could fly past the pelican track without either getting
so close as to recognize them or flying right past them then she
is not as highly knowledgeable as Easton would have us believe.
(I wonder how many sightings see has explained?)

Without her explanation of how or why problems 1 and 2 are
unimportant, her acceptance of Easton's pelicanization of Arnold
is just another example of "any port in a storm" or, in this
case Debunker Rule #1: Any Explanation is Better than None.

When will scientists wake up to the fact that any proposed
explanation (Candidate Explanatory Hypothesis) must be proven
correct or at least convincing. Easton's pelican explanation has
problems that make it unconvincing at best and mre likely just
plain wrong!

2) Her endorsement of Easton's Candidate Explanatory Hypothesis
(not a proven explanation despite Easton's strong BELIEF ...
that exceeds rationality....) is not the same as endorsement by
the "august scientific body" she belongs to.

But even if the "august body" did endorse the explanation, I
suspect it would be without much of, if any, investigation on
their own to find out if Easton's explanation is solid or lk a
swiss cheese... full of holes.

Comments by "august bodies:" and "experts" talking out of their
fields of research are often wrong. Sir Bernard Lovell is likely
a member of the same august body. At least, he is generally
known to be an "august" person. Yet he publicly "explained" the
Dec. 1978 New Zealand film sightings as "unburned meteorites."
What a laugh! (Oh, well, you can't be right every time..right?
But it would be nice to be right at least once. Lovell took his
shot and lost.)

3) as for the "foremost debunker" he/she is just falling into
the standard debunker routine: RULE # 2 for Debunkers: if the
first explanation (or in Arnold's case, the first 6 or so
explanations) is not convincing, publish another.

I presume he/she doesn't even know that the pelican explanation
has problems (a) and (b) above because I presume Easton didn't
bother to tell him/her.







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

                         Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:52:09 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:28:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:12:16 EDT
 >Subject: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [was Re: Debunkers' Guidebook]
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 01:54:20 EDT
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:56:44 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young>

 ><snip>

 >>>>Also fingered by Sarbacher as being involved in briefings at
 >>>>Wright-Patterson was Dr. Eric Walker (President of Penn State
 >>>>University and former head of the Dept. of Electrical
 >>>>Engineering and Dean of Engineering and Architecture). Walker
 >>>>also served as Executive Secretary of the Research and
 >>>>Development Board from 1950 to 1952. The RDB was the brainchild
 >>>>of Bush to continue defense-related research and development and
 >>>>came into being. Lloyd Berkner, another alleged MJ-12 member was
 >>>>Bush's first Executive Secretary (also a member of the CIA's
 >>>>infamous Robertson Panel in 1953).>

 >>>I seem to recall that Walker when interviewed in the 80's was
 >>>spouting all kinds of wild conspiracy theories and claims -
 >>>JFK?, Nazis ? I think it's in a Hesemann book.

 >>>>Another member of the RDB who independently named Bush, Berkner,
 >>>>von Neumann, and Walker as either probably or definitely
 >>>>involved was Dr. Fred Darwin, who was the RDB's Executive
 >>>>Director of the Guided Missile Committee from 1949 to 1954.
 >>>>William Steinman interviewed Walker by phone in 1987. According
 >>>>to Steinman's transcript of his phone conversation, Walker
 >>>>initially admitted to attending meetings of the RDB "concerning
 >>>>the military recovery of flying saucers and the bodies of
 >>>>occupants" around 1950. When Steinman brought up the subject of
 >>>>MJ-12, Steinman said Walker's reply was, "Yes, I know of MJ-12.
 >>>>I have known of them for 40 years."

 >>>That would be before Walker served on the RDB in 1950-2. We have
 >>>to rely on Steinman's memory and interpretations since there is
 >>>no transcript and Steinman may have read his own knowledge into
 >>>it.

 >>>>(When pressed for details in letters and other phone
 >>>>conversations, however, Walker clammed up.)

 >>Hello, Brad, David:

 >>The obvious reading of Walker's comments, to me, was that he was
 >>answering Steinman's questions very tongue in cheek. At one
 >>point he told him that he sure doesn't have any aliens in his
 >>office at Penn State. The so called clamming up seems to have
 >>been after Walker realized that he was getting these calls from
 >>somebody without a sense of humor who was quite serious about
 >>his preposterous questions - a real saucer nut.

 >As usual, Bob Young resorts to gross misrepresentation in order
 >to debunk. There were multiple conversations with people other
 >than Steinman, and at no time does Walker talk about "aliens in
 >his closet" with Steinman (that was with somebody else). Walker
 >was clearly quite serious initially with Steinman.>

 >I would also like to clear up Brad Sparks suggestion that Walker
 >was spouting all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories in his
 >conversations. I wish Brad wouldn't resort to debunker tactics
 >of trying to discredit people by ridiculing simply because he
 >doesn't believe in the existence of an organization such as
 >MJ-12. The "MJ-12 papers" could all be fakes, yet there could
 >still have existed an MJ-12-type group, whether under that name
 >or something else.

 >Instead, we should be listening carefully to what Walker had to
 >say after being fingered as being involved by Drs. Sarbacher and
 >Darwin, both formerly associated with the Research and
 >Development board around 1950.

I thank DAvid Rudiak for posting this very illuminating message
about conversations with EHW.

I was aware of Steinman's conversations
but not the others (I may have read in the past and not recalled).

I was not aware that Azedehdal had spoken with him.

I never did.

I did talk to Sarbacher, however.








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

                        Re: Talk And Action - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <B47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:44:16 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:30:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Sparks


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:25:50 -0500


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 05:11:00 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 12:00:45 -0500
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Stacy

 >>>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 20:59:21 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>And here you again don't actually respond to the points I made
 >>about your postings about AF honesty/dishonesty in the part of
 >>my post you snipped out, nor do you say anything about the
 >>important point I made that Executive Order 12958 requires
 >>automatic declassification of all "classified information" and
 >>records more than 25 years old and how the AF should begin by
 >>just obeying this administrative law and apply it to UFO records
 >>instead of obstructing and dissembling. Jan Aldrich has found
 >>numerous "withdrawal slips" of 40-50-year-old SECRET and TOP
 >>SECRET UFO documents that have ILLEGALLY been removed by the AF
 >>from National Archives files in apparent violation of EO 12958
 >>and 5 US Code 552 (the FOIA) which require automatic
 >>declassification. Bob Todd was just blatantly lied to and
 >>stonewalled by the AF which refused to turn over the 16
 >>Attachments to the Oct 20, 1969, Bolender Memo that approved the
 >>closure of Project Blue Book nearly 32 years ago (thus coming
 >>under the automatic declassification requirement of EO 12958) -
 >>the AF just lied through its teeth that it didn't have the
 >>attachments and it refused to look for them. Many other examples
 >>can be cited.

 >>Surely the fact the AF is violating the law on automatic
 >>declassification of 25-year-old UFO records is an important
 >>issue that ought to be raised prominently in any Congressional
 >>hearings, and the fact the so-called Disclosure Project is
 >>completely unaware of it or even of the law requiring it is
 >>another indication of its sloppy mishandling of the UFO subject.
 >>And these were the original issues - the Disclosure Project and
 >>Congressional hearings - you commented on earlier in this
 >>thread about "Talk and Action." So it is strange that you don't
 >>comment on this AF illegality that I have been the first person
 >>to ever bring up. It's a novel issue and an important one, I
 >>think. It could give some powerful ammunition to the call for
 >>"disclosure" and solid grounds for an investigation.


 >Brad,

 >I feel that the AF, and, for that matter, any government agency,
 >ought to follow and abide by any laws on the books. That's what
 >they're both there for!

 >Are you aware if anyone has filed an FOIA recently for the
 >Bolender memo attachments? And if they've been rejected, have
 >they appealed?

Dennis,

Not that I know of. Bob Todd dropped his appeal of the AF denial
on the Bolender Attachments after two years of fighting AF lies
including (including a "lost their paperwork" nonsense, etc.).
They and we know what they're doing.

 >>Another aspect of EO 12958's legal requirement for automatic
 >>declassification is that it broadly applies to "classified
 >>information" over 25 years old so that includes information held
 >>in the minds of witnesses but not reduced to writing or records.
 >>Hence, Roswell military witnesses should consider themselves
 >>released from their security oaths by EO 12958.

 >I could be mistaken about this (no time to look it up), but
 >didn't Sec. Weaver (?) give or offer immunity to some of the
 >Roswell witnesses?

I've heard that claimed but have never seen it in writing. So
far as I know it was a limited release directed only to specific
witnesses. Maybe someone with more specific info can jump in
here.

 >I think it was when I was working on that six part UFO series
 >for Omni that I got a lead that the AF was taking another look
 >at Roswell. I'd have to locate my notes to determine who I
 >actually talked to, but it was either McAndrew or his immediate
 >superior. Whoever, he was not a happy camper about being
 >questioned about Roswell and eventually hung up on me! So it
 >isn't like those guys are high on my all-time favorites list.

 >>Because my discussion on the AF was in the same message you only
 >>partially answered you can't say it was lost among 4,411
 >>messages in your email backlog; it was right there before you
 >>snipped it out. See my full posting at:

 >I don't answer every paragraph that everyone posts, and I can
 >think of few who do. I typically snip long posts and indicate
 >where I have done so. (And wish more people would do the same.)
 >It's nothing personal!

I realize that but it was the difference between substantive
issues versus casual conversation and you had only responded to
the latter.

 >>Also, surely you realize you can simply click on the highlighted
 >>email address for me or anyone on UFO UpDates and pull up their
 >>whole message history in almost an instant?


 >Long story, but I'll make it short. I was very familiar with
 >Eudora. When it got trashed, I switched over to MS Outlook. Call
 >it Microsoft paranoia, but I don't like to go running through a
 >program in which I don't know how everything works. Been there,
 >done that before, and wasted many hours in the process. I knew
 >you could do that in Eudora, but I knew how to return to where I
 >was before, too. If it works the same way in Outlook, I'll use
 >it, and thanks for the tip. Does that mean I can go back to a
 >chronological listing by clicking on the date received, or will
 >doing that just list the e-mails for that particular date?

You misunderstand. If you view the UFO UpDates Archive on a Web
browser you can click on anyone's email address (which will be
highlighted in blue as a hyperlink) and it will pull up all
postings by that person (=email address) and all mentions of
that person (=email address) in other people's postings.

 ><snip>

 >>Thank you for the kind remarks. Will we see you at the MUFON
 >>meeting in July?

 >>Regards,

 >>Brad

 >Hmmm...haven't made up my mind on that one yet. But if go, I'll buy!

That'd be great!


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 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                         Re: Talk And Action - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:45:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:32:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Stacy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:37:46 -0000

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:36:28 -0500

<snip>

 >If a scientist accidentally detects something UFO-like, he is not
 >going to rush to colleagues and say "look what I found." He may
 >privately confide in one or two colleagues whom he knows are not
 >hostile to UFOs. Others (Maccabee, Sparks...) have covered this
 >topic well. There is tremendous prejudice against UFOs (read,
 >"possibly spaceships") as opposed to some relatively innocuous
 >natural phenomenon. Controversy per se might not stop them, but
 >this goes beyond mere controversy. UFOs are anathema.


Dick,

I can't help but believe you're being a little chauvinistic (and
maybe even ethnocentric) here. Are you absolutely certain this
UFO=anathema thing is a worldwide, cross-cultural phenomenon?

<snip>

 >Jim McDonald was a maverick, and look what it got him. There are
 >a few maverick scientists loose in the UFO field today (Bruce
 >Maccabee comes to mind) but how much help and support do they
 >get from their colleagues or from scientific funding. Your
 >analogies do not fit the UFO scenario.

McDonald has been dead for 30 years now. Much has changed in
scientific instrumentation since then, both in terms of the
quantity and quality of information and instrumentation. There
wasn't even a desktop computer back then.

My analogies don't fit the UFO scenario because they weren't
intended to. Because I don't see the world through a UFO-centric
lens. I gave several examples of scientists who looked at
already existing data and, at least in Frank's case, interpreted
them in controversial ways, to which he was able to offer some
interesting evidence. It would be absurd to say all you gotta do
is ask. On the other hand, if you don't, you'll never know. Has
any ufologist ever talked to the U of AZ scientists I mentioned,
or Frank? I don't know.

Don't take this personally, but I also get a little tired of
ufology raising this funding issue. I could probably point to
something like between at least and one and two million dollars
that have been spent on UFO and UFO-related research in the last
five years or so Possibly more). If Bruce isn't getting his fair
share of it, maybe he doesn't know how to write a good grant
paper! <BG!>

You are, of course, aware of these projects, some of them
ongoing. Admittedly, that may not be much, a veritable drop in
the bucket compared to a lot of things, but I think it's no
exaggeration to say that ufology has never had more money
available to it than it does now. (It would have had even more,
if the dot.coms hadn't so precipitously collapsed.) If ufology
hasn't always spent those monies wisely or in ways guaranteed to
maximize effect and potential, it may not have to look far from
the apple tree to find where the blame lays. Instead, the latter
is always (I can throw "always" around with the best of them!)
laid at the feet of cultural conditioning and mainstream science
(with the AF and intelligence agencies always lurking in the
background.) I think there's enough blame to go around.

<snip>

 >>Yes, and they'll tell you of their anonymous government
 >>informants and highly-placed secret sources, too. Just out of
 >>curiosity, how often did McDonald hint of anonymous sources?

 >I don't know what your first sentence is supposed to mean,
 >except that it sounds like a guilt by association
 >pseudo-rebuttal. The people I am talking about are simply UFO
 >witnesses in aerospace or technical areas whose reports were
 >suppressed either due to secrecy requirements or fear of
 >ridicule. Re: Your second sentence, McDonald more than "hinted,"
 >he reported time after time having audience members come up to
 >him after his talks at scientific and aerospace facilities and
 >unburden themselves of personal sightings that they didn't dare
 >report through conventional or official channels.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I wasn't talking about
anonymous individual anecdotal acccounts of sightings, but
evidence, docs, leaks, whatever, attributed to sources he
publicized but never named. It wasn't a criticism of McDonald,
btw, but a compliment. My guess is that he didn't tend to put
stuff out there that he couldn't justify or document -- in
contrast to some.

 >I have deleted the rest because your post goes on and on, and
 >there are only so many hours in the day. If you feel I have
 >failed to reply to any centrally important point, please let me
 >know.

 >Dick

No problem. I don't reply to every posted paragraph in the
e-mails of others, and don't ask that they do to mine. There
are, as you say, only so many (isn't that so _few_?) hours in
the day.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 1

               Re: Corso And The Cuban Missile Crisis - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:54:33 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:34:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Corso And The Cuban Missile Crisis - Sandow


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Corso And The Cuban Missile Crisis
 >Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 15:06:38 -0700

 >Do you think Paul Scott would have written the article if he
 >didn't believe that Corso had something to offer and could be
 >depended on to deliver reliable information? Would one of the
 >most trusted political columnists in the nation take the word of
 >a megalomaniac or a psychopathic liar.

Here I have to giggle.

Trust me, Ed - I'm in the press myself. We'll leave psychopathic
liars out of the discussion for the moment, because I'm not
claiming Corso was one. But if columnists and other in the press
didn't take the word of megalomaniacs, we'd never get any inside
news. Many major politicians are megalomaniacs, as I'm sure we
all know. So are many world leaders. In my own business, pop
record moguls, rock stars, opera stars, and world-famous
conductos are often enough megalomaniacs. (Not to mention -
moving back to the world at large again - major TV producers,
wildly successful entrepreneurs, corporate CEOs, military
leaders, even, gasp, scientists, editors of major newspapers,
and columnists themselves.)

So of course a columnist will take a megalomaniac's word.
Columnists also write a lot of nonsense because they do that.
Then they get criticized, publicly or privately, by other
columnists who say, "Can you believe who the source was for that
story?"

But that's the way the press - and the world - works.
Columnists, I should add, are very likely to trust sources that
say things the columnists like to hear. So the mere fact that a
columnist took Corso's word doesn't even remotely prove that
Corso could always be trusted.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 1

               Re: Corso And The Cuban Missile Crisis - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:59:47 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:35:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Corso And The Cuban Missile Crisis - Sandow


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:52:18 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Corso And The Cuban Missile Crisis
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Key thing is that long before Corso fell out of the wood work
 >there were both storys at the public level and classified intel
 >estimates showing that Russian military equipment was being
 >introduced to Cuba and as you mentioned JFK choose to do nothing
 >about it _until_ he had proof positive, in hand, of the
 >introduction of _offensive_ military equipment.

A very good point. The recent book I've mentioned on the history
of the NSA details the buildup of intelligence about Soviet
missiles in Cuba. This intelligence came from many sources.
After a certain period, the Kennedy administration was pretty
sure there were offensive missiles in Cuba, or soon would be,
but still didn't have definitive proof.

It was only after there was definite proof that JFK took action.
Some of the people discussing this here may not have considered
what you need before - as the head of state of a major power -
you can risk nuclear war over a serious issue. It's easy to leak
information to the press. It's easy to write a column in a
newspaper. You can do those things without absolute certainty.
But if you expect to lead your nation to the brink of war - and
get the support of the international community while you do it -
you need absolutely bulletproof data, which, despite Corso's
leak, apparently wasn't available until just before JFK acted.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                    Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:57:10 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:39:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Velez


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Disappointed In Brentwood
 >Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:42:52 -0000


Hi Dick, hi All,

You wrote:

 >I have waited, apparently in vain, for some encouraging response
 >to my previous posting suggesting a specific plan whereby anyone
 >on this list who wishes to take concrete action to encourage
 >Congressional hearings (an oft-expressed desire) could
 >meaningfully participate. Except for one or two positive
 >comments, there has been a deafening silence.

I wanted to respond to this sooner but I've been busy earning
some moola-boola and time for the List has been scarce. If I am
duplicating something that someone else has already said in
response, please excuse me. I've been 'out of touch' with the
List.

I wrote to my state senators (Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer)
as well as to my local congressman requesting public hearings on
the UFO question. I urged everyone else on this List to do so,
and I made a broader public appeal during one of my guest spots
on 'Strange Days,...Indeed.' I like and support the idea of
organizing some kind of concerted effort. My suggestion would
be; "Petitions."

I would be willing to donate the bandwidth to set up a webpage
that contains a copy of a formal petition (written by somebody
else) to our representatives in Wash DC. I will create a CGI
script that will allow folks to sign the petition "online." I
will take down the AIC website temporarily in order to insure
that there's enough bandwidth available.

We have a good number of "webmasters" of busy UFO websites right
here on this List that could set up live links to the petition
page. Between us we could probably recruit another couple of
dozen websites to participate by putting up a link. Getting the
word out would not be a problem.

Dick, what would be a 'respectable' number of signatures to
gather that would be guaranteed to get the attention of our
elected officials? How many would it take to get hearings?

If you and a few others would consent to compose the petition
I'll handle setting up the web side of it. Let me know. I'm
ready to go the nanosecond I get a green light.

 >This non-response, of course, can be interepreted in many
 >different ways. I interpret it to mean that people (in general)
 >are a lot more willing to sit in their armchairs and spout
 >opinions and criticize others on this list for "not doing
 >something" (while claiming that other dubious characters
 >allegedly are doing something), but these same opinionizers do
 >nothing but snipe. I say, put your money where your mouths are.

It's just "par for the course" Dick. Look at the response you
got last time you suggested a 'unified' effort among the List
participants. Why did you expect a different result this time?
;)

 >There are no easily accessible answers. My advice: Study, think,
 >learn. As George Santayana said, "Those who do not learn from
 >history are doomed to repeat it" (pretty close if not an exact
 >quote).

Close enough for Government work! :)

Let me know what you think of the petition idea. (Again, sorry
if I'm repeating something that was already suggested.)


Regards,

John Velez, Still ready and willing to _do_ the work!


                      "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 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                        Re: Disappointed In Brentwood

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:39:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:41:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Disappointed In Brentwood
 >Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:42:52 -0000

 >I have waited, apparently in vain, for some encouraging response
 >to my previous posting suggesting a specific plan whereby anyone
 >on this list who wishes to take concrete action to encourage
 >Congressional hearings (an oft-expressed desire) could
 >meaningfully participate. Except for one or two positive
 >comments, there has been a deafening silence.


Dick,

My very quick 2 cents on this (gotta take the kid to a birthday
party).

I'm not about to write my congressman (Lamar Smith, R., last
time I looked) with an out-of-the-blue request or demand that he
investigate, or demand congressional investigations of, UFOs in
the abstract.

That's a non-starter, since he's got more constitutents
demanding more immediate and pressing results from him. Think
1000 ufologists around the country writing maybe 10, 20 or 30
congressmen. Not much oomph there!

There needs to be some rallying point (and person) for this to
have any chance of succeeding. IMHO, there needs to have been
some events that have recently captured or attracted public
attention as well. I doubt Schiff would have been able to move
the GAO w/o the Roswell anniversary looming in the background.
In addition, he was able to marshall very specific complaints
from his own constituents. Pretty much ditto congressman Ford in
1966, wasn't it?

In other words, a highly specific _focal_ point is needed before
you fire off such a request. If you've mentioned one on this
thread, pardon my having overlooked it.

 >This non-response, of course, can be interepreted in many
 >different ways. I interpret it to mean that people (in general)
 >are a lot more willing to sit in their armchairs and spout
 >opinions and criticize others on this list for "not doing
 >something" (while claiming that other dubious characters
 >allegedly are doing something), but these same opinionizers do
 >nothing but snipe. I say, put your money where your mouths are.

 >Also, the implication that I have "done nothing" is absolutely
 >astonishing to me. What appears obvious is that younger
 >generations are very much into "instant gratification" re: UFO
 >"truths." Well, youngsters, prepare to be disappointed. Just ask
 >those of us who were already on the firing line when you were
 >just a gleam in your father's eye.

 >There are no easily accessible answers. My advice: Study, think,
 >learn. As George Santayana said, "Those who do not learn from
 >history are doomed to repeat it" (pretty close if not an exact
 >quote).


I've got to rush out the door, but didn't some local MUFON
chapters try to do just this recently, something involving
petitions? Do you know how that turned out and/or why it turned
out as it did?

For newcomers to this List, I should point out that Hall has
been around the UFO phenomenon almost since its inception, and
has waged more political and scientific wars re same than most
of us will ever see in a lifetime. Where the implication came
from that he has "done nothing," I have no idea, and certainly
do not endorse.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                         Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 17:48:59 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:44:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:12:16 EDT
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [was Re: Debunkers'...]


 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 01:54:20 EDT
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:29:33 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 11:20:02 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>>>Also fingered by Sarbacher as being involved in briefings at
 >>>>Wright-Patterson was Dr. Eric Walker (President of Penn State
 >>>>University and former head of the Dept. of Electrical
 >>>>Engineering and Dean of Engineering and Architecture). Walker
 >>>>also served as Executive Secretary of the Research and
 >>>>Development Board from 1950 to 1952. The RDB was the brainchild
 >>>>of Bush to continue defense-related research and development and
 >>>>came into being. Lloyd Berkner, another alleged MJ-12 member was
 >>>>Bush's first Executive Secretary (also a member of the CIA's
 >>>>infamous Robertson Panel in 1953).

 >>>I seem to recall that Walker when interviewed in the 80's was
 >>>spouting all kinds of wild conspiracy theories and claims -
 >>>JFK?, Nazis ? I think it's in a Hesemann book.

 >>>>Another member of the RDB who independently named Bush, Berkner,
 >>>>von Neumann, and Walker as either probably or definitely
 >>>>involved was Dr. Fred Darwin, who was the RDB's Executive
 >>>>Director of the Guided Missile Committee from 1949 to 1954.
 >>>>William Steinman interviewed Walker by phone in 1987. According
 >>>>to Steinman's transcript of his phone conversation, Walker
 >>>>initially admitted to attending meetings of the RDB "concerning
 >>>>the military recovery of flying saucers and the bodies of
 >>>>occupants" around 1950. When Steinman brought up the subject of
 >>>>MJ-12, Steinman said Walker's reply was, "Yes, I know of MJ-12.
 >>>>I have known of them for 40 years."

 >>>That would be before Walker served on the RDB in 1950-2. We have
 >>>to rely on Steinman's memory and interpretations since there is
 >>>no transcript and Steinman may have read his own knowledge into
 >>>it.

Hi Dave,

What I meant to say was that there was no transcript _presented_
to double check the quotation -- obviously a transcript had been
mentioned previously. Thanks for presenting the transcript.
But my point was concerning whether Steinman's interpretations
colored his reporting. So I'd want to know if a tape recording
of Walker with Steinman was double checked by someone
independent of Steinman (maybe Crain?).

The impression I get is that Walker was trying to remember
something from his RDB days of 1950. The question is what and
how much was influenced by front-page NY Times stories about
MJ-12 in May 1987, a few months before Steinman called him, and
how much was influenced by the events and news of 1950.


 >>>>(When pressed for details in letters and other phone
 >>>>conversations, however, Walker clammed up.)

 >>Hello, Brad, David:

 >>The obvious reading of Walker's comments, to me, was that he was
 >>answering Steinman's questions very tongue in cheek. At one
 >>point he told him that he sure doesn't have any aliens in his
 >>office at Penn State. The so called clamming up seems to have
 >>been after Walker realized that he was getting these calls from
 >>somebody without a sense of humor who was quite serious about
 >>his preposterous questions - a real saucer nut.

 >As usual, Bob Young resorts to gross misrepresentation in order
 >to debunk. There were multiple conversations with people other
 >than Steinman, and at no time does Walker talk about "aliens in
 >his closet" with Steinman (that was with somebody else). Walker
 >was clearly quite serious initially with Steinman.

 >I would also like to clear up Brad Sparks suggestion that Walker
 >was spouting all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories in his
 >conversations. I wish Brad wouldn't resort to debunker tactics
 >of trying to discredit people by ridiculing simply because he
 >doesn't believe in the existence of an organization such as
 >MJ-12. The "MJ-12 papers" could all be fakes, yet there could
 >still have existed an MJ-12-type group, whether under that name
 >or something else.

First of all I wish Dave wouldn't resort to "debunker" labeling
of those who aren't debunkers just because they come to a
different and more skeptical opinion or conclusion than he does.

Second, my considered conclusion after many years of research is
that there is indeed a highly classified compartmented
intelligence agency investigation of UFO's ongoing today that
has an ancestry going back probably to 1946, but that the MJ-12
is complete fraud, quite possibly designed to prevent anyone
from uncovering the actual secret project, though more likely to
have been concocted out of profit motives on the part of certain
suspected hoaxers, albeit having intelligence connections.

Third, if you would read my other postings you would see that I
am determined enemy of UFO secrecy by the government and just a
few days ago developed an entirely new legal weapon in the fight
to get the government to release withheld UFO data (the 25-year
rule for "automatic declassification") -- and it was ironically
done in the course of my arguments with a well-known skeptic on
this List (whom you probably label a "debunker" though I
wouldn't). See my postings on UpDates:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/may/m29-017.shtml
http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2001/may/m31-001.shtml


 >Instead, we should be listening carefully to what Walker had to
 >say after being fingered as being involved by Drs. Sarbacher and
 >Darwin, both formerly associated with the Research and
 >Development board around 1950.

Yes, that 1950 date is significant and that is what bothers me.
That is when the Scully hoax made national news beginning with
TIME magazine on Jan. 9, 1950, plus innumerable newspaper and
radio items thereafter (plus a few before, which had led to
TIME's coverage in the first place, beginning with Scully's
first column in Variety, Oct. 12, 1949).

Both Sarbacher and Walker seem to refer to meetings at
Wright-Patterson AFB in 1950 as where they learned of alleged
crashed saucers and/or alien bodies. Sarbacher strangely seemed
to refer to the RDB as meeting at Wright-Pat but RDB was based
in Washington, D.C., so this makes little sense unless he meant
a committee of the RDB such as the Guided Missiles Committee
which I think did sometimes meet at WPAFB.

Walker doesn't inspire me with a lot of confidence when he
spouts off in his letter to Steinman about 4 alleged aliens
being "absorbed into American culture" and one becoming a Bill
Gates-type (or is it Bill himself??), the second a "world famous
athlete", the third a Wall Street raider, etc. Shades of the
Men In Black movie with Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones (which
may have been inspired by UFOlogist publications on walker).

Maybe we should attribute that and the conspiracy stuff (again
see Hesemann's book for details) to the intervening 37 years
between 1950 and 1987.

So again the question is what was going on in 1950?

As I recall there is no statement by Sarbacher or Walker that
they _personally_ saw any crashed saucer or aliens. Rather,
they _heard_ comments about them in meetings.

We know that government documents reporting the Scully-inspired
news items made the rounds, e.g., the FBI memo of Mar 22, 1950,
based on an AF informant who evidently saw one of the news
articles but failed to mention that was the source. Anyone
discussing memos such as that might inadvertently get the
impression the US Govt had recovered saucers with dead aliens,
etc., and not realize Scully was the ultimate source. Stories
_do_ get embellished in the retelling and rumors _do_ circulate
so we know that this must have occurred with Scully-inspired
stories circulating _within_ government agencies as with the FBI
memo of Mar 22, 1950.

Another possibility arises from Cold War tensions and possible
deception operations related to psychological warfare. This is
too big a topic to cover here, but let me just mention that the
biggest fear was that the Soviets would claim UFO's were their
own secret weapons that could negate the atom bomb and the
West's monopoly on nuclear weapons (see the TOP SECRET AIR 203
Study of 1948-9). Apparently, Walter Winchell helped the
Soviets out by declaring in a radio broadcast on March 26, 1950,
that saucers were Soviet. This brought a counterblow in the
form of Henry Taylor's opposite radio announcement the very next
night, March 27, 1950, of the "wonderful news" that saucers were
US secret weapons. This controversy led to the US News story
and a forced White House response the following week, which
succeeded in overshadowing Winchell's claim, which was all but
forgotten (in fact I have had extreme difficulty in confirming
or documenting it; I found it in a BB file originall! y). The
impression I get is Win

chell triggered a Cold War psych war response and either
initiated a series of deception operations or helped accelerate
them -- operations designed to discredit the subject of UFO's by
linking them with fraudulent Scully-type stories.

Lastly, there is one more possibility, keeping in mind that
these are not all mutually exclusive either: The AF and other
military services might have been pissed off at the RDB (a DoD
agency) for choosing the CIA OSI to provide it with all
intelligence, beginning in Jan 1949 right after OSI's founding.
The CIA was intensely disliked by the military intelligence
agencies, especially the AF, as an upstart that threatened
encroachment on their domain (UFO's was one such area; an AF
Intelligence colonel I interviewed in 1979 angrily denounced
CIA's intrusion in AFIN responsibilities for UFO's). Possibly
the AF played a prank on RDB scientists meeting at Wright-Pat
designed to show how lacking in proper military intelligence
they were. I'm just raising it as a possibility, given the
vicious interagency politics of the time.

 >Furthermore, it is simply not true, as Brad indicates, that
 >there was no transcript of the conversation with Steinman.

See above. Make some due allowance for corrections and that
there was a point really being made (again see above).

 >The following is the actual initial contact conversation between
 >Steinman and Walker. This took place August 30, 1987.
<snip>

 >Incidentally, this and following transcripts come from Grant
 >Cameron's and T. Scott Crain's MUFON publication, 'UFOs, MJ-12
 >and the Government'.

I've never been able to obtain a copy of this.

<snip>

 >[Walker's] response, dated Sept. 23, 1987.

 >"Dear Mr. Steinman:

 >"Some things you have right, and some things you have wrong. The
 >machine itself was obviously a landing vehicle only, and it had
 >no unusual features and no power plants with which we were not
 >quite familiar. I believe it still exists and is kept someplace
 >near Wright Field.

How could an alien vehicle of _any_ type have "no unusual
features"?









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

                        Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 19:39:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:46:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:25:50 -0500

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 05:11:00 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 12:00:45 -0500
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Stacy

 >>>>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>>>Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 20:59:21 EDT
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>>Surely the fact the AF is violating the law on automatic
 >>>declassification of 25-year-old UFO records is an important
 >>>issue that ought to be raised prominently in any Congressional
 >>>hearings, and the fact the so-called Disclosure Project is
 >>>completely unaware of it or even of the law requiring it is
 >>>another indication of its sloppy mishandling of the UFO subject.
 >>>And these were the original issues - the Disclosure Project and
 >>>Congressional hearings - you commented on earlier in this
 >>>thread about "Talk and Action." So it is strange that you don't
 >>>comment on this AF illegality that I have been the first person
 >>>to ever bring up. It's a novel issue and an important one, I
 >>>think. It could give some powerful ammunition to the call for
 >>>"disclosure" and solid grounds for an investigation.

 >Brad,

 >I feel that the AF, and, for that matter, any government agency,
 >ought to follow and abide by any laws on the books. That's what
 >they're both there for!

 >Are you aware if anyone has filed an FOIA recently for the
 >Bolender memo attachments? And if they've been rejected, have
 >they appealed?

The simple answers are yes, and yes, the more complex ones is
the Air Force refused to look in the most likely places for the
Boelender attachments, another method of delay, evasion and
obfuscation.

We have tried to interest several FOIA lawyers in taking up this
case.>The case is very complex with ins and outs that need
extensive study.>One possibility unfortunately went bankrupt in
the dotcom massacre.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 1

                              Re: Ravenna 1966

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 19:43:30 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:48:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:31:15 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 03:49:34 EDT
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966

 >>The human visual perceptual apparatus can process the contextual
 >>perspective of an object at relatively close range that flies
 >>over an object of known size such as the police car, yielding
 >>the distance to both the known and the unknown.

 >>It is a dynamic relationship that draws on many different visual
 >>cues, aspect angle change, shading, angular velocity and
 >>acceleration/deceleration, trajectory projection and
 >>perspective, occultation or eclipsing of objects, and even the
 >>longer stereoscopic vision baseline formed when one turns one's
 >>head to follow a fast-moving object traveling over a large arc.

 >>(Instead of the 2-inch separation between eyes which limits the
 >>range of stereoscopic vision to about 30 feet, turning one's
 >>head by say 90� can create an effective dynamic baseline of
 >>perhaps 12 inches or even more, thus extending distance
 >>perception out to possibly 180 feet or more; so much for Larry
 >>Robinson's constant harping on the supposed 30-foot limitation.)

 >There are many cues to depth and distance used by the visual
 >system, both monocular and binocular (as Brad points out). I am
 >only going to address the binocular or stereoscopic cue, since
 >the skeptics like Robinson are horribly in error by nearly 2
 >orders of magnitude. Even though Brad tries to extend the
 >skeptics' range, he is also greatly in error.

 >Stereoacuity (ability to detect differences in angular parallax)
 >in normal individuals tends to be even better than regular
 >visual acuity (ability to resolve two closely spaced objects,
 >also as an angular measure).

 >People with normal visual acuity have resolutions typically from
 >about 0.7 to 1.0 minutes of arc (or 42 seconds to 60 seconds of
 >arc), though acuities down to 0.4 minarc (or 24 seconds of arc)
 >are known. On an eye chart, this would correspond to the more
 >familiar 20/20 acuity (1 minarc resolution) down to 20/8 acuity
 >(.4 minarc resolution) (For metric measure people, 20/20
 >corresponds to 6/6 metric acuity on an eye chart.)


Dave,

Thank you for the extremely helpful quantitative data.  These
are very useful physiological optics data.


 >Now to stereoacuity. Stereoacuity is based on the two eyes being separated
 >and thus having slightly different vantage points. Relative distance (nearer
 >or further) is determined through triangulation by the brain. Normal eye
 >separatons for adults are in the 60 mm to 70 mm range (not 2 inches or
 >50
 >mm).

I was rounding off and being conservative.

Calculating the linear range over which stereopsis functions involves
 >dividing the eye separation by the measured threshold stereoacuity value
 >(converted to radians).

 >Here's a section from "Adler's physiology of the eye", 6th
 >edition, chapter on binocular vision, which gives experimental
 >results for stereoacuity thresholds:

 >"Subjects with normal bifoveolar [central vision] binocular
 >vision have stereoacuity thresholds in the range of 14 to 40
 >sec. of arc, with an average of 24 sec of arc."

 >(Actually, as the chapter further points out, if you use very
 >simple targets like two rods and compare perceived distances,
 >stereoacuity can be as small as 2 seconds of arc or even 7 times
 >better. The larger thresholds given above, are for more complex
 >targets, and thus more normal scenes, so that's what we'll use
 >in the discussion below.)

I think you're right that the more complex the visual targets
the harder to distinguish the visual cues indicating a
stereoscopic shift.  I would submit that moving targets are even
harder but that the longer baseline from head-turning helps
mitigate that.

 >Then describing how this translates to linear viewing distance
 >over which stereopsis functions, we have the following:

 >"The limiting range of stereoscopic perception is the greatest
 >distance at which an object can just be detected as nearer than
 >an object at infinity. It is likely that when secondary cues to
 >depth are eliminated, stereoacuity is independent of viewing
 >distance. In practice, however, secondary cues are difficult to
 >avoid, and as the limiting distance is approached, the relative
 >importance of these secondary cues increases. Largely on
 >theoretical grounds, the limiting viewing distance is generallyt
 >aken to be about 500 meters. Beyond this distance, depth
 >estimates are based entirely on secondary cues."

He does say it's on "theoretical grounds" (as you point out
later too) but it's a very good point.  Again I would submit
that moving targets are even harder to determine distance but
that the longer baseline from head-turning helps mitigate that.

Even so 500 meters (1600 feet) -- or whatever smaller figure is
the empirical value (maybe a few hundred meters) -- is still a
shocking difference from the 30 feet that Larry Robinson always
trumpets.  Thanks for providing some scientific _facts_ here
Dave.

 >Well 500 meters or 1600+ feet is quite a bit more than Larry
 >Robinsons 30 feet, by over a factor of 50!! Where did Robinson
 >or other skeptics get their grossly erroneous number? I have no
 >idea. Maybe a little pelican told them.

I've seen the 30-foot figure in various textbooks -- probably
not very authoritative ones.  Seems to be stated for both
monocular accommodation (focus) as well as stereoscopic
binocular distance perception.

However the skeptics are always claiming to wear the cloak of
"Science" yet they seem to never do any real research into the
_actual_ science of perception that they claim so easily
disposes of UFOlogy.


 >(This is just about as bad as Bob Young claiming the policemen
 >saw a disk shape because they were able resolve the actual disk
 >of Venus -- that's quite impossible with the naked eye. I've
 >noticed that when a skeptic criticizes that lack of science in
 >ufology, same skeptic is almost always pitifully ignorant of
 >basic scientific principles or simply chooses to ignore them.

Exactly.

 >End editorial comment.)

<snip>

 >However, as "Adler's physiology of the eye" points out, other
 >depth cues (like relative object size or image overlay)
 >interferes somewhat with pure stereoacuity at such distances and
 >begin to dominate. So the theoretical larger distance is
 >probably inflated in practice.

Agreed.


 >>If the UFO had been suddenly seen seemingly hovering over the
 >>other police car it would have been difficult to tell if it was
 >>near or far, but that is a static relationship which does not
 >>invoke the array of dynamic visual cues. Here in the Portage
 >>County case the UFO traveled at high speed over a large arc.

 >>There has been a fruitless argument going on over the UFO
 >>Skeptics site about this same phenomenon as perceived from an
 >>aircraft.

 >Brad also raises the rather interesting question of whether
 >moving objects might extend the range of stereoacuity compared
 >to static ones. I'm not sure here and am not familiar with any
 >literature on the subject, but there is probably a good chance
 >that somebody has looked into the issue (the Air Force, e.g.,
 >would probably be interested in such perceptual questions for
 >their pilots.)

 >However, moving the head to broaden the parallax baseline will
 >probably not work. For one thing, tracking of moving images
 >usually involves a complex combination of head and eye movements
 >to maintain relative stability of the image on the retina. When
 >sudden, large voluntary eye movements are made, visual
 >perception is momentarily suppressed to prevent the world from
 >seeming to swim about as the image races across the retina.

Thanks for the technical commentary.  I think the longer
baseline effect of turning one's head to follow a fast moving
object is complex, as you say, and would work (if it does) only
if the object's motion is smooth and linear.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                      Re: The Truth Is For Sale on Ebay

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 22:26:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 12:54:58 -0400
Subject: Re: The Truth Is For Sale on Ebay


The following is being offered for sale on ebay.  Opening bid is
set at a measley $1000.

<begin quote>

RARE! ASTOUNDING! INCREDIBLE FIND! THE ORIGINAL 1997 NEW MEXICO
AERONAUTICAL CHART The only official US Government document
indicating the Roswell UFO crash in 1947.  During a thunder
storm in 1947, something fell out of the night sky and crashed,
scattering debris over fifty acres on a remote sheep ranch at
Roswell, New Mexico. For 50 years the US government has
covered-up and denied that a UFO had crashed.

On the eve of the 50 year anniversary, the US Government Federal
Aviation Administration, New Mexico State Aeronautical Division
issued the New Mexico Aeronautical VFR Chart. Amazingly, this
official US Government chart shows an icon of a "SPACE SHIP"
marking the exact location of the crash site. Furthermore, the
chart legend includes the "SPACE SHIP" icon accompanied by the
words _UFO CRASH SITE_.

This chart is an unprecedented official document published by
the US Government indicating the Roswell UFO crash.  Signed and
dated by Hub Corn, The present day owner of the sheep ranch
where the crash occurred.

THIS IS AN AUTHENTIC/ORIGINAL US GOV. PILOTS VFR NAVIGATION
CHART... NEW IN MINT, PRISTINE COLLECTORS CONDITION.
(DIMENSIONS: TWENTY-FIVE AND A HALF BY TWENTY-EIGHT AND A HALF
INCHES).

<end quote>

Should anyone feel the need to bid on this item, if you feel
that it is just something you can't live without, and you happen
to have a thousand bucks laying around and can't think of a
single thing to spend it on, here's the direct URL to the
listing on ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1148366325

And you better hurry.... at the time I'm sending this in,
there's only 18 hours left in the auction.

So far, no takers....wonder why.....


Bobbie

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









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

                         UFO Video Goes To Hollywood

From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 21:18:55 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 12:56:49 -0400
Subject: UFO Video Goes To Hollywood

Very interesting to say the least! Notice the mention of NASA
here?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1363000/1363848.stm


Todd Lemire

Michigan UFO CENTRAL
http://members.home.net/tlemire/UFOCENTRAL.html









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

                          Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:08:08 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:00:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:31:15 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young
 >>Subj: Re: Ravenna 1966 - van Gemert
 >>Date: 5/23/2001
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >(This is just about as bad as Bob Young claiming the policemen
 >saw a disk shape because they were able to resolve the actual disk
 >of Venus -- that's quite impossible with the naked eye. I've
 >noticed that when a skeptic criticizes that lack of science in
 >ufology, same skeptic is almost always pitifully ignorant of
 >basic scientific principles or simply chooses to ignore them.
 >End editorial comment.)


David:

Please consult my original post,

 >>Classic Venus, sparkling in the early morning skies to a
 >>7witness who thinks it's a real object a few miles away. The
 >>dome is a slightly astigmatic image of the planet and the
 >>beam it's sitting on is caused by diffraction of the image
 >>by his eyelashes.

I can't find the words, "they were able to resolve the actual disk
of Venus", anywhere.

Before describing someone's contribution, here, as "pitifully
ignorant", it would be helpful if you didn't just make it up.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

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

Debunk: "expose the falseness of (a claim etc)." - The Oxford
English Dictionary, 9th Edition

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









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

                     Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:06:12 +0200
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:02:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET


 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 18:24:08
 >Subject: Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET

 >The following article is the result of a videotaping >experiment
 >I did in order to try to find out what was going on with my own
 >abductions. I'm curious about your thoughts.

Hello, Katharina

I am really glad to meet you, after reading your "Alien Jigsaw"
etc. I really appreciate your efforts to explore alternative
explanations to the abduction phenomena.

Regarding your video article, I have read it with care. One of
the first amazing things is aliens' selectivity: they bother to
disturb your VCR but not the clock besides! Have you ever asked
a technician how to achieve the same result?

There is one question. I assume that every night, when you went
to sleep, you pressed the REC button. So, the tapes should at
least show a few minutes of yourself at bed. Is that correct? If
so, how did the blue screen begin, suddenly, with a fade-out...?
Have you kept any of these "blue screen" tapes? On the other
hand, if the tapes were completely blank (or, more exactly,
blue) it surely points first to a technical glitch, as the one
you did find several weeks later.

Really, the strange point is the coincidence between those
techical glitches and your dreams of abduction, either positive
(all your abduction dreams coincided with video problems) or
negative (there were no problems without abductions, and no
abductions without problems). No insult intended, but here we
only have your word. That is one of the reason why I should
recommend a double blind experiment.

Wait a moment. What I have just wrote is wrong.

First, one of the "blue" nights (April 30) refers to a MILAB?
One of the problems is that without any other evidences (as
awakening "drugged" as on April 18), how you determine that your
"dream" referred to something that really happened that night,
and it was not a flashback to a precedent abduction? In the
second case, there was no abduction involved, so why the blue
tape? Besides, if it really was a MILAB that means that we,
humans, do have the same technology. Interesting.

Second, the night of the glitch (May 5) obviously there was no
abduction. But some believer can always say that you simply did
not remember it, and that the technical glitch had nothing to do
with the blue tapping.

Nevertheless, the sample is small and it would be interesting to
expand it.

And now we run into problems. Other abductees suffered different
kind of problems. Once again, the "embarrasment of richness".
According to Jacobs, "they are extremely careful to make sure
the abductee turns off photographic equipment before an
abduction. If necessary, they can cause a power failure in the
house or neighborhood...". On the other hand, Anna Jamerson and
Beth Collings described several failures, even to the point when
Beth destroyed the tape with a hammer, and tossed it in the
trash before realizing what she was doing!!!!.

I am sure we can desing a countermeasure for each of these
problems, if only we try.

Should we keep on trying?. We should care for the abductees. I
do. I do not want to use them as guinea pigs. But, on the other
hand, as Hilary Evans commented once, what we can do for them,
clearly depends on whether abductions are objetively real or
not. Surely, among the abductees we can find some volunteers to
solve this impasse.


Yours,

Luis R. Gonzlez.









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

                    Re: Abductee's Books & Investigators

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:59:05 +0200
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:04:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Abductee's Books & Investigators


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 19:05:15 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Abductee's Books & Investigators

 >I waited for Luis's answer, just to see if he'd come up with
 >anything that hasn't already been tried.

 >Maybe flour on the floor qualifies. But everything else
 >mentioned here has already been done.

Obviously, not enough or not properly.

 >Dave Jacobs has at least one case of someone who
 >left video cameras on constantly, with (he says) anomalous
 >results.

That is the problem: He_says_. I would prefer some detailed
data, or better, a well designed protocol.

 >And in "Connections: Solving Our Alien Abduction Mystery"
 >by Beth Collings and Anna Jamerson, there's an account of
 >extensive electronic monitoring, again with (the writers say)
 >anomalous results.

I have read the book, and also the comments on them by C.D.
Bryan, etc. To me, the book was a bitter reading, showing as it
does, the progressive manipulation of one mind (Anna) by
another... and not precisely alien! I even wrote to them, asking
for an article for our bulletin. Beth answered, open to wrote
anything but declining to involve Anna. Unfortunately, when I
told her we were asking for a free contribution, she never
answered. Of course, I do not have any proof, but IMHO this is
one of the few abductee cases (Linda's is another, as I told you
Greg) where the witness (not Anna) is consciuosly lying. Sorry
if you are reading this, Linda, but this is my meditated
opinion, not more not less. Others, as Katharina, do not seem to
be lying.

But I do not want to address individual cases from so far away.
I only told you because you asked, and I am entiilted to my
opinion. If anybody wants to know the reasons behind my
opinions, I can explain and debate them out of the List.

We were talking about the feasibility of trying to outsmart
aliens!

 >But Budd isn't a scientist; he's never claimed to do scientific
 >investigation; and in any case his attention is fully occupied
 >with the abductees themselves, not to mention a curious little
 >side project called making a living. That's an essential
 >preoccupation, I might add, since abduction research (or writing
 >books about abduction) certainly doesn't pay the bills.

<snip>

 >Maybe on a more personal note, since Budd is a friend, I'd ask
 >people - even skeptics - to work a little harder at
 >understanding things from his point of view before mounting such
 >disdainful criticism. Luis, for instance, said something to the
 >effect that he'd lose all respect for Budd if Budd didn't
 >monitor his own house. I wonder what Luis, or Bob, or anyone
 >else who's quick to criticize imagines an abduction
 >investigator's life is like. Among many other things, I wonder
 >if they've tried - as Budd has, on occasion - to try to find
 >someone with scientific credentials who will study some piece of
 >alleged abduction evidence, only to find that nobody will do
 >that and then allow his or her name to be attached to theresults.

Well, somebody else does. See, for instance, the efforts by Bill
Chalker or Susan Blackmore. We, ourselves at Fundacion Anomala
are open to investigate, and maybe even get the funds and
scientists.

I know that Budd Hopkins is_just_ an artist, but unfortunately
he, almost singlehandly, was the main responsible for the
diffusion of the abduction phenomena thru his own books or his
insistence with others as David Jacobs and John Mack. He surely
has a charisma! I saw him as a well-intended man who came upon
an enigma ("missing time") and since then, has been trying to
divulge his "Truth". As we say in Spanish "the road to Hell is
paved with good intentions". So, IMHO, he_ does_ have some
degree of responsability in docummenting his findings. And, if
that docummentation can be so easy as viedotaping his own home,
he should try harder.

You might retort that no sceptic will accept his videos if they
show an alien. Well, maybe, but this risk will be minimal if
before launching the effort, we (sceptics and belivers) can
design a proper but feasible protocol (double blind, backups,
etc.).

I believe that the problems ufologists find to get an scientist
to study some piece of abduction evidence, is the lack of a
proper previous protocol. We can't just drop an allegedly alien
implant in a scientist's table and ask him to spend a lot of
money to check. Even if he finds some strange (as those
consulted by Bill Chalker did) that should not be used as proof
of an ET visitation, as usually is.

Besides, you must also understand my position. I, as a sceptic,
am the one to lose. If I discover that the evidence is not
alien, you just discard the case (and occasionally not even
that, i.e. alien autopsy, Adamsky)  and go for the next one. I
can't never win. What do you belivers offer in exchange? Would
you publicly deny ETs exist if the results are negative?


Yours,

Luis R. Gonzlez









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

                         Re: THE WATCHDOG - 06-02-01

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 11:04:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:07:29 -0400
Subject: Re: THE WATCHDOG - 06-02-01



UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind"
http://www.ufowatchdog.com

***NEWS***
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/news.html

~ Siberia UFO Crash?
~ Jonathan Reed Hoax - When Is Enough Enough?
~ Warren, Ohio UFOs Reported, Sighted By Police Officers
~ More Crop Formations In England
~ UFO Video Goes Hollywood - UFO Film Locked In Bank Vault Sold
~ Historic UFO Sighting - Veteran Pilot Sees 10 Discs
~ Qualified Teacher Fired Over UFO Interest?

***DIRTBAG OF THE MONTH - JUNE 2001***
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/dirtbagapr.html

Jonathan Reed, Robert Raith and the Reed Hoax

These guys may set a record for being nominated as UFO Dirtbag
of the Month for the most consecutive months.  A title well
deserving of these con artists...










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

                Re: Crash Retrieval, 9 Bodies, Three UFOs? -

From: Joe McGonagle <joem_cgonagle@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 17:07:00 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:10:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Crash Retrieval, 9 Bodies, Three UFOs? -


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:55:04 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Crash Retrieval, 9 Bodies, Three UFOs?

Thanks, Dr. Maccabee, that is exactly the sort of response I was
expecting.

I realise that many of these stories re-surface from time to
time, and thought that it must have been followed up, before, by
someone on the List.


Regards,

Joe










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

                  Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 11:06:51 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:15:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Gehrman


 >From: Kevin Randle KRandle993@aol.com
 >Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:35:56 EDT
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited
 >>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:59:38 -0700


 >The only reason there is confusion is because Corso was not
 >truthful about this situation. This alone is not reason to
 >reject all that he said, but it certainly shouldn't inspire
 >confidence in the man.

Yes, Col. Corso indicated that he was a full Col. and that has
been a problem. I don't understand why he did so if he wasn't
that rank since it's out of character. As I said before, I'm
trying to investigate this but so far have no answer.

 >>Then Philip informed him and that was the end to it. Of course
 >>once Ray knew it was faked, he dropped it. What would you have
 >>expected him to do?

 >I would have expected him to have it properly tested, to have
 >the tale of the cameraman checked out,

He did. The cameraman had old photo albums and journals and
other personal records to prove to Ray that he was who he said
he was. To Ray, there was no doubt, then or now, that the
cameraman was legitimate.

 >to be sure that what he
 >got back was what he had sent in.

He sent the hoaxers film fragments and they sent him the hoaxed
tent footage. He had no reason to believe that they were pulling
his leg. It was only after the cameraman told him that he didn't
remember shooting the footage that Ray began to have doubts. The
tent footage was not shown on TV by Fox.

 >I wouldn't have expected him
 >to palm it off on TV producers and attempt to get paid for it. I
 >would have expected him to do his research rather than opening
 >the bidding.

Again he wasn't paid for this footage. He didn't realize that he
had been taken in by the hoaxers.

 >Where did he change the cameraman's statement? He just explained
 >why there were mistakes.

 >Mistakes were made because those inventing it weren't aware of
 >the American terminology. When caught, they were forced to
 >change it to reflect American idiom. And those changes suggest
 >that the statement was invented by someone from Britain rather
 >than by someone in the United States. It suggests that something
 >deceitful was being done.

What I have asked for and you have failed to produce is the
altered document supposedly changed by Ray. I have the original
cameraman's statement but have not found any other. Do you have
this altered version?

 >>Do you think Ray made this up?

 >Yes, as a matter of fact. Or one of those working for him.

I disagree and you have no proof.

 >Because there was no pressure to get it right the first time.
 >When mistakes were pointed out, Ray rapidly corrected them so
 >that the next group wouldn't see them.

Where is your evidence for this statement?

 >This, to me, suggests
 >that he was not being honest, and that he had not done his
 >research.

He didn't have to do any research and wasn't interested in doing
research. He had the footage and the cameraman's story and that
was it. he didn't change a thing as far as I can tell. he was
not interested in the UFO scene.

 >He was surprised by the information available about
 >the Roswell case and eventually had to change the story so that
 >it wasn't Roswell but a different crash some thirty days
 >earlier.

He didn't change his story and you have no proof that he did.

 >Ray told people there was footage of Truman walking the debris
 >field, of cranes lifting material onto trucks, or people in the
 >footage who could be identified. That is what he said, and none
 >of it is true. And yes, I know that he has excuses, but I don't
 >find those excuses to be adequate, and to me, they suggest hoax.

We have not seen all the footage and Truman could show up in
some of what hasn't been shown. We don't know for sure what it
contains.

 >You can see the blackened balloon envelop in the background. The
 >metallic debris is the remains of the rawin radar reflector and
 >not pieces of an alien spacecraft.

You need to take a closer look at the photos which you so far
have refused to do. Any member of the Roswell photo team will be
glad to lead you through the evidence. You'll never see anything
until you open your eyes. Some of the debris on the floor of
Gen. Ramey's office is the same as the AA debris and is the
debris collected my Major Marcel. Whether it's debris from an
alien spaceship is another matter

 >And no, I do not believe the
 >latest tales told by J. Bond Johnson. He saw a balloon, was told
 >it was a balloon and went away happy fifty years ago. Now he
 >didn't see a balloon and wasn't told it was a balloon. His
 >testimony has changed in such a radical fashion that he has
 >rendered it useless.

I happen to believe Bond's version of events but his testimony
is not relevant at this point. You need to take another careful
look at the evidence. Why is that so difficult for you?

 >>This is a complete fabrication. There isn't any "video" at all.
 >>Where is your proof for this statement. Yes this has been said
 >>before but when you look closely, there is no such word.

 >No, it's not. I saw it myself, in the version of the debris that
 >was circulated in 1995. The word appears on an I-beam, which
 >does not resemble that described by anyone. BTW, the symbols do
 >not match those drawn by either Jesse Marcel, Sr. or Jr. This
 >looks as if someone had read descriptions and let their
 >imagination run wild.

This statement shows just how ignorant you are about the AA. Why
not look for yourself? I'll say again: there is no "video" in
the wreckage debris that can be seen in the AA footage. There
are some symbols that have a similar configuration but do not
spell "video". There were many symbols on the debris and perhaps
Jesse saw a different set. Besides there are similarities but
you'd have to look carefully which you refuse to do.

 >I said nothing about the Cuban missile crisis.

OK, and I also have no proof that Corso saw an alien body at Ft.
Riley, but you have no proof that he didn't so lets leave it at
that. I realize that it sounds improbable but other things that
Corso said have seemed improbable, on the surface, but have
turned out to be true.

 >>Polygraphs are extremely reliable, accurate and consistent but
 >>still are not allowed except when both prosecution and defense
 >>agree. The VSA and the polygraph are used by many major
 >>investigative agencies including the FBI and most local police
 >>departments. If they use these tools to limit mistakes, then we
 >>should ,too.

 >Yes, we've had numerous demonstrations about the reliability of
 >the polygraph from the FBI... how many spies who passed how many
 >polygraphs have now been outed by other means?

You'll have to be more specific. No spies except Aldrich Aims
have passed polygraphs and his is still being disputed. The FBI
were not required to take polygraphs after employed.
Administration of a polygraph is SOP to anyone suspected of a
crime. All police agencies rely on polygraphs and VSA.

 >And, it all depends on which studies you read about the
 >reliability of the polygraph. Some suggest a 50-50 reliability
 >which is about equal with guessing and some as high as 90% which
 >till leaves a margin for error.

I have talked with and worked with polygraphists and they insist
that 50% figure is a myth. One that I interviewed said that he
had so far not made a single mistake in over 200 cases,and most
of his colleagues are well over 95%. He told me that no one
would use polygraphs if the reliability were only 50-50, and
that he was always busy.

 >Which has been done, repeatedly. Some of that information has
 >been supplied to this list. The transistor, for example, is
 >clearly traceable back to Bell Laboratories and predate the
 >introduction, by Corso, of that technology.

It's mistakes like this that make me realize that you have not
read 'The Day After Roswell'. Where in that book did Corso say
he was responsible for the transistor?

 >>Who's going to argue with you powerhouses, except
 >>someone outside the UFO community like myself?

 >First, we haven't shut down discussion because we're wasting
 >more bandwidth on it. Second, when you get that collection of
 >people to agree on a point, wouldn't that suggest that maybe
 >there is a reason that all of us, from such diverse backgrounds,
 >with such diverse opinions and with such diverse levels of
 >education, that maybe we all have some insight into Corso? We
 >all can point to various areas of expertise and suggest that
 >Corso was making some very elementary mistakes. His story does
 >not hang together when it is examined by those of us who have
 >some knowledge on how such things should be accomplished. When
 >you begin to deviate so widely from established procedures, it
 >suggests that something is amiss.

What it suggests to me is a group of otherwise well meaning
reserchers who have made assumptions that are not correct, just
like your statement re the transistor.

 >I have never said that you shouldn't take a closer look at them.
 >But, take a look at everything, not just the small number of
 >things that tend to support your beliefs.

I see this as your problem, not mine.

 >Look all you want, but
 >remember that Corso's tale does not conform to the way the
 >military works, it does not conform to the story of the Roswell
 >crash, and he has been caught in a number of lies, including his
 >claim to have been associated with MJ-12.

You have no proof that he didn't work with MJ 12 Or is there a
membership list somewhere? You have no idea

 >In today's world it's called spin. More importantly, Thurmond's
 >ffice protested, and the introduction was removed. That should
 >ell you something about this and it also suggests something
 >about Corso's integrity. And if Simon and Schuster wasn't
 >worried, why remove that introduction from subsequent printings.

All I know is that Birnes stated clearly that Strom had given
his approval. Is Birnes lying, too? I'll certainly read Pflock's
book but as I stated before, I would never take his word for
anything.

 >>>So how many digits did the Roswell alien have? What's you're
 >>>latest thinking on this?

 >Five.

How did you arrive at that number?

 >I want to take a moment to revisit the reason I jumped into this
 >arena. It was because it had been suggested that none of the
 >mistakes in Corso's book belonged to him, but were the result of
 >he enthusiasm of Birnes. The short fuse for publishing
 >(possibly to avoid the evil government from stopping it) didn't
 >provide Corso with the opportunity to read the manuscript after
 >Birnes had completed it, so we couldn't hold that against Corso.
 >I provided to instances in which the "mistakes" were clearly
 >those of Corso.

 >Now, let's revisit this idea that Corso didn't see the
 >manuscript prior to publication. I say, "Crap." Here's why, and
 >remember, I have published books with Simon and Schuster so I
 >know their procedures. There is a stage known as Copy Edited
 >Manuscript. This is the manuscript returned to the author(s)
 >with little yellow post-it type notes stuck on the pages with
 >questions from the copy editor. Birnes and Corso should have
 >seen this... I will say that Corso might have gotten a short
 >look or he might not have read the copy edited manuscript to
 >answer these "flags" and let Birnes handle this.

 >Then there is the "page proofs" known in olden times as the
 >galleys. Corso would have received a copy of the page proofs,
 >which is a copy of the way the book will look in its final
 >ncarnation. Think photocopy of each page here. The author(s)
 >read these, mark them up to correct mistakes that might have
 >escaped the editor, copy editor and author at the other stages.
 >Here, Corso would have had the opportunity to read the entire
 >book, as it would appear, and would have had the opportunity to
 >correct any errors that Birnes had unwittingly introduced into
 >the manuscript.

 >We can conclude two things here. Either Corso read the book at
 >this point and approved, or he didn't bother to read it because
 >he already knew what it said. In either case, he provided tacit
 >approval of the contents and it is now too late to go back and
 >say that someone else is responsible for the mistakes.

 >As for this story that Simon and Schuster rushed the book into
 >print to keep the government from censoring it. Crap, again.
 >They rushed to meet the 50th Anniversary of the Roswell crash.
 >Get it out after the event and they lose that big advertizing
 >opportunity.

 >Now, let's go around again.

The above is all very interesting but wasted on me, I'm afraid.
I talked with Phil Jr. and he stated that his father went
through the book, page by page and highlighted all mistakes and
misrepresentations. These changes were never made because of
pending litigation between the publishers and Corso and Birnes.
He indicated that they hoped to compete a new edition with all
the corrections included but I have no idea when that will
happen.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                  Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 21:51:09 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:20:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Morris


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 03:25:13 +0100
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:51:50 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Easton

All,

Can I just pass a couple of comments here that to me at least
say all is not as cut and dried as James would make it out to
be.

 >Regarding:

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited
 >>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:59:38 -0700

 >Ed,

 >Some of the points you are raising were dealt with over two
 >years ago on UFO UpDates. See for example:

 >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/jan/m17-005.shtml
 >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/jan/m22-013.shtml
 >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/jan/m22-027.shtml
 >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/dec/m12-002.shtml

 >In that last post, I wrote:

 >Something I haven't mentioned publicly before, is being
 >contacted by the person who was involved in producing that
 >finished 'tent footage' video for Keith Bateman and Andy
 >Price-Watts. He summarised:

I too was approached by a member of this group long before the
story broke in the press, the party failed to follow through
though when I asked for some hard proof of what they were
claiming.

 >"I have worked (but no longer) for Keith & Andy for the past 7
 >years as manager of the animation department dealing with
 >computer animation and graphics. You'll find my name printed on
 >various videos that we've produced either on the credits or the
 >back sleeve for the design. My involvement in the Tent Footage
 >was to put the scratches and bits of dirt onto the video (I say
 >video because none of it was on film, all Beta and VHS). I
 >created such a loop of a few thousand frames so that any small
 >section of the footage would not show the loop. From the
 >computer, the animated scratches and bits were laid over the
 >footage".

 >His insights into the story are interesting and I'll publish
 >them, together with his identity, in due course.
 >[END]

 >Belatedly following up on this, and revealed for the first time
 >publicly, the person who 'aged' that film was Philip Jarman. He
 >wrote to me:

 >Answer to your questions of authenticity:

 >I have worked (but no longer) for Keith & Andy for the past 7
 >years as manager of the animation department dealing with
 >computer animation and graphics. You'll find my name printed on
 >various videos that we've produced either on the credits or the
 >back sleeve for the design. My involvement in the Tent Footage
 >was to put the scratches and bits of dirt onto the video (I say
 >video because none of it was on film, all Beta and VHS). I
 >created such a loop of a few thousand frames so that any small
 >section of the footage would not show the loop, even Kodak
 >couldn't tell. From the computer, the animated scratches and
 >bits were laid over the footage.

 >I do not know where Ray got the 'Alien Autopsy' footage made but
 >I do know he had it made and it is not authentic. Again, I
 >remember Ray arguing with Keith in the office and that he kicked
 >a chair and broke a toe in the process because Keith was
 >threatened to blow open the whole thing, this was a few years
 >back now.

 >Keith has told his story to the newspapers and has said to me
 >that it doesn't matter now what I say, I just can't believe that
 >Ray is still saying that his footage is authentic.

 >[...]

 >[END]

 >The story about Ray's toe faring second best in a confrontation
 >with office furniture was confirmed by Keith Bateman to Nick
 >Fielding, although not published in Nick's 'Mail on Sunday'
 >article - see:

 >http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/mail_os.htm

 >If I recall, Bateman said that Ray was in America when he heard
 >Bateman's company intended to release their own 'alien autopsy
 >film', which came to be known as the 'tent footage'. He flew
 >back to the UK, called at their office in a rage, kicked a table
 >or chair and painfully regretted his expression of annoyance.

 >Given that the 'tent footage' was evidently known to be a hoax
 >from day one - see the material contained in those above
 >references - you do have to ask why Ray _did_ subsequently
 >promote it, until the _real_ 'alien autopsy' film suddenly and
 >only later appeared.

 >You also have to ask why Bob Shell was told the 16mm film to
 >video transfer was undertaken by Rank in London and Graham
 >Birdsall and myself were able to prove otherwise, by speaking to
 >the Manager of their only department who would conceivably have
 >been responsible for such work. Rank were seriously not amused
 >by Ray's story.

 >Ray did tell me in confidence who undertook the separate 'film
 >to video' transfer which resulted in that video tape given to
 >Bateman and Price-Watts in the hope they could enhance apparent
 >'almost non-existent' images. Although I've consequently never
 >revealed who that alleged 'facilities house' were, I can say I
 >could find no trace of their existence anywhere, even in
 >contemporary London telephone directories.

This to me sounds like total BS, you wouldn't do enhancement
work on a "video" copy if you were intent on trying to extract
the max image information, you would want to work with the
original data ie the film itself, NOT a resolution degraded
video copy, even if the original was deemed too precious to work
directly with, an optical dupe would be preferable to any video
copy.

 >Corso and Santilli are arguably the proverbial fine bedfellows

<snip>

 >Ray never answered any number of questions about the Rank fiasco
 >or the apparently non-existent 'facilities house'.

The "facilities house" apparently DID exist, as Philip Mantle
has now interviewed the chap who undertook the job of film to
tape transfer for Ray.

He confirmed the film he handled was "old" 16mm stock, though I
gather he had no idea as to it's actual age, some was in
relatively good condition, some in very poor condition. I
suppose all this could be confirmed if someone fancies some "leg
work" and checks out the transfer house code numbers visible on
the "Raw Footage" video IF you stop frame and look VERY closely
in just the right place.

Just as I feel Ray has been far from straight with many parts of
his story, I also feel quite certain we have had far from the
complete story from the peddlers of the Tent Footage.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                   Re: UFO Video Goes To Hollywood - Hayes

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:46:57 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 20:15:37 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Video Goes To Hollywood - Hayes


 >Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 21:18:55 -0400
 >From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO Video Goes To Hollywood

 >Very interesting to say the least! Notice the mention of NASA
 >here?

 >http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1363000/1363848.stm

Hi Todd,

 From UFO Magazine Newsletter 15 - 1st June 2001:

A word from Russel Callaghan.

Readers in the UK may have picked up on June 1st newspaper
reports that a witness to a UFO event had been �allegedly� paid
�20,000.00 for video tape that has been hidden in an un-named
bank vault since October last year. We have a feature on the
website www.ufomag.co.uk

You will see the banner headline on the main index page, there
are also new video clips on the website. FOX Channel 6 News
aired a coast to coast special 8th May you can view it and our
response on the site.


Click on the FOX 6 News image to read the report on the UFO
Magazine site.


Best wishes,

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 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                Re: Abductee's Books & Investigators - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:37:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 20:17:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Abductee's Books & Investigators - Sandow


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Abductee's Books & Investigators
 >Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:59:05 +0200


 >>Maybe flour on the floor qualifies. But everything else
 >>mentioned here has already been done.

 >Obviously, not enough or not properly.

I agree. There are only anecdotal accounts, and maybe a couple
of allegedly anomalous videos, which I've never seen. There's
never been any monitoring of abductees done under completely
scientific conditions. (These would include the abductee not
knowing what kind of monitoring is being done; automatic
transmission of data; and double-blind comparison of the results
with abductee reports of claimed experiences.)


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 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                  Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:46:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 20:19:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Sandow


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited
 >Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:09:14 -0700

 >I'm also a member of the press so I understand your comments but
 >the Cuban Missile Crisis was an entirely different matter from a
 >normal news story. This might have put the US in a nuclear war
 >with the USSR. So I'm quite sure that P. Scott would not have
 >written his article without trusting Corso and without a prior
 >understanding that Corso's information was reliable. I could
 >have expressed myself better but what I intended to say was that
 >if Paul Scott thought Corso was a " megalomaniac or a
 >psychopathic liar" he wouldn't have run with the story and the
 >information Corso provided.

My impression is that some political columnists even more
readily resort to unreliable sources when there's a lot at
stake. I could wish that wasn't true, but political punditry
isn't -- in my view -- the most responsible of professions, at
least as it's practiced.

Does anyone know anything about Paul Scott, by the way?

 >>A very good point. The recent book I've mentioned on the history
 >>of the NSA details the buildup of intelligence about Soviet
 >>missiles in Cuba. This intelligence came from many sources.
 >>After a certain period, the Kennedy administration was pretty
 >>sure there were offensive missiles in Cuba, or soon would be,
 >>but still didn't have definitive proof.
 >>It was only after there was definite proof that JFK took action.

 >I'm not sure this is entirely correct. Did any of your sources
 >mention "Operation Mongoose"? As shown in the secret document
 >Robert at:

 >http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/03-01.gif

 >"Mongoose" was an important consideration, worry and concern for
 >JFK and could possibly have prevented him from including the
 >public in any knowledge or discussion of the Cuban missiles. We
 >may not have known for years that there was ever a problem.
 >(Mongoose wasn't discovered or made public until years later)
 >Unlike others on this list, I believe our government is very
 >good at keeping secrets. Our ongoing biological weapons program
 >is a perfect example.

I can't tell from this document what Mongoose was. The sources
I've read tell a very straightforward story. Intelligence is
gathered. JFK decides on action, without prodding from the
media, or anyone outside his administration. Action is taken,
and the public is immediately informed.

This Mongoose document, to my mind, illustrates the dangers of
forming opinions with too little data. We look at one or two
documents, or even a dozen, and think we know what they mean. A
historian will look at hundreds - in fact, he or she will try to
look at absolutely every relevant document before forming an
opinion. It's easy to take documents out of context, especially
if we don't know what the context is.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 2

                    Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:59:00 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 20:21:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Hall


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood
 >Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:39:20 -0500

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Disappointed In Brentwood
 >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:42:52 -0000

 >>I have waited, apparently in vain, for some encouraging response
 >>to my previous posting suggesting a specific plan whereby anyone
 >>on this list who wishes to take concrete action to encourage
 >>Congressional hearings (an oft-expressed desire) could
 >>meaningfully participate. Except for one or two positive
 >>comments, there has been a deafening silence.

 >Dick,

 >My very quick 2 cents on this (gotta take the kid to a birthday
 >party).

 >I'm not about to write my congressman (Lamar Smith, R., last
 >time I looked) with an out-of-the-blue request or demand that he
 >investigate, or demand congressional investigations of, UFOs in
 >the abstract.

 >That's a non-starter, since he's got more constitutents
 >demanding more immediate and pressing results from him. Think
 >1000 ufologists around the country writing maybe 10, 20 or 30
 >congressmen. Not much oomph there!

 >There needs to be some rallying point (and person) for this to
 >have any chance of succeeding. IMHO, there needs to have been
 >some events that have recently captured or attracted public
 >attention as well. I doubt Schiff would have been able to move
 >the GAO w/o the Roswell anniversary looming in the background.
 >In addition, he was able to marshall very specific complaints
 >from his own constituents. Pretty much ditto congressman Ford in
 >1966, wasn't it?

 >In other words, a highly specific _focal_ point is needed before
 >you fire off such a request. If you've mentioned one on this
 >thread, pardon my having overlooked it.

 >>This non-response, of course, can be interepreted in many
 >>different ways. I interpret it to mean that people (in general)
 >>are a lot more willing to sit in their armchairs and spout
 >>opinions and criticize others on this list for "not doing
 >>something" (while claiming that other dubious characters
 >>allegedly are doing something), but these same opinionizers do
 >>nothing but snipe. I say, put your money where your mouths are.

 >>Also, the implication that I have "done nothing" is absolutely
 >>astonishing to me. What appears obvious is that younger
 >>generations are very much into "instant gratification" re: UFO
 >>"truths." Well, youngsters, prepare to be disappointed. Just ask
 >>those of us who were already on the firing line when you were
 >>just a gleam in your father's eye.

 >>There are no easily accessible answers. My advice: Study, think,
 >>learn. As George Santayana said, "Those who do not learn from
 >>history are doomed to repeat it" (pretty close if not an exact
 >>quote).

 >I've got to rush out the door, but didn't some local MUFON
 >chapters try to do just this recently, something involving
 >petitions? Do you know how that turned out and/or why it turned
 >out as it did?

 >For newcomers to this List, I should point out that Hall has
 >been around the UFO phenomenon almost since its inception, and
 >has waged more political and scientific wars re same than most
 >of us will ever see in a lifetime. Where the implication came
 >from that he has "done nothing," I have no idea, and certainly
 >do not endorse.

 >Dennis

Dennis,

I agree with everything you say here, bar none. I just wish to
clarify one thing: At this point I am not a big advocate of
Congressional hearings for complex reasons only touched upon so
far, but basically because your average Congressman is not a
scientific genius, nor does she/he perceive abstract problems
such as UFOs to be nearly as compelling as the immediate needs
of constituents. Let's "get real" about Congress and UFOs.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 3

              CCCRN News: 06-02-01 Time Change for Study Group

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 17:12:19 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:41:19 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News: 06-02-01 Time Change for Study Group


CCCRN NEWS
The E-News Service of the Canadian Crop Circle Research Network

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

June 2, 2001

_____________________________



For those in or near the Vancouver area:

TIME CHANGE FOR FIRST CIRCULAR FORUM STUDY GROUP

Re the previous notice concerning the study group for this next
Wednesday, please note that due to a change in my own work
schedule (again), the time has changed to 7:00 pm in the
evening, still on Wednesday, June 6, which may be better for
some people anyway. This was the time I had originally scheduled
for, until my work schedule necessitated changing it to the
morning, but now we're back to the evening again and it should
stay that way from now on. The original sg info follows again
below for those that may have missed it the first time. We will
discuss the first reports for 2001, from England, Germany,
Holland, Canada and the US.

Paul Anderson



'First Circles of 2001'

Join CCCRN for the first study group of 2001, a chance for
informal, in-depth discussion of the latest crop circle related
news and reports from Canada, Europe and around the world, in a
relaxed, eclectic atmosphere with the best coffee, tea,
sandwiches, soups, desserts and electronica. To be held the
first Wednesday of each month at SDC through the summer and
fall.

Starry Dynamo Cafe
4342 Main Street, Vancouver, BC
Wednesday, June 6, 2001
7:00 pm - 9:00 pm
Free admission

For further information:
Tel: 731.8522
E-Mail: psa@direct.ca
Web: http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada


____________________________


The Canadian Crop Circle Research Network is a non-profit
organization which investigates the crop circle phenomenon and
possibly related phenomena in Canada, creating a liason between
researchers, farmers, the public, the media and scientists in
trying to solve this ongoing enigma


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 Branches:
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 >
   Jun > Jun 3

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:35:38 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:46:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rudiak


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:00:17 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 01:54:20 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

I orginally wrote:
 >>>(When pressed for details in letters and other phone
 >>>conversations, however, Walker clammed up.)

Bob Young responded:

 >>The obvious reading of Walker's comments, to me, was that he was
 >>answering Steinman's questions very tongue in cheek. At one
 >>point he told him that he sure doesn't have any aliens in his
 >>office at Penn State. The so called clamming up seems to have
 >>been after Walker realized that he was getting these calls from
 >>somebody without a sense of humor who was quite serious about
 >>his preposterous questions - a real saucer nut.

Then Jerry Clark:

 >Not often that I agree with Bob, but I think he's on the money
 >here. My impression, too, was that Walker was speaking with
 >tongue buried in cheek, always a mistake when one is talking
 >with a humorless soul, of whom Steinman is practically a
 >definition of the species.

 >Steinman's book on Aztec, where Walker's alleged role is
 >discussed, is one of the most godawfully daffy UFO books ever
 >written, and that's saying something.

I am always surprised when a long-time UFO advocate like Jerry
Clark resorts to debunker tactics (ridicule and assertions of
fact not in evidence) in order to dismiss something he feels
uncomfortable with.

I think this is due in part to Ufology's "elder statesmen" (may
I use the term?) tending to feel snakepit by past hoaxes or bad
research and not wishing to be played for suckers again.
Unfortunately, I think this also makes them tend to throw out
the baby with the bathwater.

There is also a failure to appreciate that some fraction of
hoaxes are very possibly counterintelligence stings deliberately
designed to discredit certain ideas. Hoaxed MJ-12 papers may be
one such example. One of the best places to hide the truth can
be out in the open inside of a hoax.

Out goes the baby along with the bathwater.

Let me repeat the point I was trying to make. Even if all the
MJ-12 "documents" were hoaxed, every last one of them, from the
original Eisenhower briefing papers and Cutler memo to the
thousands of pages of present-day documents being scrutinized by
the Woods, MJ-12 could still have been a reality, if not in
name, then at least in substance.

I think the Sarbacher/Smith evidence by itself is compelling
that such a group existed (and may still exist). Sarbacher
briefed Smith in 1950 that the rumors about crashed saucers were
substantially correct and that Vannevar Bush was heading a small
group studying the matter. Smith wrote this down in notes and
memos to the Canadian government. There are further Smith memos
where Bush and the Bush-created Research and Development Board
are mentioned as the people in charge of clearing a dumb UFO
article by Donald Keyhoe on Smith's UFO propulsion ideas.

Now if you want ot read something truly "godawfully daffy", try
reading non-scientist Kehoe's attempt to explain Smith's ideas.
Why would something like this require any sort of clearance from
Bush and the RDB before it could be published? Why would it
need clearance from some group even if it weren't godawfully
daffy?

30+ years later, the "humorless" and "daffy" William Steinhem
tracked down Sarbacher, and Sarbacher corroborated the substance
of the Smith memos, plus adding a few more details. Other
researchers, presumably not so "humorless" or "daffy", also
spoke to Sarbarcher and got the same story. Apparently
Sarbacher's tongue wasn't too deeply buried in his cheek when he
spoke initially to the humorless and daffy Steinem.

Among the additional details provided by Dr. Sarbacher, was that
Dr. Eric Walker also attended meetings of the RDB with Sarbacher
at Wright-Patterson on the subject of crashed saucers and alien
bodies. Sarbacher had been a consultant to the Board in 1950 at
the time of his briefing to Smith. Walker had been the
Executive Secretary of the Board from 1950-1951. Thus if
Sarbacher was telling the truth, Walker would certainly be in a
position to know.

(Should we also mention that Dr.Lloyd Berkner, another of the
alleged MJ-12 members, was a long-time Bush associate and the
first Excecutive Secretary of the Board when it was formed in
Sept. 1947?)

Another member of the RDB from that period, Dr. Fred Darwin,
likewise fingered Bush, Berkner, and Walker as "probably"
involved.

Eventually Steinem tracked down Walker and called him up in
1987.  Steinem's "humorless" and "daffy" reputation must have
been well-known to Walker when Steinem called him out of the
blue. Impaling his tongue in his cheek, Walker proceeded to
admit in this first contact that:

1. Yes indeed, he did attend meetings of the RDB on the subject
of crashed saucers and bodies, and

2. He not only knew of MJ-12, but he had known of its existence
since its inception 40 years before, meaning 1947.

What's interesting about statement #2, is that the date of
origin came spontaneously from Walker. Steinem mentioned the
so-called Eisenhower briefing document of 1952, but said nothing
at all about when MJ-12 supposedly formed. Steinem's reputation
for daffiness and humorlessness obviously brought about a
remarkably inspired guess from Walker about the contents of the
briefing document. All the better to lead on the humorless and
daffy who don't have the sense to realize when their leg is
being pulled.

In addition, Walker, now in great pain from tongue-in-cheek
impalement, ended the conversation by saying he might answer
more questions in the future after digging up his notes on those
meetings.

Then Steinem sent Walker a letter asking for written
corroboration of their conversation and for further details.
Walker now takes pity on the humorless and daffy Steinem.
Perhaps he's led the poor man on too much with his cruel
tongue-in-cheek responses. Steinem still doesn't get the joke.
So Walker writes a largely absurd letter back to Steinem (which
he later denied writing) about the Roswell aliens being
integrated into American society.

But Walker hadn't anticipated just how humorless Steinem and
other researchers, with whom Steinem shared his interview and
letter, could be. Instead of taking the proper cues from
Walker's over-the-top humor, they instead read it as Walker
having second thoughts about his initial, seemingly
straight-arrow interview with Steinem. These humorless people
thought he was being evasive and absurd in his second letter as
a form of damage control.

Now Walker is inundated with humorless and daffy UFO researchers
trying to get more out of him. Walker puts his tongue firmly
back in his cheek and tells one he doesn't have aliens in his
office. But to another he again admits, in a round-about way,
to the existence of the secret control group and attempts at
alien contact.

This is all tongue-in-cheek stuff, of course. But the genie has
already been let out of the bottle. No matter how Walker zigged
and zagged, some people to this very day take that first
interview with Steinem seriously, as humorless people are apt to
do. Their reading of his reactions in that first interview was
that Steinem caught Walker by surprise. In reality, he didn't
know Steinem from a humorless and daffy hole in the wall, and
instead was providing relatively straight responses.

After his first conversation, according to humorless
interpretation, Walker realized he had said too much, and
started to talk all around the subject. Most of the follow-up
involved other people. Walker wasn't even talking any more to
the humorless and daffy Steinem.

Walker wasn't called at random, but was contacted after a strong
chain of evidence starting with Smith and Sarbacher led
researchers to his doorstep. I think his first comments should
be interpreted in the context of that evidence, not in
isolation. Sarbacher said Walker attended meetings with him on
crashed saucers and alien bodies. Initially Walker corroborated
Sarbacher's statement. Later he didn't exactly deny attending
such meetings, but refused to talk about the subject or claimed
that he didn't remember anything about them.

Don't ignore the actual message because of the messenger, no
matter how "humorless" and "daffy" you may think them to be.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 3

                  Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:09:14 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:51:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Gehrman


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:54:33 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Corso And The Cuban Missile Crisis - Sandow

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Corso And The Cuban Missile Crisis
 >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 15:06:38 -0700


 >>Do you think Paul Scott would have written the article if he
 >>didn't believe that Corso had something to offer and could be
 >>depended on to deliver reliable information? Would one of the
 >>most trusted political columnists in the nation take the word of
 >>a megalomaniac or a psychopathic liar.

 >Here I have to giggle.

 >Trust me, Ed - I'm in the press myself. We'll leave psychopathic
 >liars out of the discussion for the moment, because I'm not
 >claiming Corso was one. But if columnists and other in the press
 >didn't take the word of megalomaniacs, we'd never get any inside
 >news.

<snip>

 >So of course a columnist will take a megalomaniac's word.
 >Columnists also write a lot of nonsense because they do that.
 >Then they get criticized, publicly or privately, by other
 >columnists who say, "Can you believe who the source was for that
 >story?"

 >So the mere fact that a
 >columnist took Corso's word doesn't even remotely prove that
 >Corso could always be trusted.


Greg,

I'm also a member of the press so I understand your comments but
the Cuban Missile Crisis was an entirely different matter from a
normal news story. This might have put the US in a nuclear war
with the USSR. So I'm quite sure that P. Scott would not have
written his article without trusting Corso and without a prior
understanding that Corso's information was reliable. I could
have expressed myself better but what I intended to say was that
if Paul Scott thought Corso was a " megalomaniac or a
psychopathic liar" he wouldn't have run with the story and the
information Corso provided.

Also you wrote to Robert:

 >A very good point. The recent book I've mentioned on the history
 >of the NSA details the buildup of intelligence about Soviet
 >missiles in Cuba. This intelligence came from many sources.
 >After a certain period, the Kennedy administration was pretty
 >sure there were offensive missiles in Cuba, or soon would be,
 >but still didn't have definitive proof.
 >It was only after there was definite proof that JFK took action.

I'm not sure this is entirely correct. Did any of your sources
mention "Operation Mongoose"? As shown in the secret document
Robert at:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/03-01.gif

"Mongoose" was an important consideration, worry and concern for
JFK and could possibly have prevented him from including the
public in any knowledge or discussion of the Cuban missiles. We
may not have known for years that there was ever a problem.
(Mongoose wasn't discovered or made public until years later)
Unlike others on this list, I believe our government is very
good at keeping secrets. Our ongoing biological weapons program
is a perfect example.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 3

                Puerto Rico: UFO Over Barrio Hoyos (San Juan)

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 13:56:34 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:54:19 -0400
Subject: Puerto Rico: UFO Over Barrio Hoyos (San Juan)


SOURCE: www.ovni.net (Lucy Guzman and Orlando Pla)
DATE: Saturday, June 2, 2001

UFO SPOTTED OVER BARRIO HOYOS (SAN JUAN)

On Monday, May 28 2001 at 10:58 p.m., an anomalous aerial event
took place in the skies over Barrio Hoyos 2, Cupey, in the
circumscription Rio Piedras in San Juan, Puerto Rico. At least
two groups of witnesses in completely different locations were
able to behold the incident when the aerial drama took place.

In a matter of seconds, a very shiny silvery white object
crossed part of the sky at a prodigous rate of speed. One of the
groups witnessing the event was located in the Quintas de Cupey
development enjoying a perfectly cloudless night and star
gazing. According to the point of view of this group, the
luminous object moved from the south to the north. The angle of
elevation was of approximately 5 degrees and it movedl
tangentially some 20 grees. Its speed was comparable to that of
a meteorite entering the atmosphere, except that this object
moved in a horizontal trajectory at low altitude. It was
therefore not a meteorite. According to one eyewitness, the
object issued two flashes during its travel and that each flash
gave the appearance of being a change in velocity. No sounds
associated to the event could be heard.

The second group, compsed of a dozen persons, was at the
Fairview development, which borders Barrio Hoyos 2. The air show
took place almost directly over the heads of these onlookers.
This group was composed of several enighbors who were out on the
street due to the fact that there was a power outage in
progress. The witnesses saw an object they described as a point
of silvery white light moving at an almost instantaneous
velocity at an inclination of 50 to 60 degrees. According to
these residents' point of view, the object travelled in a
straight line from south to north and amde an instantaneous 180
degree turn followed by a second inmmediate 90 degree turn
toward the east. The neighbors could not believe what they had
seen and withdrew into their homes seeking protection. No
further comment was made about the matter.

A distance of 2.41 miles separated both groups, and it can be
estimated, by means of triangulation, that the object traveled
at an altitude of 1000-1500 feet over the Hoyos 2 sector. It can
also be estimated that its speed was greater than 3000 miles an
hour. Had the UFO continued its trajectory toward the north, it
would have flown over the Luis Muoz Marn International
Airport. We can only suspect that it altered its trajectory and
left the island, passing over the El Yunque National Forest and
heading for the Virgin Islands.

Another explanation for this aerial event is that it is an
anomalous atmospheric electric discharge--what we would normally
call a bolt of lighting. An inspection of the area indicates
that there are no high voltage towers in the area that would
serve to ionize the air. Furthermore, the sky was perfectly
clear on the night the event occurred. The only facility we
found in the area was a microwave tower for cellular phones
located at a distance of over a mile from Barrio Hoyos. Another
factor which does not support this explanation is that the
object or light did not issue any type of sound or thunder. It
is my opinion that these conditions were not favorable to the
formation of this type of electrical discharge, although we do
not discard it, and further invite experts in Physics and
Meteorology to state their points of view.

The undersigned and his wife, Lucy Guzman, were eyewitnesses to
this episode and therefore do not question neither the accounts
nor the calculations presented in this investigation.

Miscellaneous data:

Geographic position of the first group:
LAT. 18 degrees21.69 mn. N - LONG. 66 degrees 04.13 mn. W

Geographic position of the second group:
LAT. 18 degrees 21.86 mn. N - LONG. 66 degrees 01.93 mn. W

Geographic position of the cellular tower:
LAT. 18 degrees 21.94 mn. N - LONG. 66 degrees 02.90 mn. W

Atmospheric conditions for  San Juan, Puerto Rico:
Date: May 28, 20001
Time: 22:54 hrs
Temperature: 80.1 degrees F
Dewpoint: 77.0 degrees F
Barometric pressure: 30.06 inches
Visibility: 10.0 miles
Wind Velocity: 10.0 miles
Precipitation: 0
Atmospheric events: none
Conditions: clear
(official data taken from Weather Underground).

#########################
Translation (C) 2001. S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special thanks to Orlando Pla  and Lucy Guzman.









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

                        Re: Talk And Action - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 14:15:03 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:57:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Sparks


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:45:25 -0500


 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:37:46 -0000

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:36:28 -0500

 ><snip>

 >>If a scientist accidentally detects something UFO-like, he is not
 >>going to rush to colleagues and say "look what I found." He may
 >>privately confide in one or two colleagues whom he knows are not
 >>hostile to UFOs. Others (Maccabee, Sparks...) have covered this
 >>topic well. There is tremendous prejudice against UFOs (read,
 >>"possibly spaceships") as opposed to some relatively innocuous
 >>natural phenomenon. Controversy per se might not stop them, but
 >>this goes beyond mere controversy. UFOs are anathema.

 ><snip>

 >>Jim McDonald was a maverick, and look what it got him. There are
 >>a few maverick scientists loose in the UFO field today (Bruce
 >>Maccabee comes to mind) but how much help and support do they
 >>get from their colleagues or from scientific funding. Your
 >>analogies do not fit the UFO scenario.

 >McDonald has been dead for 30 years now. Much has changed in
 >scientific instrumentation since then, both in terms of the
 >quantity and quality of information and instrumentation. There
 >wasn't even a desktop computer back then.


Dennis,

As I've already pointed out in previous postings, as the Condon
Report stated, the problems with scientific instrumentation are
that (a) the scientists involved are looking for something very
specific and overlook everything else as "noise" and (b) the
instrumentation usually has built-in limitations or narrow focus
making it of limited use for UFO detection. These basic
principles have not changed. Military surveillance, however,
cannot afford to overlook very much "noise" because potential
weapons could be lurking within and a very comprehensive
coverage of the continent or the planet is required for many
early warning purposes. But such data are highly classified.

 >My analogies don't fit the UFO scenario because they weren't
 >intended to. Because I don't see the world through a UFO-centric
 >lens. I gave several examples of scientists who looked at
 >already existing data and, at least in Frank's case, interpreted
 >them in controversial ways, to which he was able to offer some
 >interesting evidence. It would be absurd to say all you gotta do
 >is ask. On the other hand, if you don't, you'll never know. Has
 >any ufologist ever talked to the U of AZ scientists I mentioned,
 >or Frank? I don't know.

Why would ufologists want to talk to Frank about iceball
meteors?

 >Don't take this personally, but I also get a little tired of
 >ufology raising this funding issue. I could probably point to
 >something like between at least and one and two million dollars
 >that have been spent on UFO and UFO-related research in the last
 >five years or so Possibly more). If Bruce isn't getting his fair
 >share of it, maybe he doesn't know how to write a good grant
 >paper! <BG!>

I have no idea where you're getting this $1-2 million figure
from. If you're referring to NIDS and Bigelow, NIDS isn't
exclusively UFO research but broadly investigates the
paranormal. What fraction is UFO-related I don't know but might
guess 1/4 perhaps. How much is NIDS' annual budget on UFO
research, maybe $20,000 to $30,000 I would guess.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                  Re: The Truth Is For Sale on Ebay - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 04:35:13 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:44:07 -0400
Subject: Re: The Truth Is For Sale on Ebay - Hatch


 >Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 22:26:03 -0500
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: The Truth Is For Sale on Ebay

 >The following is being offered for sale on ebay.  Opening bid is
 >set at a measley $1000.

 ><begin quote>

 >RARE! ASTOUNDING! INCREDIBLE FIND! THE ORIGINAL 1997 NEW MEXICO
 >AERONAUTICAL CHART The only official US Government document
 >indicating the Roswell UFO crash in 1947.  During a thunder
 >storm in 1947, something fell out of the night sky and crashed,
 >scattering debris over fifty acres on a remote sheep ranch at
 >Roswell, New Mexico. For 50 years the US government has
 >covered-up and denied that a UFO had crashed.

 >On the eve of the 50 year anniversary, the US Government Federal
 >Aviation Administration, New Mexico State Aeronautical Division
 >issued the New Mexico Aeronautical VFR Chart. Amazingly, this
 >official US Government chart shows an icon of a "SPACE SHIP"
 >marking the exact location of the crash site. Furthermore, the
 >chart legend includes the "SPACE SHIP" icon accompanied by the
 >words _UFO CRASH SITE_.

 >This chart is an unprecedented official document published by
 >the US Government indicating the Roswell UFO crash.  Signed and
 >dated by Hub Corn, The present day owner of the sheep ranch
 >where the crash occurred.

 >THIS IS AN AUTHENTIC/ORIGINAL US GOV. PILOTS VFR NAVIGATION
 >CHART... NEW IN MINT, PRISTINE COLLECTORS CONDITION.
 >(DIMENSIONS: TWENTY-FIVE AND A HALF BY TWENTY-EIGHT AND A HALF
 >INCHES).

 ><end quote>

 >Should anyone feel the need to bid on this item, if you feel
 >that it is just something you can't live without, and you happen
 >to have a thousand bucks laying around and can't think of a
 >single thing to spend it on, here's the direct URL to the
 >listing on ebay.

 >http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1148366325

 >And you better hurry.... at the time I'm sending this in,
 >there's only 18 hours left in the auction.

 >So far, no takers....wonder why.....



Hello Bobbie:

Maybe the appearance of the word "UFO" on the map, puts people
off.

Since that term did not become current for some years after
1947, folks might think the official Aero chart is a fake.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                              Walker and MJ-12

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 3 Jun 2001 18:53:33 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:49:26 -0400
Subject: Walker and MJ-12


There was no tape of the Steinman-Walker conversation dealing
with the Wright Patterson meeting. Steinman told me he wrote the
details of the conversation immediately after hanging up.

It was for this reason that when Henry Azedehdal came to me
promising that he could get Walker to talk (which he did), I
asked him to re-ask as many questions as possible so we could
compare the answers. I particularly wanted the question about
being "up against the windmills" asked again because of it's
strange language usage. You will note Henry changed the word to
whirlwind in the later interview, and Walker did answer the
question.

Henry was able to get Walker to talk as he told Walker about
being at a crash site in South America, and about photos that he
had taken. This is briefly mentioned in Henry's transcripts. The
part dealing with the details of the incident were not provided
by Henry, and are the only parts of the transcripts that were
not produced in the book. Otherwise the transcripts are complete
and unedited.

There is one Azedehdal conversation where there was no tape of
the conversation. Henry phoned and talked briefly with Dr.
Walker's wife who always answered the phone. The second Walker
came on the line a loud noise covered the conversation on the
tape. I heard this tape. There was no noise on the phone line,
and nothing seemed out of place till the tape was played back.

The letter regarding the four aliens bothered Scott and I as
much as any who have read it. My first and remaining
interpretation is that it was in response to Steinman's writing
style. Any who received letters from him know about how he would
print on yellow lined paper complete with spelling mistakes. The
appeared to be written by some small child, or someone not quite
in line with a serious researcher.

In this regard it is important to note that I reviewed Walker's
massive set of files at the Penn State Archives twice. I
searched for hours for the letters he had sent and received,
both to see how he had filed them, and to see if he had received
any other UFO letters that we were not aware of. There were
absolutely no letters in the carefully filed collection
maintained until his death by his secretary. This collection
included letters from 6 or 7 Presidents, General Trudeau of
Corso fame, and many other well know names in the fields of
science and the military. The lack of any of the many UFOs
letters we had exchanged was significant in light of some of the
letters that I found. These included a letter written by Walker
to a contractor doing work at his house accusing them of
stealing some small tool, or a letter of anger written to
Braniff Airlines complaining about being bumped on a flight.

During the years that we chased Walker, we received photocopies
of letters from Walker, that we had sent years before. There is
no doubt in our minds that all the letters he was receiving were
being kept in one spot from him, and as we explained in the
book, were being moved around the country. Quite the task for a
man who remained as busy as Walker was right up until his death.

There are a couple conversations that did not make the book.
These included the conversation where I asked Henry to ask
Walker if he had been to Kecksburg. I assumed he had been there
based on what he had said to Stanton Friedman, and his proximity
to the area. Henry did conduct the interview and walker did
acknowledge being at the Kecksburg crash site.

Also left out of the book was the visit made to Dr. Walker by
Kit Green formally of the CIA. Green and a high ranking officer
actually visited with Walker at his office at Penn State. The
meeting was set up by Bill Moore who did not believe Walker was
at the MJ-12 level, but was interested enough to see what
information he could obtain about how Walker fit into the
overall UFO flow chart. From reports we heard Green and his
partner where thrown out of the office. Henry confirmed this in
a conversation with Green.

Among his letters was a letter from Walker to the minister who
was going to do Walker's funeral. Walker informed the minister
that the time had arrived and he had only weeks to live. Walker
therefore had time to clean up his files, and our stuff went
somewhere.


Grant Cameron


"I wouldn't land on the White House Lawn and talk to those
people, and try to communicate. I assume that the UFO guys are
smarter than I am. They too would realize there is no purpose in
that."

          --Daniel Sheehan, President, Christic Institute








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                      Re: Talk And Action - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:05:02 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:56:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Mortellaro


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:45:25 -0500

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:37:46 -0000

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:36:28 -0500

 ><snip>

 >I can't help but believe you're being a little chauvinistic (and
 >maybe even ethnocentric) here. Are you absolutely certain this
 >UFO=anathema thing is a worldwide, cross-cultural phenomenon?

Nah, it's just a local thing, Denis. Happens seldomly in other
cultures. And the check is in your male.

 ><snip>

 >Don't take this personally, but I also get a little tired of
 >ufology raising this funding issue. I could probably point to
 >something like between at least and one and two million dollars
 >that have been spent on UFO and UFO-related research in the
 >last five years or so Possibly more). If Bruce isn't getting
 >his fair share of it, maybe he doesn't know how to write a good
 >grant paper! <BG!>


Dear Dennis, Dick, Listers and EBK;

Dennis, that wasn't nice. In fact, if I were Bruce, I would be
very upset over that last sentence. And say, perhaps you could
write a grant paper on his behalf, eh?

This ain't my fight, but that's never stopped me from placing my
two cents plain in a glass for anyone who cares to, to drink. As
I understand it, in some cultures, a good, loud and lusty belch
is not an insult, nor is it politically incorrect... rather, it
is a genuiine compliment to the Gripple. This oncoming belch is,
however, not a compliment. As my friend the beer man from the
shakey side would say, "Burp!"

The only real UFO stuff being done is by people like Maccabee
and NIDS doing the real observational analysis. Your figures are
so far off as to be humerous. Perhaps you are just kidding?
Maybe Errol should have placed his oft-used caveat in the
title... 'Caution, Satire!' A few millions in the last five
years? You are not well, sire. NIDS alone alledgedly spent more
paying off Carpenter if one is to have believed the others who
reported his missed demeanor. If you refer to grants, the number
is too high. If you refer to monies spent on the research, it's
way too low.

NIDS doesn't need the bread. But Maccabee does. And Jacobs.
And to an extent, Hopkins. Although Budd does not have the
required technical knowledge and experience with which to use
the monies as effectilvely as Dr. Bruce and Dr. Dave.

Last night on Strange Days, I lernted... learned, sorry, that
Mack spent a quarter of a million bucks defending his position
at the University... in legal fees alone. If say, Alfred
Lehmberg, or me, or even you, had to defend ourselves and use
the system of juris imprudence, to get us our jobs back, or
reputations, due exclusively to our interest in UFO's and the
Abduction phenom, we would not be able to afford doing so.

You know, Dennis, I often wonder at the stalled warts I see on
the bodies of skeptics and smart-assed debunkers who seem to
convey such... uh... believability, as to make us... the
experiencers and witnesses, sound and look like fools. Is that
the intention of skeptibunkies? Or just plain old meaness?

Present company excluded, off course. The extra "f" is not a
mistook.

Love and tissues to all of you out there who perceive yourselves
to be sane. We know better. You just gotta get help, some of
you. You really must get help.


Jim "Liar, Liar Pants on Fire" Mortellaro









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                  Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Sawers

From: William Sawers <syntax@slingshot.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:08:55 +1200
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:04:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Sawers


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 11:06:51 -0700
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Gehrman

 >>From: Kevin Randle KRandle993@aol.com
 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:35:56 EDT
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited
 >>>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:59:38 -0700


Kevin, Ed Listees,

Excuse me but  I may _please_ let me step in momentarily..

<snip>

 >>>Then Philip informed him and that was the end to it. Of course
 >>>once Ray knew it was faked, he dropped it. What would you have
 >>>expected him to do?

 >>I would have expected him to have it properly tested, to have
 >>the tale of the cameraman checked out,

 >>>He did. The cameraman had old photo albums and journals and
 >>>other personal records to prove to Ray that he was who he said
 >>>he was. To Ray, there was no doubt, then or now, that the
 >>>cameraman was legitimate.

 >>to be sure that what he got back was what he had sent in.

 >>>He sent the hoaxers film fragments and they sent him the hoaxed
 >>>tent footage. He had no reason to believe that they were pulling
 >>>his leg. It was only after the cameraman told him that he didn't
 >>>remember shooting the footage that Ray began to have doubts. The
 >>>tent footage was not shown on TV by Fox.

Doesn't this 'pulling your leg' or 'hoax' business reek of
'contrived confusion'? Am I the only one paranoid enough to
think the hoaxed tent footage stinks of intervention to divert
attention from the true footage!?


 >I wouldn't have expected him to palm it off on TV producers
 >and attempt to get paid for it. I would have expected him to do
 >his research rather than opening the bidding.

This all happened in excitment of the times I suspect... Ray,
not realising the implications or consequences was caught up in
the excitment of _his_ scoop!

Lets not forget, he wasn't in the UFO scene and knew little if
anything of the detail his every word would be subjected too.
Don't forget many of us are  human and subject to preempting a
forth-coming event with an enthusiastic demeanour!

 >>Again he wasn't paid for this footage. He didn't realize that he
 >>had been taken in by the hoaxers.

 >Where did he change the cameraman's statement? He just explained
 >why there were mistakes.

 >Mistakes were made because those inventing it weren't aware of
 >the American terminology. When caught, they were forced to
 >change it to reflect American idiom. And those changes suggest
 >that the statement was invented by someone from Britain rather
 >than by someone in the United States. It suggests that something
 >deceitful was being done.

 >>What I have asked for and you have failed to produce is the
 >>altered document supposedly changed by Ray. I have the original
 >>cameraman's statement but have not found any other. Do you have
 >>this altered version?

 >>Do you think Ray made this up?

 >Yes, as a matter of fact. Or one of those working for him.

 >>I disagree and you have no proof.

 >Because there was no pressure to get it right the first time.
 >When mistakes were pointed out, Ray rapidly corrected them so
 >that the next group wouldn't see them.

 >>Where is your evidence for this statement?

 >This, to me, suggests
 >that he was not being honest, and that he had not done his
 >research.

 >>This just "suggests" to you. Far the closer "proof" of his actu
 >>idn't have to do any research and wasn't interested in doing
 >>research. He had the footage and the cameraman's story and that
 >>was it. he didn't change a thing as far as I can tell. he was
 >>not interested in the UFO scene.

Ditto

 >He was surprised by the information available about
 >the Roswell case and eventually had to change the story so that
 >it wasn't Roswell but a different crash some thirty days
 >earlier.

 >>He didn't change his story and you have no proof that he did.

 >Ray told people there was footage of Truman walking the debris
 >field, of cranes lifting material onto trucks, or people in the
 >footage who could be identified. That is what he said, and none
 >of it is true. And yes, I know that he has excuses, but I don't
 >find those excuses to be adequate, and to me, they suggest hoax.

 >>We have not seen all the footage and Truman could show up in
 >>some of what hasn't been shown. We don't know for sure what it
 >>contains.

My take here is that the labels on the film cannister, that
mentioned Truman in the footage was when the said film,
remembering that it was the "reject film that needed work", was
so badly stuck together and difficult to resolve an image,
inadvertantly turned Ray in a liar, in this respect.

We need to step back and _not_ be UFO investigators. Try to
think of yourself as a businessman who has scooped something he
knows _nothing_ about and sees it as a chance to make a buck.
Ray is basically honest, but was so swamped, he probably go
caught up in the hysteria that followed the announcement of an
Alien Autopsy film to the general public. He spoke before even
he had seen the final product which was reliant on whether aging
had deteriarated some of the already suspect quality, as the
cameraman stated. You can't really blame him if he said a couple
of things that he was told by the cameraman and backed up by the
cannister labels.

OK we accept that Ray lied (or was too enthusiastic). It still
doesn't take _anything_ away from the AA footage! We all accept
the tent footage was a fake, but now that we have the genisis of
this footage, can't we leave it behind and look at the true AA
and debris footage as it stands?

 >You can see the blackened balloon envelop in the background. The
 >metallic debris is the remains of the rawin radar reflector and
 >not pieces of an alien spacecraft.

Can't there be a mixture of both/thrice... maybe a Mogul/Rawin
and Debris to confuse. It doesn't matter what was in the room.
Either way it was either substituted partialy, or a Mogul device
or a weather ballon.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 00:35:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:06:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Stacy


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:35:38 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >This is all tongue-in-cheek stuff, of course. But the genie has
 >already been let out of the bottle. No matter how Walker zigged
 >and zagged, some people to this very day take that first
 >interview with Steinem seriously, as humorless people are apt to
 >do. Their reading of his reactions in that first interview was
 >that Steinem caught Walker by surprise. In reality, he didn't
 >know Steinem from a humorless and daffy hole in the wall, and
 >instead was providing relatively straight responses.

 >After his first conversation, according to humorless
 >interpretation, Walker realized he had said too much, and
 >started to talk all around the subject. Most of the follow-up
 >involved other people. Walker wasn't even talking any more to
 >the humorless and daffy Steinem.


David,

So, here's the situation, as I understand it. You, or me, or
Steinem, or anyone else can just call up some insider
in-the-know out of the blue and he or she will just casually
blab the "truth" about UFOs and MJ-12 (w/o determining who the
caller is!), and then try to act "innocent" (or dumb) later when
called on the carpet? Isn't that essentially what you're saying?

Shades of Oeschler and Ingram! So much for need to know. And some
way to keep secrets, eh?

(Hey, all you gotta do is call and ask! Why didn't I think of that!)

And that stuff about four aliens being assimilated into American
society? I suppose that doesn't give you cause to pause, either?

But, then, not much does these days.

<snip>

 >Don't ignore the actual message because of the messenger, no
 >matter how "humorless" and "daffy" you may think them to be.
 >
 >David Rudiak

At least not as long as the contents of same confirm your
already existing world view. What about those actual messages
that don't?

Such as, say, the March 17, 1948, statements made by Col. McCoy
to the AF Scientific Advisory Board at Wright-Pat, more than
half a year after Roswell? (But all of ufology has a problem
with _that_ one, doesn't it?)

I dare say, in such an event, assuming you'd ever countenance
same, you'd be the first to shoot the piano player between the
eyes, however daffy or humorless -- or, for that matter,
humorous and dead serious.

But how would you know -- if you're only looking for
reinforcement?

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 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                         More UFOs Seen Over Calama

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 07:05:55 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:08:38 -0400
Subject: More UFOs Seen Over Calama


SOURCE; "El Mercurio de Calama" DATE: Sunday, June 3rd, 2001

UFOs SEEN OVER CALAMA ONCE MORE

At 20:00 hours, a considerable number of persons became
witnesses to a strange object in the skies of Northern Chile.

According to eyewitness accounts, mainly coming from drivers
commuting along the road which links the provincial capital to
the mines at Chuquicamata, a shape was seen in the western skies
which floated at an incalculable distance. Its most prominent
characteristic was a constant change of hues, similar to the
changing of colored lights.

They further added that the object remained visible for some 10
minutes, vanishing suddenly and without leaving a trace, such as
flashes or a change in position to another sector of the starry
skies.

The Official Story

According to personnel from the Office of Aeronautics at the El
Loa Airport, no such phenomena was recorded and the reason
behind this is the short time that the object remained suspended
in the air.

It is worth noting that the skies over the Chuquicamata mines
have for years been a source of strange accounts. Local
inhabitants have left behind stories of a variety of sightings
which have never received the attention of specialists or the
authorities.

##################### Translation (C) 2001. S. Corrales,
Institute of Hispanic Ufology. Special Thanks to G. Coluchi.








                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                    Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:22:03 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:13:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Rudiak


 >Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 17:48:59 EDT
 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:12:16 EDT
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [was Re: Debunkers'...]

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 01:54:20 EDT
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >><snip>

 >>>>>Also fingered by Sarbacher as being involved in briefings at
 >>>>>Wright-Patterson was Dr. Eric Walker (President of Penn State
 >>>>>University and former head of the Dept. of Electrical
 >>>>>Engineering and Dean of Engineering and Architecture). Walker
 >>>>>also served as Executive Secretary of the Research and
 >>>>>Development Board from 1950 to 1952.

 >Hi Dave,

 >What I meant to say was that there was no transcript _presented_
 >to double check the quotation - obviously a transcript had been
 >mentioned previously. Thanks for presenting the transcript.
 >But my point was concerning whether Steinman's interpretations
 >colored his reporting. So I'd want to know if a tape recording
 >of Walker with Steinman was double checked by someone
 >independent of Steinman (maybe Crain?).

Don't know. The tone of the transcript struck me as coming from
a tape recording rather than notes. The tone of Walker's
comments also struck me as very similar to transcripts of other
people's conversations with him, particularly Walker's caution
and how Walker repeatedly tried to discourage people from
probing any further into the matter.

Steinem also immediately sent Walker a follow-up letter, trying
to get written corroboration of certain points in the
conversation plus other details. At that juncture, Walker sent
back his bizarre "Roswell aliens integrated into American
society" letter. This was the beginning of Walker's evasions,
also detailed in other transcripts and letters by others.

 >The impression I get is that Walker was trying to remember
 >something from his RDB days of 1950. The question is what and
 >how much was influenced by front-page NY Times stories about
 >MJ-12 in May 1987, a few months before Steinman called him, and
 >how much was influenced by the events and news of 1950.

It is very clear to me from looking at the transcripts that
Walker and Sarbacher were not repeating press rumors, but
talking about personal knowledge.

 >>>>>(When pressed for details in letters and other phone
 >>>>>conversations, however, Walker clammed up.)

 >>>The obvious reading of Walker's comments, to me, was that he was
 >>>answering Steinman's questions very tongue in cheek. At one
 >>>point he told him that he sure doesn't have any aliens in his
 >>>office at Penn State. The so called clamming up seems to have
 >>>been after Walker realized that he was getting these calls from
 >>>somebody without a sense of humor who was quite serious about
 >>>his preposterous questions - a real saucer nut.

 >>As usual, Bob Young resorts to gross misrepresentation in order
 >>to debunk. There were multiple conversations with people other
 >>than Steinman, and at no time does Walker talk about "aliens in
 >>his closet" with Steinman (that was with somebody else). Walker
 >>was clearly quite serious initially with Steinman.

 >>I would also like to clear up Brad Sparks suggestion that Walker
 >>was spouting all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories in his
 >>conversations. I wish Brad wouldn't resort to debunker tactics
 >>of trying to discredit people by ridiculing simply because he
 >>doesn't believe in the existence of an organization such as
 >>MJ-12. The "MJ-12 papers" could all be fakes, yet there could
 >>still have existed an MJ-12-type group, whether under that name
 >>or something else.

 >First of all I wish Dave wouldn't resort to "debunker" labeling
 >of those who aren't debunkers just because they come to a
 >different and more skeptical opinion or conclusion than he does.

I was responding to the following statement of yours:

 >>>>I seem to recall that Walker when interviewed in the 80's was
 >>>>spouting all kinds of wild conspiracy theories and claims -
 >>>>JFK?, Nazis ? I think it's in a Hesemann book.

I'm sorry if my comment offended you, but your statement struck
me very strongly, and still strikes me, as pure debunkery. When
you write that somebody was "spouting all kinds of wild
conspiracy theories and claims," which as far as I know isn't
even true, you are obviously trying to paint them as some sort
of loony whose statements should be ignored.

 >Second, my considered conclusion after many years of research is
 >that there is indeed a highly classified compartmented
 >intelligence agency investigation of UFO's ongoing today that
 >has an ancestry going back probably to 1946, but that the MJ-12
 >is complete fraud, quite possibly designed to prevent anyone
 >from uncovering the actual secret project, though more likely to
 >have been concocted out of profit motives on the part of certain
 >suspected hoaxers, albeit having intelligence connections.

Brad, I think we're in basic agreement here, except for one
thing. The MJ-12 _papers_ as they emerged in the 1980s could be
complete frauds, yet an actual MJ-12 _organization_ headed by
Vannevar Bush and operating initially inside the Research and
Development Board, could have very much been a reality. The 1950
Smith/Sarbacher briefing and the Smith memos that emerged out of
it plus Sarbacher's corroboration of all this in the 1980s
speaks very strongly to the existence of such an organization.

Please also consider this _possible_ scenario. Sarbacher was
found in 1983 and corroborated the 1950 briefing for Smith and
the contents of Smith's memos. This was the first really strong
evidence of a highly secret UFO control group. Bush was named as
the head.

In 1984, the MJ-12 papers made their mysterious appearance,
naming Bush as the head. _Perhaps_ the real purpose of the MJ-12
papers was a counterintelligence sting to eventually discredit
the existence of an MJ-12-type organization, which
Sarbacher/Smith said existed. Therefore hide the truth in plain
sight inside of a hoax. The false parts discredit the truth.
This is a classic disinformation ploy.

 >Third, if you would read my other postings you would see that I
 >am determined enemy of UFO secrecy by the government and just a
 >few days ago developed an entirely new legal weapon in the fight
 >to get the government to release withheld UFO data (the 25-year
 >rule for "automatic declassification") - and it was ironically
 >done in the course of my arguments with a well-known skeptic on
 >this List (whom you probably label a "debunker" though I
 >wouldn't). See my postings on UpDates:

 >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/may/m29-017.shtml
 >http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2001/may/m31-001.shtml

Go get 'em Brad - honestly. My motto is attack on all fronts. I
appreciate it when people take the offensive.

 >>Instead, we should be listening carefully to what Walker had to
 >>say after being fingered as being involved by Drs. Sarbacher and
 >>Darwin, both formerly associated with the Research and
 >>Development board around 1950.

 >Yes, that 1950 date is significant and that is what bothers me.
 >That is when the Scully hoax made national news beginning with
 >TIME magazine on Jan. 9, 1950, plus innumerable newspaper and
 >radio items thereafter (plus a few before, which had led to
 >TIME's coverage in the first place, beginning with Scully's
 >first column in Variety, Oct. 12, 1949).

It was Scully's book on crashed saucers (which came out on Sept.
8, 1950) that prompted Wilbert Smith (on Sept. 12) to seek an
official briefing through the Canadian embassy in Washington. It
was the Canadian defense attache who actually received the
briefing from Sarbacher on the same date.

The notes of that briefing plus the Smith memos that followed do
not in the least convey the sense that Sarbacher was passing on
rumors to the Canadian military attache of crashed saucers that
he was reading in magazines and newspapers. The purpose of the
briefing was an _official_ Canadian government inquiry into the
reality of flying saucers. Sarbacher wasn't just passing on
public rumors, but talking about what was really going on, based
on briefings he had received as a consultant with the RDB.

Sarbacher said that "the facts reported in the [Scully] book are
substantially correct," that the saucers definitely existed, the
subject was the "most highly classified subject in the U.S.
government" and that a small group under the direction of
Vannevar Bush was investigating them.

 >Both Sarbacher and Walker seem to refer to meetings at
 >Wright-Patterson AFB in 1950 as where they learned of alleged
 >crashed saucers and/or alien bodies. Sarbacher strangely seemed
 >to refer to the RDB as meeting at Wright-Pat but RDB was based
 >in Washington, D.C., so this makes little sense unless he meant
 >a committee of the RDB such as the Guided Missiles Committee
 >which I think did sometimes meet at WPAFB.

If the center of military research on the UFO problem was at
Wright-Patterson, I really don't see what the problem would be
for RDB consultants like Sarbacher and Walker to fly a few
hundred miles from Washington and Pennsylvania for briefings at
Wright-Patterson on the subject of crashed saucers and alien
bodies.

As to backgrounds, Sarbacher's specialty was remote-controlled
rockets, so that certainly falls under the Guided Missiles
Committee. Walker's was underwater acoustics and guidance
systems.  That is also a form of guided missile, but of the
underwater variety. (USO's, or unidentified submerged objects,
or USO's emerging from bodies of water and becoming UFO's, or
vice versa, are part of the overall UFO phenomena. Having a
consultant expert on underwater ordnance strikes me as being
very logical in a comprehensive attack on the problem.)

During WWII Walker was the associate director of the Harvard
ordnance lab that developed the homing torpedo used against
German submarines, work for which he eventually won citations
from the Navy and President. After the war, Walker helped
establish the Ordnance Research Laboratory at Penn State
University.

In December 1949, Walker was put through an "indoctrination for
special intelligence affairs," according to a Jan. 1950 CIA
document (see the Mantle and Hesemann book).

In short, by 1950, Walker had been heavily involved in military
ordnance research for some time and was also clearly inside the
CIA intelligence loop on something as of December 1949. From
1950 to 1951 Walker was the Executive Secretary of Vannevar
Bush's Research and Development Board, which the Sarbacher/Smith
briefing/memos fingered as being the "headquarters" of the
highly secret group heading up the investigation into the
saucers.

 >Walker doesn't inspire me with a lot of confidence when he
 >spouts off in his letter to Steinman about 4 alleged aliens
 >being "absorbed into American culture" and one becoming a Bill
 >Gates-type (or is it Bill himself??), the second a "world
famous >athlete", the third a Wall Street raider, etc. Shades of
the >Men In Black movie with Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones
(which >may have been inspired by UFOlogist publications on
walker).

Brad, I think you are totally missing the point here. This
screwy letter was written AFTER Steinem first contacted Walker,
based on Sarbacher fingering Walker as attending the same
meetings on crashed saucers and bodies. The letter was the
beginning of Walker playing games with researchers. (One of the
games Walker played was later denying he ever wrote the letter.)

BUT, in the INITIAL conversation with Steinem, where Steinem
called him out of the blue and caught him off-guard, Walker
readily admitted to attending these meetings and knowing of the
existence of MJ-12 from its inception (which he placed on his
own as 1947, without prompting from Steinem).

I think most people looking at that first conversation with
Steinem and then comparing it with what Walker began to say
afterwards will come to the conclusion that Walker realized he
had said too much. Most everything he wrote or said after that
conversation was designed to discourage further inquiry by
making the subject matter appear to be ridiculous or by being
extremely evasive about what he did know.

Still Henry Azadehdel did a pretty good job of buttering up
Walker and eliciting further information from him lengthy
conversations he had with Walker in 1990. Walker again admitted,
though guardedly, to the current existence of the high level UFO
control group, adding details such as there being some
foreigners and no generals in the group. Walker also hinted at
actual contact, or at least attempts at contact, with the
aliens.

The Hesemann and Mantle book "Beyond Roswell" has snippets of
these conversations. It also mentions that our own Stanton
Friedman spoke to Walker in June 1989. Walker told Friedman that
he had "since 1965 nothing go do with UFOs." Taken at face
value, this was an admission that before then he was indeed
involved with the study of UFOs.

(Incidentally, there is some evidence that Walker was at the
scene of the Dec 1965 Kecksberg, PA crash. My notes have a post
from Grant Cameron to alt.alien.visitors on April 10, 1996 where
Cameron states that Walker at one point admitted to going to the
crash site on Dec. 9 along with two off-duty military people.
Walker was then with the Institute for Defense Analysis.
Walker's daughter also remembers him being suddenly called out
there, though my memory on the details of this are very
sketchy.)

In addition, like in nearly all other contacts with researchers,
Walker tried to discourage Stan from delving any deeper. "People
who do research on UFOs would do better to do research in other
fields." When asked to clarify what he meant, Walker responded,
"That I cannot tell you. That is all there is to it."

Maybe Stan can jump in here and tell us some more.

 >Maybe we should attribute that and the conspiracy stuff (again
 >see Hesemann's book for details) to the intervening 37 years
 >between 1950 and 1987.

 >So again the question is what was going on in 1950?

What Sarbacher said was going on in his briefing to the Canadian
embassy military attache. The saucers were real, the subject was
classified up the wazoo, and a secret group under Bush was
studying the matter.

 >As I recall there is no statement by Sarbacher or Walker that
 >they _personally_ saw any crashed saucer or aliens. Rather,
 >they _heard_ comments about them in meetings.

More than just "comments." According to Sarbacher, these were
definitive statements about their reality and who was involved.
The names of those involved (Bush, van Neumann, von Braun,
Oppenheimer, Walker) are not names you'll find in any newspapers
or magazine articles on the crash saucer rumors circulating in
1949 and 1950.

Also according to my notes, our own Jerry Clark said that
Sarbacher told him of being invited to see alien bodies and
crashed saucer parts at Wright Field in the early 50's. (Jerry
can verify whether I have this right.)

According to Whitley Strieber in his 1995 book "Breakthrough,"
Sarbacher in a 1986 phone conversation likewise admitted getting
more than just briefings.  Sarbacher said he not only knew about
the Roswell debris, but had seen it, examined it, and studied
it. "That fabric we obtained at Roswell had molecular welds so
small you couldn't even identify what they were until the
sixties, when the microscopes to do it became available.
[Sarbacher would have been referring to scanning electron
microscopes that came out in the 60s.] ...What I can be certain
about is that it was not produced by an technology that we were
aware of in 1947, or now."

 >We know that government documents reporting the Scully-inspired
 >news items made the rounds, e.g., the FBI memo of Mar 22, 1950,
 >based on an AF informant who evidently saw one of the news
 >articles but failed to mention that was the source. Anyone
 >discussing memos such as that might inadvertently get the
 >impression the US Govt had recovered saucers with dead aliens,
 >etc., and not realize Scully was the ultimate source. Stories
 >_do_ get embellished in the retelling and rumors _do_ circulate
 >so we know that this must have occurred with Scully-inspired
 >stories circulating _within_ government agencies as with the FBI
 >memo of Mar 22, 1950.

Here, I think you are really beginning to stretch things.
Sarbacher's statements make it very clear that these meetings
weren't discussing press rumors. They were about the real thing.
The saucers WERE real and there had been crashes and bodies
recovered. There WAS a secret control group directed by Vannevar
Bush. Sarbacher wasn't presenting this as idle speculation, but
as fact, in an official briefing. 30+ years later, he not only
confirmed this, but added more details about what he knew.

 >Another possibility arises from Cold War tensions and possible
 >deception operations related to psychological warfare. This is
 >too big a topic to cover here, but let me just mention that the
 >biggest fear was that the Soviets would claim UFO's were their
 >own secret weapons that could negate the atom bomb and the
 >West's monopoly on nuclear weapons (see the TOP SECRET AIR 203
 >Study of 1948-9). Apparently, Walter Winchell helped the
 >Soviets out by declaring in a radio broadcast on March 26, 1950,
 >that saucers were Soviet. This brought a counterblow in the
 >form of Henry Taylor's opposite radio announcement the very next
 >night, March 27, 1950, of the "wonderful news" that saucers were
 >US secret weapons. This controversy led to the US News story
 >and a forced White House response the following week, which
 >succeeded in overshadowing Winchell's claim, which was all but
 >forgotten (in fact I have had extreme difficulty in confirming
 >or documenting it; I found it in a BB file originall! y). The
 >impression I get is Winchell triggered a Cold War psych war response and
either
 >initiated a series of deception operations or helped accelerate
 >them - operations designed to discredit the subject of UFO's by
 >linking them with fraudulent Scully-type stories.

Again, I really don't see what any of this has to do with the
1950 Sarbacher briefing and the subsequent memos of Wilbert
Smith clearly fingering Bush as heading up some sort of highly
secretive UFO control group within the Research and Development
Board.

 >Lastly, there is one more possibility, keeping in mind that
 >these are not all mutually exclusive either: The AF and other
 >military services might have been pissed off at the RDB (a DoD
 >agency) for choosing the CIA OSI to provide it with all
 >intelligence, beginning in Jan 1949 right after OSI's founding.
 >The CIA was intensely disliked by the military intelligence
 >agencies, especially the AF, as an upstart that threatened
 >encroachment on their domain (UFO's was one such area; an AF
 >Intelligence colonel I interviewed in 1979 angrily denounced
 >CIA's intrusion in AFIN responsibilities for UFO's). Possibly
 >the AF played a prank on RDB scientists meeting at Wright-Pat
 >designed to show how lacking in proper military intelligence
 >they were. I'm just raising it as a possibility, given the
 >vicious interagency politics of the time.

While I know you are presenting this as speculation, it strikes
me as a truly collosal stretch. The AF drags these very busy RDB
consultants out to Wright Field to play a "prank" on them?
Furthermore, they never catch on?

However, I would like to thank you for again pointing out the very close
association between Bush's RDB and the CIA's OSI (Office of Scientific
Investigation), which you describe as starting in Jan. 1949 (a fact I was
previously unaware of). If I understand this right, the CIA became the
primary intelligence arm of Bush and the RDB at that time.

In a very recent post, you seem to feel that the RDB divesting
itself of its intelligence responsibilities by passing them off
to the CIA was evidence that there was no "MJ-12"-type
organization within RDB under Bush's direction. Furthermore, you
used this to dismiss the 1950/51 Sarbacher/Smith briefing/memos
which state exactly that.

I see it completely differently. An MJ-12-type panel's primary
responsibility would be executive oversight of the UFO problem.
They would probably not be the one's to conduct the actual
scientific research or collect the in-field UFO intelligence or
maintain a high-level security or seal off any leaks. All of the
nitty-gritty would be much better handled by under the auspices
of other government agencies.

Casting off such responsibilities so that he could instead
concentrate on decision-making and coordination was very much
the management style employed by Bush when he was Director of
the OSRD (Office of Scientific Research and Development) during
WWII. This following excerpt from a "Current Biography" article
on Bush, dated 1947, gives the flavor of how he ran the OSRD:

"From the outset Bush determined on two cardinal policies: to
delegate supervision of divisions to his colleagues according to
their qualifications so that he would be free to direct over-all
policy; and to interpret as narrowly as possible the terms
"instrumentallities, methods and materials of war" so that his
office would neither be overworked nor duplicate the efforts of
other agencies. ...Other problems were to see that funds were
adequate and to determine the apportionment of research among
Government, academic and industrial facilities. The main
technique employed was radial research, in which, instead of
advancing step by step, OSRD defined the problem for solution
and then set teams investigating from all angles at once."

Let us also reconsider the RDB/CIA-OSI connection in light of
another point I made in a recent post, which at first I thought
you had effectively rebutted, but in retrospect I think instead
supported what I was saying. This was one of Ed Ruppelt's
statements about "other" government agencies studying the UFO
problem, which he would never identify, and concerned, in one
case, the 1951 Lubbock Lights. I thought his description sounded
very much like the work of an MJ-12-type organization:

"The only other people outside Project Blue Book who have
studied the complete case of the Lubbock Lights were a group
who, due to their associations with the government, had complete
access to our files. And these people were not pulp writers or
wide-eyed fanatics, they were scientists - rocket experts,
nuclear physicists, and intelligence experts."

To this you responded, yes, but these were CIA-OSI people who
studied the Lubbock Lights in Dec. 1952, and rattled off their
names. This was an advance team for the CIA's Robertson Panel,
which convened the following month, and as most of us know, was
designed to debunk the flying saucers and screw the lid down
tight. In fact, one of those scientist names you rattled off was
Robertson himself.

(Another person on the Robertson Panel was Dr. Lloyd Berkner, Bush's
right-hand man at the RDB during its creation in 1947, and, of course,
another alleged MJ-12 member named in the MJ-12 papers. Thus another clear
connection between the Robertson Panel and Bush.)

The point you seemed to be trying to make, is that even though Ruppelt's
description sounded very MJ-12-ish, it was really CIA/OSI, not Vannevar Bush
and his RDB. Therefore, there was no "MJ-12" headed up by Bush, or at least
Ruppelt wasn't referring to it in the above quotation.

Now it turns out that RDB and CIA/OSI were joined at the hip, as
you so vividly describe above: "The AF and other military
services might have been pissed off at the RDB (a DoD agency)
for choosing the CIA OSI to provide it with all  intelligence,
beginning in Jan 1949 right after OSI's founding. The CIA was
intensely disliked by the military intelligence agencies,
especially the AF, as an upstart that threatened encroachment on
their domain."

So, in fact, there really isn't much of a stretch between
Ruppelt's description of the secret Lubbock Lights
scientific/intelligence study group and "MJ-12" after all, is
there? The group described by Ruppelt were CIA/OSI, who reported
to Bush and RDB on UFO intelligence matters, and who the other
military intelligence agencies deeply resented.

<snip>

 >>The following is the actual initial contact conversation between
 >>Steinman and Walker. This took place August 30, 1987.

 ><snip>

 >>Incidentally, this and following transcripts come from Grant
 >>Cameron's and T. Scott Crain's MUFON publication, 'UFOs, MJ-12
 >>and the Government'.

 >I've never been able to obtain a copy of this.

Very interesting stuff, much of it not published anywhere else
to my knowledge. You might be able to get a copy through MUFON.
I lucked into a copy at a used book store.

 ><snip>

 >>[Walker's] response, dated Sept. 23, 1987.

 >>"Dear Mr. Steinman:

 >>"Some things you have right, and some things you have wrong. The
 >>machine itself was obviously a landing vehicle only, and it had
 >>no unusual features and no power plants with which we were not
 >>quite familiar. I believe it still exists and is kept someplace
 >>near Wright Field.

 >How could an alien vehicle of _any_ type have "no unusual
 >features"?

Again I'm afraid you miss the point. Walker spilled some of the
beans to Steinem in his INITIAL contact interview. He admitted
to attending meetings at W-P on crashed saucers and bodies and
knowing of MJ-12. AFTER that, probably realizing he had admitted
to too much, he started playing games and jerking people around,





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit -Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:03:20 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:15:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit -Randles


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:57:05 -0500

 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:44:46 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:31:28 -0500

 >John,

 >>>CUFOS and I went through a legal ordeal from the self-same
 >>>self-important Gary P. Posner, after I'd written a hard-hitting
 >>>IUR editorial on the excesses of CSICOP and its debunking fellow
 >>>travelers. Pelicanists love to dish it out, but some of their
 >>>number aren't much good at taking it. I guess they figure that
 >>>it's better to silence critics than to engage them in rational
 >>>debate - a debate that, I suspect, even they must fear they'd
 >>>lose.

 >>Why do I seem to hear the name "Stanton Friedman" echoing from
 >>the hills of Derbyshire? (County in northern England, residence
 >>of one Jenny Randles, for the uninitiated)

 >When this dismal episode was occurring, I tried to dissuade Stan
 >from pursuing what I considered, and still consider, a rash and
 >destructive course of action. It is one of ufology's low
 >moments, and if we are lucky, nothing like it will happen again.

 >Jerry Clark

Hi,

I'd best say no more than 'amen' to that.

But I would like to confirm that Jerry did do exactly what he
reports here. The support from others - both ufologists and
various sources within the writing profession - was also
fantastic and quite unexpected. So it is nice to be able to
publicly thank Jerry (and the others, of course) for such
empathy at the time, which I have never forgotten.

Although I dont suppose Stanton Friedman and I will ever be
friends, for pretty obvious reasons, we have met twice since
those dark days and managed to speak civilly to one another on
those occasions. So I do take encouragement from that, at least.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                    Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 12:27:06 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:19:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Hall


 >Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:57:10 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Disappointed In Brentwood
 >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:42:52 -0000

 >Hi Dick, hi All,

 >You wrote:

 >>I have waited, apparently in vain, for some encouraging response
 >>to my previous posting suggesting a specific plan whereby anyone
 >>on this list who wishes to take concrete action to encourage
 >>Congressional hearings (an oft-expressed desire) could
 >>meaningfully participate. Except for one or two positive
 >>comments, there has been a deafening silence.

 >I wanted to respond to this sooner but I've been busy earning
 >some moola-boola and time for the List has been scarce. If I am
 >duplicating something that someone else has already said in
 >response, please excuse me. I've been 'out of touch' with the
 >List.

 >I wrote to my state senators (Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer)
 >as well as to my local congressman requesting public hearings on
 >the UFO question. I urged everyone else on this List to do so,
 >and I made a broader public appeal during one of my guest spots
 >on 'Strange Days,...Indeed.' I like and support the idea of
 >organizing some kind of concerted effort. My suggestion would
 >be; "Petitions."

 >I would be willing to donate the bandwidth to set up a webpage
 >that contains a copy of a formal petition (written by somebody
 >else) to our representatives in Wash DC. I will create a CGI
 >script that will allow folks to sign the petition "online." I
 >will take down the AIC website temporarily in order to insure
 >that there's enough bandwidth available.

 >We have a good number of "webmasters" of busy UFO websites right
 >here on this List that could set up live links to the petition
 >page. Between us we could probably recruit another couple of
 >dozen websites to participate by putting up a link. Getting the
 >word out would not be a problem.

 >Dick, what would be a 'respectable' number of signatures to
 >gather that would be guaranteed to get the attention of our
 >elected officials? How many would it take to get hearings?

 >If you and a few others would consent to compose the petition
 >I'll handle setting up the web side of it. Let me know. I'm
 >ready to go the nanosecond I get a green light.

 >Let me know what you think of the petition idea. (Again, sorry
 >if I'm repeating something that was already suggested.)

John and List,

First I need to clarify something. On re-reading what I said, I
didn't express myself as clearly as I should have. I am not at
this time a big advocate of seeking Congressional hearings,
unless... (more below). My suggestion of sending a hardcore,
scientific book to Members of Congress (or at least writing a
carefully worded letter) was intended to be an alternative
approach to Greer's carnival for those who did feel strongly
about asking for hearings.

The nub of the matter is this: What do you ask them to hold
hearings about? This is not a simple question. People like Greer
who "demand that the Government tell us the truth about UFOs"
and imply the sinister witholding of free energy, and cloak the
effort in a political agenda, are way off the mark. The most
they will raise on Capitol Hill is some snickers about UFO nuts.

You need a tight focus on some topic or issue that is within the
domain of Congressional responsibility (which after all exists
to legislate for the country; hearings typically are
investigations into what legislation is needed and how it should
be written). They will occasionally look into politically "hot"
issues where people are up in arms about something related to
Government activity, or inactivity: secrecy, official
wrong-doing, legislation or policies gone astray.

My suggestion would be a carefully worded request for hearings
into significant evidence being withheld from the public (be
prepared to produce documentation or affidavits indicating what
you are talking about) and its potential national security
implications (ICBM tampering cases, military encounters...)

Government secrecy and national security are two "hot button"
issues. But the hearings request has to be otherwise agenda free
and presented without "UFO nut" trappings by a credible person
or persons. Therefore a sensible "front man" or small group must
be prepared, if invited, to talk face-to-face with Congressional
aides and make a credible case.

In general, I don't think petitions are a good idea because they
are likely to end up in the circular file. Congressmen are
petitioned about a thousand issues per day. In this case maybe
an exception is in order just to see if you can get large
numbers of people to agree on a particular approach. If so, such
a petition could be delivered with the face-to-face presentation
as evidence that a lot of people are serious about this.

You have written to your Congressional delegation; good. Most
people don't seem to realize that Congressmen live to serve
their constituents, as long as you don't come across as a nut
case to them, in which even you will either receive a polite
brushoff or a form letter for your efforts. My previous
suggestion was to use some of the most sensible and thoughtful
UFO writings as a wedge in your approach to Members of Congress.
That puts the focus where it should be: on the strongest
evidence available presented in the most intelligent and
scientific way.

Main message for today: People should think long and hard about
what sort of hearings they want to ask for and how the request
should be worded. I'll be glad to make some specific suggestions
along the way. And, you don't "demand" hearings; you politely
request them.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                  Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:16:18 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:38:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Randle


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited
 >Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 11:06:51 -0700

 >>From: Kevin Randle KRandle993@aol.com
 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:35:56 EDT
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited
 >>>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:59:38 -0700

Good Morning, Ed, List -

<snip>

 >>I would have expected him to have it properly tested, to have
 >>the tale of the cameraman checked out,

 >He did. The cameraman had old photo albums and journals and
 >other personal records to prove to Ray that he was who he said
 >he was. To Ray, there was no doubt, then or now, that the
 >cameraman was legitimate.

None of which he has shared with anyone else which makes such
"evidence" useless because it might not even exist. And that
still has not explained why he did not have the film tested so
that we could have these results. Seeing a photo album is not
the same as checking the man out.

In fact, regardless of his protestations, he has done everything
he can to obscure the origins of the film, prevent testing of
it, and to hide the identity of the cameraman. Of course, if the
cameraman existed, the military would know who it was because
there can't be all that many and the records exist. The
cameraman was paid for the film, which, technically, wasn't his
to sell, then asked not to be identified so that he wouldn't
have to pay income taxes on it, which makes him a felon. The IRS
could find him and prosecute him for income tax evasion. They
would have no trouble locating him because, again, he would be
the only man to have participated in the atomic bomb testing in
New Mexico, the testing the ramjet in St. Louis, and the filming
of an autopsy in Texas... except that there is no one who was
both in New Mexico and St. Louis which would make the statement
untrue.

 >>to be sure that what he
 >>got back was what he had sent in.

 >He sent the hoaxers film fragments and they sent him the hoaxed
 >tent footage. He had no reason to believe that they were pulling
 >his leg. It was only after the cameraman told him that he didn't
 >remember shooting the footage that Ray began to have doubts. The
 >tent footage was not shown on TV by Fox.

It was given to both Britain's Channel 4 and to Bob Kivat at
FOX. Neither used it because it was so dark and muddy that it
couldn't be broadcast. Had it been sharper and brighter, it
would have been used because both had it. So, it wasn't
broadcast because of the problems with it and not because Ray
suggested that it might not be authentic. I know both Channel 4
and FOX had the footage because both showed it to me.

 >>I wouldn't have expected him
 >>to palm it off on TV producers and attempt to get paid for it. I
 >>would have expected him to do his research rather than opening
 >>the bidding.

 >Again he wasn't paid for this footage. He didn't realize that he
 >had been taken in by the hoaxers.

Then he gave it to the broadcasters If he wasn't paid for it,
that would be because they couldn't use it. It wasn't because he
wasn't selling the footage to the highest bidders.

 >>Where did he change the cameraman's statement? He just explained
 >>why there were mistakes.

 >>Mistakes were made because those inventing it weren't aware of
 >>the American terminology. When caught, they were forced to
 >>change it to reflect American idiom. And those changes suggest
 >>that the statement was invented by someone from Britain rather
 >>than by someone in the United States. It suggests that something
 >>deceitful was being done.

 >What I have asked for and you have failed to produce is the
 >altered document supposedly changed by Ray. I have the original
 >cameraman's statement but have not found any other. Do you have
 >this altered version?

I suggest that you contact Don Ecker who can tell you about the
September 2, 1995 appearance of Bob Shell on Ecker's radio
program. I also describe, at length, the exchange. See The
Randle Report (M. Evans, 1997) p. 117-120. You might also search
the archives of Updates because this discussion was held here as
well. There are lots of data out there.

 >>>Do you think Ray made this up?

 >>Yes, as a matter of fact. Or one of those working for him.

 >I disagree and you have no proof.

Only in the shifting nature of the statements he made. If you
look at everything Ray has said from the very beginning, you see
that he has changed the tale as he learned more about the
Roswell case. That certainly suggests the tale was invented, if
not by Ray, by someone he knows.

<snip>

 >>Ray told people there was footage of Truman walking the debris
 >>field, of cranes lifting material onto trucks, or people in the
 >>footage who could be identified. That is what he said, and none
 >>of it is true. And yes, I know that he has excuses, but I don't
 >>find those excuses to be adequate, and to me, they suggest hoax.

 >We have not seen all the footage and Truman could show up in
 >some of what hasn't been shown. We don't know for sure what it
 >contains.

Where it appears, I'll certainly be proved wrong. Until that
time... BTW, I think we have seen all the footage. If there was
more of it he could start a new bidding war and make more money.

 >>You can see the blackened balloon envelop in the background. The
 >>metallic debris is the remains of the rawin radar reflector and
 >>not pieces of an alien spacecraft.

 >You need to take a closer look at the photos which you so far
 >have refused to do. Any member of the Roswell photo team will be
 >glad to lead you through the evidence. You'll never see anything
 >until you open your eyes. Some of the debris on the floor of
 >Gen. Ramey's office is the same as the AA debris and is the
 >debris collected my Major Marcel. Whether it's debris from an
 >alien spaceship is another matter

I have been studying those photographs for more than ten years
and have examined them with some of the best computer equipment
and software available. I have talked to the man who took the
photographs (recorded on audio tape), to Jesse Marcel, Jr.,
Johnny Mann (who took Marcel to Roswell for a television
interview and showed him the pictures, which Marcel said only
contained the balloon and not the stuff he had found on the
ranch), to Irving Newton, who is in the other photograph that
Bond Johnson said was not published, and to some of the crew who
were on the aircraft that took Marcel to Ft. Worth. I have
examined the pictures and the testimony and have found nothing
to suggest that there is "real" debris in them. Sorry.

 >>And no, I do not believe the
 >>latest tales told by J. Bond Johnson. He saw a balloon, was told
 >>it was a balloon and went away happy fifty years ago. Now he
 >>didn't see a balloon and wasn't told it was a balloon. His
 >>testimony has changed in such a radical fashion that he has
 >>rendered it useless.

 >I happen to believe Bond's version of events but his testimony
 >is not relevant at this point. You need to take another careful
 >look at the evidence. Why is that so difficult for you?

Yes, but have you actually heard Bond's 1st version, recorded on
tape? I don't know how many times this has been discussed on
this list or how many people I have sent these tapes to so that
they can listen to the original conversions. I know that those
who have heard the tapes understand that Bond has radically
altered his tale. No, I don't think he is lying, he is
confabulating. The story he tells today simply does not match
that which he told me originally. How do you explain these
discrepancies? This has been discussed at length on Updates and
you might be interested in the disinterested, third party
interpretations of that data. David Rudiak is one of those who
has commented on this aspect of the tale.

 >>>This is a complete fabrication. There isn't any "video" at all.
 >>>Where is your proof for this statement. Yes this has been said
 >>>before but when you look closely, there is no such word.

 >>No, it's not. I saw it myself, in the version of the debris that
 >>was circulated in 1995. The word appears on an I-beam, which
 >>does not resemble that described by anyone. BTW, the symbols do
 >>not match those drawn by either Jesse Marcel, Sr. or Jr. This
 >>looks as if someone had read descriptions and let their
 >>imagination run wild.

 >This statement shows just how ignorant you are about the AA. Why
 >not look for yourself? I'll say again: there is no "video" in
 >the wreckage debris that can be seen in the AA footage. There
 >are some symbols that have a similar configuration but do not
 >spell "video". There were many symbols on the debris and perhaps
 >Jesse saw a different set. Besides there are similarities but
 >you'd have to look carefully which you refuse to do.

Of course it says video. Yes, it is stylized, but there is no
question that the word appears, as anyone who has looked at the
video can see. I have looked for myself and have seen it myself.
Yes, there are other symbols on the debris, but on one of the
I-beams, the symbols clearly spell "video."

 >>I said nothing about the Cuban missile crisis.

 >OK, and I also have no proof that Corso saw an alien body at Ft.
 >Riley, but you have no proof that he didn't so lets leave it at
 >that. I realize that it sounds improbable but other things that
 >Corso said have seemed improbable, on the surface, but have
 >turned out to be true.

But isn't that the point. You have no proof that he did, and the
story he tells falls far outside the way these things actually
work, not to mention the fact that both Corso and his bowling
buddy violated the law by "peeking." And that doesn't explain
why the 509th would truck the bodies to Ft. Riley on their way
to Dayton, rather than just fly them as they did the rest of the
debris, according to the witnesses at the 509th.

<snip>

 >>Which has been done, repeatedly. Some of that information has
 >>been supplied to this list. The transistor, for example, is
 >>clearly traceable back to Bell Laboratories and predate the
 >>introduction, by Corso, of that technology.

 >It's mistakes like this that make me realize that you have not
 >read 'The Day After Roswell'. Where in that book did Corso say
 >he was responsible for the transistor?

So I didn't pick up his book and search through it again. I read
the thing when it came out. There has been discussion about the
development of the transistor. I made a mistake. This does not
validate Corso, it means that I made a simple mistake because I
was too lazy to search through his whole book once again.

 >>>Who's going to argue with you powerhouses, except
 >>>someone outside the UFO community like myself?

 >>First, we haven't shut down discussion because we're wasting
 >>more bandwidth on it. Second, when you get that collection of
 >>people to agree on a point, wouldn't that suggest that maybe
 >>there is a reason that all of us, from such diverse backgrounds,
 >>with such diverse opinions and with such diverse levels of
 >>education, that maybe we all have some insight into Corso? We
 >>all can point to various areas of expertise and suggest that
 >>Corso was making some very elementary mistakes. His story does
 >>not hang together when it is examined by those of us who have
 >>some knowledge on how such things should be accomplished. When
 >>you begin to deviate so widely from established procedures, it
 >>suggests that something is amiss.

 >What it suggests to me is a group of otherwise well meaning
 >reserchers who have made assumptions that are not correct, just
 >like your statement re the transistor.

Very little of what I have said about Corso is an assumption
(and yes, I shouldn't have said anything about the transistor),
but that does nothing to validate his wild tales. When the very
first thing, that he was a colonel, breaks down, it does not
inspire confidence in the rest of his tales. When much of what
he says is not documented and in conflict with the rest of the
world, I'm afraid that Corso loses in the bargain. The
independent evidence that is available simply does not support
the view of history handed to us by Corso.

 >>I have never said that you shouldn't take a closer look at them.
 >>But, take a look at everything, not just the small number of
 >>things that tend to support your beliefs.

 >I see this as your problem, not mine.

But all I suggest is that you examine all the evidence, which I
have done.

 >>Look all you want, but
 >>remember that Corso's tale does not conform to the way the
 >>military works, it does not conform to the story of the Roswell
 >>crash, and he has been caught in a number of lies, including his
 >>claim to have been associated with MJ-12.

 >You have no proof that he didn't work with MJ 12 Or is there a
 >membership list somewhere? You have no idea

Once again, you have no proof that he did. Now, I know that I'm
out of step with Stan on this, but I don't believe there was an
MJ-12 committee and if there was no MJ-12, then Corso's tale
takes another hit. Corso brought in his association with MJ-12,
naming it specifically.

 >>In today's world it's called spin. More importantly, Thurmond's
 >>ffice protested, and the introduction was removed. That should
 >>ell you something about this and it also suggests something
 >>about Corso's integrity. And if Simon and Schuster wasn't
 >>worried, why remove that introduction from subsequent printings.

 >All I know is that Birnes stated clearly that Strom had given
 >his approval. Is Birnes lying, too? I'll certainly read Pflock's
 >book but as I stated before, I would never take his word for
 >anything.

Yes, his approval to a book about Corso rubbing shoulders with
the real movers and shakers, not for some wildass UFO tome. When
he saw what had happened, he demanded that the introduction be
removed. Simon and Schuster complied. This does not inspire me
with confidence about the rest of Corso's story.

 >>>>So how many digits did the Roswell alien have? What's you're
 >>>>latest thinking on this?

 >>Five.

 >How did you arrive at that number?

Eyewitness testimony.

 >>I want to take a moment to revisit the reason I jumped into this
 >>arena. It was because it had been suggested that none of the
 >>mistakes in Corso's book belonged to him, but were the result of
 >>he enthusiasm of Birnes. The short fuse for publishing
 >>(possibly to avoid the evil government from stopping it) didn't
 >>provide Corso with the opportunity to read the manuscript after
 >>Birnes had completed it, so we couldn't hold that against Corso.
 >>I provided to instances in which the "mistakes" were clearly
 >>those of Corso.

 >>Now, let's revisit this idea that Corso didn't see the
 >>manuscript prior to publication. I say, "Crap." Here's why, and
 >>remember, I have published books with Simon and Schuster so I
 >>know their procedures. There is a stage known as Copy Edited
 >>Manuscript. This is the manuscript returned to the author(s)
 >>with little yellow post-it type notes stuck on the pages with
 >>questions from the copy editor. Birnes and Corso should have
 >>seen this... I will say that Corso might have gotten a short
 >>look or he might not have read the copy edited manuscript to
 >>answer these "flags" and let Birnes handle this.

 >>Then there is the "page proofs" known in olden times as the
 >>galleys. Corso would have received a copy of the page proofs,
 >>which is a copy of the way the book will look in its final
 >>incarnation. Think photocopy of each page here. The author(s)
 >>read these, mark them up to correct mistakes that might have
 >>escaped the editor, copy editor and author at the other stages.
 >>Here, Corso would have had the opportunity to read the entire
 >>book, as it would appear, and would have had the opportunity to
 >>correct any errors that Birnes had unwittingly introduced into
 >>the manuscript.

 >>We can conclude two things here. Either Corso read the book at
 >>this point and approved, or he didn't bother to read it because
 >>he already knew what it said. In either case, he provided tacit
 >>approval of the contents and it is now too late to go back and
 >>say that someone else is responsible for the mistakes.

 >>As for this story that Simon and Schuster rushed the book into
 >>print to keep the government from censoring it. Crap, again.
 >>They rushed to meet the 50th Anniversary of the Roswell crash.
 >>Get it out after the event and they lose that big advertizing
 >>opportunity.

 >>Now, let's go around again.

 >The above is all very interesting but wasted on me, I'm afraid.
 >I talked with Phil Jr. and he stated that his father went
 >through the book, page by page and highlighted all mistakes and
 >misrepresentations. These changes were never made because of
 >pending litigation between the publishers and Corso and Birnes.
 >He indicated that they hoped to compete a new edition with all
 >the corrections included but I have no idea when that will
 >happen.

He should have done this before the book was published and my
point was that he had, at the very least, two opportunities to
do so. He could have made the corrections and saved us all this
discussion but he didn't. This means he approved of the book, as
written, before publication, but that afterward, when people
began to question it, he decided to blame Birnes.

The question to be asked is if Corso was on the inside and knew
all this stuff, how come one of the pictures of a UFO he
published is of an admitted hoax? Shouldn't he have known this
since the rest of us, who were not on the inside, did? He
claimed that he had found it in a special Army file, but it is
part of Project Blue Book and yet Birnes and Corso credited it
to the National Archives. This is just another example of things
that he claimed in his book that were not borne out by the
information available.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                          Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:20:41 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:41:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:31:15 EDT
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:11:59 EDT
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

David:

I had quoted Spaur's description,

 >>"and I can just make out a dome or something on the top,
 >>but that's very dark. The bottom is real bright; it's putting out
 >>a beam of light that makes a big spot underneath. It's like it's
 >>sitting on the beam."

and then I commented,

 >>Classic Venus, sparkling in the early morning skies to a witness
 >>who thinks it's a real object a few miles away. The dome is a
 >>slightly astigmatic image of the planet and the beam it's
 >>sitting on is caused by diffraction of the image by his
 >>eyelashes.

You recently posted,

<snip>

 >People with normal visual acuity have resolutions typically from
 >about 0.7 to 1.0 minutes of arc (or 42 seconds to 60 seconds of
 >arc), though acuities down to 0.4 minarc (or 24 seconds of arc)
 >are known. On an eye chart, this would correspond to the more
 >familiar 20/20 acuity (1 minarc resolution) down to 20/8 acuity
 >(.4 minarc resolution)

On April 1st, Venus in the morning sky was a brilliant -4
magnitude, and a huge 59 seconds of arc thin crescent. At this
moment it is about 25 seconds of arc thicker crescent.

Why is Venus never reported as being resolved? The answer is
irradiation, that the image's brightness causes "slop" over onto
neighboring parts of the retina, elliminating detail. This
happens all the time for lunar and planetary visual observers.
You can see this by looking at the Sun for a couple seconds with
the bare branches of a tree or a power line in front. The line
or branch disappears.

This, astigmatism and the glistening rays caused by the
diffraction of light by one's eyelashes (prove this by rotating
you hear and the saucer's "rays" move around, too) cause these
reports.

Take a look at the whole pages of saucer shapes presented at the
1968 Congressional Hearings, a classic set of astigmatic images
if I every say one.

See Donald Menzel's comments about Father Gill's sighting.

[Pause for howls]


Clear skies and keep looking up,

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 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:32:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:44:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:35:38 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:00:17 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 01:54:20 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Not often that I agree with Bob, but I think he's on the money
 >>here. My impression, too, was that Walker was speaking with
 >>tongue buried in cheek, always a mistake when one is talking
 >>with a humorless soul, of whom Steinman is practically a
 >>definition of the species.

 >>Steinman's book on Aztec, where Walker's alleged role is
 >>discussed, is one of the most godawfully daffy UFO books ever
 >>written, and that's saying something.

 >I am always surprised when a long-time UFO advocate like Jerry
 >Clark resorts to debunker tactics (ridicule and assertions of
 >fact not in evidence) in order to dismiss something he feels
 >uncomfortable with.

 >I think this is due in part to Ufology's "elder statesmen" (may
 >I use the term?) tending to feel snakepit by past hoaxes or bad
 >research and not wishing to be played for suckers again.
 >Unfortunately, I think this also makes them tend to throw out
 >the baby with the bathwater.

As an admirer of David Rudiak, whom I've always placed in the
camp of ufology's smart, sane, and reasonable, I am at a loss to
understand this failed attempt at mind-reading and his
inexplicable defense of the individual he variously identifies
as "Steinhem" and "Steinem." The context suggests he is
referring to William S. Steinman, whom he apparently regards as
a credible colleague. I don't. Rudiak also objects to my
unflattering characterization of the book Steinman wrote with
Wendelle C. Stevens.

I have no desire to get involved in a dispute about Steinman's
claims regarding Eric Walker. And I should add that I am one of
the few (Bruce Maccabee and Stan Friedman are two others) who
actually interviewed Robert Sarbacher, about whom Steinman has
made wild and unfounded allegations. Suffice it to say I do not
consider Steinman's writings on any UFO- related subject much
more than highly imaginative, and often deeply paranoid,
speculations .

What follows is a review I wrote for Fate's "Books, News &
Reviews" section, April 1988, pp. 101-06:

TWICE-TOLD TALE A UFO event that never happened has inspired two
books that say it did. The first of them, Frank Scully's _Behind
the Flying Saucers_, appeared in 1950. A second, William S.
Steinman and Wendelle C. Stevens's _UFO Crash at Aztec_, ... has
just been published.... Its numbing length and thundering tone
notwithstanding, the Steinman-Stevens books will cause no
serious reader to rethink ufology's long-held view that the
"incident" was an invention by confidence artists Silas Newton
and Leo GeBauer.

Inspired by a much-publicized hoax generated to promote a
Grade-Z science-fiction film, the two concocted a tale about a
flying-saucer crash near Aztec, New Mexico, and related it to
_Variety_ columnist Frank Scully. Scully, to whom it apparently
never occurred to doubt a word of this, rushed into print with a
best-selling book which, aside from telling about the Aztec
saucer, portrayed Newton and GeBauer as major figures in
business and science.

The effect was to turn these shady characters into respectable
entrepreneurs whose oil-detection device (which the book
mentioned prominently) might be worth investing in. The device
was worthless, and in due course Newton and GeBauer ended up in
court pleading before a skeptical judge that all those folks who
sank money into it hadn't been defrauded. It was neither man's
first appearance in court, nor would it be the last.

In 1952 J. P. Cahn exposed the scam in _True_, and in the 1980s
William L. Moore uncovered additional information, finding that
the Scully affair was simply one of many instances in which
Newton and GeBauer had separated fools from their money....

That's the story, but you'd never know it from reading Steinman
and Stevens's tortured, confused, and at times infuriating
attempt to persuade us that Newton, GeBauer, and Scully were the
victims of a monstrous plot by a U.S. government agency which
has spent years and stopped at nothing (including numerous
murders) to keep the Aztec crash a secret. This monumentally
brainless book itself stops at nothing -- no claim is too
outrageous, no fear too paranoid, no speculation too absurd, no
hoax sufficiently discredited to be disbelieved -- in its effort
to beat its readership into thinking, well, if these guys can
write 625 pages on this, there must be _something_ to it. Not
necessarily.

It would take a review nearly as long as the book itself to deal
with every distortion, every falsehood, and every strange idea
readers will encounter in _UFO Crash at Aztec_. The exercise
would be pointless. Critics should be warned, however, that
anything they say will be used as evidence that they are witting
or unwitting agents of the intelligence community "operating
under the influence of a carefully planned and controlled
program of disinformation." Believers should be warned that, by
taking issue with government denials of the Aztec incident, they
may suffer one of those "mysterious deaths" to which Steinman
and Stevens continually refer. In _UFO Crash_-land, _nobody_
dies a normal death.

Chapter I recounts the Aztec "incident" in considerably more
detail than Scully (or, more precisely, Newton and GeBauer) did.
We learn for the first time that no less than Secretary of State
George Marshall was informed that the object appeared about to
crash. "Marshall immediately called an impromptu meeting with
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Council and the
President," Steinman and Stevens write. A minutely detailed
account of what happened then -- what government and military
units were involved, what prominent scientists came personally
to the site to direct the recovery operation -- follows. We are
informed what the downed spaceship and its occupants looked
like, where the remains were taken, and what was done with them.

What we are not told is why we should believe a word of this.
This whole tale is recounted matter-of-factly (perhaps ":factly"
is not the appropriate adverb) as if the authors felt no
obligation -- as indeed the rest of the book makes clear they do
not -- to document this literally incredible story. There are no
footnotes, no cited sources, nothing at all to assure us that
the entire story is not the product of the authors'
imaginations. (The most we get are references to anonymous
sources who presumably would meet mysterious deaths if their
names were known. The only named "sources" are local people who
say they know nothing about any such crash. To Steinman and
Stevens this is evidence that the crash occurred and that the
locals are part of the cover-up.) If Steinman and Stevens are on
to anything (which I doubt), they could not have argued their
case less convincingly.

Actually the Aztec story is positively credible compared to
others we are offered. Typical of the wild claims made on flimsy
evidence is a tale (on pages 276-78) of, in the authors' words,
"a doctor who had examined a live creature taken from a
recovered flying saucer!" (Steinman and Stevens are big on
exclamation points.)

We read that Stevens heard of someone (Lee Graham) who knew
someone (R.O.) who knew someone (Dr. W.W.J.) who knew someone
(Dr. Steen) who had examined the alien. Stevens contacted Graham
and then R.O. From R.O. he learned Dr. J.'s whereabouts and
called him.

"During that first telephone conversation I was able to make
contact, Dr. J. at first acted very mysterious [sic]," Stevens
reports. "After giving me the 'third degree,' he told me that he
had to get in touch with another party, before he would divulge
any of that particular information to me. He told me to call
back in about a week....

"During [the] second telephone conversation, Dr. J. explained
that he had forgotten some of the details, and had to contact
the nurse of the Dr. [sic] by the name of Claude E. Steen, now
deceased (!?), who performed the actual physical examination of
the living humanoid who was taken from the disabled flying
saucer that was recovered by the U.S. Military in Northwestern
New Mexico in 1948. This nurse, name unknown, accompanied Dr.
Steen during this examination, and wished to remain anonymous.

"Dr. J. told me how Steen's nurse told him that this creature
now was very frightening in appearance, in that it looked very
human , but _reptilian_ at the same time!! She made the comment,
'It must have originated from the pits of hell!'  Dr. Steen
contacted Dr. J. on the issue years later, because of Dr. J.'s
specialization in Herpeitology [sic] and the fact that this
humanoid creature seemed to have had reptilian origins."

After this conversation Stevens found that "Dr. Steen's older
brother owned a ranch near Mt. Lassen, California. He died
mysteriously in an automobile accident off highway 395 in 1948
(the same time that Dr. Steen allegedly performed this
examination). Likewise, Dr. Steen, himself, died in a mysterious
automobile accident in August of 1966."

Let's consider what Stevens is asking us to believe. We are to
accept the reality of a recovered alien reptile on the basis of
two phone conversations with a man about whom little is know (we
don't even know if he really is a doctor) and whom Stevens (or
any other investigator) has ever met personally. Moreover, this
stranger, whose reliability is unestablished, does not even
claim to speak from firsthand experience; his source, allegedly,
is an anonymous nurse who may or may not exist. The other
firsthand source, Dr. Steen, is conveniently dead, as is his
brother, and both are victims of Steinman and Stevens's beloved
"mysterious" deaths. (As usual we are not told what was
"mysterious" about these automobile accidents. All those who
suspect nothing at all raise your hands.) Beyond that there are
what Stevens calls "rumors" but apparently considers additional
evidence.

You get the idea. If you believe anything you read in this book,
better do some _deep_ soul-searching.

Still, the news isn't all bad. The book is a virtual
encyclopedia (with, alas, no index) of UFO folklore (even if
unrecognized as such by the authors) and of reprints of old
articles, documents, letters, and clippings related to rumors of
crashed saucers and government cover-ups. _UFO Crash at Aztec_
is less than useless as a source of factual information, but
it's a _Paranoid's Home Companion_ of UFO craziness.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                          Re: Members of the Press?

From: Rebecca Keith<xiannekei@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:45:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Members of the Press?


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:09:14 -0700
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Gehrman

In a message to Greg Sandow, you wrote:

 >I'm also a member of the press

Which press would that be?

And is being a member of the press your main occupation?

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 >
   Jun > Jun 4

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 23:35:22 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:48:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Rimmer


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:35:38 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:00:17 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Clark

 >>Not often that I agree with Bob, but I think he's on the money
 >>here. My impression, too, was that Walker was speaking with
 >>tongue buried in cheek, always a mistake when one is talking
 >>with a humorless soul, of whom Steinman is practically a
 >>definition of the species.

 >>Steinman's book on Aztec, where Walker's alleged role is
 >>discussed, is one of the most godawfully daffy UFO books ever
 >>written, and that's saying something.

 >I am always surprised when a long-time UFO advocate like Jerry
 >Clark resorts to debunker tactics (ridicule and assertions of
 >fact not in evidence) in order to dismiss something he feels
 >uncomfortable with.

Oh dear. Well, welcome to the wonderful world of Pelicanism,
Jerry. David Rudiak presents us with a wonderful example of what
I've been trying to point out for some time. The UFO believers'
story has to be taken 100%. There is no room for doubt or subtle
discrimination. If you are not with them all the way you are
against them - you are "resorting to debunker tactics" - i.e.
daring to disagree - just so that you don't feel
'uncomfortable'. Well, the pelican has a very comfortable nest,
Jerry, you're welcome to fly over any time!

 >I think this is due in part to Ufology's "elder statesmen" (may
 >I use the term?) tending to feel snakepit by past hoaxes or bad
 >research and not wishing to be played for suckers again.
 >Unfortunately, I think this also makes them tend to throw out
 >the baby with the bathwater.

 >There is also a failure to appreciate that some fraction of
 >hoaxes are very possibly counterintelligence stings deliberately
 >designed to discredit certain ideas. Hoaxed MJ-12 papers may be
 >one such example. One of the best places to hide the truth can
 >be out in the open inside of a hoax.

Ah! The "hoax as counterintelligence operation" argument, which in
effect means "Ufologists like me are so clever that it takes the
resources of the entire United States Government to fool us".

 >Out goes the baby along with the bathwater.

 >Let me repeat the point I was trying to make. Even if all the
 >MJ-12 "documents" were hoaxed, every last one of them, from the
 >original Eisenhower briefing papers and Cutler memo to the
 >thousands of pages of present-day documents being scrutinized by
 >the Woods, MJ-12 could still have been a reality, if not in
 >name, then at least in substance.

Here is the creed of the True Believer - The Complete Bunker -
which maintains that no matter how much evidence is piled up
against them, no matter how convincing that evidence might be,
the Bunker's belief must be preserved - at least in substance!
Everything about MJ12 can be proved to be a hoax, but is must
still exist. Why? Because I believ in it!

<snip>

 >"humorless" and "daffy" William Steinhem

<snip>

 >"humorless" or "daffy",

<snip>

 >humorless and daffy Steinem.

<snip>

 >the humorless and
 >daffy who don't have the sense to realize when their leg is
 >being pulled.

<snip>

 >humorless and daffy Steinem.

<snip>

 >humorless Steinem

<snip>

 >humorless and daffy UFO researchers

<snip>

 >humorless and daffy hole in the wall

<snip>

 >humorless and daffy Steinem.

<snip>

 >"humorless" and "daffy"

Are you trying to make a point here, or something?

 >David Rudiak


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 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                   Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Sawers

From: William Sawers <syntax@slingshot.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:13:26 +1200
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 08:26:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Sawers


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:57:10 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Velez

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Disappointed In Brentwood
 >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:42:52 -0000

 >Hi Dick, hi All,

 >You wrote:

 >>I have waited, apparently in vain, for some encouraging response
 >>to my previous posting suggesting a specific plan whereby anyone
 >>on this list who wishes to take concrete action to encourage
 >>Congressional hearings (an oft-expressed desire) could
 >>meaningfully participate. Except for one or two positive
 >>comments, there has been a deafening silence.

<snip>

 >I would be willing to donate the bandwidth to set up a webpage
 >that contains a copy of a formal petition (written by somebody
 >else) to our representatives in Wash DC. I will create a CGI
 >script that will allow folks to sign the petition "online." I
 >will take down the AIC website temporarily in order to insure
 >that there's enough bandwidth available.

 >We have a good number of "webmasters" of busy UFO websites right
 >here on this List that could set up live links to the petition
 >page. Between us we could probably recruit another couple of
 >dozen websites to participate by putting up a link. Getting the
 >word out would not be a problem.

 >Dick, what would be a 'respectable' number of signatures to
 >gather that would be guaranteed to get the attention of our
 >elected officials? How many would it take to get hearings?

 >If you and a few others would consent to compose the petition
 >I'll handle setting up the web side of it. Let me know. I'm
 >ready to go the nanosecond I get a green light.

<snip>


G'day John, Dick, Listees,

I agree 100% here. Dennis has, in the next post, stated how can
perhaps 1000 or so voices on a petition expect to be heard, with
the pressing business that is so obviously more important (to
them) than just a few of us could generate

If the concerted effort was directed at "one body" in your
hugely complicated (to this Kiwi) political system.

Another idea is if one of the talented Web design type people on
the list design a "Banner Advertisment" to be added to all UFO
websites then we might move away from being a small band to a
formidable effort. Judging by the amount of traffic some of the
sites generate a "banner ad"with non-controversial (within
ufology) simply stated "Sign the Disclosure of Info Petition"
and "linked" you to the site John is kindly donating, we may
just stop pissing in the wind and at least get some feedback, at
most get them sweating at the numbers signing.


Just a thought,

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 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                  Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 07:43:24 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:53:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Morris


 >From: Kevin Randle KRandle993@aol.com
 >Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:35:56 EDT
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited
 >>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:59:38 -0700

 >>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:13:23 EDT
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Randle


Kevin,

As Ed seems to have covered the AA side of things can I make
some comments on the following FW pics references.

 >>>Okay, but you won't like the answer. The Fort Worth pictures
 >>>show the remains of a weather balloon and rawin target and not
 >>>pieces of a flying saucer. Any images seen in this wreckage are
 >>>so many faces in the clouds.

 >>The images are not 'faces in a cloud" and we can certainly prove
 >>that if anyone would take a look at what Neil has produced. But
 >>the "striking resemblance' I'm talking about is the debris
 >>itself. Some of the components we've seen in the Ft Worth photos
 >>are almost exactly the same debris as in the AA. The team has
 >>looked at the Ft. Worth photos very closely and there is no
 >>evidence that the material on the floor in Gen. Ramey's office
 >>resembles a weather balloon.

 >You can see the blackened balloon envelop in the background. The
 >metallic debris is the remains of the rawin radar reflector and
 >not pieces of an alien spacecraft.

The items shown in the images I've just posted on the RPIT
website are most certainly _not_ part of the remains of a ML307
radar target.

http://www.thefortworthphotographs.freeserve.co.uk/images/index.html

These are just a handful of the "hard" anomalies found to date.

 >And no, I do not believe the
 >latest tales told by J. Bond Johnson. He saw a balloon, was told
 >it was a balloon and went away happy fifty years ago. Now he
 >didn't see a balloon and wasn't told it was a balloon. His
 >testimony has changed in such a radical fashion that he has
 >rendered it useless.

Yes, Bond's story has changed over the years as he himself has
researched the minor part he played in the Roswell story. He
recounted his story to me both by email and in person when we
met on his trip to the UK, in all these instances he was
consistent in what he said, _but_ as you say, this was not the
story recounted to you, back when you first interviewed him by
phone. (many thanks again for the tapes of the interviews.)

In some mitigation, I must observe that in that very first
interview it is quite obvious Bond is very confused regarding
many of the points you query him on and in particular for some
of the time it is also obvious you are both referring to
differing photographs.

I agree these differences now throw Bond's testimony into doubt
that is until a news report from July 9th 1947 was unearthed by
one of the RPIT team from Canada.

The report was sourced from a Routers report and gives a
statement from Gen Roger Ramey read to the Routers reporter by a
Maj Kirton FWAAF, Ramey is quoted by Kirton as saying...

"it looks like a hexagonal object covered with tinfoil or other
shining material suspended from a balloon of about twenty feet
in diameter."

This portion of the description is very similar to that given to
the FBI Dallas office, again by Kirton but it's worth noting the
foil material is _not_ positively identified just as "tinfoil".

Ramey's quote continues..

"It is possibly a weather balloon flown at the highest altitude
but none of the Army men at this base recognize it as an Army
type balloon."

The report then go's on to give Irving Newton's ID of the
wreckage as a radar target.

You will note the report again closely tracks the description
Kirton gave to the Dallas FBI and which we find in their
teletype to FBI headquarters timed at 6.12pm, but we also know
that at 5.30pm Maj Kirton was giving the Dallas Morning News the
full blown "balloon" cover story, we must then presume that
Routers received their report before this time and speculating,
before Ramey received his orders from McMullen to "get the press
off the Army's back" as DuBose recalled. There are two very
significant points made in the Routers statement that I have not
seen else- where and which now support JBJ's later recounting
that Ramey did not know what the debris was, or as he recounted
it to me, Ramey shrugged his shoulders when asked "general, what
is this stuff" and replied along the lines of "dammed if I
know".

The two points I refer to are firstly that phrase "tinfoil OR
OTHER SHINING MATERIAL". (my caps)

The addition of "other shining material" implies they were unable
even to identify the foil like material as "tinfoil".

And secondly the clear statement as quoted from Ramey that,

"none of the Army men at this base recognize it as an Army type
balloon."

We could not have it spelt out clearer that at some time between
the debris arrival, inspection and the later timed "debunk"
statement to the Dallas Morning News, Gen Ramey and the rest of
the resources to hand at 8th Air Force Headquarters Fort Worth
were _unable_to_identify_the_debris_ brought from Roswell _and_
that this early report supports JBJ's later testimony of those
fragmentary memories he has of the time spent in Gen Ramey's
office.

Even though he _has_ backtracked on his first statements, it
seems that when given time to reflect his later "refreshed"
testimony now has support in the historical record by this
statement to Routers, in all probability given within a short
time of his actual visit to Ramey's office that afternoon of the
8th of July 1947.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                  Re: The Truth Is For Sale On Ebay - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:25:51 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:55:00 -0400
Subject: Re: The Truth Is For Sale On Ebay - Young


 >Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 04:35:13 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: The Truth Is For Sale on Ebay

 >>Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 22:26:03 -0500
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Subject: The Truth Is For Sale on Ebay

 >><begin quote>

 >>RARE! ASTOUNDING! INCREDIBLE FIND! THE ORIGINAL 1997 NEW MEXICO
 >>AERONAUTICAL CHART The only official US Government document
 >>indicating the Roswell UFO crash in 1947.  During a thunder
 >>storm in 1947, something fell out of the night sky and crashed,
 >>scattering debris over fifty acres on a remote sheep ranch at
 >>Roswell, New Mexico. For 50 years the US government has
 >>covered-up and denied that a UFO had crashed.

 >>On the eve of the 50 year anniversary, the US Government Federal
 >>Aviation Administration, New Mexico State Aeronautical Division
 >>issued the New Mexico Aeronautical VFR Chart >>


Larry, Bobbie:

Maybe it's that the map was published in "1997".


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 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                      New Articles At 'The Lost Haven'

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 04:56:54 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:59:32 -0400
Subject: New Articles At 'The Lost Haven'


Dear Colleagues,

You'll find new, interesting, UFO information on my site
at the following links:

http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/humberET.html

Colin Mulligan has shown himself to be a prolific writer on the UFO
subject, I am happy to have given Colin an opportunity to show his
excellent writing and research on this subject, to those people
around the world who are after new and well written UFO articles.
You should then have no fear in purchasing Colin's UFO booklets,
again well researched and well worth the paper they are printed on!


Also please read a new article by Colin. I hope, like me, you will
find the article very interesting, and may inspire some feedback.

http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/AncientNuclear.html


http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/skywatch.html

Malcolm Robinson of SPI England, has arranged a Sky watch, which
will be happening at the famous Rendlesham Forest. Malcolm is a
person who needs no introduction to this field, he is a tireless
worker on getting the UFO message out to the UK & World populous.
Malcolm is also an excellent writer on the subject and you can
find some of his work at the Lost Haven.


Best Regards,

Roy Hale

Editor: 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 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                  Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:13:59 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 08:22:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Randle


 >Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 07:43:24 +0100
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited


Neil and List -

This is a fight that I really wanted to avoid because, I
believe, I have covered it all before. However, I want to make a
couple of benign comments so that maybe all of us can move on.

 >Kevin,

 >As Ed seems to have covered the AA side of things can I make some
 >comments on the following FW pics references.

 >>You can see the blackened balloon envelop in the background. The
 >>metallic debris is the remains of the rawin radar reflector and
 >>not pieces of an alien spacecraft.

 >The items shown in the images I've just posted on the RPIT
 >website are most certainly _not_ part of the remains of a ML307
 >radar target.

 >http://www.thefortworthphotographs.freeserve.co.uk/images/index.html

 >These are just a handful of the "hard" anomalies found to date.

I have, of course, looked at these anomalies and believe that
we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point. That doesn't
mean that I refuse to look at additional data as they are
assembled, only that, to this point, I see nothing persuasive here.

 >>And no, I do not believe the
 >>latest tales told by J. Bond Johnson. He saw a balloon, was told
 >>it was a balloon and went away happy fifty years ago. Now he
 >>didn't see a balloon and wasn't told it was a balloon. His
 >>testimony has changed in such a radical fashion that he has
 >>rendered it useless.


 >Yes, Bond's story has changed over the years as he himself has
 >researched the minor part he played in the Roswell story. He
 >recounted his story to me both by email and in person when we
 >met on his trip to the UK, in all these instances he was
 >consistent in what he said, _but_ as you say, this was not the
 >story recounted to you, back when you first interviewed him by
 >phone.
 >(many thanks again for the tapes of the interviews.)

So, if I understand correctly, you believe that the story told
by Dr. Johnson that I reported was substantially correct. I did
not put words in his mouth, I did not alter his testimony to me,
and I have not failed to correct any errors that I might have
made. Dr. Johnson told me exactly what I reported he said, and
that is in conflict with what he says now. In other words you
would agree that his testimony, for whatever reason, has
changed.

 >In some mitigation, I must observe that in that very first
 >interview it is quite obvious Bond is very confused regarding
 >many of the points you query him on and in particular for
 >some of the time it is also obvious you are both referring
 >to differing photographs.

I'm not sure how confused he was, but I must admit that I was
confused. The tale he told did not conform to the tale told by
Marcel, DuBose and Newton. It finally became clear that Johnson
met with Ramey and the boys, snapped his pictures and then left.
Some time later, Ramey and the boys met with other members of
the press (one of whom took the photograph of Newton).

I don't think the problem was the pictures, but the sequence of
the events that took place. I believe I now understand it,
though that understanding is in conflict with Dr. Johnson's
claim that only he ever went to Ramey's office and that only he
interviewed Ramey.

 >I agree these differences now throw Bond's testimony into
 >doubt that is until a news report from July 9th 1947 was
 >unearthed by one of the RPIT team from Canada.

My point has always been that I had NOT invented the material I
reported, but that I reported what Dr. Johnson told me. All I
wanted in this fight was to be left out of it. If Dr. Johnson
wanted to say he unwrapped the debris in Ramey's office, I
didn't care. I did care when he began to trash me and say things
that weren't true.

 >The report was sourced from a Routers report and gives a
 >statement from Gen Roger Ramey read to the Routers reporter
 >by a Maj Kirton FWAAF, Ramey is quoted by Kirton as saying...

 >"it looks like a hexagonal object covered with tinfoil or
 >other shining material suspended from a balloon of about
 >twenty feet in diameter."

 >This portion of the description is very similar to that given
 >to the FBI Dallas office, again by Kirton but it's worth
 >noting the foil material is _not_ positively identified just
 >as "tinfoil".

 >Ramey's quote continues..

 >"It is possibly a weather balloon flown at the highest altitude
 >but none of the Army men at this base recognize it as an Army
 >type balloon."


 >The report then go's on to give Irving Newton's ID of the
 >wreckage as a radar target.

Which has it identified as a balloon, even in this statement.
So, even here,  it is confirmed as a weather balloon. The story
put out in 1947 was that nobody recognized it as a balloon until
Newton arrived, but one of the colonel's told Newton that Ramey
thought it was a weather balloon and wanted him to confirm the
identity.

 >You will note the report again closely tracks the description Kirton
 >gave to the Dallas FBI and which we find in their teletype to
 >FBI headquarters timed at 6.12pm, but we also know that at 5.30pm
 >Maj Kirton was giving the Dallas Morning News the full blown
 >"balloon" cover story, we must then presume that Routers received
 >their report before this time and speculating, before Ramey
 >received his orders from McMullen to "get the press off the
 >Army's back" as DuBose recalled. There are two very significant
 >points made in the Routers statement that I have not seen else-
 >where and which now support JBJ's later recounting that Ramey
 >did not know what the debris was, or as he recounted it to me,
 >Ramey shrugged his shoulders when asked "general, what is this stuff"
 >and replied along the lines of "dammed if I know".

I'm not sure if this conclusion flows logically from the data we
have, but I certainly understand the point. Please remember, and
you have now heard it yourself,  Dr. Johnson told me originally
that Ramey told him it was a weather balloon... I did not invent
the quotes, I did not confuse Dr. Johnson, and I did not attempt
to alter his story. He told me these things and to suggest
otherwise is unfair. That has always been my point.

 >The two points I refer to are firstly that phrase "tinfoil OR OTHER
 >SHINING MATERIAL". (my caps)

Which could be a description of part of the rawin target...

 >The addition of "other shining material" implies they were unable
 >even to identify the foil like material as "tinfoil".

Or it could mean that there was some additional shiny material
that was not part of the rawin target...

 >And secondly the clear statement as quoted from Ramey that,

 >"none of the Army men at this base recognize it as an Army type balloon."

 >We could not have it spelt out clearer that at some time between the
 >debris arrival, inspection and the later timed "debunk" statement to
 >the Dallas Morning News, Gen Ramey and the rest of the
 >resources to hand at 8th Air Force Headquarters Fort Worth were
 >_unable_to_identify_the_debris_ brought from Roswell _and_ that this
 >early report supports JBJ's later testimony of those fragmentary
 >memories he has of the time spent in Gen Ramey's office.

 >Even though he _has_ backtracked on his first statements, it seems
 >that when given time to reflect his later "refreshed" testimony now
 >has support in the historical record by this statement to Routers,
 >in all probability given within a short time of his actual visit to
 >Ramey's office that afternoon of the 8th of July 1947.

I don't want to get into an argument over the vulgarities of
human memory. Just let me say this, Dr. Johnson TOLD me that
Ramey told him it was a weather balloon. He TOLD me that he had
written the July 9 article in which it was confirmed that it was
a weather balloon. That the article Dr. Johnson originally
claimed was his has a final paragraph that said, "After his
first look, Ramey declared all it was was a weather balloon. The
weather officer verified his view."

This would seem to conflict with what the Router's story said.
Ramey seemed to know what it was, based on the story that
Dr. Johnson said he wrote that very night (which, of course,
he now denies he wrote).

Once again, my point is this. I reported what Dr. Johnson told
me and I reported it accurately. If Dr. Johnson wants to tell a
different story now, he certainly is free to do so. But please,
ask him not to say I misquoted him, that I would not listen to
his attempts to tell me what he believed to be wrong, and that I
put words in his mouth. These things are not true.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                    Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Hall

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:21:55 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 08:26:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Hall


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood
 >Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 12:27:06 -0000

 >>Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:57:10 -0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Disappointed In Brentwood
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:42:52 -0000

 >>Hi Dick, hi All,

 >>You wrote:

 >>>I have waited, apparently in vain, for some encouraging response
 >>>to my previous posting suggesting a specific plan whereby anyone
 >>>on this list who wishes to take concrete action to encourage
 >>>Congressional hearings (an oft-expressed desire) could
 >>>meaningfully participate. Except for one or two positive
 >>>comments, there has been a deafening silence.

 >>I wanted to respond to this sooner but I've been busy earning
 >>some moola-boola and time for the List has been scarce. If I am
 >>duplicating something that someone else has already said in
 >>response, please excuse me. I've been 'out of touch' with the
 >>List.

 >>I wrote to my state senators (Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer)
 >>as well as to my local congressman requesting public hearings on
 >>the UFO question. I urged everyone else on this List to do so,
 >>and I made a broader public appeal during one of my guest spots
 >>on 'Strange Days,...Indeed.' I like and support the idea of
 >>organizing some kind of concerted effort. My suggestion would
 >>be; "Petitions."

 >>I would be willing to donate the bandwidth to set up a webpage
 >>that contains a copy of a formal petition (written by somebody
 >>else) to our representatives in Wash DC. I will create a CGI
 >>script that will allow folks to sign the petition "online." I
 >>will take down the AIC website temporarily in order to insure
 >>that there's enough bandwidth available.

 >>We have a good number of "webmasters" of busy UFO websites right
 >>here on this List that could set up live links to the petition
 >>page. Between us we could probably recruit another couple of
 >>dozen websites to participate by putting up a link. Getting the
 >>word out would not be a problem.

 >>Dick, what would be a 'respectable' number of signatures to
 >>gather that would be guaranteed to get the attention of our
 >>elected officials? How many would it take to get hearings?

 >>If you and a few others would consent to compose the petition
 >>I'll handle setting up the web side of it. Let me know. I'm
 >>ready to go the nanosecond I get a green light.

 >>Let me know what you think of the petition idea. (Again, sorry
 >>if I'm repeating something that was already suggested.)

 >John and List,

 >First I need to clarify something. On re-reading what I said, I
 >didn't express myself as clearly as I should have. I am not at
 >this time a big advocate of seeking Congressional hearings,
 >unless... (more below). My suggestion of sending a hardcore,
 >scientific book to Members of Congress (or at least writing a
 >carefully worded letter) was intended to be an alternative
 >approach to Greer's carnival for those who did feel strongly
 >about asking for hearings.

 >The nub of the matter is this: What do you ask them to hold
 >hearings about? This is not a simple question. People like Greer
 >who "demand that the Government tell us the truth about UFOs"
 >and imply the sinister witholding of free energy, and cloak the
 >effort in a political agenda, are way off the mark. The most
 >they will raise on Capitol Hill is some snickers about UFO nuts.

 >You need a tight focus on some topic or issue that is within the
 >domain of Congressional responsibility (which after all exists
 >to legislate for the country; hearings typically are
 >investigations into what legislation is needed and how it should


Hi Dick, hi All,

Richard writes:

 >be written). They will occasionally look into politically "hot"
 >issues where people are up in arms about something related to
 >Government activity, or inactivity: secrecy, official
 >wrong-doing, legislation or policies gone astray.

In this case government "inactivity, secrecy, and reported
events involving UFO interference with our national defense
system" seems to be a reasonable tack/course to pursue. Ones
that fall well within the purview of our legislators.

 >My suggestion would be a carefully worded request for hearings
 >into significant evidence being withheld from the public (be
 >prepared to produce documentation or affidavits indicating what
 >you are talking about) and its potential national security
 >implications (ICBM tampering cases, military encounters...)

Which is why I asked _you_ (in my original) if yourself and some
others, (Stan Friedman, Jerry Clark, Greg Sandow, you pick-em,
etc) would compose the petition.

I know that legislators receive petitions all the time and that is
why I asked what kind of numbers would prove 'significant' to them.
How many signatures would it take to get their attention and let
them know we are 'serious' and that we represent a sizable
block of voters with an interest (concerns) about the UFO question.

 >Government secrecy and national security are two "hot button"
 >issues. But the hearings request has to be otherwise agenda free
 >and presented without "UFO nut" trappings by a credible person
 >or persons. Therefore a sensible "front man" or small group must
 >be prepared, if invited, to talk face-to-face with Congressional
 >aides and make a credible case.

Fine, then we'll do what Greer _should_ have done and offer
people some names, and then ask folks from any and all UFO
groups to "vote" for representatives. The details need to be
worked out but it's all "do-able" as long as enough people
express a will to make it happen.

Coming up with an agenda that would be 'suitable/relevant' to
our elected officials shouldn't be an obstacle or a problem.

Would you be willing to throw your hat into the ring? Of all the
folks I can think of, you are uniquely qualified for the job.
I'd also love to see good people like Stan Friedman and Barry
Greenwood etc. on such a panel of "ufology" representatives. We
could nominate a bunch of folks and go with the top three or
five vote getters.

As for being taken seriously:

Between government secrecy issues, credible reports of UFO
interference with our defense systems, national security
questions, and a significant number of signatures, there will be
enough substance to imbue the effort with all the seriousness it
deserves.

 >In general, I don't think petitions are a good idea because they
 >are likely to end up in the circular file. Congressmen are
 >petitioned about a thousand issues per day. In this case maybe
 >an exception is in order just to see if you can get large
 >numbers of people to agree on a particular approach. If so, such
 >a petition could be delivered with the face-to-face presentation
 >as evidence that a lot of people are serious about this.

How many signers would it take? Could 'operating funds' be
appropriated from FUFOR or Larry Rockefeller and similar
sources? Maybe if everybody who signed on would also send in a
dollar it could represent a significant source of operating
funds. We (participants) could/should fund it ourselves.

 >You have written to your Congressional delegation; good. Most
 >people don't seem to realize that Congressmen live to serve
 >their constituents, as long as you don't come across as a nut
 >case to them, in which even you will either receive a polite
 >brushoff or a form letter for your efforts. My previous
 >suggestion was to use some of the most sensible and thoughtful
 >UFO writings as a wedge in your approach to Members of Congress.
 >That puts the focus where it should be: on the strongest
 >evidence available presented in the most intelligent and
 >scientific way.

No reason why that can't be done as (a part of) a formal petition
process.

 >Main message for today: People should think long and hard about
 >what sort of hearings they want to ask for and how the request
 >should be worded. I'll be glad to make some specific suggestions
 >along the way.

Ok, it's 'on the table'. Suggest away. What do the UpDates
'Listerions'" think?

 >And, you don't "demand" hearings; you politely request them.

I'll say "Pretty please with sugar on top" if it will help to
get information on what the hell is happening to us and in our
skies. At some point in the game we all need to do a lot more
than just discuss this issue (incestuously) among ourselves on
Lists such as these. "Rap" is only so good, and will only take
you so far. We need to take meaningful and active steps towards
resolving this UFO business or we're all just dead in the water.
I'm ready to do whatever is necessary (by any means necessary)
to get the government to open up about what it knows. We've been
"talking" the subject to death for 50 years. We have nothing to
lose by making a united/concerted effort to get the agencies of
our government to tell us what they know.

They (government) is "funded" by us. I want to know what they
have done, and found out about UFOs, using _my_ (our) hard
earned cash. If it is true that UFOs neutralized our nuclear
defense system at some time, that alone justifies formal
hearings/investigation. Not unreasonable requests for
information for us to make. After all is said and done, "they"
work for "Us!" If enough of us come together and ask for it,
"maybe" we can finally get some answers. There may be people
within the government itself that are waiting for an opportunity
to come forward and share what they know. Let's create the
circumstances that would facilitate such a thing. A "Grassroots"
rallying point has been missing since Gersten castrated CAUS. We
need one.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                          Secrecy News -- 06/05/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:40:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 08:28:51 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 06/05/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
June 5, 2001

**      OUTSOURCING THE WAR ON DRUGS
**      PENTAGON PAPERS ANNIVERSARY
**      POLYGRAPH BINGE COSTS CAREERS
**      INDIAN NUCLEAR TESTS REVIEWED
**      ASTROLOGICAL CLEARANCE APPROVED


OUTSOURCING THE WAR ON DRUGS

The use of private contractors to perform military, intelligence
and counterdrug missions in Latin America is drawing renewed
attention and controversy, in part because of the secrecy
surrounding those missions.

"Who are these people and who is holding them accountable?" said
Rep. Jan Schakowsky in an Associated Press story today.  Rep.
Schakowsky favors a ban on the use of private contractors for
anti-drug missions in the Andean region.

A review of the State Department contract with the firm Dyncorp
shows that  that company's counternarcotics operations are "far
more expansive and far-flung than previously reported," wrote
Jason Vest in The Nation online on May 23.  See his article
"State Outsources Secret War" here:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=vest20010523

The Dyncorp contract itself was posted by the organization
Corpwatch here:

http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/military/featured/2001/dyncontract.html

The defects in U.S. policy towards drug trafficking in Latin
America were eloquently explored in May 1 testimony by Adam
Isacson of the Center for International Policy:

http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/050103.htm


PENTAGON PAPERS ANNIVERSARY

This month marks the 30th anniversary of the publication by the
New York Times of the Top Secret Defense Department history of
U.S. involvement in Vietnam known as the Pentagon Papers.

The Supreme Court's rejection of the Nixon Administration's
effort to block publication of the Pentagon Papers remains a
milestone in national security classification policy and a
transcendent victory for freedom of the press generally.

The National Security Archive has compiled and published the
central documents from that epic legal battle, including audio
recordings of oral arguments before the Supreme Court, on the
Archive web site here:

http://www.nsarchive.org/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/


POLYGRAPH BINGE COSTS CAREERS

In the mid-1990s, following the unmasking of Aldrich Ames as a
Soviet spy, the Central Intelligence Agency went on something of
a polygraph rampage, aggressively conducting examinations of its
own employees with little regard to the consequences.

"The crackdown turned up serious security problems," write Kevin
Whitelaw and David E. Kaplan in this week's U.S. News and World
Report (6/11/01).  "But innocent people were also snagged,
raising the question of whether the agency used the decidedly
wrong medicine for a cure. As many as 100 people--including some
of the nation's top spies--found their careers paralyzed."

See their article "To Tell the Truth" here:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/010611/usnews/spy.htm


INDIAN NUCLEAR TESTS REVIEWED

The controversy over the exact nature and yield of the nuclear
explosive tests conducted by India in 1998 is reviewed from an
Indian non-governmental perspective in the latest issue of
Bharat Rakshak Monitor, a journal devoted to analysis of India's
military policy and strategic environment.

See "The Indian Nuclear tests -- Summary paper" by D. Ramana,
Matt Thundyil, and V. Sunder:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-6/ramana.html


ASTROLOGICAL CLEARANCE APPROVED

Washington Post astrologer Sydney Omarr advises those born under
the sign of Taurus today that: "You gain access to classified
information. Be secretive."  See:

http://horoscopes.webpoint.com/horo/today/omarr/0,1115,thewashingtonpost-Taurus-
JUN+05+2001,00.html

or click on Taurus here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/columns/horoscope.htm

******************************
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

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
Federation of American Scientists
1717 K Street, NW, Suite 209
Washington, DC  20036

voice:  (202)546-3300, ext. 191
fax:         (202)675-1010
email:  saftergood@igc.org
web:         http://www.fas.org/sgp/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 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                 Re: The Truth Is For Sale On Ebay - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:07:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 08:30:39 -0400
Subject: Re: The Truth Is For Sale On Ebay - Felder


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:25:51 EDT
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: The Truth Is For Sale On Ebay - Young

 >>Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 04:35:13 -0700
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: The Truth Is For Sale on Ebay

 >>>Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 22:26:03 -0500
 >>>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>>Subject: The Truth Is For Sale on Ebay

<snip>

 >Larry, Bobbie:

 >Maybe it's that the map was published in "1997".

 >Clear skies,
 >Bob Young

Evidently no one was stupid enough to dish out a thousand bucks
for this wonderful treasure. The auction closed without any
bidders. Perhaps John Q. Consumer Public is a little more "ufo
savvy" than we are given credit for.....either that, or we're
just all really cheap :)


Bobbie

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



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.256 / Virus Database: 129 - Release Date: 5/31/2001








   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 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                             Re: Talk And Action

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:19:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 08:32:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:05:02 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >The only real UFO stuff being done is by people like Maccabee
 >and NIDS doing the real observational analysis. Your figures are
 >so far off as to be humerous. Perhaps you are just kidding?
 >Maybe Errol should have placed his oft-used caveat in the
 >title... 'Caution, Satire!' A few millions in the last five
 >years? You are not well, sire. NIDS alone alledgedly spent more
 >paying off Carpenter if one is to have believed the others who
 >reported his missed demeanor. If you refer to grants, the number
 >is too high. If you refer to monies spent on the research, it's
 >way too low.

Jim,

As usual, I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make.

There are at least four very wealthy individuals out there,
known to many ufologists, who have contributed, and continue to
contribute, large sums of money to the field.

Three are L. R., J. F., and R. B. (Ye shall know them by their
initials only!) The fourth prefers to remain anonymous. There
may be others of which I am unaware.

Some of the money was well spent, some of it wasn't.

You make a proposal, and it's either accepted -- or rejected.

Such is life.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                         Re: Talk And Action - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:35:55 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 08:34:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Hall


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:45:25 -0500

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:37:46 -0000

 >>If a scientist accidentally detects something UFO-like, he is not
 >>going to rush to colleagues and say "look what I found." He may
 >>privately confide in one or two colleagues whom he knows are not
 >>hostile to UFOs. Others (Maccabee, Sparks...) have covered this
 >>topic well. There is tremendous prejudice against UFOs (read,
 >>"possibly spaceships") as opposed to some relatively innocuous
 >>natural phenomenon. Controversy per se might not stop them, but
 >>this goes beyond mere controversy. UFOs are anathema.

 >Dick,

 >I can't help but believe you're being a little chauvinistic (and
 >maybe even ethnocentric) here. Are you absolutely certain this
 >UFO=anathema thing is a worldwide, cross-cultural phenomenon?

Dennis,

Sometimes I get the impression that you post some things so
hastily that you don't realize you aren't making any sense.
"Chauvinistic?" "Ethnocentric?" "Cross-cultural?" I guesstimate
that you mean I am referring only to U.S. scientists, but I'm
not. I am referring to the entire, international, scientific
"community" (though there are actually very few countries
strongly represented in the enterprise for obvious financial
reasons).

Yes, UFOs are anathema in the scientific community. Are you
being disingenuous by acting as if you are surprised by that
statement? You get the same sort of total rejection of UFOs as
being a legitimate scientific topic from scientists in the UK,
Australia, Latin countries, Canada... You are not aware of 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 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                             The Will To Believe

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 21:18:46 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 08:36:59 -0400
Subject: The Will To Believe


Some of my philosophical opponents in the skeptical/debunker
camp may seize on these remarks, but I can't help stating that
the 'will to believe' is alive and strong among those who
continue to defend lost causes quite irrationally. I am
referring to 'alien autopsy' films, Corso as the 'saviour of the
planet', and now pretty well discredited documents about MJ-12.
(I do agree with those who say that something very much like
MJ-12 may exist and the rest may be calculated disinformation.)

Emotional commitment to a belief falls far short of being
convincing scientific evidence. One must follow the evidence
where it leads, even if it discredits things we have supported
in the past or would like to believe. But the level of argument
on both sides of these issues leaves everything to be desired.
The skeptibunkers equally overstate their case and draw
unjustified sweeping conclusions.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                       What's Wrong With MUFON Brazil?

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 17:29:01 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 08:43:10 -0400
Subject: What's Wrong With MUFON Brazil?


Hi All,

I received the following (disturbing) e-mail from our friends at
the Brazil Academy of Parasciences, S.A. I have _no_ idea what
is going with MUFON Brazil, or why I was sent a copy of this
correspondence. I am not (and have never been) a member of
MUFON. I know there are MUFON directors on this List and I'm
hoping one of them can shed a little light on this.

Looks as if there's some serious 'in-house' boochie-boo going on
over at MUFON Brazil. If anyone has any information as to what
this is all about, I'd appreciate hearing it. If true, it sounds
like MUFON is going to Hell in a handbasket. It may be "old
business" as it mentions Walt Andrus in the present tense and
who has been retired for about a year.

BTW, I can empathize with Bev's frustration. (See below) Trying
to get anything of value accomplished in ufology is always an
uphill struggle. It's good to know there are people like Bev who
manage to maintain (and fight for) a practical approach to the
phenomenon.


Keep in there wailin' away Bev! ;)

John 'I Am Curious Yellow' Velez

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


on 6/3/01 11:19 AM, ABP at abp1@uol.com.br wrote:

 >Hi Tony and Bev,

 >Well...For a short period of time, I was
 >MUFON's National Director for Brazil and did
 >my best to try to gather the very few serious
 >researchers in my country.

 >Among other things, MUFON-Brazil was the first UFO-related
 >group in the country to run a full-color add in
 >a large circulation magazine.
 >Mr. Walter Harrison Andrus did not
 >approve my caution in terms of naming new
 >staff members and expelled me from my
 >position because of my "poor results".

 >Curious enough, the new National Director
 >(under Andrus' blessings) started to name his
 >personal friends as State Directors and most of them
 >are people related to the same kind of
 >mystical (New Age) approach towards
 >the UFO phenomenon. It seems that
 >this was what Mr. Andrus wanted, a big bunch
 >of UFO-cultists as State Directors and
 >"Field Investigators".
 >I was ashamed and did not accept that.
 >I left the organization
 >when my annual membership expired.

 >I had a terrible surprise during the
 >annual MUFON Symposium in Albuquerque,
 >New Mexico, where I participated as a speaker.
 >I participated in a "face-to-face meeting"
 >which was only for invited ufologists.
 >There were around 20 persons and
 >among them was a female "channeler"
 >who spoke in behalf of the Great White
 >Brotherhood (!!!). I just couldn't beleive it !!

 >Well...This was enough for me.

 >Best,

 >Philippe Piet van Putten
 >The Brazilian Academy of Parasciences (ABP)

 >oooooooooo

 >Hi Tony -

 >Among some MUFON personnel, I, like you, have observed the New Age
 >Agenda approach, which tends to pedestal-ize/deify the UFO
 >occupants - and I've also observed the fundamentalist approach, which
 >in its (similar) effort to control, to somehow satisfy its own emotional
 >desperation, wants to demonize. To me, either deify or demonize
 >simply represents two sides of the same coin, with the same
 >_emotional desperation_ factor at work. Leadingaway from reality,
 >rather than toward reality. Whenever I have opportunity to speak,
 >either to individuals or to audiences, I strongly point out that to deify
 >or demonize this phenomenon takes us out of the arena of _objectivity_.
 >To deify or demonize is simply calling the phenomenon for what we want
 >it to be, rather than what it is.

 >And you're right, Tony, the State Directors can be very different in how
 >they approach (color/influence?) their research. MUFON is a volunteer
 >organization. As State Director in Iowa, my comments to witnesses as
 >well as the general public point toward the need to think for themselves
 >instead of letting someone else do their thinking for them. And I point
 >out that the UFO occupants have an _agenda_, much as we humans
 >have an agenda when interacting with other life forms, (From what I've
 >seen of both agendas, I don't condone either one, BTW) and that to
 >deify or demonize is to turn away from objectivity.

 >Bev



  "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 >
   Jun > Jun 5

                     Re: Members Of The Press? - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:04:15 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 09:12:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Members Of The Press? - Gehrman


 >From: Rebecca Keith<xiannekei@yahoo.com>
 >Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Members Of The Press?

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:09:14 -0700
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Gehrman

 >In a message to Greg Sandow, you wrote:

 >>I'm also a member of the press

 >Which press would that be?

 >And is being a member of the press your main occupation?


Rebecca,

I write a column for the Sonoma County Free Press on pesticides
and the environment, and related issues.

http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.org/reaction/reactindx.html

I've been contributing to the Free Press for eleven years.

I also write for Flatland Magazine and the Anderson Valley
Advertiser, one of the best small town newspapers in the US.

I make my living as the founder and supervising teacher of a
NPS(a Non Public School- Special Education) called Mountain
Circle NPS. We have a contract with Plumas County CA to school
their students with special education needs who aren't
successful in regular public school. I've been doing this for
four years and have a contract for next year. Before that I was
a public school special education teacher.

You were once very interested in the AA. Why don't you take some
time to view the new AA CDs? I'll be happy to send you a free
set.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 6

                    Re: r. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:26:33 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:16:28 -0400
Subject: Re: r. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Maccabee


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:22:03 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 17:48:59 EDT
 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:12:16 EDT
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [was Re: Debunkers'...]

<snip>

 >>Both Sarbacher and Walker seem to refer to meetings at
 >>Wright-Patterson AFB in 1950 as where they learned of alleged
 >>crashed saucers and/or alien bodies. Sarbacher strangely seemed
 >>to refer to the RDB as meeting at Wright-Pat but RDB was based
 >>in Washington, D.C., so this makes little sense unless he meant
 >>a committee of the RDB such as the Guided Missiles Committee
 >>which I think did sometimes meet at WPAFB.

 >If the center of military research on the UFO problem was at
 >Wright-Patterson, I really don't see what the problem would be
 >for RDB consultants like Sarbacher and Walker to fly a few
 >hundred miles from Washington and Pennsylvania for briefings at
 >Wright-Patterson on the subject of crashed saucers and alien
 >bodies.

I can add 2c to this.

As I reported in a paper I published in th International UFO
Reporter in 1991 ("Hiding the Hardware"), I spoke to Sarbacher
in 1985. He told me that he was a "dollar a year man" doing
essentially volunteer consulting wrk for the Defense Dept. (By
accepting a "dollar a year" he could keep his security clearance
up to date).

He told me he had been invited to a meeting at Wright-Pat to see
te remains of a crashed saucer but he was unable to go because
of other committments (busy man!). However, several of his
friends who worked in the same office in Washington, DC (in some
old buildings that were built during WWII as temporary office
buildings that lasted into the late 1970's when they were
finally torn down) did go. Subsquently they told him some of
what they had seen.

He told me the creatures must have been built like insects or
robots in order to have withstood the accelerations.

(Note in passing: Sarbacher's early reference to "insects"
brings to mind the muh more recent claims of "praying mantis"
type aliens in abduction stories.) (Sarbacher died in 1986 after
talking to perhaps half a dozen or more investigators
andrepeating substantially the same story. He may have told
others more details than he told me over the phone.)

At any rate, he didn't say t me that the meeting at Wright Pat
was an "RDB" meeting. However, it may have been at subsequent
RDB meeting in Washington that he learned about what his friends
had seen.

Epilogue:

When I told Stan that Sarbacher had said his friends had gone,
Stan called Sarbacher "immediately" and learned some names and
initiated a search. He was able to find only one acquaintance
from those days (this was, after all, 35 years later) and that
man knew nothing of interest to us, but was happy to reestablish
connection with Sarbacher after many years.

Perhaps Stan can "illuminate" us further.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 6

                     UFO ROUNDUP - Special Announcement

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 22:24:47 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:21:09 -0400
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP - Special Announcement


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

SPECIAL UFO ROUNDUP
ANNOUNCEMENT


Dear Readers:

I intended to post this announcement in last week's issue.
Unfortunately, due to illness, there was no issue last week. Nor
are there likely to be any new issues during the course of the
summer. Here's why:

Shortly after I moved here to Minnesota two years ago, I went to
the Pearle Vision Center for new glasses, and I was told by the
staff optometrist that I had cataracts. During the past 25
months, the condition has been steadily growing worse. Like
Charles Fort, I am now blind in one eye, and the other is
getting progressively worse.

For the past six months, I have been resorting to all sorts of
ingenious stratagems in a determined--some would undoubtedly say
fanatical effort to get the UFO Roundup out every week. But now
I'm afraid that I can no longer do the work of compiling,
writing and editing.

Last week I lost the ability to read my own transcription notes.
Yes, that is quite a handicap for an editor to have.  I
mentioned this in an email to my sister Maureen, who replied,
"Welcome to the club. Nobody else can read your handwriting,
either."

I must have laughed out loud for five minutes after that.

So, much as I hate to, I have no choice but to put UFO Roundup
on hiatus while I undergo medical treatment for the cataracts.
I hope to resume publication later in the year. But we shall see
what the doctor says.

I really, really hate to suspend publication at this point in
time. We've already had one interruption due to the Millenium
Bugout, the run-up to Y2K a couple of years ago. And I hate to
see UFO Roundup become a stop-and-go, on-again, off-again
publication like Weird Tales here in the USA or Ostara in
Europe. Besides, the present situation seems a little
embarrassing, like a soap opera or a bad episode of Lou Grant.

This condition does run in my father's family. As near as I can
tell, my condition most closely approximates that of my paternal
grandmother's father a century ago. So I guess that proves
Luther Burbank was right.

Another reason I hate to go on hiatus is that UFO Roundup is
really hitting its stride. The Hanuman story from India is a
good example. When it all comes together, as it did with
Hanuman, and we have the names and the dates and the facts and
numerous newspaper references, we provide a valuable service to
the UFO community. We come very close to the ideal of the
"Saucer CNN" we talked about in the Sightings chatroom back in
November 1995. I hate to see that level of news service
disrupted, but the Almighty has taken the matter out of my
hands.

Concerning Hanuman and last week's "Bear Monster" seen in
India's Assam state, here's an interesting note. In his 1978
book, Weird America, author Jim Brandon pointed out that there
was a rash of "manimal" sightings in 1973.

At the time time, these were attributed to public jitters
stemming from the Watergate crisis and the Yom Kippur War. He
noted that a similar flap had taken place in 1945, dismissed by
the scientists as "war nerves," and theorized that there was a
28-year cycle between "bouts of monsteriana."

Well, here we are in 2001, twenty-eight years after the 1973
monster flap, and the "manimal" reports are flooding in. It will
be interesting to see if the flap keeps up throughout the
summer.

If Brandon is right about the cycle, the next big monster flap
should occur in 2029.

Your editor, of course, will continue to follow the saucers.
Just as I have since I saw my first issue of Ray Palmer's Flying
Saucers magazine as a little guy back in the 1950s. But I will
miss the thrill of sharing the latest sighting or event with you
readers. For I know that the strange parade of UFOs and Forteana
never really ends. Next week there'll be more sightings. A dark
hovering triangle in Fort Thompson, Manitoba. A daylight disc in
Calama, Chile. A glowing green fireball in Enumclaw, Washington.
And an orange fireball over Tamworth, New South Wales. Or maybe
another alien in Quintana Roo, Mexico. In ufology, every week
brings a new surprise, and a sense of excitement and wonder.

So for now UFO Roundup must stand down. Hopefully, the
newsletter's absence will be a temporary one. That is something
I shall leave to the Almighty.

To those who have contributed thousands of UFO reports and
newspaper articles, I say, "Thank you, people. I could not have
done it without you."

For those who contributed small gifts to keep the newsletter
going, I offer my heartfelt thanks. For your sake, especially, I
will try my best to re-launch the newsletter in a few months.

And I'd like to thank each and every one of our readers for
letting UFO Roundup come into your home and entertain you, if
only for a little while each week.

Keep watching the skies!


Joseph Trainor


Subj:   Cancun Mexico Abduction Report
Date:   01-06-04 12:49:24 EDT
From:   Mike_Harman@rocketmail.com (Michael Harman)
To:     Masinaigan@aol.com
CC:     Majorstar@aol.com

This report was sent in to UFO-PI via postal mail. I
keyed it in today and forwarding it on to you all for
evaluation.

Mike Harman
UFO-PI


Cancun Mexico Report
[name removed and on file with UFO-PI]

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


Report sent in to UFO-PI from a Virginia Resident

Meditation Experience: X

Date of Experience: July / August 1993

Time: 1:00 AM Central Standard

Length of time for the encounter: One minute

Place - State/County - City/Town - Country: Cancun
Mexico (on vacation)

What was your reaction after the experience? Was I
dreaming or was this real, couldn't move my body like
I went back to sleep (forced).

Describe the experience as you remember it: I was in a
twilight state of sleep when I looked up and saw *3
little *green (things) big heads no cloths on, at
first I thought what the heck is this I remember I
couldn't move my body and it was like I went back to
sleep. Next morning I woke up and said nothing to my
family. (later on I did)

* Note:

Height 3 1/2 feet, skinny, eyes were dark. It was dark
wasn't for sure what color their skin was.

Your real name & Age (optional): [info removed and on
file with UFO-PI]

Environmental Situation for UFO Encounters: X Indoors

Viewed Through: (X) Other - Five feet from my bed.

Area/Location: On vacation staying in condo in Cancun
Mexico.

Area/Terrain: (X) Other - By ocean.

Area/Technical: (X) Other - Ocean.

I had made friends with a family from Texas while
vacationing in Cancun, Mexico end of July/ August
1993. We exchanged phone numbers, we kept in contact.
One conversation somehow came up with what had
happened to me, and my friend from Texas said "oh my
God" my mother had seen strange lights in the sky over
the ocean, that's when I truly realized what I saw in
my hotel room was real and not a dream. Also for the
last 10 years, I've been experiencing dreams where
I've delivered babies that don't look normal (mostly
girls). One was shown to me at about age 8 just
standing blond hair big black eyes no expression on
her face. (thought I knew she belonged to me).
Sometimes my baby doesn't feel right I get these kicks
in my stomach (not gas pains) they last about one
month or two then disappear. I've had my tubes tied
back in Feb. 1996 so I know I can't be Pregnant. I've
never experienced being away for any abduction. at
all. I consider myself a fairly religious person, so
why would God allow these things to happen if they are
rally real? My last episode was (dreaming) about one
month ago. Where I delivered a baby girl with blond
hair and some really weird looking blue or green
little eyes, big head. Can this be real or do I have
some really wild dreams? My new husband, I've not
discussed these things with him (probably would think
I'm losing it big time). You can also contact me at my
address

[name removed and on file with UFO-PI]

=====
Mike Harman
UFO-PI Private UFO Investigations, State of Texas
Mike_Harman@rocketmail.com
Mike_Harman@space.com
UFO-PI: http://www.homestead.com/ufopi2/index.html
PC REPAIR: http://fixyourpc.homestead.com/
LEARN TO PLAY BASS: http://learntoplaybass.homestead.com/


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 >
   Jun > Jun 6

                         Re: Ravenna 1966 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:26:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:24:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Maccabee


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:20:41 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:31:15 EDT
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak

<snip>

 >>People with normal visual acuity have resolutions typically from
 >>about 0.7 to 1.0 minutes of arc (or 42 seconds to 60 seconds of
 >>arc), though acuities down to 0.4 minarc (or 24 seconds of arc)
 >>are known. On an eye chart, this would correspond to the more
 >>familiar 20/20 acuity (1 minarc resolution) down to 20/8 acuity
 >>(.4 minarc resolution)

 >On April 1st, Venus in the morning sky was a brilliant -4
 >magnitude, and a huge 59 seconds of arc thin crescent. At this
 >moment it is about 25 seconds of arc thicker crescent.

 >Why is Venus never reported as being resolved? The answer is
 >irradiation, that the image's brightness causes "slop" over onto
 >neighboring parts of the retina, elliminating detail. This
 >happens all the time for lunar and planetary visual observers.
 >You can see this by looking at the Sun for a couple seconds with
 >the bare branches of a tree or a power line in front. The line
 >or branch disappears.

 >This, astigmatism and the glistening rays caused by the
 >diffraction of light by one's eyelashes (prove this by rotating
 >you hear and the saucer's "rays" move around, too) cause these
 >reports.

Diffraction by eyelashes? My eyelashes curl upwards so that they
are nt in front of my eyes. Perhaps your's curl downward?

I suppose is a person is squinting so the eyelids are close
together eyelashes might get in the way.

But Venus isn't bright enough to make me squint. Even the moon
isn't that bright.


 >[Pause for howls]








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 6

                  Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 17:34:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:27:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Gehrman


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:46:20 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Sandow

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited
 >>Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:09:14 -0700

 >>I intended to say was that
 >>if Paul Scott thought Corso was a " megalomaniac or a
 >>psychopathic liar" he wouldn't have run with the story and the
 >>information Corso provided.

 >My impression is that some political columnists even more
 >readily resort to unreliable sources when there's a lot at
 >stake. I could wish that wasn't true, but political punditry
 >isn't -- in my view -- the most responsible of professions, at
 >least as it's practiced.

Some political columnsts are extreamly careful and others are
sloppy. Paul Scott was well known and worked
on other high profile stories after this. I'd think
he'd want to be careful. JFK could be a powerful
enemy.

 >Does anyone know anything about Paul Scott, by the way?

 >>A very good point. The recent book I've mentioned on the history
 >>of the NSA details the buildup of intelligence about Soviet
 >>missiles in Cuba. This intelligence came from many sources.
 >>After a certain period, the Kennedy administration was pretty
 >>sure there were offensive missiles in Cuba, or soon would be,
 >>but still didn't have definitive proof.
 >>It was only after there was definite proof that JFK took action.

 >I'm not sure this is entirely correct. Did any of your sources
 >mention "Operation Mongoose"? As shown in the secret document
 >Robert at:

 >http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/03-01.gif

 >>"Mongoose" was an important consideration, worry and concern for
 >>JFK and could possibly have prevented him from including the
 >>public in any knowledge or discussion of the Cuban missiles. We
 >>may not have known for years that there was ever a problem.
 >>(Mongoose wasn't discovered or made public until years later)
 >>Unlike others on this list, I believe our government is very
 >>good at keeping secrets. Our ongoing biological weapons program
 >>is a perfect example.

 >I can't tell from this document what Mongoose was

No, not from this document, but your sources should have given
you a clearer picture. Perhaps they do not tell a complete story
and may be historically useless. Mongoose was very likely the
main reason there even was a Cuban missile crisis.

Mongoose was made operational soon after the Bay of Pigs
embarrassment. It was directly supervised by RFK out of the
Whitehouse and coordinated by General Edward Lansdale. It's
purpose was to help the Cuban people overthrow Castro and the
communist regime from within.

Highly secret, it employed over 700 Americans and over three
thousand Cubans. Over two thousand missions were sent out of the
Miami Florida headquarters. including contaminating the Cuban
sugar crop, distributing counterfeit currency, military raids on
oil refineries and copper mines; and most serious of all,
assassination attempts on Castro and other Cuban leaders. It was
this highly sensitive information that both JFK and RFK were
trying to keep out of the press and they were successful. The
details of the operation were not discovered until the Church
committee hearings into the JFK assassination in 1967.

Unfortunately for JFK, Castro's spooks were much more efficient
and competent than the US spooks and knew of these plans well in
advance; Mongoose was penetrated.

To make a long story very short: that's why the USSR sent
missiles to Cuba and probably why JFK was assassinated.

 >The sources
 >I've read tell a very straightforward story. Intelligence is
 >gathered. JFK decides on action, without prodding from the
 >media, or anyone outside his administration. Action is taken,
 >and the public is immediately informed.

But they never mention Operation Mongoose. Why not?

 >This Mongoose document, to my mind, illustrates the dangers of
 >forming opinions with too little data. We look at one or two
 >documents, or even a dozen, and think we know what they mean. A
 >historian will look at hundreds - in fact, he or she will try to
 >look at absolutely every relevant document before forming an
 >opinion. It's easy to take documents out of context, especially
 >if we don't know what the context is.

So now that I've explained the context, why wasn't mongoose
mentioned? It was mentioned in Bob's document so we know it was
a concern to the Whitehouse.

I'm interested to see what you can find explaining this obvious
omission on the part of your sources.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 6

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:45:14 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:31:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:57:05 -0500

 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:44:46 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:31:28 -0500

 >John,

 >>>CUFOS and I went through a legal ordeal from the self-same
 >>>self-important Gary P. Posner, after I'd written a hard-hitting
 >>>IUR editorial on the excesses of CSICOP and its debunking fellow
 >>>travelers. Pelicanists love to dish it out, but some of their
 >>>number aren't much good at taking it. I guess they figure that
 >>>it's better to silence critics than to engage them in rational
 >>>debate - a debate that, I suspect, even they must fear they'd
 >>>lose.

 >>Why do I seem to hear the name "Stanton Friedman" echoing from
 >>the hills of Derbyshire? (County in northern England, residence
 >>of one Jenny Randles, for the uninitiated)

 >When this dismal episode was occurring, I tried to dissuade Stan
 >from pursuing what I considered, and still consider, a rash and
 >destructive course of action. It is one of ufology's low
 >moments, and if we are lucky, nothing like it will happen again.


 >Jerry Clark

I find this notion really strange. Yes, when I informed you of
the Manchester Evening News article, you felt that there was no
way Jenny could have said those things and the problem must be
MEN.and I should just turn the other cheek. It took quite a bit
of effort, but finally we obtained the very defamatory letter
from Jenny that was the stimulus for the defamatory MEN article
complete with Jenny's picture. She was much more defamatory than
the MEN. Harry Harris and I initially would have settled for a
simple published apology. But Jenny refused and kept blaming the
MEN. She was willing to apologize personally.. which did nothing
about the 3/4 of a million people exposed to the published
defamation. The MEN, I am told, is the largest circulation
Newspaper in England outside of London.

For reasons UNKNOWN, a group of people did indeed join Jenny to
fight this "Freedom of Speech" case... poor Jenny against a 'Rich
American'. What nonsense! There has never been absolute
freedom of speech. Society has long accepted restraints on
crying fire in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire; on
inciting a riot; on releasing Classified information, and on
defamation.The laws in the UK do concern themselves with damage
to one's reputation... far more so than in the US where Sullivan
vs the NYTImes seems to make it possible to say almost anything
about a public figure.

You seem to be suggesting that breaking the law is ok, but
punishing the offender is not. How quaint. I should think you,
as an experienced editor, would think differently.

I would be happy to have somebody scan the article, the letter
and the apology and post them. I don't have a scanner. Clearly the
men knew they had goofed once they saw the Jenny's claims were
not only baseless, but completely at odds with what she herself
had written. There had been no battle between us. We had only
met twice. She said good things in her books about my work. The
defamation was clear, unambiguous and flat out wrong besides
being defamatory. The best defense against defamation, as you
know, is _Truth_. There was none.

I should think that it was the sending of the defamatory letter
without any basis or reason, and the publication of the blatant
defamation that was reprehensible and indeed a low point, not
paying the piper for it. Next I will hear that McVeigh shouldn't
be executed because that wouldn't be nice... neglecting the
heinous crime for which he is being punished .

I suggest you and John Rimmer read the articles in question.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 6

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:56:57 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:35:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:03:20 +0100

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:57:05 -0500

 >>>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:44:46 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:31:28 -0500

 >>John,

 >>>>CUFOS and I went through a legal ordeal from the self-same
 >>>>self-important Gary P. Posner, after I'd written a hard-hitting
 >>>>IUR editorial on the excesses of CSICOP and its debunking fellow
 >>>>travelers. Pelicanists love to dish it out, but some of their
 >>>>number aren't much good at taking it. I guess they figure that
 >>>>it's better to silence critics than to engage them in rational
 >>>>debate - a debate that, I suspect, even they must fear they'd
 >>>>lose.

 >>>Why do I seem to hear the name "Stanton Friedman" echoing from
 >>>the hills of Derbyshire? (County in northern England, residence
 >>>of one Jenny Randles, for the uninitiated)

 >>When this dismal episode was occurring, I tried to dissuade Stan
 >>from pursuing what I considered, and still consider, a rash and
 >>destructive course of action. It is one of ufology's low
 >>moments, and if we are lucky, nothing like it will happen again.

 >>Jerry Clark

 >Hi,

 >I'd best say no more than 'amen' to that.

 >But I would like to confirm that Jerry did do exactly what he
 >reports here. The support from others - both ufologists and
 >various sources within the writing profession - was also
 >fantastic and quite unexpected. So it is nice to be able to
 >publicly thank Jerry (and the others, of course) for such
 >empathy at the time, which I have never forgotten.

 >Although I dont suppose Stanton Friedman and I will ever be
 >friends, for pretty obvious reasons, we have met twice since
 >those dark days and managed to speak civilly to one another on
 >those occasions. So I do take encouragement from that, at least.

 >Best wishes,

 >Jenny Randles


I must agree with Jenny that there has been no battle between us
since the apology was published. And that we were at least civil
to each other on the two occasions we saw each other afterwards.
And I must say that there was no battle between us prior to the
defamation and that her books had indeed said nice things about
my research.

It was certainly not the case that the defamation was the
culmination of some sort of dispute. There was no dispute. That
was one of the very strange aspects of this whole sorry affair.

So why wasn't the Manchest Evening News asked to publish a quick
apology, rather than delays being induced by initial refusal to
turn over the offending letter? I don't suppose we will ever
know... maybe it was just a case of "The devil made her do it"
to paraphrase Flip Wilson.

I have no objection to the publication of the article, the
letter, and the apology. There is a major difference between
disagreement and defamation.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 6

                   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 22:48:25 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:45:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Friedman


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:22:03 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 17:48:59 EDT
 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:12:16 EDT
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [was Re: Debunkers'...]

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 01:54:20 EDT
 >>>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>><snip>

 >>>>>>Also fingered by Sarbacher as being involved in briefings at
 >>>>>>Wright-Patterson was Dr. Eric Walker (President of Penn State
 >>>>>>University and former head of the Dept. of Electrical
 >>>>>>Engineering and Dean of Engineering and Architecture). Walker
 >>>>>>also served as Executive Secretary of the Research and
 >>>>>>Development Board from 1950 to 1952.

 >>Hi Dave,

 >>What I meant to say was that there was no transcript _presented_
 >>to double check the quotation - obviously a transcript had been
 >>mentioned previously. Thanks for presenting the transcript.
 >>But my point was concerning whether Steinman's interpretations
 >>colored his reporting. So I'd want to know if a tape recording
 >>of Walker with Steinman was double checked by someone
 >>independent of Steinman (maybe Crain?).

 >Don't know. The tone of the transcript struck me as coming from
 >a tape recording rather than notes. The tone of Walker's
 >comments also struck me as very similar to transcripts of other
 >people's conversations with him, particularly Walker's caution
 >and how Walker repeatedly tried to discourage people from
 >probing any further into the matter.

 >Steinem also immediately sent Walker a follow-up letter, trying
 >to get written corroboration of certain points in the
 >conversation plus other details. At that juncture, Walker sent
 >back his bizarre "Roswell aliens integrated into American
 >society" letter. This was the beginning of Walker's evasions,
 >also detailed in other transcripts and letters by others.

 >>The impression I get is that Walker was trying to remember
 >>something from his RDB days of 1950. The question is what and
 >>how much was influenced by front-page NY Times stories about
 >>MJ-12 in May 1987, a few months before Steinman called him, and
 >>how much was influenced by the events and news of 1950.

 >It is very clear to me from looking at the transcripts that
 >Walker and Sarbacher were not repeating press rumors, but
 >talking about personal knowledge.

 >>>>>>(When pressed for details in letters and other phone
 >>>>>>conversations, however, Walker clammed up.)

 >>>>The obvious reading of Walker's comments, to me, was that he was
 >>>>answering Steinman's questions very tongue in cheek. At one
 >>>>point he told him that he sure doesn't have any aliens in his
 >>>>office at Penn State. The so called clamming up seems to have
 >>>>been after Walker realized that he was getting these calls from
 >>>>somebody without a sense of humor who was quite serious about
 >>>>his preposterous questions - a real saucer nut.

 >>>As usual, Bob Young resorts to gross misrepresentation in order
 >>>to debunk. There were multiple conversations with people other
 >>>than Steinman, and at no time does Walker talk about "aliens in
 >>>his closet" with Steinman (that was with somebody else). Walker
 >>>was clearly quite serious initially with Steinman.

 >>>I would also like to clear up Brad Sparks suggestion that Walker
 >>>was spouting all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories in his
 >>>conversations. I wish Brad wouldn't resort to debunker tactics
 >>>of trying to discredit people by ridiculing simply because he
 >>>doesn't believe in the existence of an organization such as
 >>>MJ-12. The "MJ-12 papers" could all be fakes, yet there could
 >>>still have existed an MJ-12-type group, whether under that name
 >>>or something else.

 >>First of all I wish Dave wouldn't resort to "debunker" labeling
 >>of those who aren't debunkers just because they come to a
 >>different and more skeptical opinion or conclusion than he does.

 >I was responding to the following statement of yours:

 >>>>>I seem to recall that Walker when interviewed in the 80's was
 >>>>>spouting all kinds of wild conspiracy theories and claims -
 >>>>>JFK?, Nazis ? I think it's in a Hesemann book.

 >I'm sorry if my comment offended you, but your statement struck
 >me very strongly, and still strikes me, as pure debunkery. When
 >you write that somebody was "spouting all kinds of wild
 >conspiracy theories and claims," which as far as I know isn't
 >even true, you are obviously trying to paint them as some sort
 >of loony whose statements should be ignored.

 >>Second, my considered conclusion after many years of research is
 >>that there is indeed a highly classified compartmented
 >>intelligence agency investigation of UFO's ongoing today that
 >>has an ancestry going back probably to 1946, but that the MJ-12
 >>is complete fraud, quite possibly designed to prevent anyone
 >>from uncovering the actual secret project, though more likely to
 >>have been concocted out of profit motives on the part of certain
 >>suspected hoaxers, albeit having intelligence connections.

 >Brad, I think we're in basic agreement here, except for one
 >thing. The MJ-12 _papers_ as they emerged in the 1980s could be
 >complete frauds, yet an actual MJ-12 _organization_ headed by
 >Vannevar Bush and operating initially inside the Research and
 >Development Board, could have very much been a reality. The 1950
 >Smith/Sarbacher briefing and the Smith memos that emerged out of
 >it plus Sarbacher's corroboration of all this in the 1980s
 >speaks very strongly to the existence of such an organization.

 >Please also consider this _possible_ scenario. Sarbacher was
 >found in 1983 and corroborated the 1950 briefing for Smith and
 >the contents of Smith's memos. This was the first really strong
 >evidence of a highly secret UFO control group. Bush was named as
 >the head.

I beg to differ. what the Smith memo says is... "Their modus
operandi is unknown but concentrated effort is being made by a
small group headed by Dr. Vannevar Bush". Modus operandi means
How they operate. Bush was head of a small group trying to fgure
out how the saucers operated. That was only one of many
challenges such as where do they originate, what do they want,
how can we obtain more information, etc etc. One would expect
that each of the MJ-members had his own specialty. All were busy
with other things.I suspect Menzel for example mighthave looked
at the strange symbols and at radio transmission from the
saucers. I would certainly expect that there were people working
full time in each area. Just collating and evaluating all the
instrument data obtained by air and ground devices, such as
radar would have kept some people busy. General Twining's pilot
told me he often saw Bush and Twining together.

 >In 1984, the MJ-12 papers made their mysterious appearance,
 >naming Bush as the head. _Perhaps_ the real purpose of the MJ-12
 >papers was a counterintelligence sting to eventually discredit
 >the existence of an MJ-12-type organization, which
 >Sarbacher/Smith said existed. Therefore hide the truth in plain
 >sight inside of a hoax. The false parts discredit the truth.
 >This is a classic disinformation ploy.

Once again, there is _nothing_ in the EBD, TF, or CT memos that
says Bush was the head of MJ-12! Hillenkoetter is listed as
MJ-1

 >>Third, if you would read my other postings you would see that I
 >>am determined enemy of UFO secrecy by the government and just a
 >>few days ago developed an entirely new legal weapon in the fight
 >>to get the government to release withheld UFO data (the 25-year
 >>rule for "automatic declassification") - and it was ironically
 >>done in the course of my arguments with a well-known skeptic on
 >>this List (whom you probably label a "debunker" though I
 >>wouldn't). See my postings on UpDates:

Sorry, but EO 12958 does _not_ say all classified doducments
over 25 years old should automatically be declassified. It
provides for classification review which is why all holders of
classified documents spent an enormous effort reviewing their
old classified holdings to assure that the "hot material" was
not declassified. McAndrew told me the USAF was reviewing a
quarter millionpages a month.There were numerous reasons giving
for maintaining the classified status.The CIA scanned loads of
old stuff and released some because the rest was "properly" kept
classified. I suggest everybody read EO 12958

 >>http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/may/m29-017.shtml
 >>http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2001/may/m31-001.shtml

 >Go get 'em Brad - honestly. My motto is attack on all fronts. I
 >appreciate it when people take the offensive.

 >>>Instead, we should be listening carefully to what Walker had to
 >>>say after being fingered as being involved by Drs. Sarbacher and
 >>>Darwin, both formerly associated with the Research and
 >>>Development board around 1950.

 >>Yes, that 1950 date is significant and that is what bothers me.
 >>That is when the Scully hoax made national news beginning with
 >>TIME magazine on Jan. 9, 1950, plus innumerable newspaper and
 >>radio items thereafter (plus a few before, which had led to
 >>TIME's coverage in the first place, beginning with Scully's
 >>first column in Variety, Oct. 12, 1949).

 >It was Scully's book on crashed saucers (which came out on Sept.
 >8, 1950) that prompted Wilbert Smith (on Sept. 12) to seek an
 >official briefing through the Canadian embassy in Washington. It
 >was the Canadian defense attache who actually received the
 >briefing from Sarbacher on the same date.

 >The notes of that briefing plus the Smith memos that followed do
 >not in the least convey the sense that Sarbacher was passing on
 >rumors to the Canadian military attache of crashed saucers that
 >he was reading in magazines and newspapers. The purpose of the
 >briefing was an _official_ Canadian government inquiry into the
 >reality of flying saucers. Sarbacher wasn't just passing on
 >public rumors, but talking about what was really going on, based
 >on briefings he had received as a consultant with the RDB.

 >Sarbacher said that "the facts reported in the [Scully] book are
 >substantially correct," that the saucers definitely existed, the
 >subject was the "most highly classified subject in the U.S.
 >government" and that a small group under the direction of
 >Vannevar Bush was investigating them.

I should point out here that I was the one who located Sarbacher
after Arthur Bray mentioned him in a MUFON paper. I was in touch
with him and met with him on his yacht in Florida. I told Bill
Moore who passed it on to Steinman who has since, for reasons
unknown, taken credit for locatiing him. Steinman wrote asking
me to put pressure Sarbacher so that he would tell me
everything. I told him I didn't pressure anybody and that I
thought Sarbacher had been totally up front with me. What he had
was scuttlebut.. Sarbacher mentioned Darwin as somebody who
might know something and was very pleased as was Darwin when I
located him and got the 2 guys in touch with each other.

 >>Both Sarbacher and Walker seem to refer to meetings at
 >>Wright-Patterson AFB in 1950 as where they learned of alleged
 >>crashed saucers and/or alien bodies. Sarbacher strangely seemed
 >>to refer to the RDB as meeting at Wright-Pat but RDB was based
 >>in Washington, D.C., so this makes little sense unless he meant
 >>a committee of the RDB such as the Guided Missiles Committee
 >>which I think did sometimes meet at WPAFB.

I don't see any mention of the fact that The Joint Research and
Development Board preceded the RDB and was Headed by Bush and
was noted in Twining's Sept. 24, 1947 letter as being one of the
groups who should be kept abreast of findings on flying saucers.
Both the JRDB and RDB as well as NACA which had also been headed
by Bush had committees dealing with specific areas. Presumably
the MJ-12 group would have been set up the same way. Bush left
RDB after a year or so per agreement with Truman when he took
the job.

Re MJ-12, let us not act as though this was a group that met
Thursdays for lunch and wherein each person knew all that was
going on with every area of interest. Furthermore there is no
reason to suggest that Ruppelt was liasing with Menzel. Much
more likely AF intelligence. Highly classified work is much like
an old wagon wheel without a rim. The info is fed to the hub,
but there is no cross connection. Some have made it sound as
though Menzel who was working on an unclassified popular
debunking book could just tell Ruppelt.." Hey, I am a member of
MJ-12 and you have to give me everything". He didn't tell the
loyalty hearings he had a TS Ultra navy clearance which would
have saved him a great deal of trouble. Ruppelt may never have
heard of MJ-12 or where what he was collecting was going.

 >If the center of military research on the UFO problem was at
 >Wright-Patterson, I really don't see what the problem would be
 >for RDB consultants like Sarbacher and Walker to fly a few
 >hundred miles from Washington and Pennsylvania for briefings at
 >Wright-Patterson on the subject of crashed saucers and alien
 >bodies.

 >As to backgrounds, Sarbacher's specialty was remote-controlled
 >rockets, so that certainly falls under the Guided Missiles
 >Committee. Walker's was underwater acoustics and guidance
 >systems. That is also a form of guided missile, but of the
 >underwater variety. (USO's, or unidentified submerged objects,
 >or USO's emerging from bodies of water and becoming UFO's, or
 >vice versa, are part of the overall UFO phenomena. Having a
 >consultant expert on underwater ordnance strikes me as being
 >very logical in a comprehensive attack on the problem.)

 >During WWII Walker was the associate director of the Harvard
 >ordnance lab that developed the homing torpedo used against
 >German submarines, work for which he eventually won citations
 >from the Navy and President. After the war, Walker helped
 >establish the Ordnance Research Laboratory at Penn State
 >University.

 >In December 1949, Walker was put through an "indoctrination for
 >special intelligence affairs," according to a Jan. 1950 CIA
 >document (see the Mantle and Hesemann book).

 >In short, by 1950, Walker had been heavily involved in military
 >ordnance research for some time and was also clearly inside the
 >CIA intelligence loop on something as of December 1949. From
 >1950 to 1951 Walker was the Executive Secretary of Vannevar
 >Bush's Research and Development Board, which the Sarbacher/Smith
 >briefing/memos fingered as being the "headquarters" of the
 >highly secret group heading up the investigation into the
 >saucers.

 >>Walker doesn't inspire me with a lot of confidence when he
 >>spouts off in his letter to Steinman about 4 alleged aliens
 >>being "absorbed into American culture" and one becoming a Bill
 >>Gates-type (or is it Bill himself??), the second a "world
 >>famous athlete", the third a Wall Street raider, etc. Shades of
 >>the Men In Black movie with Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones
 >>(which may have been inspired by UFOlogist publications on
 >>walker).

 >Brad, I think you are totally missing the point here. This
 >screwy letter was written AFTER Steinem first contacted Walker,
 >based on Sarbacher fingering Walker as attending the same
 >meetings on crashed saucers and bodies. The letter was the
 >beginning of Walker playing games with researchers. (One of the
 >games Walker played was later denying he ever wrote the letter.)

 >BUT, in the INITIAL conversation with Steinem, where Steinem
 >called him out of the blue and caught him off-guard, Walker
 >readily admitted to attending these meetings and knowing of the
 >existence of MJ-12 from its inception (which he placed on his
 >own as 1947, without prompting from Steinem).

 >I think most people looking at that first conversation with
 >Steinem and then comparing it with what Walker began to say
 >afterwards will come to the conclusion that Walker realized he
 >had said too much. Most everything he wrote or said after that
 >conversation was designed to discourage further inquiry by
 >making the subject matter appear to be ridiculous or by being
 >extremely evasive about what he did know.

 >Still Henry Azadehdel did a pretty good job of buttering up
 >Walker and eliciting further information from him lengthy
 >conversations he had with Walker in 1990. Walker again admitted,
 >though guardedly, to the current existence of the high level UFO
 >control group, adding details such as there being some
 >foreigners and no generals in the group. Walker also hinted at
 >actual contact, or at least attempts at contact, with the
 >aliens.

 >The Hesemann and Mantle book "Beyond Roswell" has snippets of
 >these conversations. It also mentions that our own Stanton
 >Friedman spoke to Walker in June 1989. Walker told Friedman that
 >he had "since 1965 nothing go do with UFOs." Taken at face
 >value, this was an admission that before then he was indeed
 >involved with the study of UFOs.

 >(Incidentally, there is some evidence that Walker was at the
 >scene of the Dec 1965 Kecksberg, PA crash. My notes have a post
 >from Grant Cameron to alt.alien.visitors on April 10, 1996 where
 >Cameron states that Walker at one point admitted to going to the
 >crash site on Dec. 9 along with two off-duty military people.
 >Walker was then with the Institute for Defense Analysis.
 >Walker's daughter also remembers him being suddenly called out
 >there, though my memory on the details of this are very
 >sketchy.)

 >In addition, like in nearly all other contacts with researchers,
 >Walker tried to discourage Stan from delving any deeper. "People
 >who do research on UFOs would do better to do research in other
 >fields." When asked to clarify what he meant, Walker responded,
 >"That Ie cannot tell you. That is all there is to it."

 >Maybe Stan can jump in here and tell us some more?


I told Bill Moore after my first conversation with Walker that
he was clearly being evasive, that I felt that he knew much more
and that he certainly wasn't going to tell anybody what he knew
and certainly wasn't going to provide anybody with documents.
His background gives no reason to believe he would spill the
beans.

Ed Resse at the National Archives had found a Finders Aid for
the JRDB files, but with no correlation between the file folders
listed and which boxes they were in in the vault.. about 300 as
I recall. So I went down in the vault with him and we dug out a
few things. Unfortunately he was unable to find that Aid when I
went back. Much was certainly still classified at that 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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                        List Direct Delivery Resumed

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 07:22:02 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 07:22:02 -0400
Subject: List Direct Delivery Resumed

The 'direct to subscribers mailbox' is functioning once
again. Therefore, responses to Listmail archived here will
no longer be accepted.

Please note the new address for the UFO UpDates List is:

ufoupdates@home.com


Errol Bruce-Knapp
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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET - Wilson

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:58:38 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 07:58:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET - Wilson


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 02:42:26 EDT
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Abductee's Books & Investigators

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Abductee's Books & Investigators
 >>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:44:02 -0400

 >>>From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Abductee's Books & Investigators
 >>>Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:02:44 +0200

 >>>Angela Thompson is the 17th person visited by the Grays inside
 >>>Hopkins's house! And, what has he done, at least, to try to
 >>>catch _them_ in the act? Absolutely nothing. What kind of
 >>>investigator is he?

 >>If it happened in your house, what would you do?

 >>Serious question.

 >Greg, Luis, List:

 >At least try videotaping. The fact that Hopkins has apparently
 >tried _nothing_ suggests that he may suspect what the result
 >would be. Imagine what a book that would be, or what a movie.


The following article is the result of a videotaping experiment
I did in order to try to find out what was going on with my own
abductions. I'm curious about your thoughts.

"The Alien Jigsaw" Contents

http://www.alienjigsaw.com/contents.html

"Videotaping Those Elusive Aliens"

http://www.alienjigsaw.com/videotap.html

Thanks all - K. Wilson










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                 Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:55:17 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 08:05:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Mortellaro


 >From: William Sawers <syntax@slingshot.co.nz>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood
 >Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:13:26 +1200

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:57:10 -0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Velez

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Disappointed In Brentwood
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:42:52 -0000

 >>Hi Dick, hi All,

 >>You wrote:

 >>>I have waited, apparently in vain, for some encouraging response
 >>>to my previous posting suggesting a specific plan whereby anyone
 >>>on this list who wishes to take concrete action to encourage
 >>>Congressional hearings (an oft-expressed desire) could
 >>>meaningfully participate. Except for one or two positive
 >>>comments, there has been a deafening silence.

 ><snip>

 >>I would be willing to donate the bandwidth to set up a webpage
 >>that contains a copy of a formal petition (written by somebody
 >>else) to our representatives in Wash DC. I will create a CGI
 >>script that will allow folks to sign the petition "online." I
 >>will take down the AIC website temporarily in order to insure
 >>that there's enough bandwidth available.

 >>We have a good number of "webmasters" of busy UFO websites right
 >>here on this List that could set up live links to the petition
 >>page. Between us we could probably recruit another couple of
 >>dozen websites to participate by putting up a link. Getting the
 >>word out would not be a problem.

 >>Dick, what would be a 'respectable' number of signatures to
 >>gather that would be guaranteed to get the attention of our
 >>elected officials? How many would it take to get hearings?

 >>If you and a few others would consent to compose the petition
 >>I'll handle setting up the web side of it. Let me know. I'm
 >>ready to go the nanosecond I get a green light.

 ><snip>

 >G'day John, Dick, Listees,

 >I agree 100% here. Dennis has, in the next post, stated how can
 >perhaps 1000 or so voices on a petition expect to be heard, with
 >the pressing business that is so obviously more important (to
 >them) than just a few of us could generate

 >If the concerted effort was directed at "one body" in your
 >hugely complicated (to this Kiwi) political system.

 >Another idea is if one of the talented Web design type people on
 >the list design a "Banner Advertisment" to be added to all UFO
 >websites then we might move away from being a small band to a
 >formidable effort. Judging by the amount of traffic some of the
 >sites generate a "banner ad"with non-controversial (within
 >ufology) simply stated "Sign the Disclosure of Info Petition"
 >and "linked" you to the site John is kindly donating, we may
 >just stop pissing in the wind and at least get some feedback, at
 >most get them sweating at the numbers signing.

 >Just a thought,

And a good one, William,

It could work. There are of course, a multitude of problems with
the implementation, the application, of your thought.

It's a word. Just a lousy little word. But it speaks volumes.
The word is in the dictionary. It's in the encyclopedia. It's
even in your speel cheeker.

The word is ...

Are you ready for this?

The word is... I don't think you people are ready for it.
Definitely _not_! But I shall use it notwithstanding.

The word is, 'Co-operation'!

Yup. The big "C" word. Not a whole lotta that going on around
these here parts. Co-operation, I mean. We mostly all have the
same agenda here, even among the (if I may coin a phrase)
"friendly skeptics." The agenda is to arrive at an absolute
truth. Is there is, or is there ain't? Let's see what the
Goobers in Gooberland got on this subject. And what they don't
got. Let's see what the Police and other Law Enforcement are
hiding.

Last time I tried to get some tapes from the NY State Police,
radio tapes, the radio transmissions of which I helped make...
my voice was on the tapes... they told me there were no tapes. I
know there are. I helped make them. The same answer when I
requested the records. Wanna know what the man I have known for
nearly ten years told me when I asked him why I was being denied
the tapes and the records? Huh? He said, "Last time this shit
happened some jerks wrote a f**ing book on the subject. We don't
need any more shit like that going on. We got enough shit to
worry over. Now, I will have your shield and your ID, please."
Actually he did not say "please." And I did not say, "thank
you."

When I went to the supervisor, and my friends (Hah, now there's
another one a them words) "friends!" I was told to bugger off.
And he added the words, "Or Else!" Having already got me a taste
of the "or" and the "else" in spades, I was not ready for what
happened next. For sure.

It's now with a judge. Another friend. We shall see if I am
granted the information I sought. The shield is not important,
neither is the rest of the stuff I lost. Oh, it hurt me a lot
for about two weeks. But as my wife and I and some of my closest
confidents told me, nothing matters except the truth. And if you
have to suffer lies on yourself to get at the truth, then all
the lies will ultimately be exposed. True. The battle is now
joined.

There is much more and much, much worse friends and fiends.

So, the authorities have the information we need. For whatever
reasons, for whatever agenda, they are not sharing it. We would
like very much to know why. And we would like very much to learn
who or whom it is at the head of the klass, making the rules and
laying down the illegal laws.

You people might as well know part of the truth. I been screwed,
blued and tattooed. Thirty years of work for my community, of
giving back in my own ways, gone down the tubes, as if it never
occurred.

Velez told me once, when I first met him, that it may be
incautious and or unwise, to come out of the closet. I opined
then, and do so again now, if you do the crime, then you gotta
be prepared to do the time.

I can tell you that you are _never_ prepared for what comes upon
you. But I can tell you this, I shall never, ever, _ever_ give
up what little I've gained in the past five or so years. Gained
in information and knowledge about so many things not only in my
life, but in the lives of other witnesses and other
experiencers. Even in my own little family.

All of this over my two sightings of a large triangular object
over the county in which I live. And in the Bronx, NY. Yup,
right over a cemetery. A rather famous one too. Woodlawn
Cemetery.

There is a battle going on in our society and too few are
joining the fight. Not the way some of you can do so. Not to
demean what many of you have sacrificed and given up to come
out. But if you are like Alfred Lehmberg and his ilk, if you've
not given what he gave and suffered the consequences, then you
may have not given enough. Not to speak for Al, but for me only,
I can afford to give up the extra income. Some cannot. Those who
cannot, owe their family a greater responsibility.

But... Some of you can!

Here is a scenario to contemplate. Say for the sake of
discussion, a few dozen regular everyday people, no Macks or
Fords, just people who are well known even in just their own
communities, came out of their respective closets, the country
would be overwhelmed with credible people claiming incredible
experiences, to the extent that even the mainstream media, not
just Rense Dot Com, could not possibly avoid the noise. No way.

And you can take that to the bank. From the guy who made a
successful career for thirty years, doing a whole lot of
marketing which worked.

As I've done before, I volunteer my services. If there are no
takers, I will do it myself, to the extent which I can. The book
and all that means in terms of exposure. Otherwise I offer
thirty years of successful turn around and startup marketing, to
apply to the project(s) of letting the public and our
representatives (an oxymoronic word) in governent know we are
serious.

Otherwise, don't just sit there and prognosticate, do something.

But don't wait too terribly long. Our rights as human beings and
our very freedoms are being taken away. An exaggeration you say?
I can prove it. The story will be told.

My credentials are available to anyone who cares to inquire. On
the web site of a major, if the most important, consultants
referral services in the planet. Those who wish to take me up on
my offer to assist in the marketing of ourselves, may have the
information as to where to go to look it up.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                  SSE Conference & Radio:Free:Elfis Webcast

From: SMiles Lewis <smiles@elfis.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 21:20:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 08:10:03 -0400
Subject: SSE Conference & Radio:Free:Elfis Webcast


Greetings from Austin Texas,

I'm going to the 20th annual Society for Scientific Exploration
conference tomorrow and will be giving a full report live next
Monday night (9pm CST) via my weekly webcast at the below urls:

http://www.radio.elfis.net/

http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=elfisnet1

Among the many fine speakers at this year's SSE conf are UFO
researchers Jacques Vallee, Peter Sturrock, Richard Haines,
Roger Wood as well as such parapsychological scientists as Dean
Radin, Stanley Krippner, Hal Puthoff, York Dobyns, Roger Nelson,
and Elizabeth Targ. Also, crop circle investigator William
Levengood will be there. And many more, see below.

Hope to see a few of you there.  :-)


SMiles Lewis

MUFON SSD for Travis/Williamson counties, Texas
http://www.AustinMufon.com
Host of the 38th National UFO Conference
http://www.nufoc.net

-=-=-

For further details about the conference...

http://www.scientificexploration.org/meetings/20th.html

20th Annual SSE Meeting
June 7�9, 2001
La Jolla Radisson Conference Center
(near U.C. San Diego)
La Jolla/San Diego, CA

Open to the Public

PROGRAM:
Names of Invited Speakers are in UPPERCASE

SESSION CHAIR: Robert Wood

HENRY BAUER, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and Science
Studies, Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute & State University When is a Surprise An Anomaly? Is
An Anomaly Always a Surprise?

HAL PUTHOFF, Director, Institute for Advanced Studies,
Austin, Texas Einstein's Legacy: Will it Endure?

ROBERT JAHN, Emeritus Dean, School of Engineering, Princeton
University The Challenge of Consciousness

PETER STURROCK, Center for Space Science & Astrophysics,
Stanford University Bayesian Thinking

Thomas Etter, Boundary Institute, Los Altos, California The
Quantum Core and Markov Processes�Tools for 21st Century
Science

Richard Shoup, President, Boundary Institute, Los Altos,
California Anomalies and Constraints�Clairvoyance,
Precognition, and PK Without Rewriting Physics?

BRENDA DUNNE, PEAR Lab, Princeton University; SSE
Education Officer Introduction to the Young Investigators
Program

Ron Gill (Young Investigator), Department of Material
Engineering, Technion�Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa,
Israel Conceptual Foundation For An Alternative Technology

Pharis Williams (sponsored by Hal Puthoff), Energetic Materials
Research & Testing Center, New Mexico Tech, New Mexico Institute
of Mining and Technology The Implications of Mechanical Entropy

SESSION CHAIR: Charles Tolbert

RICHARD HAINES, NARCAP, Los Altos, California UFO
Aircraft Cases

JACQUES VALLEE, San Francisco, California UFOs: Recent
Activity in France

ROBERT WOOD, McDonnell-Douglas Corporation (retired),
Newport Beach, California UFO Document Authentication

WILLIAM LEVENGOOD, Pinelandia Biophysical Laboratory,
Grasslake, Michigan Recent Laboratory Findings Regarding
Crop Formations

Bernard Haisch, Director, California Institute for Physics &
Astrophysics, Palo Alto, California Alfonso Rueda, California
State University, Long Beach, California A Quantum Vacuum Basis
for Gravitation

Bryan J. Williams (Young Investigators Program), Department of
Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New
Mexico Toward A General Systems Theory of PSI Phenomena

Young Investigators Program Meeting

SESSION CHAIR: Richard Blasband

Jim DeMeo, Director, Orgone Biophysical Laboratory,
Greensprings, Oregon Wilhelm Reich�s Atmospheric Research:
Empirical Confirmations

York Dobyns, PEAR Laboratory, Princeton University, New
Jersey Experimental Results From the Trapholt Installation

Dean Radin, Boundary Institute, Los Altos, California Design
and Preliminary Results of Three On-Line PSI Experiments

Roger Nelson, PEAR Laboratory, Princeton University, New
Jersey Dean Radin, Institute of Noetic Sciences, Petaluma,
California Strong Evidence for Weak Mind-Matter
Interactions: 40 Years of Experiments

ELIZABETH TARG, Director of Research, Complementary Medicine
Research Institute, California Pacific Medical Center, San
Francisco,California Prayer and Distant Healing

JOIE P. JONES, Professor of Radiology, University of California,
Irvine D.P. O'Hara and K. Elrod, University of California,
Irvine Quantitative Evaluation of Pranic Healing Using Radiation
and Cells in Culture


PANEL SESSION CHAIR: Gregory Benford

CREATIVITY PANEL�Moderator: Gregory Benford

GREGORY BENFORD, Professor of Physics, University of
California Irvine
GEOFFREY BURBIDGE, Department of Physics, University of
California, San Diego, California
NOLAN BUSHNELL, CEO, uWink, Santa Monica, California
WALTER DE BROUWER, Chairman and CEO, Starlab, Brussels,
Belgium
FEDERICO FAGGIN, Chairman, Synaptics, Santa Clara,
California

SESSION CHAIR: Roger Nelson

Mikio Yamamoto, Head, Bio-Emission Laboratory, National
Institute of Radiological Sciences, Chiba-shi, Japan Are There
Any Anomalous Effect Other Than Suggestion in Qigong?

Hideyuki Kokubo, Editor, Journal of International Society of
Life Information Science; Director, Japanese Society for
Parapsychology; Chiba-shi, Japan Electrodermal Activity (EDA)
Changes in Remote Actions On Humans

Kimiko Kawano, Center for Informatics Sciences, Nippon
Medical School, Japan Characteristics of EEG Under Anomalous
Conditions

Mami Kido, Professor, Tohoku Gakuin University, Japan
Measurements of Remote Qi-Gong Effects

WAYNE JONAS, U.S. Uniformed Services Health Services,
Bethesda, Maryland Overview of Spiritual Healing Research

BEVERLY RUBIK, President, Institute for Frontier Science,
Oakland, California; Professor, Union Institute, San Francisco
Measurable Changes in Digital Kirlian Photographs Produced
by Alternative Medical Interventions

WILLIAM BENGSTON, St. Joseph�s College, Long Island,
New York Curing Cancer in Mice

Richard Blasband, Research Director, Center for Functional
Research, Tiburon, California Some Effects of the Orgone
Energy Accumulator on Cancer in Mice

Caroline Mun (Young Investigators Program), School of
Engineering, Rutgers University, New Jersey In Search of the
Science in Radionics

12:00pm Vladimir Gontar, Director, International Group for
Scientific & Technological Chaos Studies, Institute for Applied
Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel Computers
As Living Systems

Stanley Krippner, Professor, Saybrook Institute, San Francisco,
California A Contemporary Stigmatic in Brazil

Ion Lisii, National Association of Complementary Therapy,
Republic of Moldavia Stress and Adaptation Processes: Aspects
of Reflexotherapy with Psychic Catalysts

Manish Vekaria (Young Investigator), California Institute for
Human Science, Encinitas, California Spectral Characterization of
Biophoton Emissions With Intentionality

HANG SOK SO, University of California, Irvine, California
JOIE JONES, D. D. Kidney, and T. Kato, University of California,
Irvine, California Evaluation of Acupuncture Using fMRI Studies
and Ultrasonic Imaging

MICHAEL KOHANE, Ditron LLC, and Durrance Corporation,
Minnesota William Tiller, Stanford University, Stanford,
California Subtle Energy Detection Via Enzymes and Fruit Flies

Peter von Buengner, m-tec AG, Munich, Germany Health-
Related Applications of Random Event Generators

David Swift, Professor of Sociology, University of Hawaii,
Honolulu, Hawaii Social Origins and Paradigm Change�
Who Wrote Shakespeare�s Plays?








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                 Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 23:15:50 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 08:12:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood - Mortellaro


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood
 >Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 12:27:06 -0000

 >>Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:57:10 -0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Disappointed In Brentwood

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Disappointed In Brentwood
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:42:52 -0000

 >>Hi Dick, hi All,

 >>You wrote:

 >>>I have waited, apparently in vain, for some encouraging response
 >>>to my previous posting suggesting a specific plan whereby anyone
 >>>on this list who wishes to take concrete action to encourage
 >>>Congressional hearings (an oft-expressed desire) could
 >>>meaningfully participate. Except for one or two positive
 >>>comments, there has been a deafening silence.

<snip>

 >>Let me know what you think of the petition idea. (Again, sorry
 >>if I'm repeating something that was already suggested.)

 >John and List,

 >First I need to clarify something. On re-reading what I said, I
 >didn't express myself as clearly as I should have. I am not at
 >this time a big advocate of seeking Congressional hearings,
 >unless... (more below). My suggestion of sending a hardcore,
 >scientific book to Members of Congress (or at least writing a
 >carefully worded letter) was intended to be an alternative
 >approach to Greer's carnival for those who did feel strongly
 >about asking for hearings.

 >The nub of the matter is this: What do you ask them to hold
 >hearings about? This is not a simple question. People like Greer
 >who "demand that the Government tell us the truth about UFOs"
 >and imply the sinister witholding of free energy, and cloak the
 >effort in a political agenda, are way off the mark. The most
 >they will raise on Capitol Hill is some snickers about UFO nuts.

 >You need a tight focus on some topic or issue that is within the
 >domain of Congressional responsibility (which after all exists
 >to legislate for the country; hearings typically are
 >investigations into what legislation is needed and how it should
 >be written). They will occasionally look into politically "hot"
 >issues where people are up in arms about something related to
 >Government activity, or inactivity: secrecy, official
 >wrong-doing, legislation or policies gone astray.

 >My suggestion would be a carefully worded request for hearings
 >into significant evidence being withheld from the public (be
 >prepared to produce documentation or affidavits indicating what
 >you are talking about) and its potential national security
 >implications (ICBM tampering cases, military encounters...)

 >Government secrecy and national security are two "hot button"
 >issues. But the hearings request has to be otherwise agenda free
 >and presented without "UFO nut" trappings by a credible person
 >or persons. Therefore a sensible "front man" or small group must
 >be prepared, if invited, to talk face-to-face with Congressional
 >aides and make a credible case.

 >In general, I don't think petitions are a good idea because they
 >are likely to end up in the circular file. Congressmen are
 >petitioned about a thousand issues per day. In this case maybe
 >an exception is in order just to see if you can get large
 >numbers of people to agree on a particular approach. If so, such
 >a petition could be delivered with the face-to-face presentation
 >as evidence that a lot of people are serious about this.

 >You have written to your Congressional delegation; good. Most
 >people don't seem to realize that Congressmen live to serve
 >their constituents, as long as you don't come across as a nut
 >case to them, in which even you will either receive a polite
 >brushoff or a form letter for your efforts. My previous
 >suggestion was to use some of the most sensible and thoughtful
 >UFO writings as a wedge in your approach to Members of Congress.
 >That puts the focus where it should be: on the strongest
 >evidence available presented in the most intelligent and
 >scientific way.

 >Main message for today: People should think long and hard about
 >what sort of hearings they want to ask for and how the request
 >should be worded. I'll be glad to make some specific suggestions
 >along the way. And, you don't "demand" hearings; you politely
 >request them.


Hello Dick, Listers and EBK,

There is something missing here. All of the above, which I've
not snipped, is well and good. However what is missing is the
education (if you will, the "propagandizing") of the general
public. Once the average Joe begins to understand the depth and
strength of the unknowns vs. the knowns, and what is required by
way of research, _real_ research, then there will be a hue and
cry such as the goobermint has not seen in quite some time.

The issue is the education of the citizenry, what is needed,
known and not known, what the government is not telling us and
why we believe so, etc., then we just cannot be ignored.

My opinion.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                      Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:05:15 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 08:15:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Gates


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 00:35:00 -0500

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:35:38 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>This is all tongue-in-cheek stuff, of course. But the genie has
 >>already been let out of the bottle. No matter how Walker zigged
 >>and zagged, some people to this very day take that first
 >>interview with Steinem seriously, as humorless people are apt to
 >>do. Their reading of his reactions in that first interview was
 >>that Steinem caught Walker by surprise. In reality, he didn't
 >>know Steinem from a humorless and daffy hole in the wall, and
 >>instead was providing relatively straight responses.

 >>After his first conversation, according to humorless
 >>interpretation, Walker realized he had said too much, and
 >>started to talk all around the subject. Most of the follow-up
 >>involved other people. Walker wasn't even talking any more to
 >>the humorless and daffy Steinem.

 >David,

 >So, here's the situation, as I understand it. You, or me, or
 >Steinem, or anyone else can just call up some insider
 >in-the-know out of the blue and he or she will just casually
 >blab the "truth" about UFOs and MJ-12 (w/o determining who the
 >caller is!), and then try to act "innocent" (or dumb) later when
 >called on the carpet? Isn't that essentially what you're saying?

I have interviewed people for a Cold War history project I was
working on. Sometimes they would be very forth right...
depending on how I approached the topic. Sometimes after I tried
to pry more details out they would clam up and change the
subject and or play games. In one instance I know for a fact
that the person off handly told me a number of details and
information about a highly classified program When I pried for
more this person shut right up.

In other instances I had people not talk to me at all, citing
security issues.

Go figure.

 >Shades of Oeschler and Ingram! So much for need to know. And some
 >way to keep secrets, eh?

Sometimes if you catch people off guard they will talk, esp if
they haven't been previously mined so to speak. Sometimes people
see the details appear in a news story or article and decide its
ok to speak. Some times it doesn't matter how much publicity has
happened they still won't speak until "they" feel no longer
bound by what we now call non disclosure agreements.

<snip>

 >>Don't ignore the actual message because of the messenger, no
 >>matter how "humorless" and "daffy" you may think them to be.

 >>David Rudiak

 >At least not as long as the contents of same confirm your
 >already existing world view. What about those actual messages
 >that don't?

 >Such as, say, the March 17, 1948, statements made by Col. McCoy
 >to the AF Scientific Advisory Board at Wright-Pat, more than
 >half a year after Roswell? (But all of ufology has a problem
 >with _that_ one, doesn't it?)

The one problem with that one is the classification level of said
statements and the meeting in and of itself. For example if
you attend a meeting at the Secret level, then nothing above
that is discussed or otherwise.

For example, during the 80s the stealth fighter was very much
alive, very much well and so on. It was a TS/Codeword program
that very few people were in on the loop. For quite a few years
USAF people very publicly denied the existance of Stealth.
This went on even in discussions at the Secret and TS level.
Why? Because at those meetings, even though they were secret
or TS, the people involved could not discuss information at the
TS/Codeword level.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                          Filer's Files #23 -- 2000

From: George A. Filer <WeeklyFiles@filersfiles.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 01:40:04 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 08:18:42 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #23 -- 2000


Filer's Files #23 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
June 4, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts, Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

UFOs ARE OBSERVED IN SPACE AND ON EARTH in New York, New
Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Oregon,
California, Canada and England.

THE ARIETID METEOR SHOWER PEAKS this week on Thursday, June
7th. The Arietids are unusual because they are daytime meteors
-- most of them streak through the sky unnoticed while the
bright Sun is overhead. Nevertheless, early risers on Thursday
could spot some beautiful "Earth grazing" Arietids during the
dark hours before dawn. Later in the day, after the Sun rises,
you can listen to the shower by tuning in to NASA's online
meteor radar. Thanks to Space Weather at
http://www.SpaceWeather.com.

X-43 AND AURORA NOW IN SPACE

CAPE CANAVERAL -- NASA�s Clark McClelland writes, �In 1991
(probably September), I had ended a third shift assignment at
my LCC (Launch Control Center) top secret office and was making
my way to the fourth floor elevator. Two NASA Astronauts (I
will not mention their names at this time) were also waiting.
We said hello again, because they had been in my Control Room
during my monitoring of a Space Shuttle mission in progress. I
think it was the important STS-48 UARS flight. If I remember
correctly Astronaut Brown was in orbit. As we talked on our
way down, one of them told me to look behind the shuttle, as it
would be passing over Central Florida that early morning. He
said, �I would see the next Space Shuttle miles behind the
present Space Shuttle in orbit.� We said goodbye and I went
home but stayed up to watch for the "NEW" craft. Soon, the
Space Shuttle came over in a clear night sky and soon
thereafter I observed the "NEW" craft apparently in orbit and
trailing th! e official Shuttle mission. As it came overhead,
it abruptly steered off to the left of my sight and shortly and
completely disappeared. I was surprised with this event. A
few weeks later, the very same Astronaut was at the control
room again and gave me a foxy smile as if to say,� I told you
Clark.� I cannot say if the trailing object was or was not an
alien craft. I'm almost certain the astronaut I mentioned
would not disclose an object and this event if it were anything
other than an advanced technological development by the USA.
The astronauts are very controlled by military secrecy oaths.
Later my investigation indicated that it was either the craft
called the Aurora or the X-43A. Thanks to Clark McClelland,
clark002@hotmail.com and Robert Collins.

SATELLITES

William E Ristau writes, "On the night of May 15,20 01, I was
"practicing" satellite observation in preparation for joining
the P.R.O.V.E. group. I had missed the first two satellites on
my Heavens Above schedule, but was keeping my eyes open, with
the help of a good pair of binoculars, for anything moving in
the clear sky. Suddenly, from the southwest appeared to be an
"unscheduled" satellite that was high and bright. I followed
it with my binoculars as it approached the zenith. I must have
blinked, because I did not see it's 90 degree left turn to the
northwest. I continued to follow with my binoculars when I
spotted another "craft" headed northwest, as if it were trying
to catch up with the first. It advanced, until it and the
first "craft" were both in my binoculars field of view. Then,
from a direction opposite of the first two "craft,� came
another; somewhat dimmer and smaller light traveling very fast.
I followed it to the southeast until it disappeared. I retu!
rned to locate the two original "craft� in only ten seconds but
they had disappeared! With chills up my spine, I prepared to
watch for the next scheduled satellite, due overhead at 21:45
EDT. It showed up on time, with no company. A night I won't
forget. Thanks to Jeff Challender and Bill Ristau,
quietbirdman@juno.com

NEW YORK CITY OVAL

WESTHAMPTON BEACH -- An apparent formation of 5 to 6 lights
were observed traveling southwest to northeast though a
breaking cloud cover on May 19, 2001, at 10:30 PM  The lights
may have been part of one oval unit. Within ten seconds the
same formation of lights reversed direction and were seen
traveling from northeast to southwest. They were now higher in
sky traveling east of the first sighting.

NEW ALBANY -- The witness reports he has been seeing almost
every night a bright moving object similar to an arc welders
blue light that doesn�t twinkle when it shows up in the warm
months. On May 22, 2001, the lights appeared four times in a
single night. It appears as a satellite at times and
disappears. The object also appeared at about 15 degrees
directly south of its zenith at 9:34 PM on May 18, 2001. The
object moved directly north very slowly after turning a very
dim orange in color. This object was very bright about three
times the size of the planet Jupiter at it's brightest. After
about 10 to 15 seconds of glowing it dims very rapidly to a dim
orange color and starts moving off very slowly, but faster than
when it was brightly lit up. Thanks to Peter Davenport
Director NUFORC

NEW JERSEY FLYING OBJECTS

SURF CITY - A video was taken on Sunday June 3, 2001, of a
strange looking aircraft flying over the Atlantic Ocean at
about 4:00 PM. A brilliant light was first observed in the sky
at 45 degrees above the horizon. The flash of light was most
likely caused by a reflection of the sun on a flying object,
but it caught my attention. Within seconds the brightly lit
disc like object disappeared. A short time later, moving at
high speed and faster than normal air traffic was a white
aircraft-traveling north paralleling the New Jersey Coastline.
There were no contrails. I had been filming beach scenes with
a TRV330 Sony video camera, so I attempted to film the craft.
A short segment of video was taken revealing an aircraft that
looked similar to a C-5 Galaxy aircraft with possibly a small
refueling boom hanging down underneath. The amazing thing
about the craft was that it appeared to have a very large
rear-slanting tower on the top of its fuselage. The tower
appears to be ab! out 100 feet tall based on the height of a C-5
tail (65 feet.) It is possible the aircraft is in a turn and
the tower is actually part of the wings, although the craft
appeared to continue to fly in straight and level flight.
Generally four large C-5 jet engines are also easily observed
hanging from the wings. These and a horizontal stabilizer are
not visible in the video. The photo can be seen at
www.filersfiles.com.

NEWARK -- On April 11, 2001, I was in my backyard on a
beautiful night, when I decided to look up noticed a bright red
object very high in the sky. At first it started moving very
slow towards my direction but stopped right above as though it
were looking at me. It then started making left turns and
right turns at forty-five degree angles. One time it stopped
directly above my head as though it were studying me. This all
took place within an hour and a half, and then it took off so
fast that my eyes couldn�t keep up with its speed. It had
bright red and made a humming sound, I couldn�t tell if it was
made of metallic or any other kind of material. I knew it
wasn�t an aircraft just by the way it looked. The witness
indicated the sighting stunned him. Thanks to MUFON
Headquarters.

NORTH CAROLINA LIGHTS

NEW BERN -- Laura called telling me she had awakened at 4:00
AM, and looked out her window from her bed early in the morning
hours of May 22, 2001. As she looked she noticed a flying
object darting around the sky. It would move quickly from the
left to the right, then quickly up and down, right to left. As
she became more awake, she realized that this could not be a
normal aircraft since its movements were too quick and too
erratic. She awoke her husband who also saw the darting lights
and strange objects in the sky. He pointed out that the there
were little white lights flashing near the larger light. They
watched until 4:45 AM when the lights suddenly disappeared.
New Bern is on the Neuse River that leads to Pamilico Sound and
the Atlantic Ocean. The lights were mostly over the water an
estimated thirty miles away. Laura indicated she had checked
around and no one else had observed the lights. Thanks to
Laura.

SOUTH CAROLINA FLYING TRIANGLE WITH HELICOPTERS

MYRTLE BEACH -- ISUR reports that on May 6, 2001, at about
11:15 PM, a licensed Security Officer was outside on the back
deck along with a friend when they noticed several aircraft off
to the south about 3 miles away. The aircraft continued to
approach their location (N.E.) until they were about 5000 feet
distant and at fairly low altitude. The witnesses then
identified them as 3 helicopters by engine noise, shape, and
lighting and noticed that they had formed into a triangular
formation. The witnesses could also make out a dark triangular
object WITHIN the triangular formation of escorting
helicopters.

The size of the unlit dark triangular craft was estimated as
larger than a DC-8, but smaller than a 747 that has a 196-foot
wingspan and length of 231 feet. A fourth helicopter was
trailing at about 200-500 yards. The witnesses had a
relatively good 5-minute view of this fly-over. The primary
witness attempted to get to a camera, but was unable to get a
photo. He indicated that the Navy/Air Force installations at
Charleston, SC are seventy miles south while Shaw AFB is 80+
miles west. In the recent past a much smaller triangular
object had also been personally observed at a nearby beach with
a blue haze below the craft. The primary witness is a graduate
of military flight school, and the second witness was a USAF
dependant. The case was referred to SC MUFON for additional
local investigation. Please note that this is ANOTHER case of
a dark triangle seemingly escorted by helicopters and within
reasonable distance of an AFB. Thanks to Tom Sheets, ISUR
Board, State Direct! or-MUFON of Georgia

FLORIDA -- US NAVY F-18 FIGHTER CRASH?

ST.LUCIE COUNTY -- Lorraine Gerber of Tampa Bay MUFON and
Assistant State Director of Florida writes that supposedly a US
Navy F-18 fighter crashed. Gregg wrote that he works for a
company that rents de-watering pumps for the construction
industry and he rented two pumps to a construction company that
has the contract to de-water the site where supposedly a F-18
US Navy Fighter flew straight into the ground and was engulfed
by the earth leaving a large crater. The craft supposedly did
not disintegrate on impact or explode. He believes there is a
cover-up under way. Our man delivered the two pumps into St.
Lucie County, 15 miles east of Lake Okeechobee on US Hwy 70 to
the V-Bar Ranch and preceded to the second gate where he was
stopped and the construction company took the two pumps down to
the third gate where he saw tent city and armed US Military on
patrol. The F-18 Navy Fighter crash allegedly occurred on May
30, 2001. The construction company that rented our pumps is!
doing the de-watering only and not the excavation of the crater
that is being done by the US Govt. I think there is a possible
cover-up and our government is excavating whatever fell to
earth such as a satellite, missile, or UFO. Thanks to Gregg
and Lorraine Gerber lg131@prodigy.net

OHIO SIGHTINGS BY POLICE

WAYNESVILLE -- Kenny Young reports he is investigating a case
that took place on April 25, 2001, when civilians and law
enforcement officers in Warren County report a very strange
object in the evening skies. A couple was the first to report
a circular lighted object hovering silently. The big light of
the UFO, pulsating or changing color and brightness, was
encased within a structure that resembled grid work or cabling.
The couple advised the Lebanon City Police Department around
10:15 p.m. and the Warren County Communications Center
dispatched a Waynesville police officer that confirmed the
unidentifiable nature of the object and reported a second UFO
in the area. As other officers respond the dispatchers at the
Warren County Communications Center telephone a base operator
at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton and to Airborne
Express at the Wilmington Airport in Clinton County. Both
flight control facilities denied any knowledge of the UFOs.

While the Waynesville police officers view the object from
Wilkerson Road, a police dispatcher also observed the same
object from her position at the Warren County Communications
Center. An officer with the Caesar's Creek State Police also
notes the UFO from his location to the east of Waynesville. A
third UFO is sighted in the area during the event, and the
police witnesses repeatedly affirm a cogent distinction between
the suspected UFOs and routine stars and airplanes. The
objects move off as other officers from the Ohio State Patrol
arrive on the scene. The next evening, UFOs are again viewed
from Wilkerson Road at 9:48 PM, and also by officers near the
Waynesville Airport. Another unusual object is seen seven
hours later that pursues a motorist near Genntown, Ohio (about
5-miles from Waynesville). A female complainant advises the
Ohio State Patrol of her 'extreme concern' regarding a
triangular object with "super bright lights" that pursued her
automobile while trave! ling on Route 122 at 5:00 AM at April
26. Thanks to Kenny Young ufo@fuse.net

CLEVELAND -- At 7:30 PM a long silver cylindrical object
without visible wingspan was first sighted on May 12, 2001, at
an elevation of 45 degrees moving slowly west. The sighting
was verified by two other witnesses who saw the UFO move
horizontally just above the power lines. The lack of visible
wings and lack of any vapor trail behind object was most
notable. One observer speculated it may be a rocket of some
sort, but no exhaust was seen and no sounds were heard. The
object passed behind broad vapor trails created by passenger
aircraft moving in the opposite direction. The object slowly
faded into the haze in the southwestern sky. No wings or
rudder structures or emanations were noted. The object moved
much faster than the Goodyear Blimp often seen in this area,
and any lighter than aircraft we've seen shaped like a fat
cigar, with markings or running lights which this shiny object
never displayed.

OREGON FLYING TRIANGLE UFO 1/10 OF A MILE AWAY SEEN FOR 10
MINUTES

SCAPPOOSE � The witness was driving northbound on Highway 30
from Portland to Astoria, Oregon on May 12, 2001, he noticed a
very bright yellow/white light descending. At 9:45 PM, just
outside of Scappoose he pulled his car off to the side of the
highway thinking it might be a meteorite. As the car neared a
hill, the object "morphed" into an actual ship with bright
lights. They lights were blinking within the trees and the
craft rose straight up. The witness says, I pulled the car
over again, in disbelief. It began moving as though it were
going to cross the highway, so I got back on the road after two
cars drove by. The craft, wider than the 4-lane highway and
ten feet above the telephone wires flew directly over the cars.
Both cars' brake lights came on, but neither stopped! I sped
up, and as it crossed the highway anxiously looked for a road
to turn down. I turned east onto a small road, crossed the RR
tracks and sped up, all the while keeping my eyes on the craft,
! which I could see through the trees. It was now heading south
at 20 to 25 miles per hour. The lights were blinking very
brightly in an interesting rhythm, but there was no reflection
on the actual craft that was nearly invisible.

The witness claims he saw the craft twice several months ago in
Astoria while his female partner saw it three times and took
photos. The light patterns are very distinctive. I got out of
my truck and watched as the craft stopped and hovered
approximately 1/10 mile east of me, and 50 feet up. There was
no sound or movement. Strangely aware that they knew I was
watching, I became frightened, and, legs shaking, got back in
the truck, where my usually very active dog was sitting
quietly. I drove about 20 feet, and then stopped when a car
pulled up behind me. I jumped out of the truck and pointed,
yelling, "UFO!� They got out of their car and stood staring at
the lights as it zoomed off maybe 3 miles? The man said, "I
was in the government for years and that was no plane or
helicopter either. Peter Davenport reports he spoke at length
with the witness, and found her to be an exceptionally
credible. Thanks to NUFORC.

CALIFORNIA UFO FLIES OVER THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

SAN FRANCISCO -- Ruben Uriarte writes that on Sunday, April 8,
2001, at about 4:00 PM, a married Latino couple was doing some
sight seeing and filming near Golden Gate Bridge. They went
home and discovered that they had filmed a strange object
flying over the bridge span and floating above the bay. The
husband then shared the video with his friends and family.
Later he decided to take the video to several Spanish Speaking
television stations that were not interested until he
approached the Telemundo Channel 48 station, a large Spanish
speaking TV network. They contacted me as a representative for
MUFON, to be interviewed in Spanish and to view the video that
shows a dark object flying very fast over the center span of
the bridge. There is a scene with a strange dark object
hovering above the bay. The witnesses claim they did not see
any craft. Telemundo did a two part series on the UFO
phenomenon for two days. The video footage was broadcast on
the 6 and 11:00 PM news.! Many viewers had sighting experiences.
The station is very interested in providing more UFO news
coverage to their viewers. The Telemundo staff will be making
copies so that I can distribute them for analysis within the
MUFON and research network. Thanks to Ruben Uriarte MUFON
State Director, Northern California,

CANADA UFO CAPTURED ON DIGITAL FILM

ST.CATHARINES, ONTARIO -- James Miller writes, �On a drive last
summer down the north shore of Lake Erie, we stopped to take a
few pictures of local scenes. Just over the tree line is the
lake. I recall at the time of this shot, there was nothing in
the sky; winds were calm, and no debris in the air. When I
downloaded the images into the computer, one caught my eye.
The object in the image does not have wings or a vertical
stabilizer. The picture was taken with a Kodak DC200 digital �
with no enhancement. Thanks to James Miller 250 Lake Street
and Larry Clark nymufon@NYCAP.rr.com. Photo is at
www.filersfiles.com.

ENGLAND STRANGE FLARE

GRIMSBY, LINCOLNSHIRE -- Mr. D. lives in Northeast
Lincolnshire, and was amazed to witness an orange colored UFO
near his home at about 1.30 AM on April 16, 2001. He was out
walking his dog on Milton Road near local school fields. He
noticed a signal flare, but realized it was too big to be a
flare, plus it was giving off a sort of burning coal ember
effect. Mr. D says, "I could make out orange and red moving
around like two paint colors mixing together about a half mile
up in the sky." As he watched the object dropped at least half
its height then catapulted straight up and out of view. Mr. D
was upset and thought it was a serious weapon and expected it
to explode on impact, but it didn't. He got in touch with the
British Ministry of Defence who responded that there was no
defense significance to the object. Thanks to Chris Evers,
chrishufos@yahoo.co.uk  Faster Than Light
--http://www.hufos1.karoo.net

DISCLOSURE PROJECT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER

A staff person wrote saying, �I work for a Member of Congress
from I need your help.� I hope I can get you excited about
this; after all these years of waiting for the government to
say about the UFO cover-up --because now is the chance we have
been waiting for -- but only if we act now...and speak out.
Here's my plan... It is important that members of Congress
realize what the Press Conference at the National Press Club in
Washington D C on May 9th was all about -- The fact that 400
military, intelligence, government and corporate professionals
(many very high-level) want to be subpoenaed and called to
Washington, D.C. to testify at a Congressional hearing about
their direct, first-hand knowledge of on-going projects and
events which relate to advanced energy & propulsion
technologies which are available now. Snip. Mail or FAX a
version of the following letter to your members of Congress
making certain you put your address on the letter so they will
know you are a const! ituent.

Inside address: Congressman Walter Jones (or whoever) type
address this line Washington, D. C., 20515 Dear Congressman
______: As a member of the of the 107th Congress, I feel this
letter will be of special interest to you. We need your
leadership. We know you have influence with your colleagues.
As a constituent, I ask that you read this letter carefully.
Four hundred (400) military, intelligence, government and
corporate professionals (many very high level) want to be
subpoenaed and called to Washington, D.C. to testify at a
Congressional hearing about their direct, first-hand knowledge
of on-going projects and events which relate to advanced energy
& propulsion technologies which are available now, but have
been suppressed. At a press conference of The Disclosure
Project on May 9th at the National Press Club in Washington,
D.C. 14 military men stood up to say they want to tell Congress
of their knowledge and personal involvement in and of events
despite the fact tha! t they have signed security oaths designed
to prohibit the release of this "above top secret" information.
They were only 14 out of 400 who want to speak out. They feel
strongly that it is critical for this information to be
revealed because of the pollution and energy problems that
exist worldwide. A letter of invitation and a 1/2" briefing
document entitled, "Executive Summary of the Disclosure Project
Briefing Document" was hand-delivered to your D.C. office on
April 26th. The technology they want Congress and the American
people to know about was developed and is controlled today
through so-called "black budget" special access projects that
have escaped Congressional oversight. The facts will come out,
when hearings on held, that this technology has been largely
obtained from the reverse -engineering of retrieved
extraterrestrial vehicles.

A few of the men who want to testify include Brigadier
Generals, a Strategic Air Command Minuteman Missile Launch
Controller, FAA Head of Accidents & Investigations, Navy
Commanders, military air traffic controllers, DIA officials,
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace and Boeing engineers and NASA
contractors. Hearings need to commence immediately because
technology exists which are non-polluting and zero point energy
exists in these compartmentalized "black budget" project
programs. Please gather a group of your colleagues and contact
Dr. Steven Greer, the Director of the Disclosure Project for a
private briefing (540/456-8302.) This group, like a good
reporter, has identified the Who, Where, When, What, Why & How
of this 50 year cover-up. I promise that you will not be
wasting your time that you will be very impressed and no one
will be laughing afterwards. I want to emphasize that despite
what you have been told by the U.S. Air Force and the media,
evidence - hard evidence - e! xists. The Disclosure Project
has proof. Imagine all of the appropriations money - billions
of dollars - that goes into research and projects for which
these "black budget" programs already have the finished
product. The American people paid for this technology with
their tax dollars and are entitled to the benefits. I await
your reply and hope you will tell me that a hearing is being
scheduled this year. There are no excuses, including national
security. Sincerely, your name

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

PHOTOGRAPH BOOKLET of some of the best UFO photographs
available and data on their propulsion systems by US Navy
Commander Graham Bethune. $10.00. Send check or money order
to G. Filer 222 Jackson Road, Medford, New Jersey 08055. CD OF
FILER'S FILES for the last four years 1997 through 2000 is
available for $25.00. Both for $30.00.

DISCOUNT LONG DISTANCE -- OldeWorldProducts.com offers the
World Low Rate Discount Long Distance, Calling Cards, Toll Free
services that save you 60% on all of your Communications needs.
We also offer website hosting, promotion, High Speed DSL
service, $12.99 a month 56k ISP, Domain Names for $13.50 a
year, etc. We are also looking for agents who want to earn a
serious income from our affiliate program. Stop by for a
visit.

NEW NASA SHUTTLE VIDEO OF UFOs IN SPACE

Jeff Challender has prepared a new tape of various UFOs that
were caught on recent Shuttle video footage. Jeff has over an
hour-long tape of UFOs shot in space. Jeff spends hundreds of
hours watching the shuttle broadcasts from space and is now an
expert on NASA missions and even those onboard the shuttle are
unlikely to see what Jeff does. Using Jeff's directions you
will be able to learn the difference between space junk, ice
crystals and real UFOs. One segment has 24 UFOs watching the
shuttle from space. I feel confident we could go into a court
of law and convince any jury, UFOs are moving around our 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 they credit the
newsletter and its editor by name and list the date of issue
that the item appeared. Caution: Most of these are initial
reports and require further investigation. These reports and
comments are not necessarily the official MUFON viewpoint.
Send your letters to Majorstar@Aol.com. Sending mail
automatically grants permission for us to publish and use your
name. Please state if you wish to keep your name, address, or
story confidential.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                          Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 03:13:52 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 08:25:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:20:41 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:31:15 EDT
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:11:59 EDT
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

 >David:

 >I had quoted Spaur's description,

 >>>"and I can just make out a dome or something on the top,
 >>>but that's very dark. The bottom is real bright; it's putting out
 >>>a beam of light that makes a big spot underneath. It's like it's
 >>>sitting on the beam."

 >and then I commented,

 >>>Classic Venus, sparkling in the early morning skies to a witness
 >>>who thinks it's a real object a few miles away. The dome is a
 >>>slightly astigmatic image of the planet and the beam it's
 >>>sitting on is caused by diffraction of the image by his
 >>>eyelashes.

 >You recently posted,

 ><snip>

 >>People with normal visual acuity have resolutions typically from
 >>about 0.7 to 1.0 minutes of arc (or 42 seconds to 60 seconds of
 >>arc), though acuities down to 0.4 minarc (or 24 seconds of arc)
 >>are known. On an eye chart, this would correspond to the more
 >>familiar 20/20 acuity (1 minarc resolution) down to 20/8 acuity
 >>(.4 minarc resolution)

I want to preface this by saying I have a Doctor of Optometry
degree. We study the following things very carefully. I have a
bookcase full of textbooks and reference material. I know what
I'm talking about. Bob Young doesn't.

The way these acuity tests are designed is using test targets
that are 5 times larger than the lines that make of the test
target or the gaps between them. E.g., a 20/20 letter "E" has
black lines making up the letter "E" that are 1 minarc wide and
white gaps that are also 1 minarc wide. The letter itself,
however, is 5 minarcs in size.

A 20/15 target (probably about half of the normal, young adult
population has correctable acuities down in this range) has line
elements and gaps 0.75 minarc wide and an overall size of 3.75
minarc.

What we normally call the visual acuity is the ability to just
resolve the gaps. If you can do that, then you can probably also
recognize the larger overall shape. Nonetheless, people will
still confuse similarly shaped letters such as "E", "F", or "B"
near the limits of their resolution.

Somebody with 20/20 acuity is just resolving line gaps of 1
minarc, but a shape that is 5 minarc in size. Somebody with
20/15 acuity is just resolving gaps of .75 minarc and a shape
3.75 minarc in size.

In practice, to just barely resolve the _shape_ or recognize the
target, you need a target several times the size of the smallest
resolvable element of that shape. I don't think Bob Young grasps
this.

Venus at its closest approach subtends about 1 minarc (as noted
below). The _shape_ of Venus at closest approach is a thin
crescent. probably less than 0.1 minarc. To resolve this shape,
even under optimal laboratory conditions for people with the
best visual acuity, Venus would have to actually be several
times larger.

In the case of Ravenna, Venus was some 70 million miles away and
slightly beyond quarter phase. Since Venus is about 7800 miles
in diameter, its largest dimension would have been about 0.38
minarc and its width about 0.2 minarc at its thickest.

For a typical person with good vision to have barely resolved
this _shape_ under _optimal_ conditions, the actual size would
have had to be at least 10 times greater than this.

Resolving the shape with the naked eye is impossible. In case
you doubt this, try the following experiment. With white paper,
cut out the shape of a crescent moon, half moon, and full moon.
Make these all 1 cm across for the largest dimension. Paste them
onto black paper. Now go to a football field and place your
targets on one goal line. Walk 100 yards to the other goal line
and observe your targets. These targets now subtend about the
same visual angle as Venus did in the Ravenna case.

Can you tell one shape from another? If you say yes, you're a
liar. In reality, you'll have to back to the other end of the
field to about the 10 yard line to make out these shape.

The situation is even much worse than this. Above I kept
speaking of "optimal conditions." "Optimal conditions" refer to
lighting conditions and target contrasts that produce optimal
acuities. If targets are dimly lit, e.g., acuities drop. One
reason is, the pupil opens up under dim lighting conditions and
the optical aberrations of the human eye become rather severe
and degrade the image on the retina.

Optimal visual acuity occurs in moderate to bright lighting
conditions where the pupil closes down to around. 2.5 to 3 mm.
This increases diffraction degrading of the image, but
drastically reduces optical aberrations. Experiments show that
thin lines of light projected on the retina are spread out, but
not much more than would be expected from diffraction. The image
and resolution is diffraction limited under such conditions.

But under dim lighting conditions, the pupil dilates to admit
more light. Experiments show that optical abberations will cause
the same thin line of light to spread to several times the width
as in the small-pupil diffraction limited condition.

If conditions are very dim, such as night-time, there is also a
severe drop in acuity for physiological reasons. The retina
switches over from the cone-mediated, small visual field,
high-acuity, moderate/bright lighting conditions photoptic sytem
to the rod-mediated, large visual field, low-acuity, dim
lighting scoptopic system.

This has an even more drastic effect on visual acuity. A graph
in "Adler's physiology of the eye" shows the effects on acuity
under typical lighting conditions, As expected, it is best in
very bright lighting conditions, such as daylight. Only 15
minutes after sunset, acuity has dropped by half. 30 minutes
after sunset, or twilight conditions, acuity has dropped by a
factor of 3 or 4. Under nighttime conditions, acuity has dropped
by a factor of 10.

Let's see -- wasn't the Ravenna sighting initially under
nighttime condtions at the beginning and twilight conditions at
the end?

If you repeated the experiment above under nighttime lighting
conditions using maybe flourescent targets, you would now
probably have to approach to within 1 or 2 yards of the targets
to distinguish them.

Alas, it looks very grim for the resolving Venus hypothesis.

 >On April 1st, Venus in the morning sky was a brilliant -4
 >magnitude, and a huge 59 seconds of arc thin crescent. At this
 >moment it is about 25 seconds of arc thicker crescent.
 >
 >Why is Venus never reported as being resolved?

It is never reported as being resolved because the human optical
system is incapable of resolving it. Even at 59 seconds of arc
or about 1 minarc is still several times too small to have its
shape resolved even under optimal conditions. Under nonoptimum
nighttime lighting conditions, you would have to increase the
size by yet another order of magnitude to make it resolvable.

 >The answer is

The answer is _not_:

 >irradiation, that the image's brightness causes "slop" over onto
 >neighboring parts of the retina, elliminating detail.

The image does "slop" over, or to be more precise spread out,
but NOT because of brightness. It is because of diffraction and
optical aberrations, as I tried to explain above. If there were
opacities in the optical system, such as corneal scarring or
cataracts, this will cause light scattering and further
degradation of the image, more so with brighter objects. But
that isn't what we are talking about here, which is normal human
vision.

 >This
 >happens all the time for lunar and planetary visual observers.

Maybe slightly and occasionally for lunar observers with the
naked eye. But "all the time for planetary visual observers?"
How about never? The planets are far too dim.

 >You can see this by looking at the Sun for a couple seconds with
 >the bare branches of a tree or a power line in front. The line
 >or branch disappears.

What Bob is really talking about is bleaching of the retinal
pigments and has _nothing_ whatsover to do with what limits
visual acuity with an object like Venus, which is far too dim to
cause any significant bleaching.

Yes looking at the sun does cause bleaching and loss of acuity,
but that's because the sun is about 23 magnitudes or 1 billion
times brighter than Venus at its brightest!

If objects as dim as Venus caused the pigments to bleach out
like Bob Young claims, we would all be running around blind all
the time.

More pathological science from Bob Young.

The full moon is about 600,000 times dimmer than the sun, making
it still about 2000 times brighter than Venus. Some slight
bleaching of pigment occurs here. Even more bleaching occurs if
you look at the moon through a small telescope, which gathers
more light because it's aperature is larger than the human
pupil. Even a modest 6 inch reflector will increase the moon's
brightness several hundred fold over the naked eye. Astronomical
supply houses will sell filters to make viewing more
comfortable.

But honestly folks -- how many of you have been "blinded" by
looking at the moon with the naked eye?

I can't say looking at Venus through such a telescope has ever
blinded me, and neither can anybody else, because it simply
doesn't happen! It is also quite impossible with the naked eye.

 >This, astigmatism and the glistening rays caused by the
 >diffraction of light by one's eyelashes (prove this by rotating
 >you hear and the saucer's "rays" move around, too) cause these
 >reports.

Boy, the stream of nonsense just doesn't stop with you. It is
quite clear from this and previous posts that you haven't a clue
about what astigmatism is or what effect it would have on an
image.

Clinical astigmatism is caused when the optical system is not
perfectly spherical. Think a football-shaped optical system
rather than a basketball. This means rays of light along one
axis of the "football-shaped" imaging system come to a different
focus than rays of light at right angles to this. Note also that
an astigmatic system has an axis or orientation to it, meaning
images can be distorted in different directions depending on the
axis.

What would an astigmatism do to a dot of light like Venus? Well
it depends on a lot of factors. It depends on how severe it is.
It depends on whether the person is nearsighted or farsighted.
It depends on the axis of orientation of the astigmatism. It
depends on whether one axis of the astigmatic optical system
comes to a focus on the retina while the other doesn't.

But basically it comes down to this. If the astigmatism is
small, a point of light would probably be slightly elongated
along some axis, not necessarily horizontal. It could be
vertical or diagonal as well. A person might not even notice
this.

If the astimatism was moderate, the point of light might be
stretched to a noticeable oval shape. Again the orientation will
not necessarily be horizontal.

If the astimatism was extremely severe, a point of light might
be smeared to a streak. Again all orientations are possible.

Of course, according to the debunking gospel of Bob Young, every
single one of the policeman suffered from an astigmatism. Yes,
every one. The astigmatism was of the same degree, so they saw
they same shape. It was of the same orientation, so they saw the
shape in the same orientation. All of them.

The "astigmatism" also had the remarkable property of making
Venus appear in the west instead of the east at times, or
seeming to make Venus fly directly over the heads of the
policemen at other times. It increased the brightness of Venus
dramatically, so that the policemen reported it lighting up the
ground as bright as day, or practically blinding them when they
looked at it. It also dramatically swelled the size of Venus
E.g., one patrolman reported it was as big as his rear-view
mirror, which would make it several times the size of the full
moon. And according to Bob Young, it is also responsible for the
dark dome on top of the object reported by the policemen.

This was some "astigmatism!"

Just for fun, I took out my set of astigmatic lenses and used
them to distort the images of bright stars. It took at least a
1.5 Diopter astigmatic lens to cause sufficient distortion so
that some fool might think he was looking at a flying "disk."
(Refractive errors are measured in Diopters, which is the
reciprocal of the focal point of the eye measured in meters.
Thus if somebody was nearsighted and could see clearly to only
1/2 meter, their spherical refractive error would be the inverse
of this or 2.0 Diopters. This is also referred to as the power
of the optical system. )

OK, what's the point here? Well only about 1 in 6 adults has
astigmatisms this high or higher. Bob Young is trying to sell us
that 4 or 5 cops all had such an astigmatism. Well, do the math.
If only 1 in 6 people had this degree of astigmatism, what are
the odds of say 4 people all having it? Multiply 1/6 times
itself 4 times and you get less than 1 in a thousand odds of
that happening. Throw another cop in there and the odds dip down
to about the 1 in 10,000 range.

But that's not all. Not only do all the policemen have an
uncorrected astigmatism of the same degree, they all have the
correct combination of refractive error and astigmatic axis so
that the stretched point of light is horizontal in all cases,
instead of vertical or diagonal. What are the odds of that? Less
than 1 in 10, probably closer to 1 in 20.

Overall, we're talking pretty darn small odds that all these
guys would have almost exactly the same refractive error to
produce the same distortion of Venus, down in the 1 in 100,000
or worse range.

In reality, atigmatisms come in all shapes and sizes and
orientations in the human population. Rarely are any two the
same. The odds of four or five guys having very similar
astigmatism is extremely small.

But that's still not all. What are the odds that none of these
guys would be aware that they had such an astigmatism and not
gotten a correction (glasses) for it? Again, probably pretty
darn small. Why? Because we're talking a pretty significant
degree of astigmatism that will cause a significant decrease in
visual acuity in these guys. These were policemen out on patrol
in police cars. Yet we're talking about drops in acuity to the
point where these guys probably couldn't pass the eye exam to
get a driver's license!

What is the evidence that any of these policemen had any
signficant uncorrected astigmatism? Of course none. Bob Young
and other debunkers made it all up. They're that desperate and
also that ignorant.

Should we talk about the eyelashes causing "glistening rays"
because of diffraction of light through the lashes. Oh why not?

Yes, you can actually get a slight "raying" effect if you blink
your eyes and look at a relatively _bright_ object like the moon
or a street light.  Do you get it with a far dimmer object like
Venus? No, not really. Scarcely noticeable at best.

For some reason, this small raying effect is very brief and is
always synchronized with your eye blinks. The policemen in the
Ravenna case, of course, never figure this out.

Could such a raying effect cause a _constant_ "ice cream cone"
shape underneath as reported by the Ravenna policemen. Of course
not -- total rubbish. More pathological science from Bob Young.
If you doubt this, go try it yourself. Look at a street light
and blink. No ice cream cones, are there?  And certainly no
constancy of shape. The slight and diffuse linear streaking
disappears at the end of the eye blink -- duhhh.

 >Take a look at the whole pages of saucer shapes presented at
the >1968 Congressional Hearings, a classic set of astigmatic
images >if I every say one.

If you say so Bob. As I said in a previous post, which you
howled at, debunkers who criticize Ufology for a lack of science
are almost always grossly ignorant of basic scientific
principles or simply choose to ignore them. Thank you for
proving my theorem again.

 >See Donald Menzel's comments about Father Gill's sighting.

 >[Pause for howls]

That's the only thing Bob Young has gotten right yet.

 >Clear skies and keep looking up,

 >Bob Young

Clear thinking and not looking up my rear end.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                       Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 13:10:01 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 09:50:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited


 >From: Neil Morris
 >Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 07:43:24 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Morris


All,

Sorry I really didn't have my brain in gear while putting the
post together, can I correct my error here?

The recently uncovered news report quoting General Ramey was
circulated by the Reuters News Agency and not "Routers" as I
included in the post, I'd had a hard day working with some
networking and routers, I guess my mind was still part ways back
at work!.<g>


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                         Re: Talk And Action - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 13:23:18 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 09:52:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Hall


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:19:30 -0500

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:05:02 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>The only real UFO stuff being done is by people like Maccabee
 >>and NIDS doing the real observational analysis. Your figures are
 >>so far off as to be humerous. Perhaps you are just kidding?
 >>Maybe Errol should have placed his oft-used caveat in the
 >>title... 'Caution, Satire!' A few millions in the last five
 >>years? You are not well, sire. NIDS alone alledgedly spent more
 >>paying off Carpenter if one is to have believed the others who
 >>reported his missed demeanor. If you refer to grants, the number
 >>is too high. If you refer to monies spent on the research, it's
 >>way too low.

 >Jim,

 >As usual, I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make.

 >There are at least four very wealthy individuals out there,
 >known to many ufologists, who have contributed, and continue to
 >contribute, large sums of money to the field.

 >Three are L. R., J. F., and R. B. (Ye shall know them by their
 >initials only!) The fourth prefers to remain anonymous. There
 >may be others of which I am unaware.

 >Some of the money was well spent, some of it wasn't.
 >You make a proposal, and it's either accepted -- or rejected.
 >Such is life.
 >Dennis

Dennis,

You make it sound so simple but it doesn't work that way, and I
suspect you have never made a proposal. Right?

Also, one of the people you initialize no longer supports UFO
research, one would like to but currently has serious financial
problems, and one has his own giant axes to grind. We (the Fund
for UFO Research) are in the funding business and have dealt
with all these people at one time or another, and there is
simply no large or steady flow of money into UFO research.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET - Wislon

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 10:16:57 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 09:55:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET - Wislon


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:06:12 +0200
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:02:48 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET

 >>From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 18:24:08
 >>Subject: Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET

 >>The following article is the result of a videotaping >experiment
 >>I did in order to try to find out what was going on with my own
 >>abductions. I'm curious about your thoughts.

 >Hello, Katharina

 >I am really glad to meet you, after reading your "Alien Jigsaw"
 >etc. I really appreciate your efforts to explore alternative
 >explanations to the abduction phenomena.

 >Regarding your video article, I have read it with care. One of
 >the first amazing things is aliens' selectivity: they bother to
 >disturb your VCR but not the clock besides! Have you ever asked
 >a technician how to achieve the same result?


Before I answer your questions, I would like to address a
comment you and Greg both made. There is a scientifically based,
double blind electronic monitoring of abductees going on as we
speak, but I was asked to keep the details private until the
experiment was completed, so we all have something very
interesting to look forward to on that front.

To answer your first question (above):

John Kirby (an engineer) and I could not understand how the VCR
could be affected and not the clock. The clock was across the
room next to the bed about 15 feet away from the VCR, but I'm
not sure if proximity had anything to do with it. That is a good
question though.

 >There is one question. I assume that every night, when you went
 >to sleep, you pressed the REC button. So, the tapes should at
 >least show a few minutes of yourself at bed. Is that correct? If
 >so, how did the blue screen begin, suddenly, with a fade-out...?
 >Have you kept any of these "blue screen" tapes? On the other
 >hand, if the tapes were completely blank (or, more exactly,
 >blue) it surely points first to a technical glitch, as the one
 >you did find several weeks later.

Another good question. Yes, I pressed the record button and the
tape did not show us getting into bed. It seems that what ever
occurred, must have been triggered immediately. That is very
strange and I cannot explain it, but I was certain to look at
the counter each time I pressed record, to make sure the tape
was "rolling" and recording.

We did give John Kirby one of the blue screen tapes to see if he
could get anything to show up on the tape - he had a video
technician friend he took it to and they tried to see if there
was anything to be seen behind the "blue," but he said nothing
could be detected.

 >Really, the strange point is the coincidence between those
 >techical glitches and your dreams of abduction, either positive

 >(all your abduction dreams coincided with video problems) or
 >negative (there were no problems without abductions, and no
 >abductions without problems). No insult intended, but here we
 >only have your word. That is one of the reason why I should
 >recommend a double blind experiment.

Well, yes that is true. You only have my word, but in the end,
many times all we have is someone's word. Even in a court of
law, many times we have to decide whether we are going to
believe the "eye witness" so to speak. I have published
everything I know on my Web site (until about 2000) when I
decided not to write much anymore. I hope that by looking at all
of my information, you will learn a great deal about the kind of
person I am. That is all I can offer at this time -- that and to
have you talk with others who know me.

 >Wait a moment. What I have just wrote is wrong.

 >First, one of the "blue" nights (April 30) refers to a MILAB?
 >One of the problems is that without any other evidences (as
 >awakening "drugged" as on April 18), how you determine that your
 >"dream" referred to something that really happened that night,
 >and it was not a flashback to a precedent abduction?

There is a very definite "feel" or aftereffect when something
happens. There are times when I know it was a dream of an
encounter - where bits and pieces may come to the surface. But,
when an experience occurs, there is a way you feel afterward.
There is a reality to it that is as real as the conscious state.

It is somewhat confusing to understand unless you experience it.
Even if these "experiences" are being "downloaded" into our
brains by a mechanism, there would still be a different feel to
it as opposed to a dream. Again, all you have is my word, but
that is the best way I can explain it.

 >In the
 >second case, there was no abduction involved, so why the blue
 >tape? Besides, if it really was a MILAB that means that we,
 >humans, do have the same technology. Interesting.

Yes, I believe it is possible. That is why I wrote "Project Open
Mind" - I was "floored" when I began reading about the kind of
technology we have and how brain implant technology started way
back in the 1950s. That is what got me started thinking along
those lines -- that, and seeing humans in military uniforms
during some of my experiences, sometimes while ETs were present.

 >Second, the night of the glitch (May 5) obviously there was no
 >abduction. But some believer can always say that you simply did
 >not remember it, and that the technical glitch had nothing to do
 >with the blue tapping.

That is true and I think it would be a good argument. Although I
remember most of my experiences consciously, immediately after
they occur, I am sure I don't remember all of them.

 >Nevertheless, the sample is small and it would be interesting to
 >expand it.

 >Should we keep on trying?. We should care for the abductees. I
 >do. I do not want to use them as guinea pigs. But, on the other
 >hand, as Hilary Evans commented once, what we can do for them,
 >clearly depends on whether abductions are objetively real or
 >not. Surely, among the abductees we can find some volunteers to
 >solve this impasse.

Again, I think the double blind experiment I mentioned above,
will help out in this.

 >Besides, you must also understand my position. I, as a sceptic,
 >am the one to lose. If I discover that the evidence is not
 >alien, you just discard the case (and occasionally not even
 >that, i.e. alien autopsy, Adamsky) and go for the next one.

I am open to the possibility that not all of this is "alien" and
that is why I looked into human technology. All cases should be
studied in a scientific manner if possible and the results
shared. But , oftentimes we have to start with what the subject
remembers and then go from there.

 >I can't never win. What do you belivers offer in exchange? Would
 >you publicly deny ETs exist if the results are negative?

If proof could be offered that would convince me that ETs do not
exist, I would certainly deny that they exist. I am not sure how
much of this I would believe if I had not seen it for myself. It
may turn out to be some bizarre "MILAB" experiment, spiritual
warfare or something else we cannot comprehend yet - but, for
now, what I have seen leads me to believe they are
extraterrestrial, and some are interdimensional.

Your questions are valid and I think more discussion (like you
have initiated) as opposed to "abductee debunking and
ridiculing" or coming up with books that try to put all
abductees into the "mentally ill or mentally challenged"
category, as some others espouse to, is the key to understanding
what is going on.

One thing to consider about their motive: If the hybridization
program is real, what better way to gain a foothold on this
planet than to have beings who are not totally human, but are
still related to us by blood? What stronger bond is there than
the one between "child" and parent? Wouldn't people be more
accepting of their presence if they are "related" to us? -- sort
of like the child of a non-American being born in this country
and then becoming a citizen by birth? It would explain one
possible reason for the alleged hybridization project.


Sincerely,

Katharina Wilson










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:22:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 09:59:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:45:14 -0300

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:57:05 -0500

 >>>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:44:46 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:31:28 -0500


Stan,

 >>When this dismal episode was occurring, I tried to dissuade Stan
 >>from pursuing what I considered, and still consider, a rash and
 >>destructive course of action. It is one of ufology's low
 >>moments, and if we are lucky, nothing like it will happen again.

 >I find this notion really strange. Yes, when I informed you of
 >the Manchester Evening News article, you felt that there was no
 >way Jenny could have said those things and the problem must be
 >MEN.and I should just turn the other cheek. It took quite a bit
 >of effort, but finally we obtained the very defamatory letter
 >from Jenny that was the stimulus for the defamatory MEN article
 >complete with Jenny's picture. She was much more defamatory than
 >the MEN. Harry Harris and I initially would have settled for a
 >simple published apology. But Jenny refused and kept blaming the
 >MEN. She was willing to apologize personally.. which did nothing
 >about the 3/4 of a million people exposed to the published
 >defamation. The MEN, I am told, is the largest circulation
 >Newspaper in England outside of London.

 >For reasons UNKNOWN, a group of people did indeed join Jenny to
 >fight this "Freedom of Speech" case... poor Jenny against a 'Rich
 >American'. What nonsense! There has never been absolute
 >freedom of speech.

This last point is legally true, but irrelevant to the current
discussion. Not even you have accused Jenny Randles of shouting
"Fire!" in a crowded theater, or anything close to it.

The reasons so many people defended Jenny are hardly "unknown"
or obscure. They have to do with a little principle known as
freedom of expression, even expression to which one may take
furious exception. No one disputes your right to be angry and to
demand an apology for what was said about you. I didn't much
like it myself, and I don't defend it.

That doesn't mean that I like what you did next, which was to
move to inflict maximum harm on Jenny for what was no more than
an exercise in bad judgment. In the United States, whose libel
laws are far saner, and far more tilted toward maximum free
expression, than Britain's (thanks in good part to our First
Amendment), your case would almost certainly have been thrown
out of court.

(I should mention here that nothing that you objected to gets
close to the malicious lies some of my critics-I won't name them
here, for fear of encouraging them-have circulated about me over
the years. I haven't sued anybody, nor have I any plans to do
so.)

Your decision to give vent to a desire to silence expression you
didn't like - whatever the provocation - was, in my (and, as you
know, many others') judgment, both a poor decision and a
terrible precedent. You would have been off to take the
criticism, however outrageously unfair it may have been from
your perspective, and brought your complaints to your fellow
ufologists, not to the court. If you had done so, my guess is
that you would have attracted rather more sympathy than you now
have for your position.

You have made many positive contributions to our field, Stan.
This just happens not to be one of them, and I hope that one
day you will be able to see this matter as others see it.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                   Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:23:13 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 10:01:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Friedman


 >Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:26:33 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:22:03 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 17:48:59 EDT
 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:12:16 EDT
 >>>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 [was Re: Debunkers'...]

 ><snip>

 >>>Both Sarbacher and Walker seem to refer to meetings at
 >>>Wright-Patterson AFB in 1950 as where they learned of alleged
 >>>crashed saucers and/or alien bodies. Sarbacher strangely seemed
 >>>to refer to the RDB as meeting at Wright-Pat but RDB was based
 >>>in Washington, D.C., so this makes little sense unless he meant
 >>>a committee of the RDB such as the Guided Missiles Committee
 >>>which I think did sometimes meet at WPAFB.

 >>If the center of military research on the UFO problem was at
 >>Wright-Patterson, I really don't see what the problem would be
 >>for RDB consultants like Sarbacher and Walker to fly a few
 >>hundred miles from Washington and Pennsylvania for briefings at
 >>Wright-Patterson on the subject of crashed saucers and alien
 >>bodies.

 >I can add 2c to this.

 >As I reported in a paper I published in th International UFO
 >Reporter in 1991 ("Hiding the Hardware"), I spoke to Sarbacher
 >in 1985. He told me that he was a "dollar a year man" doing
 >essentially volunteer consulting wrk for the Defense Dept. (By
 >accepting a "dollar a year" he could keep his security clearance
 >up to date).

 >He told me he had been invited to a meeting at Wright-Pat to see
 >te remains of a crashed saucer but he was unable to go because
 >of other committments (busy man!). However, several of his
 >friends who worked in the same office in Washington, DC (in some
 >old buildings that were built during WWII as temporary office
 >buildings that lasted into the late 1970's when they were
 >finally torn down) did go. Subsquently they told him some of
 >what they had seen.

 >He told me the creatures must have been built like insects or
 >robots in order to have withstood the accelerations.

 >(Note in passing: Sarbacher's early reference to "insects"
 >brings to mind the muh more recent claims of "praying mantis"
 >type aliens in abduction stories.) (Sarbacher died in 1986 after
 >talking to perhaps half a dozen or more investigators
 >andrepeating substantially the same story. He may have told
 >others more details than he told me over the phone.)

 >At any rate, he didn't say t me that the meeting at Wright Pat
 >was an "RDB" meeting. However, it may have been at subsequent
 >RDB meeting in Washington that he learned about what his friends
 >had seen.

 >Epilogue:

 >When I told Stan that Sarbacher had said his friends had gone,
 >Stan called Sarbacher "immediately" and learned some names and
 >initiated a search. He was able to find only one acquaintance
 >from those days (this was, after all, 35 years later) and that
 >man knew nothing of interest to us, but was happy to reestablish
 >connection with Sarbacher after many years.

 >Perhaps Stan can "illuminate" us further.


Gee, I guess that makes me a member of the Illuminati! The above
is essentially what Sarbacher told me. The man I found was Dr.
Fred Darwin. I also located a secretary. My meeting and
conversations with Sarbacher were all friendly. He had
scuttlebut. No first hand documents or observations. Much like
general Exon. I have no reason to disbelieve either.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                           Wanted: Humanoid Cases

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:27:54 +0200
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 10:03:56 -0400
Subject: Wanted: Humanoid Cases


I am trying to identify the following humanoid case (some data,
even date and location, may be wrong, so read the details, they
may ring a bell) and specially to locate some illustration of
the ufonauts described. Can you help me?


July 21, 1991. Missouri

Three young girls notice a white, oval shaped light moving
rapidly in a corner of their yard, then standing there  was a
strange creature. Each girl separately described this creature
as thin with long slender fingers, bald egg shaped head with
ridges along the top. It was also described as having a
"transparent" abdominal area. All witnesses were considered
reliable and displayed considerable consternation and fright
after this encounter.


This description appeared in a stamp set emitted (with texts in
English!) in Nicaragua and I would like to check its accuracy.

Thanks in advance for any help.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                Press Release From Natural Light Productions

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:00:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 20:41:48 -0400
Subject: Press Release From Natural Light Productions


Natural Light Productions
3962 Farrell Drive
513 389-1200
Cincinnati, Ohio 45211

For Immediate Release:

UFO Update:LIVE! will produce its next 60 minute program, "The
Waynesville Sighting,"  from the lobby of the Milford Showcase
Cinema, Saturday, June 9th starting from 6 pm- until 8 pm.  The
show features 911 recordings of police officers reporting to
their dispatcher an object displaying bright flashing blue, red,
green, and purple lights.

UFO Update:LIVE is hosted by Terry Endres, and will be
videotaped at the Showcase Cinemas, Milford (US 50 and I-275) in
promotional conjunction with the release of the motion picture
EVOLUTION starring David Duchovny and Orlando Jones. Resident
UFO Update researcher and skeptic Ron Schaffner will also appear
as a panelist.

Civilians and law enforcement officers observed the strange
lights in the evening skies near Waynesville, Ohio in Warren
County on April 24th.

The Lebanon City Police Department was advised of a UFO seen
near the 4600 Block of Wilkerson Road. The caller reported the
mysterious object looked like it was encased within a ". . .
(structure) that resembled grid work or cabling."

Officer Stanford of the Waynesville Police Department, told UFO
Update: LIVE! Producer Bob Leibold, "...We (another officer was
with him) observed the object Tuesday, April 24, through
binoculars that a citizen had.  We even took a look through a
spotting scope. Whatever it was remained in one spot for over an
hour and then it dropped down towards the ground and just
disappeared from view." He emphatically told Leibold "...the
object we saw was NOT an airplane and NOT a helicopter.

Two other strange objects were observed by the police in the
area. The Warren County Communications Center placed a telephone
call to Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. The Base
disclaimed any knowledge of, or responsibility for, air traffic
or maneuvers in the Waynesville vicinity.

The next evening, Wednesday, April 25, UFOs are reported in the
same area at 9:48 p.m., viewed from Wilkerson Road. Officers
observed the object from their location near the Waynesville
Airport.

Seven hours later, a motorist near Genntown, Ohio (about 5-miles
from Waynesville), reported to the Ohio State Patrol, her
"extreme concern" regarding a triangular object with "super
bright lights" that pursued her automobile while traveling on
Route 122 around 5:00 a.m., April 26.

These and other details were acquired from police tapes, witness
interviews and a field investigation by researcher and UFO
Update: LIVE! panelist Kenny Young, http://home.fuse.net/ufo/

These police recordings will be made public on Saturday, June 9,
2001 on the cable television program UFO UPDATE: LIVE!

Other topics covered during the taping will be a discussion of
the alleged hoaxing of moon landings as seen on the Fox network,
and an update on the high resolution photos being received by
NASA regarding the "Face On Mars."

Television, radio and print media are invited to cover this
event and the release of the dramatic police tapes. Copies of
911 tapes will be made available on request.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                    Re: The Will To Believe - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:07:28 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 20:45:40 -0400
Subject: Re: The Will To Believe - Mortellaro



 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: The Will To Believe
 >Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 21:18:46 -0000

 >Some of my philosophical opponents in the skeptical/debunker
 >camp may seize on these remarks, but I can't help stating that
 >the 'will to believe' is alive and strong among those who
 >continue to defend lost causes quite irrationally. I am
 >referring to 'alien autopsy' films, Corso as the 'saviour of the
 >planet', and now pretty well discredited documents about MJ-12.
 >(I do agree with those who say that something very much like
 >MJ-12 may exist and the rest may be calculated disinformation.)

 >Emotional commitment to a belief falls far short of being
 >convincing scientific evidence. One must follow the evidence
 >where it leads, even if it discredits things we have supported
 >in the past or would like to believe. But the level of argument
 >on both sides of these issues leaves everything to be desired.
 >The skeptibunkers equally overstate their case and draw
 >unjustified sweeping conclusions.

Dear Dick, bListers and Errol,

I would like to say this about that. Listen up because pearls of
wisdom are shooting forth from the oyster of life.

Whoa! Did I say that? Stand aside Rimbaud, Verlain, Dylan and
Lehmberg.

First, on the issue of emotional belief. How about them Mets?
Sure, people believe based on emotion. So what? I mean, as long
as they believe, right? If you ain't got no faith, then you got
unbelief. Dylan said that. If you ain't got no belief then you
got no faith. I said that. And if the world were full of it, I
mean full of people without the force of faith, then where would
we be?

There would be no religious warfare. No battles between people
of differing faith, culture, ethnicity. There would likely be no
religion at all. I mean, people would have to intuit or use
their intellects! God, then we'd be in a certain fix wouldn't
we? People using their minds? What a concept!

Say, do you think people actually do that? I mean in _real_
life? And not let emotion conflict with reason and all? Woof!
Imagine.

Well, you, Sire, like my friend Stacy, are in a much higher
level of intellectual accuity and acidity than the mere Morty.
You guys are really... really... I dunno... up there. God how I
envy you.

And now, you are gonna aks, "What's your point?" And after
having said all of the above, I can honestly answer, "I ain't
got one!" I don't gotta have one after all does I? Nope. beCAUSe
I am not nearly as intellectual as some of yous. I don't even
use the King's English as good as yous peoples do. And, whilst I
don't drink the beverage of the lower classes (sorry Larry) I do
drink Gripple. And that's much much worse. There, aren't yous
happier now Larry?


I remain,

Stoic in the face of my bitters .. betters... sorry,


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                         Re: Talk And Action - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:20:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 20:50:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Stacy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:35:55 -0000

 >Dennis,

 >Sometimes I get the impression that you post some things so
 >hastily that you don't realize you aren't making any sense.
 >"Chauvinistic?" "Ethnocentric?" "Cross-cultural?" I guesstimate
 >that you mean I am referring only to U.S. scientists, but I'm
 >not. I am referring to the entire, international, scientific
 >"community" (though there are actually very few countries
 >strongly represented in the enterprise for obvious financial
 >reasons).

 >Yes, UFOs are anathema in the scientific community. Are you
 >being disingenuous by acting as if you are surprised by that
 >statement? You get the same sort of total rejection of UFOs as
 >being a legitimate scientific topic from scientists in the UK,
 >Australia, Latin countries, Canada... You are not aware of that?


Dick,

A couple or three years ago, NIDS sponsored a prize-winning
essay contest centered around the ET question. I don't remember
the details, but I think they were looking for serious papers as
opposed, say, to pop essays. I don't remember the actual number
of entries, but, if memory serves, the exercise (it was going to
be an annual affair) was cancelled because not enough of the
entries were from the U.S. That would indicate to me that at
least some sort of cultural climate was at work, on top of other
factors, and that it was _most_ negative in the U.S.

These climates change over time, according to local
circumstances, how UFOs are reported in the local media, etc. At
one time, for example, France had a very respectable GEPAN. I
understand it's successor, SERPA, is mostly moribund now.
Whether you agree with the recent COMETA Report or not, it's
hard to imagine its equivalent in this country.

In Spain, the Air Force made its UFO files available to the
public. Last year, if memory serves, one of the South American
countries, either Chile or Brazil, reportedly initiated an
agency within the AF to study or investigate UFO reports.
Haven't heard much more about that one, so don't know if it got
off the ground or not.

Again, the point is, each of these mini-climates has a different
amount of "wiggle" room from our own, some maybe more, some
maybe less. For all I know, the Taliban might stand you up
against a wall for saying UFO in public.

Last I heard, the Europeans had a ball-lightning conference
every other year. Doesn't happen here, although we do have the
Society for Scientific Exploration, which begins its annual
meeting tomorrow in La Jolla.

Obviously, there's not any known UFO refugee country out there
(unless it's, was it Ghana, who got the UN stamps done?). But
neither do I think that UFO= Universal Anathema. I simply don't
know what's going on in China, the Soviet Union, and Dubai
regarding specific local UFO climates, nor can I predict events
that might alter any of those local climates over time. What's
the Soviet scientific opionion on SETI, for example? Dunno. Are
they doing any on their own? Dunno.

In fact, if ufology didn't tend to chuckle everytime SETI was
mentioned, it might serve as a good case history of how to get
something done in the face of adversity - and some scientific
opposition, if memory serves. Except for results - SETI is a
raging success! If you want, you can sign up now and put your
personal computer to work for them tonight while you sleep.
Ufology needs a similar, hands-on equivalent.

The difference is that SETI has a single, focused mission, w/o a
lot of emotional baggage attached. Here is the actual radio
signal -- use your PC to process it. Ufology lacks a reliable
database that you can readily put your hands on, while the
emotional baggage stuff grows by the day. When one of the
field's "leading" journals publishes a review extolling a
channeled book about humanity's space allies as "the most
significant book on Ufology that has been published to date,"
you know you're in for another long, hot summer of scientific
anathema. Hell, it's almost enough to make you appreciate
anathema!


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                     Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:48:32 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 20:53:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Young


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:22:03 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Walker at one point admitted to going to the
 >crash site on Dec. 9 along with two off-duty military people.
 >Walker was then with the Institute for Defense Analysis.
 >Walker's daughter also remembers him being suddenly called out
 >there, though my memory on the details of this are very
 >sketchy.


David:

"Off-duty" suggests that the military people had _not been_
"called out", but were just there for the fun of it, after
hearing the bizarre PR screw-up about this fruitless search on
the radio. Probably Walker was also there on his own, at the
time he was on the Engineering faculty of either Penn State or
the University of Pittsburg, I forget which.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                          Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:10:17 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 20:55:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young


 >Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:26:37 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:20:41 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>This, astigmatism and the glistening rays caused by the
 >>diffraction of light by one's eyelashes (prove this by rotating
 >>you hear and the saucer's "rays" move around, too) cause these
 >>reports.

 >Diffraction by eyelashes? My eyelashes curl upwards so that they
 >are'nt in front of my eyes. Perhaps your's curl downward?

Hi, Bruce:

All of us who have been assigned from Clarion come with downward
hanging eyelashes.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                         Re: Talk And Action - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:58:21 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:00:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Hall


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Talk And Action - Young
 >Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 17:00:02 -0400

 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 02:37:30 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:36:28 -0500

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:52:43 -0000

 >>Science doesn't have to sit around monitoring the skies for
 >>UFOs; the latter would be incidental to other observations,
 >>which are now taking place in quantities that could only have
 >>been imagined a decade or two ago.

 >Dennis, Dick:

 >This is a very important point. Why isn't there more
 >instrumented evidence of visitations, if they are taking place?
 >Even though Hynek discounted it, the old Prairie network
 >operated from more than ten years, and the Canadian counterpart
 >for at least 20, while the European Fireball Network has, in its
 >various forms, been photographing the sky since the 50s. Where
 >are the saucers? Hynek claimed these networks had flaws, but the
 >Prairie network was capable of imaging fourth magnitude moving
 >objects (about the visual sky limit for most suburban skies).
 >Where are the UFOs?

 >>It's naive on your part to think that ridicule rules like some sort
 >>of fail-safe security, or cover up, blanket. _Can_ it have an impact?
 >>No doubt. Is it guaranteed to keep the "truth" -- whatever that is
 >>-- covered up from everyone? No way.

 >This is a point also made in the March issue of Magonia, by the
 >way, in an editorial by John Harney. UFOs could no more be kept
 >secret than could volcanic eruptions or meteor showers. How
 >could the "Government" control a phenomena inititated by an
 >outside force - the ETs?

 >>In fact, there is no particularly necessary reason that any such
 >>acquired data would have to be associated with, or identified
 >>as, UFOs in the sense that you and I are talking about them
 >>here, ie, as potential ET craft. Where is that unwritten rule?
 >>The ridicule factor could easily be averted by any scientist(s)
 >>interested enough to give it serious thought. But I forget:
 >>they're mostly sheared sheep.

 >Where are the instrumented records of visitations?

Bob,

It's not an "important point" at all. See my postings to Dennis
and some relevant ones by Brad Sparks. These networks generally
are programmed to exclude data that doesn't fit the profile of
some known phenomenon that they are looking for.

If and when something anaomalous is detected (and this is
fact-based, not speculation on my part) it is either discarded
as not relevant to the focused purpose of the net, or considered
"too hot to handle" by people who are intimidated by
skeptibunkers and fear for their reputations and careers if they
speak out. Lots of evidence out there to support this.

As I said to Dennis, UFOs are anathema in the scientific
community (as witness your attitudes if, indeed, you are a
scientist rather than the type of person you accused me of
being; a pretender cloaking himself in scientific language).


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                       Re: The Will To Believe - Hall

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:10:54 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:04:05 -0400
Subject: Re: The Will To Believe - Hall


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 21:18:46 -0000
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: The Will To Believe

 >Some of my philosophical opponents in the skeptical/debunker
 >camp may seize on these remarks, but I can't help stating that
 >the 'will to believe' is alive and strong among those who
 >continue to defend lost causes quite irrationally.

Richard,

The only irrational behavior I've found is the refusal by you
and others to look carefully at the evidence that we have
brought to the list. Have you looked closely at Neil Morris's
research? Did you carefully read M. Dennis's "A Discussion of
the Debris"? And most of all did you even read "The Day after
Roswell"? Haven't you spent any time viewing the AA footage and
why, if you're so concerned, have you never ordered the AA CDs?
I think your attitude exemplifies the main reason so little
progress is made toward solving the Roswell puzzle. At least
order the CDs and take a look for yourself.

 >I am
 >referring to 'alien autopsy' films, Corso as the 'saviour of the
 >planet', and now pretty well discredited documents about MJ-12.
 >(I do agree with those who say that something very much like
 >MJ-12 may exist and the rest may be calculated disinformation.)

I don't recall anyone saying that Col. Corso was the 'savior of
the planet" and I have long admitted that mistakes were made by
both Corso and Birnes, but that doesn't mean that we should
disregard his testimony since he was who he said he was. You
offered that he was a megalomaniac without any proof. Do you
have any?

 >Emotional commitment to a belief falls far short of being
 >convincing scientific evidence. One must follow the evidence
 >where it leads, even if it discredits things we have supported
 >in the past or would like to believe.

Yes, but that is exactly what you refuse to do: follow the
evidence. Are you afraid of where it might lead?

 >But the level of argument
 >on both sides of these issues leaves everything to be desired.

I don't agree. I and others have tried to answer all questions.
You may not like the answers but that's not my concern. My
concern is your refuseal to discuss the evidence we've presented
- not other side issues but the "evidence". To start, why don't
you reread the Debris article by M. Dennis and tell the list why
you feel this falls short of "being convincing scientific
evidence"?

 >The skeptibunkers equally overstate their case and draw
 >unjustified sweeping conclusions.

That's correct. But in this case, what separates you from a
"skeptibunker" mode? You have drawn sweeping conclusions about
the AA and Corso that I feel are totally unjustified. You can't
believe it's true, so therefore it must not be true. The
evidence be damned!


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                           THE WATCHDOG - 06-06-01

From: Royce J. Myers <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 20:02:55 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:14:49 -0400
Subject: THE WATCHDOG - 06-06-01


UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind"
http://www.ufowatchdog.com

***NEWS***
~ Special Announcement From UFO Roundup
~ Criminal Charges To Be Filed Against Alleged Area 51 Worker
~ New Crop Formations Reported in Serbia and UK
~ 1947 - US Planes Hunting Discs, Russian Officer Tells of Atomic Saucers
~ Tiny Flying ET Reported in Turkey
~ Siberia UFO Crash?










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                          Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:10:04 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:20:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak


 >Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 19:43:30 EDT
 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:31:15 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >
 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 03:49:34 EDT
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966

 >Even so 500 meters (1600 feet) -- or whatever smaller figure is
 >the empirical value (maybe a few hundred meters) -- is still a
 >shocking difference from the 30 feet that Larry Robinson always
 >trumpets. Thanks for providing some scientific _facts_ here
 >Dave.

 >>Well 500 meters or 1600+ feet is quite a bit more than Larry
 >>Robinsons 30 feet, by over a factor of 50!! Where did Robinson
 >>or other skeptics get their grossly erroneous number? I have no
 >>idea. Maybe a little pelican told them.

 >I've seen the 30-foot figure in various textbooks -- probably
 >not very authoritative ones. Seems to be stated for both
 >monocular accommodation (focus) as well as stereoscopic
 >binocular distance perception.

Beyond 20 - 30 feet is optical infinity as far as our visual
systems are concerned (which is why acuity tests are
standardized for 20 foot distances). Objects out of focus closer
than that can trigger accomodation (focusing of the lens). It
has long been speculated that the amount of accomodation to
maintain image clarity could be a cue to distance. However
experiments have shown this not to be the case.

Another possible cue to depth is vergence eye movements, i.e.
converging or crossing the eyes, and diverging or uncrossing the
eyes. The purpose of the vergence eye movements is to maintain
singleness of vision by keeping both eyes pointed in the same
direction at a closer-in object. Double vision will trigger
vergence eye movements, but there will not be enough image
disparity beyond about 20 meters to trigger the movements. (The
optical axes of the eyes are effectively parallel beyond about
50 or 60 meters.)

The amount of eye crossing at nearer distances could conceivably
provide information about how far away things are. Vergence eye
movements have been shown to be cues to depth, albeit weak ones,
and seemingly not much use beyond about 1 meter.

The other binocular depth cue is variously referred to as
stereopsis, stereoacuity, binocular disparity, or retinal
disparital. It gives the world its sense of "3D-ness" or
solidarity. And as I mentioned in my post, it operates out to
about 500 meters. People with normal binocular vision can
accurately gauge relative depth for distances closer than this
utilizing just the parallax information provided by having the
eyes slightly separated.

 >However the skeptics are always claiming to wear the cloak of
 >"Science" yet they seem to never do any real research into the
 >_actual_ science of perception that they claim so easily
 >disposes of UFOlogy.

This information is widely available. Many psychology textbooks
on perception will have it. However, one of the luxuries of
being a cynical skeptic seems to be never doing basic research.
It's much easier to make up your "facts" as you go along when
"solving" UFO cases.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                     Re: Members Of The Press? - Rebecca

From: Rebecca <xiannekei@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 19:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 22:09:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Members Of The Press? - Rebecca


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:04:15 -0700
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Members Of The Press?

 >>From: Rebecca Keith<xiannekei@yahoo.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Members Of The Press?

<snip>

 >>>I'm also a member of the press

 >>Which press would that be?

 >>And is being a member of the press your main occupation?

 >Rebecca,

 >I write a column for the Sonoma County Free Press on pesticides
 >and the environment, and related issues.

 >http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.org/reaction/reactindx.html

Yes, I've seen some of those articles. Interesting.

 >I've been contributing to the Free Press for eleven years.

 >I also write for Flatland Magazine and the Anderson Valley
 >Advertiser, one of the best small town newspapers in the US.

 >I make my living as the founder and supervising teacher of a
 >NPS(a Non Public School- Special Education) called Mountain
 >Circle NPS. We have a contract with Plumas County CA to school
 >their students with special education needs who aren't
 >successful in regular public school. I've been doing this for
 >four years and have a contract for next year. Before that I
 >was a public school special education teacher.

Comendable.

Thanks for answering the questions.

 >You were once very interested in the AA. Why don't you take some
 >time to view the new AA CDs? I'll be happy to send you a free
 >set.

Thanks, but no thanks. I was _once_ interested, I'm really not
interested anymore. Call me close-minded, but I really don't
think there is anything new to offer. Without FILM and/or the
cameraman, this story is going nowhere.

But you go on and defend Ray and the AA and Corso and whomever
else you like and I'll go on clawing my eyes from having to read
the same old thing over and over again.

Let me know when you get some film from Ray or Volker or whoever
and perhaps I'll get interested again.

Thanks again for answering the questions.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

               Cydonian Imperative: 6-7-01 - Convex Feature in

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 21:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 22:32:16 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 6-7-01 - Convex Feature in


The Cydonian Imperative
6-7-01

Intriguing Convex Feature in Crater

Linked and illustrated version at:
http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html


[image]

This "Epcot Center"-like dome lies in the center of a Martian
crater.

The unusual convex feature above features apparent ridges
suggestive of a Buckminster Fuller dome or the dimples of a
golfball. While convex formations inside craters are not unheard
of, this is the only such "grooved" formation I have seen. While
a natural explanation will probably prove correct, the
"golfball" nevertheless looks something like a partially
collapsed "Epcot Center."

----

More information on the controversial "Face" formation is
forthcoming.  Thanks to everyone who's shared their insight or
expertise.

--Mac

-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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                   Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:11:54 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 22:34:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited - Gates


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Corso's FBI Files Revisited
 >Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 17:34:22 -0700

<snip>

 >>The sources
 >>I've read tell a very straightforward story. Intelligence is
 >>gathered. JFK decides on action, without prodding from the
 >>media, or anyone outside his administration. Action is taken,
 >>and the public is immediately informed.

Ed Responded:

 >But they never mention Operation Mongoose. Why not?

If a person takes the time to read the thousand of pages of
material on the crisis, Mongoose comes up. During the crisis the
policy makers were not as concerned about Mongoose as they were
about offensive weapons being in Cuba.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

               UFOs, Chupacabras and Suicides in Calama, Chile

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:00:42 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 22:37:31 -0400
Subject: UFOs, Chupacabras and Suicides in Calama, Chile



This article was published in the local newspaper in Calama,
Chile. It�s regarding the increase of suicides in the region of
Loa, which is the Mecca for chupacabras activity in Chile.
During previous appearances in Jeff Rense radio program on May
14, we discussed how some people that witnessed paranormal
activity in the city of Calama have been committing suicide.
Apparently, the situation got so out of control that the local
authorities are beginning to bring mental health experts and
doctors to conduct suicide awareness seminars in the city of
Calama, Chile.

In the article, Dr. Marcela Larraguibel describes the
characteristics of "mass suicides", and according to her
assertion, it can almost describe the situation where
chupacabras eyewitnesses have been committing suicide one after
the other. Dr. Larraguibel also addressed the issue of children
committing suicide. According to her, these cases are supposed
to be very rare; nevertheless, recently, there have been too
many instances of deaths by suicide among children in Calama,
which goes right back to, our associate in Chile, Jaime Ferrer�s
statement during his interview about the psychological effects
caused by paranormal activity, Ufos, and blood predator entities
in Calama.



Increase of suicides worries the entire community

Newspaper: La Estrella del Loa
Calama, Chile
June 2, 2001

Calama, Chile - A seminar was conducted at the Carlos Cisterna
Hospital to discuss the increasing rate of suicides in the area.
Local health officials decided to address the community with
issues regarding mental health and suicide awareness.

According to a study conducted by the University of Antofagasta,
during the last four years, the suicide rates have drastically
increased in the province of El Loa. The study was conducted
based on statistics dating back ten years and it covers major
aspects regarding the development of suicide and mental illness
behaviors.

The details of this investigation were revealed yesterday during
the mental health seminar that took place in the auditorium of
the Carlos Cisterna Hospital in Calama. Juan Carlos Mendez, a
visiting doctor from the University of Antofagasta, explained
the statistical figures.

Due to the amount of suicides registered last year, authorities
felt compelled to carry out an investigation. Furthermore, in
comparison with the towns nearby, most of the suicides have been
taking place in the city of Calama. According to 1999 figures,
in the city of Perla del Norte, an increase of 11.57 % has been
observed; in the mean time, Calama�s suicide increase rate was
26 %, which is more than double.

Risks and Behaviors

According to Doctor Marcela Larraguibel, a local mental health
specialist, instances of suicidal behavior are very rare among
children between 10 to 15 years of age. Nevertheless, the
possibility for this to happen is out there and it�s among the
most serious of all mental conditions.

Larraguibel also stated that when the family cohesion breaks
apart for diverse reasons, a need for "self elimination" is
perhaps incurred. "This is very common among people from 16 to
44 years of age", she said. The most significant behaviors that
influence individuals to commit suicide are depression, alcohol
or drug abuse, and antisocial behavior. In some cases, one or
more of these problems are present. In less frequent cases,
disorders like anxiety or schizophrenia can also influence their
behavior.

Nevertheless, perhaps the most surprising and dramatic cases
appear to be when suicide becomes a social infection; such as
the instances when mass suicides take place. This syndrome
appears on susceptible residents or individuals that identify
themselves with a particular suicide profile. For instance, when
the event takes place in a school, other similar cases involving
other classmates may occur within a few weeks.

Prevention was the key topic in the seminar discussion. Health
officials emphasized the importance of hospitalization and
treatment as the best way to save the lives of individuals at
risk. The increasing amount of deaths by suicide in the
community has prompted Alberto Minoletti, local director of the
department of mental health, to develop and participate in more
suicide awareness programs.

Translation by Mario Andrade - Revista Digital Cronos


Regards,

Dr. Virgilio Snchez-Ocejo

Miami UFO Center
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/ufomiami/index.html
Chupacabras
http://ufomiami.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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                    June 1947 'Amazing Stories' For Sale

From: Paul B. Thompson <MrApol@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:12:32 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 22:47:40 -0400
Subject: June 1947 'Amazing Stories' For Sale


I hope no one minds if I post an ad.

I have a copy of the June 1947 pulp magazine "Amazing Stories"
I'd like to sell. This is the month of the Arnold sighting, of
course, and its coincidentally a special All Shaver issue. As
Donald Menzel described it in "The World of Flying Saucers":


"In June 1947, the month the first flying saucers were reported,
the issue of Amazing Stories was an addict's dream. The cover
featured 'The Shaver Mystery, the Most Sensational True Story
Ever Told'; the four stories, 90,000 words, were all under the
byline of Richard S. Shaver. The entire magazine--editorial
comments, discussion columns, and most of the feature articles -
was devoted to the supernatural world of Shaver."


My copy is in very good condition. All the pages are present,
and the binding is firm. The extreme edges are a bit crumbly
because this is old pulp paper, but overall the magazine is in
fine shape. A color JPG of the front and back cover is available
on request.

Please email me off-list if you're interested in this bit of
saucer memorabilia.


Paul B. Thompson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET - Cammack

From: Diana Cammack <cammack@eomw.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:49:06 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 22:56:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET - Cammack


 >Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:58:38 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >Subject: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 02:42:26 EDT
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Abductee's Books & Investigators

 >>>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Abductee's Books & Investigators
 >>>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:44:02 -0400

 >>>>From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Abductee's Books & Investigators
 >>>>Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:02:44 +0200

 >>>>Angela Thompson is the 17th person visited by the Grays inside
 >>>>Hopkins's house! And, what has he done, at least, to try to
 >>>>catch _them_ in the act? Absolutely nothing. What kind of
 >>>>investigator is he?

 >>>If it happened in your house, what would you do?

 >>>Serious question.

 >>Greg, Luis, List:

 >>At least try videotaping. The fact that Hopkins has apparently
 >>tried _nothing_ suggests that he may suspect what the result
 >>would be. Imagine what a book that would be, or what a movie.

 >The following article is the result of a videotaping experiment
 >I did in order to try to find out what was going on with my own
 >abductions. I'm curious about your thoughts.

 >"The Alien Jigsaw" Contents

 >http://www.alienjigsaw.com/contents.html

 >"Videotaping Those Elusive Aliens"

 >http://www.alienjigsaw.com/videotap.html

 >Thanks all - K. Wilson

KW,

I am not an electronics person at all, but would suggest that
you try different equipment, maybe at the same time, that uses a
different kind of signal - not digital, for instance, but an old
fashioned camera that uses 16 mm film would that help? Or even a
camera that, say,  takes a photo every 2 minutes? Try to
approach the phenomenon with various technologies -- maybe the
most primitive (or the most sophisticated) will work?? Just an
idea...


Diana









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                         Re: Talk And Action - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:19:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 22:58:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Stacy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 13:23:18 -0000

 >Dennis,

 >You make it sound so simple but it doesn't work that way, and I
 >suspect you have never made a proposal. Right?

 >Also, one of the people you initialize no longer supports UFO
 >research, one would like to but currently has serious financial
 >problems, and one has his own giant axes to grind. We (the Fund
 >for UFO Research) are in the funding business and have dealt
 >with all these people at one time or another, and there is
 >simply no large or steady flow of money into UFO research.


Dick,

You're right, I should not have made it seem quite so "automatic."

FYI, though, I happen to be working on a funded project at this
very moment. I know of at least one other major project under
way that you also are aware of. I don't have any information as
to the current funding levels of two other recent projects, one
involving alleged MJ-12 documents, the other crop circles. I
also have no notion of what NIDS's annual budget is -- or how to
break off some of it! I just know it's out there, or was last
time I looked.

As you probably know, in at least one or two instances of
anonymous benefactors, human politics reared its ugly head, and
certain situations were probably mishandled on both sides of the
table.

More's the pity!

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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                            Getting Down To Cases

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:49:29 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:00:48 -0400
Subject: Getting Down To Cases


List, with a special nod to Dennis Stacy,

Isn't it interesting what happens when the focus of discussion
is on specific, hardcore, difficult to explain UFO cases, rather
than on deducing "truth" from generalities? Thanks to
contributions by such knowledgable people as David Rudiak, Bruce
Maccabee, Brad Sparks, Don Ledger, Greg Sandow, Jerry Clark
(just to name a few that stand out), serious problems have been
found in case explanations proferred by the skeptibunkers,
typically based on false assumptions and bad science.

Also, Dennis, these posts make it quite clear that good and
useful science can be done on old cases, as Jim McDonald proved
before.


Check,

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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                         Re: Ravenna 1966 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 12:08:13 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:04:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Maccabee


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 03:13:52 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:20:41 EDT
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak

<snip>

 >>Take a look at the whole pages of saucer shapes presented at
 >>the 1968 Congressional Hearings, a classic set of astigmatic
 >>images if I every say one.

 >If you say so Bob. As I said in a previous post, which you
 >howled at, debunkers who criticize Ufology for a lack of science
 >are almost always grossly ignorant of basic scientific
 >principles or simply choose to ignore them. Thank you for
 >proving my theorem again.

 >>See Donald Menzel's comments about Father Gill's sighting.

 >>[Pause for howls]

 >That's the only thing Bob Young has gotten right yet.>

 >>Clear skies and keep looking up,

 >>Bob Young

 >Clear thinking and not looking up my rear end.

I thank Dr. Rudiak for debunking..... debunking the erroneous
visual pathology proposed by the skeptics to explain 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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

              Re: Another Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa

From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:24:08 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:06:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Another Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa


Dear Errol, friends & listmembers,

I would like to relay to you all another recent report which has
been brought to my attention regarding another anomalous radar
return picked up on the early warning radar system at RAF Saxa
Vord in the Shetland Isles.

For those members who are not familiar with the first case that
I presented to the website a year or so ago, you can read this
first sighting report on the UFO Scotland website by clicking
this link:

http://www.ufoscotland.co.uk/scotradar.htm

Ok now onto the second and more recent sighting which has been
relayed to me by yet another EX-RAF radar personnel who was
stationed at RAF Saxa Vord, but this time the sighting was from
the mid seventies and not sixties. I have been corresponding
with my source now for a few weeks since coming back online and
would like to share this more recent report with you all before
I add it to the website alongside the first report from Saxa
Vord.

For obvious reasons, I cannot relay all of the details supplied
by my source but will paste a section from a letter I received
where he has allowed permission for me to go public with his own
report. Unfortunately the date of this observation is a bit
vague but this does not detract from the actual report itself
suggesting another very anomalous and unexplained radar return.


ANOTHER ANOMALOUS RADAR RETURN FROM SAXA VORD?

DATE: 1976 - Sept / Oct ?
LOCATION: RAF Saxa Vord, Shetland Isles, Scotland.
SOURCE: Retired RAF personnel. Name witheld at Witnesses Request.

Report and Witness e-mail Interview by: Dave Ledger for UFO Scotland.


The extract from his letter follows:

"Assuming what I observed one night when on shift with my Type
80 was genuine (and I have no reason to believe it was not), the
return I saw was not weak or dubious - it was a good solid
return, without any accompanying secondary (IFF) radar return.

Given that the Type 80 rotated at 4 rpm, each sweep took 15
seconds. In the space of just 45 seconds (3 consecutive sweeps),
my colleague and I saw this solid return travel over 450 miles.
There was no mistaking it. We sat there with our mouths open for
a moment, not quite believing what we had just seen. Given this
was around 0100 or 0115 one night, most of the rest of the crew
were resting and only we two were 'on the dark side' of the
cloth, watching the big orange displays trundle round.

By my mathematics, given that speed = distance/time, s = 450
miles /45 seconds = at least 10 miles per second. Multiply that
figure by 216000 (60 * 60 * 60) for mph and you get 2160
THOUSAND miles per hour. That's fast. My operator colleague
calculated the speed of the return and declared 'we're not going
to report that - too much paperwork'

And there we left it.

This is a true story, no bullshit, no embellishment. And it was
a one-off. I never saw anything like it again.

Some would say that it was a spurious return - noise if you will
- but the Type 80 was really very good in that respect. If there
was any noise in the receivers, it tended to show up a gaggle of
weak speckles along the length of the trace on the displays, not
as individual returns.

By all means put this info on the website, and correct (refine)
what you already have there with my input. The more accurate it
is, the more likely you will gain credibility. I would prefer my
name not to be used, but you are welcome to use my initials (AD)
as I am still subject to the official secrets act and have a job
which still involves the wonderful world of officialdom (if you
know what I mean !)"

(End Paste.)

If any of the listmembers would like to add anything or even
know of any further cases from early warning radar stations,
please do not hesitate to get in touch with me at the usual
address.(dledger@ufoscotland.co.uk) I would personally like to
thank my source for coming forward with this important
information and will continue to relay to you all, any further
findings which we may unravel in the future.

All the very best for now,

 From your friend,


Dave Ledger (UFO Scotland)


******************************************************************
If you see someone without a smile......give them one of yours :0)
******************************************************************
Posted by: Dave Ledger  (mailto:dledger@ufoscotland.co.uk)
Visit "UFO SCOTLAND" at: http://www.ufoscotland.co.uk
http://www.ufoscotland.co.uk UFO Scotland
UFO SCOTLAND mailing list: http://ufoscotland.listbot.com
******************************************************************
THE TRUTH IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER!..................BUT HOW FAR?
******************************************************************
"The sands of time are trickling away from our dear mother Earth
and yet we continue to fight amongst ourselves and destroy our
natural enviroment,leaving all the mess for our children and
their children's children to inherit when we're gone."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                          Secrecy News -- 06/07/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 13:37:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:28:00 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 06/07/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
June 7, 2001

**AN ALTERNATIVE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW
**PERU SEEKS U.S. MONTESINOS DOCUMENTS
**ASHCROFT ON SECURITY POLICY


AN ALTERNATIVE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW

The United States should unilaterally eliminate some 5,500
nuclear weapons from its arsenal, according to a new report
sponsored by three arms control organizations.

The report was prepared as a contribution to the Bush
Administration's ongoing Nuclear Posture Review, which could
provide an opportunity to fundamentally rethink the role of
nuclear weapons in national security.

Public input into the process is not particularly welcome.
Nevertheless, in the hope of engaging public attention and
influencing the outcome of the Review, a group of
non-governmental scientists and other nuclear weapon specialists
has prepared a new report entitled "Toward True Security: A US
Nuclear Posture for the Next Decade."

Among its principal recommendations, the new report calls for
deep cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The authors argue that
this would serve to reduce the threat of accidental launch of
Russian nuclear weapons and to strengthen the non-proliferation
regime.

"No plausible threat can be foreseen that justifies the United
States maintaining more than a few hundred survivable nuclear
weapons over the next decade or beyond. Nor does any plausible
threat require the United States to maintain the ability to
launch large numbers of its nuclear weapons promptly, in a
matter of minutes, or even in a matter of hours," the report
states.

"We recommend that the United States unilaterally reduce its
nuclear arsenal to a total of 1,000 nuclear warheads and take
measures to increase the amount of time required to launch these
weapons. By easing Russia's concerns about the potential
vulnerability of its nuclear deterrent, these steps would give
Russia an incentive to adopt a safer nuclear posture for its own
nuclear arsenal. They would also provide an incentive to other
nuclear weapon states to engage in multilateral negotiations for
deeper, verified nuclear reductions."

The new report, which was jointly sponsored by the Union of
Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and
the Federation of American Scientists, may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/ssp/docs/010600-posture.htm


PERU SEEKS U.S. MONTESINOS DOCUMENTS

The Government of Peru has invoked the Freedom of Information
Act to request that the U.S. Government release certain
documents concerning Vladimiro Montesinos, the disgraced
intelligence chief to former Peruvian President Alberto
Fujimori. Montesinos is wanted on suspicion of corruption, human
rights violations and various other crimes.

Asked about the status of the Peruvian FOIA request, the State
Department said yesterday, "This is a lengthy process but we are
moving forward with all due diligence to respond." See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/06/dos060601.html

A number of previously declassified documents on Montesinos have
been published by the National Security Archive on its web site
here:

http://www.nsarchive.org/NSAEBB/NSAEBB37/


ASHCROFT ON SECURITY POLICY

Attorney General John Ashcroft was questioned yesterday about a
range of security policy issues at a hearing of the House
Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Barney Frank asked Ashcroft to affirm the policy that
sexual orientation shall not be a basis for denial of a security
clearance.

Rep. Frank noted that "We have no cases that I'm aware of where
people betrayed the country because they were gay or lesbian.
Indeed, as I've reviewed the major cases of espionage, the
people who committed it were all heterosexual," he observed. "I
draw no inferences about heterosexuals based on that," he added
jokingly.

After being prompted several times, Attorney General Ashcroft
agreed that the current policy on sexual orientation and
security clearances would remain unchanged.

He was also questioned about FBI misconduct in the Wen Ho Lee
case, the use of secret evidence ("We have not to date during
this administration used such evidence"), racial profiling, and
the Jonathan Pollard case. See excerpts from the hearing here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/06/ash060601.html

******************************
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

               Re: What's Wrong With MUFON Brazil? - Ticchetti

From: Thiago Luiz Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 17:03:47 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:36:52 -0400
Subject: Re: What's Wrong With MUFON Brazil? - Ticchetti


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 17:29:01 -0400
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 08:43:10 -0400
 >Subject: What's Wrong With MUFON Brazil?

 >Hi All,

 >I received the following (disturbing) e-mail from our friends at
 >the Brazil Academy of Parasciences, S.A. I have _no_ idea what
 >is going with MUFON Brazil, or why I was sent a copy of this
 >correspondence. I am not (and have never been) a member of
 >MUFON. I know there are MUFON directors on this List and I'm
 >hoping one of them can shed a little light on this.



John, I do not know why Mr. Philip Van Putten. I know some of
the MUFON Regional Directors in Brasil and they are not
mystical.

The current MUFON National Director for Brazil is Mr. A.J.
Gevaerd. I am sure that the most part of you have heard about
him.

He is in front of the Revista UFO magazine since years ago. The
revista UFO magazine is the oldest publication still in the
market. He works hard, very hard to make a serious ufology here
in Brazil. And he has reliable people with him. People that
spend his own money, time and energy to write the magazine, to
reserach the cases and to bring up a respectable ufology.

So I do not know why Mr. Philip is yelling. I think that he had
his chance. Unhappily he could get results.

I do not know Mr. Van Putten personally, I have nothing against
him. But I do know Gevaerd, I worked for a week with him and
still do writing fot the Revista UFO magazine.

So I advise you, before judge wrong, listen the both parts, and
then take your conclusion.

Well, that's what's going on here in Brazil.


My best regards,

Thiago Luiz Ticchetti
vice-chairman EBE-ET/Braslia-Brazil









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                       International UFO Research Day

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:12:04 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:40:24 -0400
Subject: International UFO Research Day


International UFO Research Day

On June 24th we join hands with the all the world in the
celebration of "International UFO Research Day."

Joint today, for information visit:

http://www.ovni.net/noticias/ufo_day.html#participantes


Very truly,

Dr. Virgilio Snchez-Ocejo

Miami UFO Center
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/ufomiami/index.html
Chupacabras
http://ufomiami.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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                 Disclosure Project IRC Chat June 10th 2001

From: Giuliano-Jimmy-Marinkovicc <9a4ag@clarc.org>
Date: Thu,  7 Jun 2001 17:40:05 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:45:52 -0400
Subject: Disclosure Project IRC Chat June 10th 2001


As you will see in the information below, IRC chat about
Disclosure project is about to happen.

Background data:

When: June 10th 2001. 18:00 PST
       June 11th 2001. 01:00 GMT

Subject of the chat: Disclosure project and National Press Club Conference
                      from May 9th 2001. in Wasington DC.

Where: Chat will be available via software for IRC (Internet Relay Chat).
        irc server: chat.destinationspace.net
        port: 6667
        channel: #briefing
        Chat will also be available via URL link at
        http://www.destinationspace.net

See the info below:

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

 >From: "Mark Hall" <markh@destinationspace.net>
 >Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:04:44 +0100
 >Subject: [DestSpaceStaff]Destination Space Disclosure Project June 10th Chat

 >Hi all!

 >I wonder if you could do me a favour and forward the below email onto
 >EVERYONE in your email address book.

 >I have told Steve and Alfred that we'll have many people in the chat because
 >of advertising.  I hope to have at least 40.  When UK UFO Mag and UFOCity
 >gets the advert on their site, we should get some attention.

 >For your information, the following people may attend the chat as normal
 >public:-

 >Peter Robbins, Graham Birdsall, Nick Redfern.

 >Those are the confirmations I have had.

 >You never know, we may get up to 100, but only if you advertise us.  This
 >may be the best publicity we have ever had, with UFOCity and UK UFO Mag's
 >help.  If you know of anyone else who has a website, please ask them to
 >advertise us.

 >I have also asked James Oberg, and before anyone complains, I think it'll
 >be good to get a major sceptic in.  Just in case he does come into the chat,
 >Markie, can you help us?

 >Cheers,

 >Mark.

 >>----- Original Message -----
 >>From: Mark Hall
 >>To: Mark Snowdon ; Don Ecker ; Graham Birdsall ; Russel Callaghan ; Peter
 >>Robbins
 >>Cc: Diana Botsford ; Stephen Bassett
 >>Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 12:33 AM
 >>Subject: IMPORTANT - Destination Space Disclosure Project June 10th Chat

 >>Hi,

 >>For your information, this chat hosted by Destination Space will have the
 >>guests Stephen Bassett and Disclosure Project witness Alfred Webre. It will
 >>also have me as an ordinary Joe who was there at Washington DC May 9th Press
 >>Club, where there were about 25 TV Cameras and over 100 of the World's media
 >>there, including BBC, CNN, NBC, Fox News, Washington Times, Washington Post,
 >>UPI, amongst others.

 >>For further details please see
 >>http://www.destinationspace.net/ufo/chat/ufochat.asp#guest

 >>The chat will take place on Sunday June 10th at 18.00 US Pacific Time
 >>(02.00am June 11th UK Time)

 >>Please publicise as wide as earthly possible.

 >>Cheers,

 >>Mark.

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

Sent and re-sent by:
<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>
|   Giuliano-Jimmy-Marinkovicc                                  |
|   Ante Starchevicca 25/c, 23000 Zadar, Croatia, Europe        |
|   telephone: +385-98-64-78-23                                 |
|   ICQ UIN #66584465                                           |
<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>
|   Analytical Group for Extra-Terrestrial Information => AGETI |
|   AGETI founder http://www.clarc.org/~9a4ag                   |
|   To subscribe to AGETI mailing list send a blank e-mail to:  |
|   ageti-subscribe@eGroups.com                                 |
|   http://www.egroups.com/group/ageti                          |
<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>
|   Author, Writer and Director of                              |
|   TV documentary series "THE CROATIAN X-FILES"                |
<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>
|   Writer of UFO column in Croatian magazine AURA              |
<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>
|   Radio station DONAT-FM, 97,2 Mhz WFM                        |
|   Obala kneza Branimira 12, 23000 Zadar, Croatia, Europe      |
|   telephone: +385-23-236-380                                  |
|   Fax:       +385-23-236-365                                  |
|   Author/Host of the radio program "THE UFO-X-FILES"          |
|   Cooperator of the radio program "UFOPORT" (Radio Rijeka     |
<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 21:49:44 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:51:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:22:17 -0500

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:45:14 -0300

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:57:05 -0500


 >Stan,

 >>>When this dismal episode was occurring, I tried to dissuade Stan
 >>>from pursuing what I considered, and still consider, a rash and
 >>>destructive course of action. It is one of ufology's low
 >>>moments, and if we are lucky, nothing like it will happen again.

 >>I find this notion really strange. Yes, when I informed you of
 >>the Manchester Evening News article, you felt that there was no
 >>way Jenny could have said those things and the problem must be
 >>MEN.and I should just turn the other cheek. It took quite a bit
 >>of effort, but finally we obtained the very defamatory letter
 >>from Jenny that was the stimulus for the defamatory MEN article
 >>complete with Jenny's picture. She was much more defamatory than
 >>the MEN. Harry Harris and I initially would have settled for a
 >>simple published apology. But Jenny refused and kept blaming the
 >>MEN. She was willing to apologize personally.. which did nothing
 >>about the 3/4 of a million people exposed to the published
 >>defamation. The MEN, I am told, is the largest circulation
 >>Newspaper in England outside of London.

 >>For reasons UNKNOWN, a group of people did indeed join Jenny to
 >>fight this "Freedom of Speech" case... poor Jenny against a 'Rich
 >>American'. What nonsense! There has never been absolute
 >>freedom of speech.

 >This last point is legally true, but irrelevant to the current
 >discussion. Not even you have accused Jenny Randles of shouting
 >"Fire!" in a crowded theater, or anything close to it.

I certainly didn't accuse her of shouting fire. I noted 4
examples on limits of freedom of expression. The one that was
relevant was defamation. There was no prior restraint. I was
defamed. I asked for a public apology from the MEN and Jenny.
That was denied by Jenny. The MEN had come around quickly.

 >The reasons so many people defended Jenny are hardly "unknown"
 >or obscure. They have to do with a little principle known as
 >freedom of expression, even expression to which one may take
 >furious exception. No one disputes your right to be angry and to
 >demand an apology for what was said about you. I didn't much
 >like it myself, and I don't defend it.

 >That doesn't mean that I like what you did next, which was to
 >move to inflict maximum harm on Jenny for what was no more than
 >an exercise in bad judgment. In the United States, whose libel
 >laws are far saner, and far more tilted toward maximum free
 >expression, than Britain's (thanks in good part to our First
 >Amendment), your case would almost certainly have been thrown
 >out of court.

I had noted in one of the many items you snipped, but did not
note, that this was a UK publication and a UK citizen and that
the laws of defamation are very different in the two countries
when it comes to public figures. Who are you to judge that the
US laws are far saner? They apply in the USA not in the UK. I
did not move to inflict maximum harm. Where did that come from?
We could have insisted on a trial instead of settling out of
court.

 >(I should mention here that nothing that you objected to gets
 >close to the malicious lies some of my critics-I won't name them
 >here, for fear of encouraging them-have circulated about me over
 >the years. I haven't sued anybody, nor have I any plans to do
 >so.)

Were those malicious lies published in the UK and covered by UK
laws? Were they published in a publication with a huge
circulation? Certainly lies and defamation are not necessarily
synonymous .Perhaps there would be less defamation if those
defamed wouldn't roll over for it.

 >Your decision to give vent to a desire to silence expression you
 >didn't like - whatever the provocation - was, in my (and, as you
 >know, many others') judgment, both a poor decision and a
 >terrible precedent.

How can I be accused of a desire to silence expression? The
defamation was a done deed. I didn't silence it. I wanted my
good name back. By Jenny's refusing a prompt and full public
apology and even falsely denying any responsibility for the MEN
defamation, I was the one denied a public free expression of
apology. That was the terrible precedent, not my wanting my
reputation back. I did get the public published apology, which
would seem to have made it a good decision.

 >You would have been off to take the
 >criticism, however outrageously unfair it may have been from
 >your perspective, and brought your complaints to your fellow
 >ufologists, not to the court. If you had done so, my guess is
 >that you would have attracted rather more sympathy than you now
 >have for your position.

Brought my complaints to fellow ufologists??? Just how many are
there and what would they have done to make up for the
defamation of my good name to hundreds of thousands of people in
an area in which I expected (rightfully, as it turned out) to
appear again?. Is there some kind of ufologists court which
would have obtained the public apology for me?

Jerry, I have been speaking about flying saucers for 34 years.
My goal is to reach, and change, the world. Almost all my
lectures and TV and radio appearances and papers and books and
videos and CD-ROM are aimed at the public... those I often refer
to as healthy agnostics. Not at ufologists. Whatever that term
is supposed to mean. Obviously I had to bring action against
Jenny as the offending defamer as well as against the MEN which
published it. We dropped any action against Bufora though the
defaming article made it seem as though Jenny were speaking for
them. I should note that I haven't gone around defaming Jenny
since and that it was one of the "freedom of expression" guys
who brought this up, not me. As far as I was concerned, it was
done and over.

 >You have made many positive contributions to our field, Stan.
 >This just happens not to be one of them, and I hope that one
 >day you will be able to see this matter as others see it.

Thanks for acknowledging that I have made many positive
contributions to our "field"... whatever that means. Did you
ever consider that perhaps my gaining an apology might have made
newspapers and researchers more careful about what they printed
and said and might have toned down criticism in the press about
"American" ufologists? It wasn't noted that I was a scientist.
after all.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 7

                            MUFON Brazil Responds

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 00:24:00 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:57:10 -0400
Subject: MUFON Brazil Responds


Posted on behalf of A.J.Gevaerd


Dear John and people at UFO UpDates:

I've been informed of a message from Philippe Piet van Putten
about MUFON Brazil, just posted in this List. As I am no longer
a member of this List, I asked Thiago Ticchetti to send this
reply in order to clear things, correct a few mistakes and
inform what exactly is going on about MUFON Brazil.

As some of you know, I was appointed National Director for MUFON
(which became MUFON Brazil) a few years ago, replacing Philippe
Piet van Putten at that position. As a fact, this person was
actually ejected from the directorship because in all the years
that he was in charge he got no more than half a dozen new
members for MUFON in this country.

Soon after I assumed the position, with clearance from Mr.
Andrus, I started reorganizing the board of members in Brazil
and in a few months I had appointed almost 20 new state
directors and a number of state section directors, plus dozens
of new members as field investigators etc. From the new board of
state and state section directors, all the appointed people were
among the best UFO researchers of this country. They still are.

Philippe Piet van Putten was expelled by Mr. Andrus because he
completely failed to do what I did, as he had no credibility to
do so. It isn't true that he was "cautions in naming people", as
he wrote to UFO UpDates. He simply didn�t name anybody. Also, it
is a complete lie when he says that the new National Director,
me, "started to name people related to the same kind of mystical
(New Age) approach towards the UFO phenomenon". However, he is
correct when he says that those people are my friends. Oh yeah,
they are! And they are also very good, competent UFO
researchers.

But the real origin of his criticism towards me and MUFON Brazil
is very another one, that he tried to camouflage with this
issue. In fact, long time ago Philippe was caught in several
lies and we had a serious argument that lasts until now. As it
became clear that his character wasn't reliable, 99% of the
Brazilian UFO community joined me and isolated him also from
congresses and any kind of other activities in this area. His
Brazilian Academy of Parascience is a bogus organization,
composed only by him and his wife alone. Nobody else.

In his message to this List he criticizes me and my
administration of MUFON Brazil, performing an unethical
behavior. However, I won't act the same and I chose not to
reveal here why exactly MUFON didn't grow anything while he was
director, as I have it all documented. He said he is "ashamed
and did not accept� what MUFON Brazil "became", but he should be
ashamed to continue this non-sense discussion in forums such as
this, spreading lies without any respect for other people's
work.

For those who don't know me, I am the editor of the Brazilian
UFO Magazine, which I founded 17 years ago. It is a monthly
publication largely respected in this country even the skeptics,
as it has a serious, scientific orientation. I have printed over
170 editions and about 3,000,000 copies. Over 400 authors have
contributed with articles and more that 1,000 new UFO
researchers have been revealed by the magazine.

Sincerely,

A. J. Gevaerd

Editor, Brazilian UFO Magazine

National Director, MUFON Brazil

gevaerd@ufo.com.br



Thiago Luiz Ticchetti
Vice-Presidente da Entidade Brasileira de Estudos
Extraterrestres(Braslia/Brasil)
(EBE-ET VICE PRESIDENT)

www.ebe-et.com.br
ICQ 35119615









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                 Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Grant Cameron

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 7 Jun 2001 20:43:58 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:50:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Grant Cameron


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:22:03 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Walker at one point admitted to going to the
 >crash site on Dec. 9 along with two off-duty military people.
 >Walker was then with the Institute for Defense Analysis.
 >Walker's daughter also remembers him being suddenly called out
 >there, though my memory on the details of this are very
 >sketchy.


David:

"Off-duty" suggests that the military people had _not_ been
"called out", but were just there for the fun of it, after
hearing the bizarre PR screw-up about this fruitless search on
the radio. Probably Walker was also there on his own, at the
time he was on the Engineering faculty of either Penn State or
the University of Pittsburg, I forget which.

At the time Walker was President at Penn State University. Also
Chairman of the Board at the Institute for Defense Analysis. In
fact he gave the commencement address the morning after he
attended the crash. Kecksburg was 100 miles as the crow flies
from the University.

Walker had his own pilot's license and plane at Penn State. He
could have been in the air minutes after a phone call.

Walker also mentioned the unofficial nature of people working on
the UFO problem in connection with communication attempts with
the aliens. Is was clear he meant unofficial - therefore no
records, and a secondary system of investigating.

Scott may correct me, but I don't believe his daughter was ever
involved. Scott questioned the son, a medical doctor, but me
knew nothing.

Grant Cameron



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

I wouldn't land on the White House Lawn and talk to those
people, and try to communicate. I assume that the UFO guys are
smarter than I am. They too would realize there is no purpose in
that.  Daniel Sheehan, President Christic Institute










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                     Re: Wanted: Humanoid Cases - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:44:34 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:58:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Wanted: Humanoid Cases - Hatch


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Wanted: Humanoid Cases
 >Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:27:54 +0200

 >I am trying to identify the following humanoid case (some data,
 >even date and location, may be wrong, so read the details, they
 >may ring a bell) and specially to locate some illustration of
 >the ufonauts described. Can you help me?

 >July 21, 1991. Missouri

 >Three young girls notice a white, oval shaped light moving
 >rapidly in a corner of their yard, then standing there  was a
 >strange creature. Each girl separately described this creature
 >as thin with long slender fingers, bald egg shaped head with
 >ridges along the top. It was also described as having a
 >"transparent" abdominal area. All witnesses were considered
 >reliable and displayed considerable consternation and fright
 >after this encounter.

 >This description appeared in a stamp set emitted (with texts in
 >English!) in Nicaragua and I would like to check its accuracy.



Hello Luis:

Sorry, but not much help from me I'm afraid!

I went thru my database all sorts of ways, and the following
record is about as close as I can come ..

#16583: 1995 JAN 09  0330hrs  3 minutes duration
77:11:20W x 43:8:40N  3333  NAM USA NYK  8 5
MARION,NY:YOUNG GIRL:LITES OUTSIDE:4-foot (120 cm)
humanoid and WEIRD LITES IN YARD: No further details.
Ref# 220 NATIONAL UFO REP.CTR (NUFORC) SEATTLE,WA.

The date is all wrong, so is the state (New York) which is
nowhere near Missouri. Instead of three girls there is only
one in this listing.

If I ever did see a writeup on the the 1991 Missouri case, I
must have passed on it for some reason. My NY case of 1995 is
hardly any different, and only boasts a single witness.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 8

               Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord? -

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 07:38:18 -0300
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:01:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord? -


 >From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Another Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa Vord?
 >Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:24:08 +0100

<snip>

 >ANOTHER ANOMALOUS RADAR RETURN FROM SAXA VORD?

 >DATE: 1976 - Sept / Oct ?
 >LOCATION: RAF Saxa Vord, Shetland Isles, Scotland.
 >SOURCE: Retired RAF personnel. Name witheld at Witnesses Request.

 >Report and Witness e-mail Interview by: Dave Ledger for UFO Scotland.

 >The extract from his letter follows:

<snip>

 >By my mathematics, given that speed = distance/time, s = 450
 >miles /45 seconds = at least 10 miles per second. Multiply that
 >figure by 216000 (60 * 60 * 60) for mph and you get 2160
 >THOUSAND miles per hour. That's fast. My operator colleague
 >calculated the speed of the return and declared 'we're not going
 >to report that - too much paperwork'

 >And there we left it.

 >This is a true story, no bullshit, no embellishment. And it was
 >a one-off. I never saw anything like it again.

 >Some would say that it was a spurious return - noise if you will
 >- but the Type 80 was really very good in that respect. If there
 >was any noise in the receivers, it tended to show up a gaggle of
 >weak speckles along the length of the trace on the displays, not
 >as individual returns.

<snip>

 >(End Paste.)

 >If any of the listmembers would like to add anything or even
 >know of any further cases from early warning radar stations,
 >please do not hesitate to get in touch with me at the usual
 >address.(dledger@ufoscotland.co.uk) I would personally like to
 >thank my source for coming forward with this important
 >information and will continue to relay to you all, any further
 >findings which we may unravel in the future.

Hi Dave,

Did your source reveal any information about the object's
altitude? Was there height finding capability radar on the base
as well? I'm sure there must have been. That speed of 2160 is
within the SR-71's range at high altitude.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                           Joint Global Activities

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:47:00 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:39:17 -0400
Subject: Joint Global Activities


Hi!

As part of the 'International UFO Research Day' there will be a
'Global UFO Alert'.

On June 24th observers from all these countries will unite as
brothers in this event: Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Mxico,
Puerto Rico, Per, Colombia, Spain, United States, UK, Brazil,
Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Dutch Antilles, and others. UFO
sighting reports should be mailed to your local or preferred UFO
research organization.

The world watch will begin at 10:00 PM EST Saturday June 23rd
and will end on Sunday June 24th at 2:00 AM EST.

Report sightings during the Global UFO Alert here:

http://www.ovni.net/formuforeport.html


For complete information and the list of participating UFO
Organizations and independent researchers visit:

http://www.ovni.net/noticias/ufo_day.html#participantes

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


This is a good idea to do something  positive, with your family
and... away from your computer!!! (>_<)


Very truly,

Dr. Virgilio Snchez-Ocejo

Miami UFO Center
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/ufomiami/index.html
Chupacabras
http://ufomiami.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 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:41:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:41:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 21:49:44 -0300


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:22:17 -0500

 >>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:45:14 -0300

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:57:05 -0500


Stan,

 >>>For reasons UNKNOWN, a group of people did indeed join Jenny to
 >>>fight this "Freedom of Speech" case... poor Jenny against a 'Rich
 >>>American'. What nonsense! There has never been absolute
 >>>freedom of speech.

 >>This last point is legally true, but irrelevant to the current
 >>discussion. Not even you have accused Jenny Randles of shouting
 >>"Fire!" in a crowded theater, or anything close to it.

 >I certainly didn't accuse her of shouting fire. I noted 4
 >examples on limits of freedom of expression. The one that was
 >relevant was defamation. There was no prior restraint. I was
 >defamed. I asked for a public apology from the MEN and Jenny.
 >That was denied by Jenny. The MEN had come around quickly.

Well, of course it did. No magazine or institution wants to get
sued, whether it believes the claimant has a case or not.
Especially under the draconian standards of British libel law.

 >>That doesn't mean that I like what you did next, which was to
 >>move to inflict maximum harm on Jenny for what was no more than
 >>an exercise in bad judgment. In the United States, whose libel
 >>laws are far saner, and far more tilted toward maximum free
 >>expression, than Britain's (thanks in good part to our First
 >>Amendment), your case would almost certainly have been thrown
 >>out of court.

 >I had noted in one of the many items you snipped, but did not
 >note, that this was a UK publication and a UK citizen and that
 >the laws of defamation are very different in the two countries
 >when it comes to public figures. Who are you to judge that the
 >US laws are far saner? They apply in the USA not in the UK. I
 >did not move to inflict maximum harm. Where did that come from?
 >We could have insisted on a trial instead of settling out of
 >court.

U.S. laws are far saner, thanks in good part to our First
Amendment - a constitutional principle with which you would do
well to make better acquaintance.

The greater room for free expression we have here has been
widely remarked on by students of civil liberties on both sides
of the water, and it was remarked on at the time you were suing
Jenny Randles. And you did maximum harm to Jenny. She had little
money to start with, and you demanded a share of that, and you
also made sure that whatever grievance she may have against you,
she won't dare utter a peep in the future. I couldn't help
noticing how cautiously even John Rimmer brought up the subject,
and how timidly even the British UFO press, whatever its private
outrage, covered this episode as it was happening. You scared
the hell out of people.

 >>(I should mention here that nothing that you objected to gets
 >>close to the malicious lies some of my critics-I won't name them
 >>here, for fear of encouraging them-have circulated about me over
 >>the years. I haven't sued anybody, nor have I any plans to do
 >>so.)

 >Were those malicious lies published in the UK and covered by UK
 >laws? Were they published in a publication with a huge
 >circulation? Certainly lies and defamation are not necessarily
 >synonymous .Perhaps there would be less defamation if those
 >defamed wouldn't roll over for it.

And there'd be a hell of a lot less free expression. Commitment
to free expression doesn't mean commitment just to nice,
inoffensive speech that doesn't hurt our feelings or piss us
off. That's no commitment at all.

 >>Your decision to give vent to a desire to silence expression you
 >>didn't like - whatever the provocation - was, in my (and, as you
 >>know, many others') judgment, both a poor decision and a
 >>terrible precedent.

 >How can I be accused of a desire to silence expression? The
 >defamation was a done deed. I didn't silence it. I wanted my
 >good name back. By Jenny's refusing a prompt and full public
 >apology and even falsely denying any responsibility for the MEN
 >defamation, I was the one denied a public free expression of
 >apology. That was the terrible precedent, not my wanting my
 >reputation back. I did get the public published apology, which
 >would seem to have made it a good decision.

The price we pay for free expression is, for one, having to see
our good names dragged in the mud from time to time, especially
if one is a public figure - and legally speaking, that's what
you and I are. Which is why if this issue had come up in an
American court, your case would have gotten nowhere.

 >>You would have been off to take the
 >>criticism, however outrageously unfair it may have been from
 >>your perspective, and brought your complaints to your fellow
 >>ufologists, not to the court. If you had done so, my guess is
 >>that you would have attracted rather more sympathy than you now
 >>have for your position.

 >Brought my complaints to fellow ufologists??? Just how many are
 >there and what would they have done to make up for the
 >defamation of my good name to hundreds of thousands of people in
 >an area in which I expected (rightfully, as it turned out) to
 >appear again?. Is there some kind of ufologists court which
 >would have obtained the public apology for me?

What harm really was done to you? Were you able to demonstrate
any, other than the understandable anger you felt at what you
consider (and I agree) to be unjust criticism? How long are the
memories of newspaper readers anyway? How many of them would
have recalled the offending article the next day, much less the
next month, even less the next year? Do you realize just how
much information we are bombarded with _daily_ and how little
even the most attentive of us remember? Your reaction to the
offending article was all out of proportion to any harm you
could demonstrate empirically. Nobody except you would even know
or remember that such a piece had ever appeared if you had not
acted as you did.

You and I are answerable, it seems to me, to our colleagues. We
are part of a (sort of) community of (sort of) scholars, who
know the subject and who can make some reasonable judgment about
our respective roles in it. Our fellow ufologists, frankly, are
the only ones who give a damn about us, at least in a
professional sense (I'm sure our friends and family love us),
and it is they with whom we have a longterm relationship. It is
they who remember.

 >Jerry, I have been speaking about flying saucers for 34 years.
 >My goal is to reach, and change, the world. Almost all my
 >lectures and TV and radio appearances and papers and books and
 >videos and CD-ROM are aimed at the public... those I often refer
 >to as healthy agnostics. Not at ufologists. Whatever that term
 >is supposed to mean. Obviously I had to bring action against
 >Jenny as the offending defamer as well as against the MEN which
 >published it. We dropped any action against Bufora though the
 >defaming article made it seem as though Jenny were speaking for
 >them. I should note that I haven't gone around defaming Jenny
 >since and that it was one of the "freedom of expression" guys
 >who brought this up, not me. As far as I was concerned, it was
 >done and over.

Maybe for you. What I'd like to know, is Jenny still paying you
money every month? And just how much money has that come to over
the years?

 >>You have made many positive contributions to our field, Stan.
 >>This just happens not to be one of them, and I hope that one
 >>day you will be able to see this matter as others see it.

 >Thanks for acknowledging that I have made many positive
 >contributions to our "field"... whatever that means. Did you
 >ever consider that perhaps my gaining an apology might have made
 >newspapers and researchers more careful about what they printed
 >and said and might have toned down criticism in the press about
 >"American" ufologists? It wasn't noted that I was a scientist.
 >after all.

I don't know why the word field is so hard to understand. Would
you prefer subject or topic or discipline or focus of interest?

And as to the question, you've made my point explicitly: your
lawsuit had the effect of squelching free expression, as I
stated originally. Now you're actually defending it on those
grounds. In fact, if, as you suggest, British papers are slower
to criticize American ufologists because they fear being sued
again, that is no victory at all, my friend. It just makes us
American ufologists look like bullies who can dish it out but
can't take it.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                     Menzel and Gill [Was: Revenna 1966)

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:33:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:45:04 -0400
Subject: Menzel and Gill [Was: Revenna 1966)


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:20:41 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:31:15 EDT
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:11:59 EDT
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young


 >Take a look at the whole pages of saucer shapes presented at the
 >1968 Congressional Hearings, a classic set of astigmatic images
 >if I every say one.

 >See Donald Menzel's comments about Father Gill's sighting.

 >[Pause for howls]

Consider yourself howled at, Bob, and thank you for
reminding me again why I am not a debunker.

As it happens, I spent several hours one day with Father Gill,
whom I met in Evanston, Illinois, in 1977. I wanted to ask him,
among other things, about the supposed solutions to his sighting
conjured up by Menzel and Philip J. Klass (who, in
characteristic debunker fashion, had put forth different,
mutually exclusive explanations). Gill turned out to be a
bright, sensible, impressive man, the very opposite of the
foolish character that debunkers - who had, of course, never met
him or even interviewed him by phone or mail - had depicted. He
seemed more puzzled than annoyed at what the pelicanists had
written about him. (Bill Chalker, who knows Father Gill far
better than I, will verify what I have said here.)

The rest of you, promise you won't laugh now, but here's what
Menzel proposed as a solution to the sighting Gill and more than
30 other witnesses reported experiencing:

In Menzel's view (which can fairly be termed racist), the only
witness who mattered was Gill, because the others were
impressionalbe natives who didn't understand English very well
and who would agree to anything "their great white leader"
(Menzel's actual phrase, believe it or not) said, to the extent
that they would even sign a statement attesting to a sighting of
a UFO with occupants. Menzel added that their English illiteracy
made it, moreover, unlikely that they knew what they were
signing.

Menzel went on to claim, with zero supporting evidence, that
Menzel saw Venus but was suffering from astigmatism. In a final
flourish, he added, "The slight irregularities on the 'hairs' of
the lashes, perhaps dust or moisture, could easily be
interpreted as activity of the 'beings' inhabiting the saucer."
How did Menzel know Gill had seen Venus, not a UFO? Because of,
according to Menzel, Gill's failure to mention seeing Venus. In
reality, Gill had stated plainly, "I saw Venus, but I also saw
this sparkling object [the large UFO] ... above Venus."

Beyond that, Gill offered these observations:

"That 'great white leader' business might happen in Hollywood
movies about African missionaries, but certainly not where I
was. I was sent to Boianai [in Papua New Guinea - no comma, by
the way, between Papua and New Guinea, as most accounts
erroneously have it] to sort things out because there were
certain problems caused by a growing anti- European feeling.
They didn't want a European there at all because I was a
stranger to the district..... We had some real difficulties.....
The people at Boianai were fairly well educated, and in fact
some of them went on to assume leadership positions in the
surrounding communities. I should emphasize that their education
was in English. From grade three onwards they're doing all their
schoolwork in English. These people are quite gifted
linguists..... So there is no basis to Menzel's charge that they
had no idea what they were signing..... If we were making some
up that wasn't true or if I had been hallucinating something the
others weren't seeing, I'm quite certain that within a week - at
the outside - I would have been exposed because the members of
the anti- European faction were looking hard for a chance to
show up the 'great white leader.'"

Gill added that while he did not specifically recall wearing
glasses that day, he certainly would have remembered - given his
vision problems - if he had _not_ had his glasses on. Those of
you who, like me, can't negotiate through the world without your
glasses will know whereof he speaks.

One would like to hope that Menzel's ignorant, racist reading of
the Gill CE3 will not be cited again by anyone who expects to be
taken seriously, but one expects that hope to be in vain. Bad
debunkings have one thing in common: they're unkillable.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 8

                   Mexico: Strange Light In Nolo, Yucatan

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:57:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:50:02 -0400
Subject: Mexico: Strange Light In Nolo, Yucatan


SOURCE: C.A.F.E. A.C. Group (Ing. David Triay Lucatero)
DATE: 06/06/01

****** SIGHTING REPORT *********

Day:  May 13, 2001
Time: 8:00 pm local time (6 GMT)
Place: Haaltun-Ha.Farm, Nolo
Witnesses: Rosario Loeza Martin
Type of Encounter: CE-1
Smell: No particular smell detected
Sound: Sound similar to branches breaking on the ground

Event Summary

Mrs. Rosario Loeza, widow of Vicente Martin Guemez, saw a flash
of light at the Haaltun-Ha Farm in the town of Nolo on the 13th
of May of this year.

At night, while removing the tables and chairs used for a
celebration held earlier that day, Mrs. Loeza noticed that
behind a water basin where her late husband had built an exact
replica of the Chichen Itza pyramid, there was a sudden flash of
light bright enought to have been that of a lamp, accompanied by
a rustling sound.

Mrs. Loeza called her son Gabriel and asked him to take a look.
He saw nothing even as he moved deeper into the dense
vegetation--no burn marks, no strange smells. He ventured into
neighboring properties and found nothing that could account for
the unexplained luminous phenomenon.

Gabriel returned to his activities, removing chairs from the
farm to take them back home, when his mother and younger sister
summoned him once more, saying that the light had reappeared.
This prompted them to leave their chores until the following
day, and leave the farm immediately.

Additional Remarks

These lights were not beaming down from the sky--rather, they
appeared to emerge from behind the basin and have a duration of
several seconds, clearly illuminating the trees in the area
located behind the basin. The following day, Gabriel Martin
returned to the farm and found nothing that could explain the
previous nights events.

It is worth noting that it was on this farm where the late
Vicente Martin built a pyramid of similar proportions to the
original seen in Chichen Itza, where on the 21st of March it is
possible see the phenomenon of the equinox, which held special
significance for the Mayas.


#############################

Translation (C) 2001. Scott Corrales, Institute of Hispanic
Ufology. Special Thanks to Ing. David Triay Lucatero, CAFEAC.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 8

               Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord? -

From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:47:14 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:53:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord? -


 >From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
 >Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:24:08 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord?


 >Dear Errol, friends & listmembers,

 >I would like to relay to you all another recent report which has
 >been brought to my attention regarding another anomalous radar
 >return picked up on the early warning radar system at RAF Saxa
 >Vord in the Shetland Isles.

 >For those members who are not familiar with the first case that
 >I presented to the website a year or so ago, you can read this
 >first sighting report on the UFO Scotland website by clicking
 >this link:

http://www.ufoscotland.co.uk/scotradar.htm

 >Ok now onto the second and more recent sighting which has been
 >relayed to me by yet another EX-RAF radar personnel who was
 >stationed at RAF Saxa Vord, but this time the sighting was from
 >the mid seventies and not sixties. I have been corresponding
 >with my source now for a few weeks since coming back online and
 >would like to share this more recent report with you all before
 >I add it to the website alongside the first report from Saxa
 >Vord.

 >For obvious reasons, I cannot relay all of the details supplied
 >by my source but will paste a section from a letter I received
 >where he has allowed permission for me to go public with his own
 >report. Unfortunately the date of this observation is a bit
 >vague but this does not detract from the actual report itself
 >suggesting another very anomalous and unexplained radar return.

Hi List and Dave,

Dave this is an interesting report, perhaps you should
correspond with Andy Roberts and David Clarke, as I am sure they
may be interested in both of these cases and their source/s.

On similar note, are you familiar with the controversial Captain
Schafer, 8 September 1970 case? If so, you may be in a position
to verify whether that story has any substance or not from your
source?

To briefly relay the details which were published in a two day
serial in the Grimsby Evening Telegraph. On 8 September, 1970 a
UFO was allegedly tracked on radar from Saxa Vord and no fewer
than 5 Lightnings, 2 Phantom jets, re-fuelling plane and a
Shackleton were scrambled to intercept. An American pilot on
exchange with the RAF at Binbrook (an experienced pilot with
Vietnam time notched on his belt) was asked to participate and
allegedly was guided towards a UFO that had been playing cat and
mouse games over the north sea with all these aforementioned
aircraft. Then the bright object, whatever it was, flew very
close to Schafer's plane and he was later 'strangely' ordered to
ditch his plane in the north sea, four miles from Flamborough in
fact. He did so; and was never seen again. Reputedly, before he
ditched he conversed with ground and relayed information about
said UFO. His plane was recovered and is chronicled in local
newspapers, however no real evidence to support this story has
ever surfaced, other than an unidentified ex-government 'deep
throat' informant who supposedly spilled the beans to Pat Otter
of the Grimsby Evening Telegraph. Captain Schafer's body as far
as the newspapers state was never recovered.

Perhaps you may like to ask your source if he/she worked at Saxa
Vord around this time? And if they knew anything about the
Schafer plane ditch/crash?


Best Regards,

Gary Anthony












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                         Re: Ravenna 1966 - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:25:52 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 09:12:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Maccabee


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:10:17 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:26:37 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >All of us who have been assigned from Clarion come with downward
 >hanging eyelashes.

Ah, yes, I forgot.

I do with the Extraterrestrial Immigration Service would send
you guys back to roast on your own planet.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                       Re: Talk And Action - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:26:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 09:15:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Maccabee


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:58:21 -0000


 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Talk And Action - Young
 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 17:00:02 -0400

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 02:37:30 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Where are the instrumented records of visitations?

 >It's not an "important point" at all. See my postings to Dennis
 >and some relevant ones by Brad Sparks. These networks generally
 >are programmed to exclude data that doesn't fit the profile of
 >some known phenomenon that they are looking for.

 >If and when something anaomalous is detected (and this is
 >fact-based, not speculation on my part) it is either discarded
 >as not relevant to the focused purpose of the net, or considered
 >"too hot to handle" by people who are intimidated by
 >skeptibunkers and fear for their reputations and careers if they
 >speak out. Lots of evidence out there to support this.

 >As I said to Dennis, UFOs are anathema in the scientific
 >community (as witness your attitudes if, indeed, you are a
 >scientist rather than the type of person you accused me of
 >being; a pretender cloaking himself in scientific language).

Already cited on this list is the story of the UBO (unidentified
bright object) picked up by a scanning photometer on Mt.
Haleakala (sp?) in Hawaii and reported in the Condon Report.
This object/light would have been ignored if the scientists
involved hadn't deided to, just this once, look for something
that culdn't be identified.

I previously reported the video taken on the same mountain top
in 1993 and reported on NIGHTLINE in July, 1996. Strange moving
lights were found in the imagery taken by a telescope designed
to look for satellites.

IT was analyzed by the scientists who decided that it couldn't
have been an airplane but then they didn't do anything with the
video. It was effectively "covered up" fr several years. It came
to my attention and to the world only because in th fall of 1995
someone surreptitiously provided a copy to Jay Lamonica of
NIGHTLINE.

The point is, here was a case of good video imagery of an
unidentified object (or collection of UFOs), and considered UFOs
because the scientists involved couldn't identify the lights, and
after failing to identify, they ignored this highly credible telescopi
sighting.

They did not consult a ufologist to find out if it could be
identified.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                       Re: The Will To Believe - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:22:20 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 09:17:15 -0400
Subject: Re: The Will To Believe - Hall


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: The Will To Believe
 >Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:10:54 -0700

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 21:18:46 -0000
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: The Will To Believe

 >>Some of my philosophical opponents in the skeptical/debunker
 >>camp may seize on these remarks, but I can't help stating that
 >>the 'will to believe' is alive and strong among those who
 >>continue to defend lost causes quite irrationally.

 >>Richard,

 >>The only irrational behavior I've found is the refusal by you
 >and others to look carefully at the evidence that we have
 >brought to the list. Have you looked closely at Neil Morris's
 >research? Did you carefully read M. Dennis's "A Discussion of
 >the Debris"? And most of all did you even read "The Day after
 >Roswell"? Haven't you spent any time viewing the AA footage and
 >why, if you're so concerned, have you never ordered the AA CDs?
 >I think your attitude exemplifies the main reason so little
 >progress is made toward solving the Roswell puzzle. At least
 >order the CDs and take a look for yourself.

Ed,

In fact I have read Corso's book carefully and found it to be
pure bovine excrement, and he did claim to be the "savior" of
the earth. I have to wonder if you have read it if you don't
reecall that.

I received very early on a complete, composite set of the AA
films on videotape from England (a promotional set by the
owners), and immediately spotted that the tent footage was a
hokey looking "loop." I studied the tape over and over, and
watched the behavior of the proponents, and found nothing but
strong indications of fraud, misrepresentation, and opportunism.

I even spoke with one of the film people in southern California
whose outfit had been offered the film at a high price, and
heard the (totally negative) evaluation by their expert film
people.

I have read most of the recent postings (as much as I could
stand) looking for anything halfway convincing, but find only
apologies for disgusting human behavior, for the most part. As
Rebecca said in an earlier posting, when a photographer comes
forth, when people stop trying to peddle incomplete and flawed
"data," etc., then I might become interested again.

 >>I am
 >>referring to 'alien autopsy' films, Corso as the 'saviour of the
 >>planet', and now pretty well discredited documents about MJ-12.
 >>(I do agree with those who say that something very much like
 >>MJ-12 may exist and the rest may be calculated disinformation.)

 >I don't recall anyone saying that Col. Corso was the 'savior of
 >the planet" and I have long admitted that mistakes were made by
 >both Corso and Birnes, but that doesn't mean that we should
 >disregard his testimony since he was who he said he was. You
 >offered that he was a megalomaniac without any proof. Do you
 >have any?

"Mistakes were made," eh? Corso himself claimed to be the
savior. I watched and taped Corso being interviewed several
times during the Roswell anniversary, during which he had ample
time to disown any statements that were not his. He never said a
word. His macho self-portrayal of charging around Washington
with a pistol, facing down "enemies" in the CIA, claiming a
central role for himself in major historical events, saving the
planet, etc. are clear signs of megalomania.

 >>Emotional commitment to a belief falls far short of being
 >>convincing scientific evidence. One must follow the evidence
 >>where it leads, even if it discredits things we have supported
 >>in the past or would like to believe.

 >Yes, but that is exactly what you refuse to do: follow the
 >evidence. Are you afraid of where it might lead?

"Afraid?" Why should I be? The evidence of fraud, megalomania,
and opportunism is all over the landscape, but you refuse to see
it, apparently because you want to believe Corso.

 >>But the level of argument
 >>on both sides of these issues leaves everything to be desired.

 >I don't agree. I and others have tried to answer all questions.
 >You may not like the answers but that's not my concern. My
 >concern is your refuseal to discuss the evidence we've presented
 >- not other side issues but the "evidence". To start, why don't
 >you reread the Debris article by M. Dennis and tell the list why
 >you feel this falls short of "being convincing scientific
 >evidence"?

You don't and can't answer the questions because you don't have
answers to the important questions such as the protocols of the
film, who it came from, etc., why certain things were done, why
the owners have constantly evaded critical testing. All you can
do is speculate in a very biased way.

 >>The skeptibunkers equally overstate their case and draw
 >>unjustified sweeping conclusions.

 >That's correct. But in this case, what separates you from a
 >"skeptibunker" mode? You have drawn sweeping conclusions about
 >the AA and Corso that I feel are totally unjustified. You can't
 >believe it's true, so therefore it must not be true. The
 >evidence be damned!

What evidence? You want to believe it's true, therefore it must
be true. Right back at ya!


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 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:00:10 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:29:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 21:49:44 -0300

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:22:17 -0500

 >>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:45:14 -0300

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:57:05 -0500

 >>Stan,

 >>>>When this dismal episode was occurring, I tried to dissuade Stan
 >>>>from pursuing what I considered, and still consider, a rash and
 >>>>destructive course of action. It is one of ufology's low
 >>>>moments, and if we are lucky, nothing like it will happen again.

As you might expect, Jenny is unwilling to become involved in
this extremely unpleasant and traumatic imbroglio again. As I
inadvertently seemed to stir up the hornet's next by making a
sarcastic (and as Jerry comments, rather guarded) remark about
ufologists suing each other, I feel it is incumbent upon me to
point out that the arguments about this have been rehearsed on
this List previously and in greater detail. If anyone searchers
the archives for February 1997 they will find a long exchange of
views.

I urge anyone who may be following this with interest (and
frankly I can't imagine this will be a great number) to read
these post. I would point out only that a number of ufologists
rushed to Jenny's defence. I do not recall any coming out for
Friedman.

As far as I and Jenny are concerned this matter is now closed. I
would only like to sincerely thank Jerry for putting his points
of view forward so eloquently and directly (even though he
couldn't avoid saying "my friend"!).


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 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                       Re: Menzel and Gill - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 13:16:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:33:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Menzel and Gill - Lehmberg


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Menzel and Gill [Was: Revenna 1966)
 >Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:33:55 -0500

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:20:41 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:31:15 EDT
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Rudiak

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:11:59 EDT
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Ravenna 1966 - Young

<snip>

 >One would like to hope that Menzel's ignorant, racist reading of
 >the Gill CE3 will not be cited again by anyone who expects to be
 >taken seriously, but one expects that hope to be in vain. Bad
 >debunkings have one thing in common: they're unkillable.

 >Jerry Clark


"The good that men do is interred with their bones, but their
evil lives on and on," paying only lip service to the clear
skies of signature as a kind of easy camouflage born of fearful
ignoranance? Some are more adept at keeping the comfortably
dissembling past alive, especially when it's in their interest.
Still, the universe (multiverse) rather roars down on all of us
like that proverbial freight train... you'd think they'd feel
the vibration in the track that they so stridently tie
themselves to.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                        Re: Menzel and Gill - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 20:23:05 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:35:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Menzel and Gill - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Menzel and Gill [Was: Revenna 1966)
 >Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:33:55 -0500

 >As it happens, I spent several hours one day with Father Gill,
 >whom I met in Evanston, Illinois, in 1977. I wanted to ask him,
 >among other things, about the supposed solutions to his sighting
 >conjured up by Menzel and Philip J. Klass (who, in
 >characteristic debunker fashion, had put forth different,
 >mutually exclusive explanations). Gill turned out to be a
 >bright, sensible, impressive man, the very opposite of the
 >foolish character that debunkers - who had, of course, never met
 >him or even interviewed him by phone or mail - had depicted. He
 >seemed more puzzled than annoyed at what the pelicanists had
 >written about him. (Bill Chalker, who knows Father Gill far
 >better than I, will verify what I have said here.)

 >The rest of you, promise you won't laugh now, but here's what
 >Menzel proposed as a solution to the sighting Gill and more than
 >30 other witnesses reported experiencing:

 >In Menzel's view (which can fairly be termed racist), the only
 >witness who mattered was Gill, because the others were
 >impressionalbe natives who didn't understand English very well
 >and who would agree to anything "their great white leader"
 >(Menzel's actual phrase, believe it or not) said, to the extent
 >that they would even sign a statement attesting to a sighting of
 >a UFO with occupants. Menzel added that their English illiteracy
 >made it, moreover, unlikely that they knew what they were
 >signing.

Jerry. Could it not be that the local people were unwilling to
contradict Gill, not because they were in awe of the "Great
White Chief", but because they did not want to embarrass or
offend someone for whom they had a great deal of affection and
respect, but they believed to be mistaken? Klass's comment was
crass, but social attitudes to authority figures *do* differ in
different societies - even within the same country.

 >Menzel went on to claim, with zero supporting evidence, that
 >Menzel saw Venus but was suffering from astigmatism. In a final
 >flourish, he added, "The slight irregularities on the 'hairs' of
 >the lashes, perhaps dust or moisture, could easily be
 >interpreted as activity of the 'beings' inhabiting the saucer."
 >How did Menzel know Gill had seen Venus, not a UFO? Because of,
 >according to Menzel, Gill's failure to mention seeing Venus. In
 >reality, Gill had stated plainly, "I saw Venus, but I also saw
 >this sparkling object [the large UFO] ... above Venus."

Gill's sighting, at face value, is pretty spectacular:
structured craft hovering for a long time, figures on it
responding to gestures from the witnesses. I agree it does not
sound like Venus. What do you think it might have been? And
please, no nonsense like "I don't know, that's why they call it
an unidentified flying object." I can't believe you've read as
much as you have about this case - and spoken to Gill - without
forming some tentative ideas.

I'm probably wishing a torrent of anti-pelicanist invective
here, but I'll ask: what do you think of Martin Kottmeyer's
suggestions published in Magonia 54? In one of those
sceptic-on-sceptic criticisms which according to Jerry never
happen, Klass disputes Kottmeyers explanation, and suggests that
Gill's associate, Rev. Norman Cruttwell, who promoted the story,
may have been the victim of a little leg-pulling from Gill
which, as these things tend to do, got rather out of hand.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 9

               Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord? -

From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 22:40:38 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:37:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord? -



 >Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 07:38:18 -0300
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord?

 >>From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Another Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa Vord?
 >>Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:24:08 +0100

 ><snip>

 >>By my mathematics, given that speed = distance/time, s = 450
 >>miles /45 seconds = at least 10 miles per second. Multiply that
 >>figure by 216000 (60 * 60 * 60) for mph and you get 2160
 >>THOUSAND miles per hour. That's fast. My operator colleague
 >>calculated the speed of the return and declared 'we're not going
 >>to report that - too much paperwork'

 ><snip>

 >Did your source reveal any information about the object's
 >altitude? Was there height finding capability radar on the base
 >as well? I'm sure there must have been. That speed of 2160 is
 >within the SR-71's range at high altitude.


Hi Don, Errol etc,

Good to hear from you again Don. I have written to my source
again and asked for further height details etc.He did say that
it was a type 13 height finder but I dont recall any details of
altitude being given thus far. As soon as I hear anything back I
wont hesitate to let you know.

Kind regards,

Dave Ledger (UFO Scotland)



******************************************************************
If you see someone without a smile......give them one of yours :0)
******************************************************************
Posted by: Dave Ledger  (mailto:dledger@ufoscotland.co.uk)
Visit "UFO SCOTLAND" at: http://www.ufoscotland.co.uk
<A HREF="http://www.ufoscotland.co.uk">UFO Scotland </A>
UFO SCOTLAND mailing list: http://ufoscotland.listbot.com
******************************************************************
THE TRUTH IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER!..................BUT HOW FAR?
******************************************************************
"The sands of time are trickling away from our dear mother Earth
and yet we continue to fight amongst ourselves and destroy our
natural enviroment,leaving all the mess for our children and their
children's children to inherit when we're gone."









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                          Secrecy News -- 06/08/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:46:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:41:28 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 06/08/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
June 8, 2001

**COURT ASKED TO UNSEAL WEN HO LEE CASE FILES
**WHISTLEBLOWER AMENDMENTS PROPOSED


COURT ASKED TO UNSEAL WEN HO LEE CASE FILES

A large portion of the docket from last year's trial of former
Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee was sealed by the court and
remains inaccessible to the public. This week several civil
rights groups filed a motion in Albuquerque asking the trial
court to unseal those records that are not properly classified.

Wen Ho Lee was indicted in December 1999 on 59 counts of
unlawfully gathering national defense information, imprisoned
under unusually harsh conditions for 9 months, and then released
in September 2000 with an extraordinary apology from the court
after he pled guilty to a single count concerning the
mishandling of computer data.

The new motion, filed June 6 by the ACLU and others on behalf of
Chinese for Affirmative Action, suggested that the withheld
files might contain "important information relating to Lee's
possible selective prosecution on the basis of his race and
national origin."

But the thrust of the motion relates more broadly to the
practice of indiscriminately sealing court records on asserted
national security grounds. The court improperly delegated
authority to a Security Officer to determine which documents
would be withheld, the motion argues, and failed to perform its
own assessment as required.

The motion's supporting memorandum assembles an impressive body
of case law to remind the court of the public's right of access
to court documents and the narrow circumstances under which
records can legitimately be sealed. See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/whl_unseal_memo.html


WHISTLEBLOWER AMENDMENTS PROPOSED

New legislation to strengthen protection for whistleblowers who
expose government malfeasance was introduced yesterday by
Senators Akaka, Grassley and Levin.

The legislation was deemed necessary because of a series of
federal court rulings that have gradually diminished
whistleblower rights.

"Recent holdings by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit have corrupted the intent of Congress, with the
result that additional clarifying language is sorely needed,"
said Sen. Carl Levin.

Of particular note, the new bill reaffirms the right of
whistleblowers to disclose classified information about
wrongdoing to Congress. "National security secrecy must not
cancel Congress' right to know about betrayals of the public
trust," said Sen. Charles Grassley.

The bill is supported by the Government Accountability Project,
the National Whistleblower Center, and other whistleblower
advocates.

See the text of the bill and the accompanying floor speeches
here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/s060701.html

******************************

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                     Astroalert: Martian Flares Sighted

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 18:41:46 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:45:49 -0400
Subject: Astroalert: Martian Flares Sighted


Hi,

This is from a List for amateur and professional astronomers
that I subscribe to. Thought this might be of interest.


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 10:43:40 -0400
To: planetary@skypub.com
From: Rick Fienberg <rfienberg@skypub.com>
Subject: AstroAlert: Martian flares sighted



****************************************************************
* Attention all Mars observers:

   Flares have been sighted in Edom Promontorium! *

****************************************************************


In the May 2001 issue of SKY & TELESCOPE (pages 115 to 123),
Thomas Dobbins and William Sheehan discussed rare historical
observations of bright, star-like flares from certain regions on
the planet Mars. They suggested that the flares might be caused
by specular reflections of sunlight off water-ice crystals in
surface frosts or atmospheric clouds, specifically at times when
the sub-Sun and sub-Earth points were nearly coincident and near
the planet's central meridian (the imaginary line running down
the center of the visible disk from pole to pole).

Based on their analysis, Dobbins and Sheehan predicted that
flares like those last reported in 1958 might erupt this week in
Edom Promontorium, near the Martian equator at longitude 345
degrees. Dobbins organized an expedition to the Florida Keys,
where Mars would ride high in the south under exceptionally
steady skies. Expedition members observed the planet using a
variety of telescopes nightly beginning June 3rd. No flares were
seen for several nights. But on June 7th, beginning around 06:40
UT (2:40 Eastern daylight time), about 80 minutes before Edom
crossed the central meridian, the team observed a series of
brightenings. Each lasted perhaps 3 to 5 seconds; they occurred
sporadically over the next 90 minutes or so, until clouds ended
the observations. At times Edom appeared to pulse with a period
of 10 to 15 seconds for a minute or two. The flares were seen
visually at about 300 power through two homemade 6-inch
(15-centimeter) Newtonian reflectors (one f/6, the other f/8) by
Dobbins, Donald Parker, Gary Seronik, Rick Fienberg, and David
Moore and were recorded on video at 1,400 power through a Meade
12-inch (30-cm) Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope by Parker and Tippy
D'Auria. Visually, the flares seemed to cut the dark linear
feature Sinus Sabaeus nearly in two.

Mars observers in North America, especially the western half,
are encouraged to observe the planet visually and to record it
on video over the next two or three nights, when conditions will
continue to favor flares in Edom. Observing reports -- including
your location, Universal date and time, telescope/equipment
description, sky conditions, and any other relevant details --
should be sent to the Mars sections of the Association of Lunar
and Planetary Observers (http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/alpo/) and
British Astronomical Association
(http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~baa/jupiter/index.html), as well as
the International Mars Watch (http://elvis.rowan.edu/marswatch).

Clear skies!

        -- Rick Fienberg and Gary Seronik, SKY & TELESCOPE


==================================================================
AstroAlert is a free service of SKY & TELESCOPE magazine, 49 Bay
State Rd., Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A. This e-mail was sent to
AstroAlert subscribers. If you feel you received it in error, or
to unsubscribe from AstroAlert, please see our unsubscribe form
at http://www.skypub.com/news/astroalert/unsubscribe.html or send
a plain-text e-mail to majordomo@skypub.com with the following
line (and nothing else) in the body of the message:
unsubscribe planetary e-mail@address.com
replacing "e-mail@address.com" with your actual e-mail address.
==================================================================







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                     Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:58:01 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:48:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Hall


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:48:32 EDT
 >Subject: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:22:03 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Walker at one point admitted to going to the
 >>crash site on Dec. 9 along with two off-duty military people.
 >>Walker was then with the Institute for Defense Analysis.
 >>Walker's daughter also remembers him being suddenly called out
 >>there, though my memory on the details of this are very
 >>sketchy.

 >David:

 >"Off-duty" suggests that the military people had _not been_
 >"called out", but were just there for the fun of it, after
 >hearing the bizarre PR screw-up about this fruitless search on
 >the radio. Probably Walker was also there on his own, at the
 >time he was on the Engineering faculty of either Penn State or
 >the University of Pittsburg, I forget which.

Bob,

"Probably?" On what scientific (or more likely pseudoscientific)
basis do you assert this? Are you not merely expressing your
prejudices/biases rather than adducing any kind of factual
evidence?


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 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                Cydonian Imperative: 06-8-01 - Faceted 'Wall'

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:52:01 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 06-8-01 - Faceted 'Wall'


The Cydonian Imperative
6-8-01

Faceted "Wall" Discovered
by Mac Tonnies

[image]

Trish Anderson has dicovered an interesting faceted wall-like
feature not too far from Cydonia. Like the "Octagon" (featured
on a previous page), the "wall" features angles and sharp
corners that are very rare in nature, and not at all expected on
an eroded planet like Mars, where winds and meteors have
flattened muhc of the surface into dessert-like terrain. If Mars
was once inhabitated by intelligent beings, additional
suggestions of structure like Anderson's "wall" may be found in
abundance if we have the patience to examine the Martian surface
closely. In my view, the evidence in the Cydonia region alone
justifies just such a rigorous archaeological approach to the
question of damaged structures.

For links and illustrations, see:

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

Also new:

False color rendition of Martian "Epcot" by Mike Lomax and
example of asymmetrical Iroquois mask.

-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 >
   Jun > Jun 9

               Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa Vord -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:57:01 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 15:06:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa Vord -


 >From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
 >Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:24:08 +0100
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Another Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa Vord

<snip>

 >Ok now onto the second and more recent sighting which has been
 >relayed to me by yet another EX-RAF radar personnel who was
 >stationed at RAF Saxa Vord

<snip>

 >ANOTHER ANOMALOUS RADAR RETURN FROM SAXA VORD?

 >DATE: 1976 - Sept / Oct ?
 >LOCATION: RAF Saxa Vord, Shetland Isles, Scotland.
 >SOURCE: Retired RAF personnel. Name witheld at Witnesses Request.

 >Report and Witness e-mail Interview by: Dave Ledger for UFO Scotland.


 >The extract from his letter follows:

 >"Assuming what I observed one night when on shift with my Type
 >80 was genuine (and I have no reason to believe it was not), the
 >return I saw was not weak or dubious - it was a good solid
 >return, without any accompanying secondary (IFF) radar return.

 >Given that the Type 80 rotated at 4 rpm, each sweep took 15
 >seconds. In the space of just 45 seconds (3 consecutive sweeps),
 >my colleague and I saw this solid return travel over 450 miles.

Hi Dave,

The problem with this is there are only three returns spread
clear across the radar scope and not even a statement of whether
they were on a straight line or not. This is a marginal radar
tracking with no visual, at the very margins - it could be three
random blips being connected together by the mind of the radar
operator.

 >There was no mistaking it. We sat there with our mouths open for
 >a moment, not quite believing what we had just seen. Given this
 >was around 0100 or 0115 one night, most of the rest of the crew
 >were resting and only we two were 'on the dark side' of the
 >cloth, watching the big orange displays trundle round.

 >By my mathematics, given that speed = distance/time, s = 450
 >miles /45 seconds = at least 10 miles per second. Multiply that
 >figure by 216000 (60 * 60 * 60) for mph and you get 2160
 >THOUSAND miles per hour. That's fast. My operator colleague
 >calculated the speed of the return and declared 'we're not going
 >to report that - too much paperwork'

Sorry, bad math. 10 miles/sec is very simply 36,000 mph, not
2,160,000 mph. It is a very common meteor velocity. However, was
there any height-finding capability? Where _exactly_ on the
screen were the three blips located? How wide or high in
elevation angle was the radar beam?


 >And there we left it.

 >This is a true story, no bullshit, no embellishment. And it was
 >a one-off. I never saw anything like it again.

We need more facts and better math.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 9

               Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord? -

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:58:57 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 15:09:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord? -


 >Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 07:38:18 -0300
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord? - Don Ledger

 >>From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Another Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa Vord?
 >>Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:24:08 +0100

 ><snip>

 >>ANOTHER ANOMALOUS RADAR RETURN FROM SAXA VORD?

 >>DATE: 1976 - Sept / Oct ?
 >>LOCATION: RAF Saxa Vord, Shetland Isles, Scotland.
 >>SOURCE: Retired RAF personnel. Name witheld at Witnesses Request.

 >>Report and Witness e-mail Interview by: Dave Ledger for UFO Scotland.

 >>The extract from his letter follows:

 ><snip>

 >>By my mathematics, given that speed = distance/time, s = 450
 >>miles /45 seconds = at least 10 miles per second. Multiply that
 >>figure by 216000 (60 * 60 * 60) for mph and you get 2160
 >>THOUSAND miles per hour. That's fast. My operator colleague
 >>calculated the speed of the return and declared 'we're not going
 >>to report that - too much paperwork'

 >>And there we left it.

 >>This is a true story, no bullshit, no embellishment. And it was
 >>a one-off. I never saw anything like it again.

 >>Some would say that it was a spurious return - noise if you will
 >>- but the Type 80 was really very good in that respect. If there
 >>was any noise in the receivers, it tended to show up a gaggle of
 >>weak speckles along the length of the trace on the displays, not
 >>as individual returns.

 ><snip>

 >>(End Paste.)

 >>If any of the listmembers would like to add anything or even
 >>know of any further cases from early warning radar stations,
 >>please do not hesitate to get in touch with me at the usual
 >>address.(dledger@ufoscotland.co.uk) I would personally like to
 >>thank my source for coming forward with this important
 >>information and will continue to relay to you all, any further
 >>findings which we may unravel in the future.

 >Hi Dave,

 >Did your source reveal any information about the object's
 >altitude? Was there height finding capability radar on the base
 >as well? I'm sure there must have been. That speed of 2160 is
 >within the SR-71's range at high altitude.


Hi Dave,

Follow up to this. It seems I missed the reference to the other
three zeros. Stan straightened me out. So much for SR-71s.
Interesting.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                        Re: Talk And Action - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:11:09 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 15:11:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Sparks


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:58:21 -0000
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:00:02 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Hall


 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Talk And Action - Young
 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 17:00:02 -0400

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 02:37:30 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:36:28 -0500

 >>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>>Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:52:43 -0000

 >>>Science doesn't have to sit around monitoring the skies for
 >>>UFOs; the latter would be incidental to other observations,
 >>>which are now taking place in quantities that could only have
 >>>been imagined a decade or two ago.

 >>Dennis, Dick:

 >>This is a very important point. Why isn't there more
 >>instrumented evidence of visitations, if they are taking place?
 >>Even though Hynek discounted it, the old Prairie network
 >>operated from more than ten years, and the Canadian counterpart
 >>for at least 20, while the European Fireball Network has, in its
 >>various forms, been photographing the sky since the 50s. Where
 >>are the saucers? Hynek claimed these networks had flaws, but the
 >>Prairie network was capable of imaging fourth magnitude moving
 >>objects (about the visual sky limit for most suburban skies).
 >>Where are the UFOs?

 >>>It's naive on your part to think that ridicule rules like some sort
 >>>of fail-safe security, or cover up, blanket. _Can_ it have an impact?
 >>>No doubt. Is it guaranteed to keep the "truth" -- whatever that is
 >>>-- covered up from everyone? No way.

 >>This is a point also made in the March issue of Magonia, by the
 >>way, in an editorial by John Harney. UFOs could no more be kept
 >>secret than could volcanic eruptions or meteor showers. How
 >>could the "Government" control a phenomena inititated by an
 >>outside force - the ETs?

 >>>In fact, there is no particularly necessary reason that any such
 >>>acquired data would have to be associated with, or identified
 >>>as, UFOs in the sense that you and I are talking about them
 >>>here, ie, as potential ET craft. Where is that unwritten rule?
 >>>The ridicule factor could easily be averted by any scientist(s)
 >>>interested enough to give it serious thought. But I forget:
 >>>they're mostly sheared sheep.

 >>Where are the instrumented records of visitations?

 >Bob,

 >It's not an "important point" at all. See my postings to Dennis
 >and some relevant ones by Brad Sparks. These networks generally
 >are programmed to exclude data that doesn't fit the profile of
 >some known phenomenon that they are looking for.

 >If and when something anaomalous is detected (and this is
 >fact-based, not speculation on my part) it is either discarded
 >as not relevant to the focused purpose of the net, or considered
 >"too hot to handle" by people who are intimidated by
 >skeptibunkers and fear for their reputations and careers if they
 >speak out. Lots of evidence out there to support this.

 >As I said to Dennis, UFOs are anathema in the scientific
 >community (as witness your attitudes if, indeed, you are a
 >scientist rather than the type of person you accused me of
 >being; a pretender cloaking himself in scientific language).

 >Dick


Dennis, Bob, Dick, List,

As Dick indicates, it is erroneous to say that scientific
instruments don't pick up UFOs and to say they don't pick
enough is a non-quantitative argument that may be false when
real numbers are put to it. The Condon Committee analyzed the
different scientific instruments and networks including the
repeatedly pushed Prairie Network and found most of them of very
little use for UFO detection, especially including the Prairie
Network which was designed to capture fast-moving bright
meteors.

The narrowness of application to which instrumentation is used
and the narrow interests of those running the instruments have
been documented throughout history such as in Hynek's 1952 AAS
astronomer survey, the Condon Report of 1969, Sturrock's AAS
astronomer survey in 1977 and elsewhere.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 9

              Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa Vord? -

From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 05:45:20 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 16:20:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa Vord? -


 >From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa
 >Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:47:14 +0100

 >>From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:24:08 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF SaxaVord?

<snip>


 >Hi List and Dave,
 >

Hi Gary, Errol & List,

 >Dave this is an interesting report, perhaps you should
 >correspond with Andy Roberts and David Clarke, as I am sure they
 >may be interested in both of these cases and their source/s.

Happy to help if I can :0)

 >On similar note, are you familiar with the controversial Captain
 >Schafer, 8 September 1970 case? If so, you may be in a position
 >to verify whether that story has any substance or not from your
 >source?

Can't say that I have heard of this one before Gary. May I ask
where the Lightnings were meant to be scrambled from during this
alleged sighting?

 >To briefly relay the details which were published in a two day
 >serial in the Grimsby Evening Telegraph. On 8 September, 1970 a
 >UFO was allegedly tracked on radar from Saxa Vord and no fewer
 >than 5 Lightnings, 2 Phantom jets, re-fuelling plane and a
 >Shackleton were scrambled to intercept. An American pilot on
 >exchange with the RAF at Binbrook (an experienced pilot with
 >Vietnam time notched on his belt) was asked to participate and
 >allegedly was guided towards a UFO that had been playing cat and
 >mouse games over the north sea with all these aforementioned
 >aircraft. Then the bright object, whatever it was, flew very
 >close to Schafer's plane and he was later 'strangely' ordered to
 >ditch his plane in the north sea, four miles from Flamborough in
 >fact. He did so; and was never seen again. Reputedly, before he
 >ditched he conversed with ground and relayed information about
 >said UFO. His plane was recovered and is chronicled in local
 >newspapers, however no real evidence to support this story has
 >ever surfaced, other than an unidentified ex-government 'deep
 >throat' informant who supposedly spilled the beans to Pat Otter
 >of the Grimsby Evening Telegraph. Captain Schafer's body as far
 >as the newspapers state was never recovered.
 >

An interesting report, I will forward this to the UFO Scotland
list and see if I can turn up any further information. Will let
you know if anything further comes up.

 >Perhaps you may like to ask your source if he/she worked at Saxa
 >Vord around this time? And if they knew anything about the
 >Schafer plane ditch/crash?

I have forwarded a copy of your reply to him and asked for his
comments. As far as my source being based at RAF Saxa Vord in
1970, I seriously doubt it because when we were trying to
pinpoint a time for his radar report, he explained about being
posted other places and we managed to zero the saxa posting to
the approximate time of the sighting. For this reason, I do not
think he would have been stationed at Saxa from 1970 until 1975.
Most of these types of operators tend to do a tour of duty kind
of posting although I am sure he will confirm this himself upon
his reply.


Thanks for the feedback Gary.Will be in touch if I find out any
further details.

All the best for now,

Your friend,

                  Dave Ledger (UFO Scotland)
-
******************************************************************
If you see someone without a smile......give them one of yours :0)
******************************************************************
Posted by: Dave Ledger  (mailto:dledger@ufoscotland.co.uk)
Visit "UFO SCOTLAND" at: http://www.ufoscotland.co.uk
<A HREF="http://www.ufoscotland.co.uk">UFO Scotland </A>
UFO SCOTLAND mailing list: http://ufoscotland.listbot.com
******************************************************************
THE TRUTH IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER!..................BUT HOW FAR?
******************************************************************
"The sands of time are trickling away from our dear mother Earth
and yet we continue to fight amongst ourselves and destroy our
natural enviroment,leaving all the mess for our children and their
children's children to inherit when we're gone."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 9

              Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa Vord? -

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 11:07:40 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 16:23:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa Vord? -


 >From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Another Anomalous Radar Return From RAF Saxa Vord?
 >Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:24:08 +0100

 >I would like to relay to you all another recent report which has
 >been brought to my attention regarding another anomalous radar
 >return picked up on the early warning radar system at RAF Saxa
 >Vord in the Shetland Isles.


Dave, Gary, List...

The reports Dave Ledger posted are not the first to be made by
personnel at RAF Saxa Vord, in the Shetland Islands.

I am aware of an important radar/visual report from the same
facility investigated by the Air Ministry in 1959.

In addition, here is an account supplied by Peter Barnes, a
retired RAF radar operator. Barnes was assigned to RAF Saxa Vord
shortly after the station became operational in the mid-50s and
was regarded as one of the furthest 'outposts' of the radar
chain. Saxa Vord operated AMES Type 80 Mark 2 and Mark 4,
extending the area of UK Air Defence Radar cover towards the
Arctic Circle and the coast of Norway.

One night during the winter of 1957-58 Barnes was on 24-hour
watch in the radar room when the base was 'snowed in.'

Barnes said: "It was a very slack period and we were just lying
back in the chairs inside the radar room with the photographic
displays in front of us.

"Suddenly we noticed a blip coming in from the west. It did not
appear at the edge of the display but part way across the screen
and suddenly belted across the screen before we could do
anything. It crossed the screen at a minimum of 3,000 knots and
was out of our range before any action could be taken.

"We knew there was an army missile range in Hebrides [at
Benbecula] so we wondered whether it could have been a stray
missile.

"We were a new unit at that time and our watch sergeant said he
had previously seen similar blips on radar screens. He
understood they were caused by an electronic fault - and that
the most likely explanation was a freak signal between the
transmitter and the receiver.

"We called an officer who listened to the story but decided not
to send a report to the Air Ministry. "Let's just forget it -
let sleeping dogs lie.

"Shortly after that I was posted to a Signals Unit in Cyprus and
never heard any more about it."

Interesting place, the Shetlands!








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 08:03:59 -0300
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 16:30:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:41:32 -0500

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 21:49:44 -0300

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:22:17 -0500

 >>>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:45:14 -0300

 >>>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:57:05 -0500

<snip>

 >>>You would have been off to take the
 >>>criticism, however outrageously unfair it may have been from
 >>>your perspective, and brought your complaints to your fellow
 >>>ufologists, not to the court. If you had done so, my guess is
 >>>that you would have attracted rather more sympathy than you now
 >>>have for your position.

I do not agree that criticism and defamation are the same thing.
Senator McCarthy certainly demonstrated how much damage can be
done by so-called free speech as have the rabble rousers of the
world

 >>Brought my complaints to fellow ufologists??? Just how many are
 >>there and what would they have done to make up for the
 >>defamation of my good name to hundreds of thousands of people in
 >>an area in which I expected (rightfully, as it turned out) to
 >>appear again?. Is there some kind of ufologists court which
 >>would have obtained the public apology for me?

 >What harm really was done to you? Were you able to demonstrate
 >any, other than the understandable anger you felt at what you
 >consider (and I agree) to be unjust criticism? How long are the
 >memories of newspaper readers anyway? How many of them would
 >have recalled the offending article the next day, much less the
 >next month, even less the next year? Do you realize just how
 >much information we are bombarded with _daily_ and how little
 >even the most attentive of us remember? Your reaction to the
 >offending article was all out of proportion to any harm you
 >could demonstrate empirically. Nobody except you would even know
 >or remember that such a piece had ever appeared if you had not
 >acted as you did.

Harry Harris is a solicitor in the Manchester area. He was
defamed as well. Does not that matter? Should his ability to
make a living not matter at all.?

 >You and I are answerable, it seems to me, to our colleagues. We
 >are part of a (sort of) community of (sort of) scholars, who
 >know the subject and who can make some reasonable judgment about
 >our respective roles in it. Our fellow ufologists, frankly, are
 >the only ones who give a damn about us, at least in a
 >professional sense (I'm sure our friends and family love us),
 >and it is they with whom we have a longterm relationship. It is
 >they who remember.

 >>Jerry, I have been speaking about flying saucers for 34 years.
 >>My goal is to reach, and change, the world. Almost all my
 >>lectures and TV and radio appearances and papers and books and
 >>videos and CD-ROM are aimed at the public... those I often refer
 >>to as healthy agnostics. Not at ufologists. Whatever that term
 >>is supposed to mean. Obviously I had to bring action against
 >>Jenny as the offending defamer as well as against the MEN which
 >>published it. We dropped any action against Bufora though the
 >>defaming article made it seem as though Jenny were speaking for
 >>them. I should note that I haven't gone around defaming Jenny
 >>since and that it was one of the "freedom of expression" guys
 >>who brought this up, not me. As far as I was concerned, it was
 >>done and over.

 >Maybe for you. What I'd like to know, is Jenny still paying you
 >money every month? And just how much money has that come to over
 >the years?

Ah, finally we get to the nub of the matter. I wish you or
whoever made this charge would get their facts in hand before
putting their computers in gear. I have a statement from my
solicitor from October 1990 that went along with the small check
I received. It shows total payment to me of less than 5 figures
(US) of which the MEN paid more than 90%. Jenny's contribution
was less than 4 figures. I have not received a penny on her
behalf since that time or, for that matter, from the MEN.

What possible basis could you have for even suggesting that I
have been receiving payments from Jenny since 1990? This the
first I have heard of this absurd, baseless notion. Nobody has
even approached me to ask. Not you, not any of my fellow
ufologists. I am often criticized for checking on credentials
for trying to verify claims, etc. I can see why. Many of my
fellow ufologists aren't very interested in verification,
validation, substantiation. Free expression becomes an excuse
for laziness, for armchair theorizing, for don't bother me with
the facts my mind is made up, for repeating false and malicious
lies.

 >>>You have made many positive contributions to our field, Stan.
 >>>This just happens not to be one of them, and I hope that one
 >>>day you will be able to see this matter as others see it.

 >>Thanks for acknowledging that I have made many positive
 >>contributions to our "field"... whatever that means. Did you
 >>ever consider that perhaps my gaining an apology might have made
 >>newspapers and researchers more careful about what they printed
 >>and said and might have toned down criticism in the press about
 >>"American" ufologists? It wasn't noted that I was a scientist.
 >>after all.

 >I don't know why the word field is so hard to understand. Would
 >you prefer subject or topic or discipline or focus of interest?

 >And as to the question, you've made my point explicitly: your
 >lawsuit had the effect of squelching free expression, as I
 >stated originally. Now you're actually defending it on those
 >grounds. In fact, if, as you suggest, British papers are slower
 >to criticize American ufologists because they fear being sued
 >again, that is no victory at all, my friend. It just makes us
 >American ufologists look like bullies who can dish it out but
 >can't take it.
 >Jerry Clark

Did somebody erase the word defamation from your dictionary,
Jerry? Criticism. of which I have certainly had plenty, is very
different from defamation, inciting a riot, breaking the
Official Secrets act and other justifiable restraints on freedom
of expression.

I, for one, am not involved in ufology to try to win a
popularity contest. Perhaps you have forgotten that whereas
Jenny defamed me for my supposed views, and for what I was
supposedly going to say in my lecture the next day, she didn't
even attend the lecture.

The offending article appeared on Saturday with my lecture set
for Sunday and no MEN on Sunday. She ducked out quickly when I
appeared at a radio station that Monday where she happened to
be. I have been quite willing to debate about UFOs, witness my
Oxford University debate, my Trinity University debate and a
myriad of TV and radio programs. I often have repeated Truman's
comment that if one can't stand the heat, get out of the
kitchen. Just who have I bullied? Hardly the MEN. They may be
more cautious in the future in publishing unsubstantiated
attacks. Is that bad? Or should the philosophy be "publish and
the facts be damned" along with reputations?

By the way does that group of fellow ufologists include Bob
Lazar, Guy Kirkwood, Michael Wolf, Milton Cooper, Al Bielik?

I really would like an answer on from whence cometh the notion
that Jenny has been paying me since October 1990 and why this
total lie hasn't been mentioned before and nobody has even
asked. Recall that if the published apology had been
forthcoming, as we had originally requested, we would not have
known about the defamatory letter and her costs would have been
trivial. I trust that you have forgotten that the Flying Saucer
Review did publish an article about the defamation... without
any censure of me?.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                            Alfred's Odd Ode #351

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 06:20:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 16:31:48 -0400
Subject: Alfred's Odd Ode #351


Apology to MW #351 (For June 9, 2001)

Yeah, it's true I see them in my early morning skies. I see
them 'cause I'm looking with an open minded eye. Not
indifferent to your scoffing and rather wounded by your scorn, I
see that, yes, regardless, they're a truth that's been suborned.
And we don't deal with it. We push it to the rear. We're
cloaked by our traditions, and we're frozen with our fear.
Religiously we count our beads, use science for excuse, and
disavow conspiracies acute with the abstruse.

The stuff I see is present to a witness I might have. A friend
that one might count upon is one that I had had. But these are
few and far between, the few who'd go along, and go out in the
darkness after midnight's sung her song. To *be* up so damned
early that the dogs are still asleep; to stumble in the kitchen
and chance whacking unshod feet? A lot to ask of one that's
blind to disbelief one has inside... a disbelief that one's
force fed to clutter up ones mind, it's said.

Yes, you'd go out in the morning after, early, getting up, and
you'd rise up in some dimness so rhodopsin has a shot. You'd
take a cup of coffee for the stuff that pops your eyes, and
you'd watch with me, the UFO's, we'd see within our sky. It
takes judicious looking with the head well tilted aft. People
watch you looking, and they pray it's YOU that's daft. It pains
the neck a little bit, but try to persevere. It won't be too
much longer 'till you start to see them clear.

Lean up on a hitching rail, or a low retaining wall. It makes
the watching easier as stars wink out or fall. And sometimes
skies are fervid with a movement of their own; the stars are
simple wanderers sans a place to call their home. I've got some
good binoculars, and rigged a steady stand; the image I'm
resolving is unmoved by shaky hands. They are clear beneath the
star-field. I can zoom them in quite close. They ARE, not
merely pelicans, but they might as well be ghosts.

They're like a star that's moving but resolve to orbs of light;
their movements are of magnitudes that might vary, left and
right. They wink with strobe-like brightness in a random pattern
dance. They'll glow like worms unevenly and they'll blink out
like a chance. They slow to almost stopping, then they'll speed
up to a flash, increasing in intensity, but then dim out like
they've crashed!

It's plain that they are out there so it's not that fight I seek
(fights about *existence* are all specious, thin, and weak).
But scan the implications, and it's there one finds the nub of
the graft that has corrupted us, so a few could have *enough*.
If UFOs infest our skies the order will be NEW! It does, in
fact, change everything! All outlooks change! It's true! But
bet upon autonomy as the value to be gained. "What's my profit
in it," ask corroded selfish brains. Had we co-opted aliens (?)
then they would have come to pass. We'd already live among
them, till their fields, haul their trash. But UFO's are
individual, they are personal -- up close. They'd know the
*individual*, and it's that approach they chose. And the *manor
lord* won't have it as his meter must be paid (!?!) --
Inconvenient and contrary are the new beds to be made? The
reigns are jerked too sharply from tradition's hands (that
smell)? The rich must live like *people* 'neath contempt that
they had held?

And that's the problem neatly. It's our culture on its ear.
But down because it's rigid and elitist. It's in fear!
*Values* that were *values* then, before there were
*admissions*, might be found to be the agents of our cowardly
submissions! Then, all the bets are cancelled, and the debt
just goes away. We'd find a brand new card game'd be the deal
dealt that day! And that's a *cosmic* card game with the deck
all fresh and new. The face cards are all different, and
they're numbered strangely, too. All that's left is love and
hate... a cleaner power we'd all have... that is strangely more
expansive -- a cosmic kingdom here at hand.

The sooner that we cop to this the better off we'll be, as
there's much more to heaven than a top class has you see. That
there is clear autonomy to be found at zero points. That there's
in fact a free lunch, and our hemp's not smoking joints. That
there's respect that we don't have when we're the brunt
despised, and mere fodder for the callous and their psychopathic
lies.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

We're much better off, and much better served by a vast
marketplace of divergent ideas. It's like the biological
reproduction from the bigger gene pool, more diversity equals
more success. More ideas means more thinking can be done out of
the box. Thinking out of the box leads, almost invariably, to
some kind of useful elevation. We would be as the gods... and
why not?

There are rewards to thinking outside the box. All our insights
and high flying accomplishments come from confident leaps of
justified conviction (tested faith). There are punishments,
too. Today, people are still persecuted for ideas that they
have, and they are further pilloried for the lawful expressions
of those ideas.

The irony is that there can be such an egregiously shortsighted
enmity in a nation that would otherwise (and so stridently!),
pride itself on its appreciation of free expression... that
there could be, then, such a gleeful suppression of same. If
not gleeful then arbitrary. If not arbitrary then unethical. If
not unethical then just plain wrong, and wrong minded.

Not too long ago, less than a hundred years, we lived in an era
of Republican dream, a reality of unbridled and unregulated
capitalism. It was an era without unions, workers rights,
social security, product safety or individual justice. It was
hell on earth for the garden variety human being, Everyman lived
under the perpetual sword of a harsh social Damocles, even in
our nation of nations, especially in our nation of nations. The
moment we began to (even grudgingly) allow for the free
expression of ideas (and embraced an efficacious humanism) is
the moment when we began our rocket-like accent into a 21st
Century of productive individual self-determination. Look at
the advancement of the last hundred years and thank a tolerated
cornucopia of renaissance ideas. The suppression of any idea in
this context is illogical and corrosively contrary to that
continued rise.

In the bible, God(s) whacked us at Babylon for demonstrating the
potentiality to be as *they* were, not one wholly omnipotent
God, mind you, but many, shall we say genetically superior and
enlightened BEINGS -- or just where the hell *DID* 213 genes
come from that are not accounted for in our genetic record?
Should we keep faith with a God that whacks us for thinking
outside his box? Additionally, have you noticed how much less
respect each individual has to be paid as the population goes,
steadily and invariably, up?

Ideas...

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 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                EW - 06-09-01 NASA Pressed To Photograph Mars

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 01:26:37 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 16:41:23 -0400
Subject: EW - 06-09-01 NASA Pressed To Photograph Mars


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

The Electric Warrior : News June 9, 2001
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0024.htm

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

NASA PRESSED TO PHOTOGRAPH MARS ANOMALIES martian enigmas news
from The Electric Warrior

In a letter to NASA, a space exploration activist group
presented a list of anomalous formations on the surface of Mars,
which they believe provide compelling evidence of
extraterrestrial intelligence.

Last March FACETS (Formal Action Committee for Extra-Terrestrial
Studies) gave NASA a legal ultimatum to re-photograph the
notorious Face on Mars. NASA responded in April by pointing the
Mars Global Surveyor's (MGS) onboard camera at the famous
Martian landform, finally making the new image publicly
available on the Internet, late in May.

NASA's chief scientist for Mars exploration told MSNBC that if
he has his way, another image of the Face will be taken this
month. "We do want to be responsive to all taxpayers," said Jim
Garvin.

In their response to the FACETS legal demand, NASA agreed to
photograph up to five more images during the MGS extended
mission period, which commenced in February.

"Perhaps this is a turning point in the space agency's treatment
of the Artificiality Hypothesis," says FACETS director David
Jinks.

Topping FACETS' list of weird Martian features is the D&M
Pyramid, which was partially imaged by NASA in 1998. The
landform is described as having triangular faces, a well-
defined apex, symmetrical sides and a strait base.

Speculation casts the D&M Pyramid as a five-sided pyramid, which
along with the Face, is among the most closely scrutinized
anomalies on Mars.

FACETS retains the services of CAUS attorney Peter Gersten, who
wrote the follow-up letter to NASA's Dr. Edward Weiler.

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

Peter A. Gersten
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 2443
Sedona, Arizona 86339
520-203-0567

June 6, 2001

Dr. Edward J. Weiler
Associate Administrator for Space Science
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Headquarters
Washington DC 20546-0001

Re: FACETS formal request to re-image specific areas of Mars

Dear Dr. Weiler:

The 1958 Congress enacted section 2451 of the United States
Code, Congressional declaration of policy and purpose, states in
part:

(c) Objectives of aeronautical and space activities: The
aeronautical and space activities of `the United States shall be
conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the
following objectives: (1) The *expansion of human knowledge* of
the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space; (italics
added)

In this context and pursuant to your letter dated May 11, 2001
in which you state: "NASA awaits a specific list of requests for
targeting 'five additional areas of Mars from a list submitted
by FACETS,'" I hereby submit such list. Included in this list
are ten locations. Though some of the locations are not within
the Cydonia region, my client believes that these additional
sites also offer the evidence for artificiality hypothesis based
upon scientific analysis of previous MGS images.

As previously stated in my letter dated February 5th, FACETS
requests that NASA: 1) pre-announce the date(s) of the re-
imaging of the requested sites in a prominent place on a pre-
announced public web site; 2) re-image the requested sites with
the highest resolution possible (preferably 1.5 meters per
pixel); and 3) promptly release any such images in uncompressed
form (preferably .gif or .tif format) with their ancillary data
in a prominent place on a pre-announced public web site.

Finally, FACETS looks forward to a continuing and expanding
public participation in the NASA exploration of Mars.

Sincerely,

Peter A. Gersten

Inc: List of Mars sites to be re-imaged

Cc: David Jinks, FACETS
Sen. John McCain
Sen. Ernest Hollings

------------------------------------------------------------
FRONT PAGE

http://www.electricwarrior.com/img/ewFacetsFace1.jpg

There are titanic geological features on a hill in Cydonia,
whether shaped by natural processes or arranged by an unknown
hand, which at the right time of day yield the unmistakable
impression of human features. If it wasn't so, there wouldn't
be a landform we call the Face on Mars.

------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED RESOURCES

� FACETS Primary Target Sites
http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/FacetsPrimaryTargets.htm

� FACETS Secondary Target Sites
http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/FacetsSecondaryTargets.htm

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
June 9, 2001
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Web developers, the URL address for this content is:
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0024.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 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                         Re: Talk And Action - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 12:20:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 16:44:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Stacy


 >Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:26:20 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:58:21 -0000

 >>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >>>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Talk And Action - Young
 >>>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 17:00:02 -0400

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 02:37:30 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Where are the instrumented records of visitations?

 >>It's not an "important point" at all. See my postings to Dennis
 >>and some relevant ones by Brad Sparks. These networks generally
 >>are programmed to exclude data that doesn't fit the profile of
 >>some known phenomenon that they are looking for.

No doubt. No doubt a lot of it is simple photography (still &
video), too. You're limiting the definition of instrumentation
here. All sorts of scientists routinely document their
activities with a visual record.

 >>If and when something anaomalous is detected (and this is
 >>fact-based, not speculation on my part) it is either discarded
 >>as not relevant to the focused purpose of the net, or
 >>considered "too hot to handle" by people who are intimidated
 >>by skeptibunkers and fear for their reputations and careers if
 >>they speak out. Lots of evidence out there to support this.

Let me see if I've got this right. By way of example, let's say
a biological scientist with the National Parks and Wildlife
Service is taking a late summer headcount of the Buffalo
population in Yellowstone. To do this he flies over the herd and
videotapes it; back in the "lab," the individual animals are
counted. (This is exactly the same way many large ranches in the
West count their cattle, btw.)

While doing this, they happen to videotape a landed, metallic-
looking disc approximately 35 feet in diameter, sitting in the
middle of the herd. The object then rises to a height of about
100 feet, turns reddish-orange and shoots off to the NW,
disappearing in seconds. Clear, unambiguous, daylight  videotape
of a landed and then flying saucer.

Now, out of fear for his or her reputation and/or career, he or
she decides it is "too hot to handle" and subsequently erases it
or buries it in a vault somewhere.

What would they possibly have to fear? And if they were fearful,
why not make a copy of the original and send it in anonymously
to some news organization -- or better yet, sell it anonymously?

And remember: the above example is something that is probably
routinely occurring at least thousands of times around the world
on a daily basis, 365 days a year.

And that doesn't begin to count commercial activity, which would
include everything from the number of nature documentaries being
filmed on any given day, to National Geographic (and the like)
still photographers in the field -- who have nothing to fear. A
freelancer can't be fired for photographing a UFO. Similarly, do
you think an IMAX crew would try to capitalize on a good, clear
clip of a UFO -- or sweep it under the rug?

As I said, before, the close and near-space atmosphere of the
Earth has never been under such massive surveillance as it is
now. _Clear and unambiguous_  pictures should be out there by
the dozens, if not hundreds or thousands. UFO reports should be
greatly on the rise. Does anyone know if they actually are? Or
are they on the decline?

 >>As I said to Dennis, UFOs are anathema in the scientific
 >>community (as witness your attitudes if, indeed, you are a
 >>scientist rather than the type of person you accused me of
 >>being; a pretender cloaking himself in scientific language).

 >Already cited on this list is the story of the UBO (unidentified
 >bright object) picked up by a scanning photometer on Mt.
 >Haleakala (sp?) in Hawaii and reported in the Condon Report.
 >This object/light would have been ignored if the scientists
 >involved hadn't deided to, just this once, look for something
 >that culdn't be identified.

 >I previously reported the video taken on the same mountain top
 >in 1993 and reported on NIGHTLINE in July, 1996. Strange moving
 >lights were found in the imagery taken by a telescope designed
 >to look for satellites.

 >IT was analyzed by the scientists who decided that it couldn't
 >have been an airplane but then they didn't do anything with the
 >video. It was effectively "covered up" fr several years. It came
 >to my attention and to the world only because in th fall of 1995
 >someone surreptitiously provided a copy to Jay Lamonica of
 >NIGHTLINE.

See above. Obviously, someone connected with the project
submitted an anonymous copy to a news outlet.

 >The point is, here was a case of good video imagery of an
 >unidentified object (or collection of UFOs), and considered UFOs
 >because the scientists involved couldn't identify the lights, and
 >after failing to identify, they ignored this highly credible telescopi
 >sighting.

 >They did not consult a ufologist to find out if it could be
 >identified.

No, but a copy of same eventually found its way to the media.
One can assume that the source didn't have more or better "UFOs"
or they would have been submitted, too.

The point is: it got out to the outside world. It wasn't
destroyed or erased.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                         Re: Menzel and Gill - Clark

From: Jerome Clar" <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 12:59:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 16:49:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Menzel and Gill - Clark


 >Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 20:23:05 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates -  Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Menzel and Gill

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Menzel and Gill [Was: Revenna 1966)
 >>Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:33:55 -0500


John,

 >Jerry. Could it not be that the local people were unwilling to
 >contradict Gill, not because they were in awe of the "Great
 >White Chief", but because they did not want to embarrass or
 >offend someone for whom they had a great deal of affection and
 >respect, but they believed to be mistaken?

This seems most unlikely. Gill left Papua New Guinea about three
months after the sightings occurred. In 1973 Allen Hynek looked
up witnesses who still lived in the village. They stood by the
story and offered testimony consistent with what they had given
earlier. According to Hynek (one of ufology's most experienced
and skilled field investigators), "I came away with the
impression that whatever the event was, it must have impressed
the heck out of them to have remembered it as vividly as they
did. There was never any question on their part that 'maybe it
happened, maybe it didn't happen' -- it _did_ happen."

Ideas like the one proposed above, and others from Klass and
Menzel, are premised on the notion that since UFOs don't exist,
Gill, et al., could not have seen what they described, and
therefore any alternative theory, however weak or speculative,
is preferable. If Gill and the others had reported, say, a rare
natural phenomenon or the testing of a secret (and subsequently
known) aircraft, their testimony would not only have been taken
at face value but considered good, given the quantity of the
witnesses and the careful reporting of the most famous of them.

 >Gill's sighting, at face value, is pretty spectacular:
 >structured craft hovering for a long time, figures on it
 >responding to gestures from the witnesses. I agree it does not
 >sound like Venus. What do you think it might have been? And
 >please, no nonsense like "I don't know, that's why they call it
 >an unidentified flying object." I can't believe you've read as
 >much as you have about this case - and spoken to Gill - without
 >forming some tentative ideas.

I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Gill and the
other witnesses, that they saw piloted craft of unknown origin.
Their sighting remains among the most puzzling and impressive of
CE3s.

 >I'm probably wishing a torrent of anti-pelicanist invective
 >here, but I'll ask: what do you think of Martin Kottmeyer's
 >suggestions published in Magonia 54? In one of those
 >sceptic-on-sceptic criticisms which according to Jerry never
 >happen, Klass disputes Kottmeyers explanation, and suggests
that >Gill's associate, Rev. Norman Cruttwell, who promoted the
story, >may have been the victim of a little leg-pulling from
Gill >which, as these things tend to do, got rather out of hand.

Klass was peddling this hogwash, or at least a variant of it,
long ago. When I asked him about it, Gill denied it. Gill, who
as far as I know is still alive (perhaps Bill Chalker would know
for sure), has stuck by his testimony consistently over the
decades. He discussed his sighting at what must have been
excruciating length with Hynek and Allan Hendry* when he visited
the former in 1977 and stayed for many days at the Hynek
residence. From everything I and others who have met Gill have
observed of his personality, a practical joke such as Klass (who
of course has never met or interviewed or otherwise interacted
with the man) has suggested seems simply out of the question.


Jerry Clark

*Hendry would write in IUR (December 1977) that the "'lesser
UFOs' are attributable to bright stars and planets, but _not_
[Hendry's emphasis] the primary object," whose size and absence
of movement over three hours ("any astronomical object would
have had to move through 45 degrees of arc in that time") ruled
out an astronomical explanation, as did the fact that the
sketches the witnesses drew independently soon after the
sighting showed a large craft.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                    Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 14:31:45 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 16:52:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 - Rudiak


 >Date: 7 Jun 2001 20:43:58 -0700
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:48:32 EDT
 >>Subject: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:22:03 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>>Walker at one point admitted to going to the
 >>>crash site on Dec. 9 along with two off-duty military people.
 >>>Walker was then with the Institute for Defense Analysis.
 >>>Walker's daughter also remembers him being suddenly called out
 >>>there, though my memory on the details of this are very
 >>>sketchy.

 >>"Off-duty" suggests that the military people had _not_ been
 >>"called out", but were just there for the fun of it, after
 >>hearing the bizarre PR screw-up about this fruitless search on
 >>the radio. Probably Walker was also there on his own, at the
 >>time he was on the Engineering faculty of either Penn State or
 >>the University of Pittsburg, I forget which.

 >At the time Walker was President at Penn State University. Also
 >Chairman of the Board at the Institute for Defense Analysis. In
 >fact he gave the commencement address the morning after he
 >attended the crash. Kecksburg was 100 miles as the crow flies
 >from the University.

 >Walker had his own pilot's license and plane at Penn State. He
 >could have been in the air minutes after a phone call.

Grant, I think this tells us that Walker had more than just an
idle curiousity about UFOs. Your MUFON monograph mentions one
biography of Walker calling him one of the busiest men in
America, not somebody to travel 100+ miles in the middle of the
night with at least two others "just for the fun of it", as Bob
Young puts it.

 >Walker also mentioned the unofficial nature of people working on
 >the UFO problem in connection with communication attempts with
 >the aliens. Is was clear he meant unofficial - therefore no
 >records, and a secondary system of investigating.

While trying to dig up more info on this, I rummaged through
Leonard Stringfield's Status Reports, and came across this
report by you on Walker, included in Stringfield's Status Report
VI. It includes yet another conversation by Armen Victorian (AKA
Henry Azadehdel) with Walker dated May 30, 1991. In this
conversation, Walker admits to going out to Kecksburg:


AV Doctor, I want to ask you about something that might not have
anything to do with UFOs. Would you mind me asking you?

EW: What is that?

AV: Doctor, it is about an incident which happened in the
mid-60's. To be precise, on December 9, 1965, in Kecksburg. It
was one could say, almost in your back garden. could you tell me
something about it?

EW: What about it?

AV: Well, what did you find out about it?

EW: You still have not given up. ... Well, we went there.

AV: With the military?

EW: Well, you see, two were from the military, but not on duty.

AV: How about the others?

EW: He was a fellow colleague of mine.

AV: what did you find? Was it a -- I know you are not going to
like the word, but, was it a UFO?

EW: I cannot comment on that. I cannot tell you.

AV: Were you there for long?

EW: Why?

AV: Well, curiosity. I thought, maybe, there was a purpose in
the sense of -- maybe, preparing a report, or taking some notes.

EW: We did not prepare any reports.


Then there was the following commentary from Azedehdel:

"Based upon my previous conversations with him, I would say, he
has not changed at all. He did not give any solid piece of
information to confirm the fact that a UFO did come down in
Kecksburg... I could say that it was his way of telling me,
without putting himself in any jeopardy."


 >Scott may correct me, but I don't believe his daughter was ever
 >involved. Scott questioned the son, a medical doctor, but me
 >knew nothing.

Walker did have a daughter, but working from memory I may have
gotten the story confused with the following anecdote in
Stringfield's Status Report VII, based on a report by Stan
Gordon:

"One firsthand witness that I have interviewed a number of
times, lived a military life as a child. Her father was a high
ranking officer and apparently was directly involved with the
investigation of UFO crash retrievals. Her family had been
visiting in Pennsylvania at the time of the Kecksburg crash. She
was standing next to her father, when he received the phone call
about the incident, and was being given directions how to get to
Kecksburg. He quickly ran upstairs in his civilian colothes, and
soon came down in his dress blues, then quickly left the
residence."


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 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                         Re: Talk And Action - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 17:07:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 18:47:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Stacy


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:11:09 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >Dennis, Bob, Dick, List,

 >As Dick indicates, it is erroneous to say that scientific
 >instruments don't pick up UFOs and to say they don't pick
 >enough is a non-quantitative argument that may be false when
 >real numbers are put to it. The Condon Committee analyzed the
 >different scientific instruments and networks including the
 >repeatedly pushed Prairie Network and found most of them of very
 >little use for UFO detection, especially including the Prairie
 >Network which was designed to capture fast-moving bright
 >meteors.


Brad,

So? What about any and everything else that the Condon Report
didn't look at at the time simply because it didn't exist then?

Or don't you think that global monitoring and surveillance has
increased exponentialy in the interval?

 >The narrowness of application to which instrumentation is used
 >and the narrow interests of those running the instruments have
 >been documented throughout history such as in Hynek's 1952 AAS
 >astronomer survey, the Condon Report of 1969, Sturrock's AAS
 >astronomer survey in 1977 and elsewhere.


Your references are 20 years older or more, in some cases nearly
30 or 40.

We're talking about what's out there now, an _exponential_
increase in every spectrum, visual and otherwise, and not just
in terms of quality, but quantity.

Much of it accompanied by basic video verification, along with
much more esoteric instrumentation.

Frankly, I don't care about the Prairie Network. That's ancient
history compared to what's now available and operative, with
more coming online every day, not to mention merely commercial
activities, which are hardly subject to government and
mainstream science influences, never mind a U.S.-orchestrated
UFO cover up.

The world has changed fundamentally and significantly in the
last decade alone. Today ain't Hynek's Oldsmobile. It's a whole
new ballgame.

The paradigm has shifted. The old parrot is deceased, passed
away, bereft of breath, gone beyond, hied to heaven, etc.

And my apologies for mixing metaphors, but it's a Brave New
World out there.

I'm surprised you and Dick can't recognize this.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 9

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 17:14:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 18:58:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 08:03:59 -0300


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:41:32 -0500

 >>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 21:49:44 -0300

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:22:17 -0500

 >>>>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>>Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:45:14 -0300

 >>>>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>>>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:57:05 -0500


Stan,

 >>>>You would have been off to take the
 >>>>criticism, however outrageously unfair it may have been from
 >>>>your perspective, and brought your complaints to your fellow
 >>>>ufologists, not to the court. If you had done so, my guess is
 >>>>that you would have attracted rather more sympathy than you now
 >>>>have for your position.

 >I do not agree that criticism and defamation are the same thing.
 >Senator McCarthy certainly demonstrated how much damage can be
 >done by so-called free speech as have the rabble rousers of the
 >world

So it's just "so-called free speech" now? To the rest of us,
it's just free speech. Free speech can be obnoxious, and that's
the kind it is especially vital to protect. Innocuous, banal
speech needs no protection. As a cogent expression goes, the
answer to bad speech is not suppression but more speech.

I've reread the Manchester newspaper article that sparked this
whole sad episode. (Those who want to read it for themselves
should go to the UpDates archives and look up Rob Irving's
February 21, 1997, posting, which reprints it.) In a posting
around the same time, the always wise and level-headed Bob
Rickard summed it up well:

"My first thoughts [about the article] are that it was quite
innocuous. Regarding what the interviewees may have said, it was
a typical piece of trite oversimplification and full of obvious
misquotes and probably much other ill-informed rubbish that we
have come to expect from media reporting of anything to do with
ufology, Forteana or any damned thing. These days, one cannot -
as an 'expert' in any field of this type who will sooner or
later be interviewed or reported - avoid such journalistic
trivializations."

Not long ago a very close friend of mine, a prominent Fortean,
was savaged in a widely read on-line magazine devoted to
politics and popular culture. The piece was incredibly unfair
and painted a picture of my friend that no one who knows him -
as a decent, honorable, conscientious man - would recognize.
Naturally, my friend (whose name most of you would recognize;
I'm not mentioning it because I don't want to do anything to
draw further attention to the hatchet job of which he was the
target) was hurt, offended, and angry. But he took it like the
professional he is, and at no time did legal threats or actions
fly from his or an attorney's mouth or keyboard, and he demanded
no abject "retraction" from the jerk who wrote the article.

Though you throw the word "defamation" around freely, you did
not prove it in court, and of course defamation is a legal term.
You settled out of court, humiliating Jenny Randles and bullying
the paper into the sort of abject "confession" or "retraction"
that would not have been out of place at a Stalinist show trial.
A truly unedifying spectacle. Jenny settled because she didn't
have the money to fight you, and the Manchester paper, which
presumably could have fought you, obviously didn't care enough
to spend the cash and chose to cut its losses. Hardly a profile
in courage, but then its article - though surely not defamatory
- was hardly a profile in great journalism.

 >>What harm really was done to you? Were you able to demonstrate
 >>any, other than the understandable anger you felt at what you
 >>consider (and I agree) to be unjust criticism? How long are the
 >>memories of newspaper readers anyway? How many of them would
 >>have recalled the offending article the next day, much less the
 >>next month, even less the next year? Do you realize just how
 >>much information we are bombarded with _daily_ and how little
 >>even the most attentive of us remember? Your reaction to the
 >>offending article was all out of proportion to any harm you
 >>could demonstrate empirically. Nobody except you would even know
 >>or remember that such a piece had ever appeared if you had not
 >>acted as you did.

 >Harry Harris is a solicitor in the Manchester area. He was
 >defamed as well. Does not that matter? Should his ability to
 >make a living not matter at all.?

As I suspected, you can't demonstrate any harm that was done to
you. Or, I gather, to Harris either.

 >>Maybe for you. What I'd like to know, is Jenny still paying you
 >>money every month? And just how much money has that come to over
 >>the years?

 >Ah, finally we get to the nub of the matter.

Nope, hardly the nub of the matter. The nub of the matter is
your role in squelching expression, and your continuing defense
of same, including - incredibly - your statement in a previous
posting about how, because of your suit, you think you may have
forced the British press to weigh its words carefully before
writing about American ufologists. Ever heard the phrase
"chilling effect" in discussions of threats to press freedom?
It's not ordinarily thought to be a good thing.

 >I wish you or
 >whoever made this charge would get their facts in hand before
 >putting their computers in gear. I have a statement from my
 >solicitor from October 1990 that went along with the small check
 >I received. It shows total payment to me of less than 5 figures
 >(US) of which the MEN paid more than 90%. Jenny's contribution
 >was less than 4 figures. I have not received a penny on her
 >behalf since that time or, for that matter, from the MEN.

 >What possible basis could you have for even suggesting that I
 >have been receiving payments from Jenny since 1990? This the
 >first I have heard of this absurd, baseless notion. Nobody has
 >even approached me to ask. Not you, not any of my fellow
 >ufologists. I am often criticized for checking on credentials
 >for trying to verify claims, etc. I can see why. Many of my
 >fellow ufologists aren't very interested in verification,
 >validation, substantiation. Free expression becomes an excuse
 >for laziness, for armchair theorizing, for don't bother me with
 >the facts my mind is made up, for repeating false and malicious
 >lies.

Oh, yes, that awful "free expression." As for all the sturm and
drang - my word. All I did was ask you a question. If you say
she hasn't sent you any money in a decade, I'll happily take
your word for it. That, however, does not begin to justify your
action in setting these sorry events in motion in the first
place.

 >>And as to the question, you've made my point explicitly: your
 >>lawsuit had the effect of squelching free expression, as I
 >>stated originally. Now you're actually defending it on those
 >>grounds. In fact, if, as you suggest, British papers are slower
 >>to criticize American ufologists because they fear being sued
 >>again, that is no victory at all, my friend. It just makes us
 >>American ufologists look like bullies who can dish it out but
 >>can't take it.

 >Did somebody erase the word defamation from your dictionary,
 >Jerry? Criticism. of which I have certainly had plenty, is very
 >different from defamation, inciting a riot, breaking the
 >Official Secrets act and other justifiable restraints on freedom
 >of expression.

Where has it been established in court that you were defamed?
And having unflattering things said about one in a newspaper
article is hardly in the same league as treason - though in view
of how often the Ministry of Defense is accused of abusing the
Official Secrets Act to squelch free expression and discussion,
I'm a little surprised that you bring it up.

Let me repeat:

You intimidated Jenny and the Manchester paper into settling out
of court, not because, I gather, they thought you had a case -
you didn't, from every indication I can see - but because
Britain's antiquated libel laws would have made even a "winning"
defense prohibitively expensive.

 >I, for one, am not involved in ufology to try to win a
 >popularity contest. Perhaps you have forgotten that whereas
 >Jenny defamed me for my supposed views, and for what I was
 >supposedly going to say in my lecture the next day, she didn't
 >even attend the lecture.

Whatever else she might have done that she shouldn't have done,
Jenny did not defame you. You can make that claim as often as
you wish, but it doesn't make it true. Your definition of
"defamation," I take it, is personal criticism you find
particularly infuriating and offensive, and you regard
expression of that sort as fit only to be silenced. Ever heard
of the heat in the kitchen? Oh, yes, well, I guess you have, as
the next paragraph attests:

 >The offending article appeared on Saturday with my lecture set
 >for Sunday and no MEN on Sunday. She ducked out quickly when I
 >appeared at a radio station that Monday where she happened to
 >be. I have been quite willing to debate about UFOs, witness my
 >Oxford University debate, my Trinity University debate and a
 >myriad of TV and radio programs. I often have repeated Truman's
 >comment that if one can't stand the heat, get out of the
 >kitchen. Just who have I bullied? Hardly the MEN. They may be
 >more cautious in the future in publishing unsubstantiated
 >attacks. Is that bad? Or should the philosophy be "publish and
 >the facts be damned" along with reputations?

It seems hypocritical, to put it mildly, for you of all people
to be warning others that if they can't stand the heat, they
should stay out of the kitchen. Or does that apply _only_ to
others?

 >By the way does that group of fellow ufologists include Bob
 >Lazar, Guy Kirkwood, Michael Wolf, Milton Cooper, Al Bielik?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Look, Stan, I don't want to prolong the agony here. All I can
say is that I don't know which is more depressing: your action
against Jenny and MEN or your continuing defense of the
indefensible.

If we are all lucky, nothing remotely like this will ever happen
again, and full and free expression, including obnoxious,
offensive, and stupid free expression, will enliven, enrage,
inform, dumbfound, and flower in ufology for as long as there
are ufologists.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                        Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:38:47 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:32:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:11:09 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:58:21 -0000
 >>Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:00:02 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Hall

 >>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >>>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Talk And Action - Young
 >>>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 17:00:02 -0400

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 02:37:30 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>>Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:36:28 -0500

 >>>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>>>Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:52:43 -0000

 >>>>Science doesn't have to sit around monitoring the skies for
 >>>>UFOs; the latter would be incidental to other observations,
 >>>>which are now taking place in quantities that could only have
 >>>>been imagined a decade or two ago.

 >>>Dennis, Dick:

 >>>This is a very important point. Why isn't there more
 >>>instrumented evidence of visitations, if they are taking place?
 >>>Even though Hynek discounted it, the old Prairie network
 >>>operated from more than ten years, and the Canadian counterpart
 >>>for at least 20, while the European Fireball Network has, in its
 >>>various forms, been photographing the sky since the 50s. Where
 >>>are the saucers? Hynek claimed these networks had flaws, but the
 >>>Prairie network was capable of imaging fourth magnitude moving
 >>>objects (about the visual sky limit for most suburban skies).
 >>>Where are the UFOs?

 >>>>It's naive on your part to think that ridicule rules like some sort
 >>>>of fail-safe security, or cover up, blanket. _Can_ it have an impact?
 >>>>No doubt. Is it guaranteed to keep the "truth" -- whatever that is
 >>>>-- covered up from everyone? No way.

 >>>This is a point also made in the March issue of Magonia, by the
 >>>way, in an editorial by John Harney. UFOs could no more be kept
 >>>secret than could volcanic eruptions or meteor showers. How
 >>>could the "Government" control a phenomena inititated by an
 >>>outside force - the ETs?

 >>>>In fact, there is no particularly necessary reason that any such
 >>>>acquired data would have to be associated with, or identified
 >>>>as, UFOs in the sense that you and I are talking about them
 >>>>here, ie, as potential ET craft. Where is that unwritten rule?
 >>>>The ridicule factor could easily be averted by any scientist(s)
 >>>>interested enough to give it serious thought. But I forget:
 >>>>they're mostly sheared sheep.

 >>>Where are the instrumented records of visitations?

 >>Bob,

 >>It's not an "important point" at all. See my postings to Dennis
 >>and some relevant ones by Brad Sparks. These networks generally
 >>are programmed to exclude data that doesn't fit the profile of
 >>some known phenomenon that they are looking for.

 >>If and when something anaomalous is detected (and this is
 >>fact-based, not speculation on my part) it is either discarded
 >>as not relevant to the focused purpose of the net, or considered
 >>"too hot to handle" by people who are intimidated by
 >>skeptibunkers and fear for their reputations and careers if they
 >>speak out. Lots of evidence out there to support this.

 >>As I said to Dennis, UFOs are anathema in the scientific
 >>community (as witness your attitudes if, indeed, you are a
 >>scientist rather than the type of person you accused me of
 >>being; a pretender cloaking himself in scientific language).

 >>Dick

 >Dennis, Bob, Dick, List,

 >As Dick indicates, it is erroneous to say that scientific
 >instruments don't pick up UFOs and to say they don't pick
 >enough is a non-quantitative argument that may be false when
 >real numbers are put to it. The Condon Committee analyzed the
 >different scientific instruments and networks including the
 >repeatedly pushed Prairie Network and found most of them of very
 >little use for UFO detection, especially including the Prairie
 >Network which was designed to capture fast-moving bright
 >meteors.

 >The narrowness of application to which instrumentation is used
 >and the narrow interests of those running the instruments have
 >been documented throughout history such as in Hynek's 1952 AAS
 >astronomer survey, the Condon Report of 1969, Sturrock's AAS
 >astronomer survey in 1977 and elsewhere.

Hi All,

Brief comments, I worked on a nuclear particle experiment. The
idea was to prove certain particles with certain properties
existed. Spark chamber photographs of proton "bombard" of very
cold hydrogen was used. Without going into a long complicated
discussion about the engineering design of the experiment, these
points are important:

   1. First all spark chamber photographs were examined by
   assistants who were taught to only find the desired data for
   tracks that would possible indicate the presents of the sought
   after particles. (Many photographs were ruined due to various
   reasons, reaction time of the instruments, technical
   malfunctions, comsic rays passing through the chamber, the
   beam not hitting anything, etc., etc.) Approximately, 250,000
   photographs were taken and checked less than 3% contained the
   data required.

(Aside here, the above procedure, for certain people, who style
themselves skeptics, is called "data reduction." Say it ten
times and make it yours! Because some or, as in the case above,
the vast majority of spark chamber photographs, were ruined by
various causes, does not have an effect on the data contained in
the photographs that do have interesting information. Because
the vast majority of initial UFO reports are useless, that does
not mean that there are not useful cases which may show
something unique. In fact such is the case, see the Condon
report.)

   2. After the selection of likely candidate photographs for
   further analyses, the experimenters used computers to measure
   various characteristics of the particles tracks caught in the
   photographs. However, again here the bias concerned the
   properties which the experimenters wanted.

Now, although probably unlikely, there might be several unusual
nuclear events caught in this process which had nothing to do
with the specific events the experimenters sought. However,
since both the original manual scans of the photographs and the
computer program which was designed to consider only those
properties sought, discarded these possible unique events in
favor of the desired data, such events were lost.

Second example, Dr. Clyde Tombaugh lead the US search for
"natural satellites" in the early 1950s. Searches for such
satellites were done for the earth and for the possible
short-lived lunar satellite. Thousands of photographs plates
were exposed at various locations in the US and Ecuador.
Tombaugh identified a number of possible meteor research lines
that were possible using his photographs. The government funding
was for satellite searches, not meteor research. The research
associates and others wanted to further their scientific careers
and move on to other work, so such meteor research languished
although huge amounts of data compile at considerable expense
and effort were available.

While it may be possible that certain instrumentations detect
UFOs, it unlikely that such would be recognized as researchers
are looking for certain well defined data, other material is
discarded. Such material might exist within the high profile
detection gear, but there has to be a will or reason to seek it
out.

Early on the Condon committee did consider various EME detection
ideas, but nothing came from the discussions.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:07:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:34:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Stacy


Stan,

On this MEN/Randles lawsuit matter, did you approach Harry
Harris (I think that's his name) first - or did he approach you
first?

If the latter, did Harris, by any chance, say anything to the
effect that, given England's libel law set up, you and he might
be able to make "something" out of this, something here meaning,
of course, money? (And the original target being MEN's coffers,
Jenny being merely the financially strapped bystander? Notice I
didn't say innocent.)

(And didn't Harris just happen to be a solicitor, or what we
Americans refer to as a lawyer?)

Assuming that's not the case, have you ever brought a defamation
suit against anyone (Philip Klass included) in this country?

If not, why not?

As a resident, now, of Canada, have you ever brought a similar
suit against anyone in that country or this one?

If not, why not?

Because there's nothing for you in either instance? But in
England you thought you could get - what, money? Is that what
Harris advised?

Even in that case you could have declined your portion of the
financial settlement against Jenny, I assume, simply by
accepting publication of a public apology as a just and
reasonable solution to whatever ailed or offended you. Seems to
me you and Harris went for the money - regardless of who or from
wherever it came.

But you can correct me if I'm wrong.

Incidentally, was the Harris deal a 50/50 split of any and all
damages and monies awarded, or were one of you more "harmed" or
"defamed" than the other?

And what was Harris's cut, by the way?

I assume he was working pro bono on his and your behalf?

Just curious.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                         Re: Talk And Action - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 01:03:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:56:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Gates


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 12:20:03 -0500

 >>Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:26:20 -0400
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:58:21 -0000

 >>>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >>>>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Talk And Action - Young
 >>>>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 17:00:02 -0400

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 02:37:30 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Where are the instrumented records of visitations?

 >>>It's not an "important point" at all. See my postings to Dennis
 >>>and some relevant ones by Brad Sparks. These networks generally
 >>>are programmed to exclude data that doesn't fit the profile of
 >>>some known phenomenon that they are looking for.

 >No doubt. No doubt a lot of it is simple photography (still &
 >video), too. You're limiting the definition of instrumentation
 >here. All sorts of scientists routinely document their
 >activities with a visual record.

As long as said discoverys fit with so called sciences "current
theory of the moment." Right now sciences current theory
about UFOs is "Gee the distances are so great (the next part
is unsaid of course) and because 'we' don't have the technology
to travel intersteller, so nobody does........"

 >>>If and when something anaomalous is detected (and this is
 >>>fact-based, not speculation on my part) it is either discarded
 >>>as not relevant to the focused purpose of the net, or
 >>>considered "too hot to handle" by people who are intimidated
 >>>by skeptibunkers and fear for their reputations and careers if
 >>>they speak out. Lots of evidence out there to support this.

 >Let me see if I've got this right. By way of example, let's say
 >a biological scientist with the National Parks and Wildlife
 >Service is taking a late summer headcount of the Buffalo
 >population in Yellowstone. To do this he flies over the herd and
 >videotapes it; back in the "lab," the individual animals are
 >counted. (This is exactly the same way many large ranches in the
 >West count their cattle, btw.)

 >While doing this, they happen to videotape a landed, metallic-
 >looking disc approximately 35 feet in diameter, sitting in the
 >middle of the herd. The object then rises to a height of about
 >100 feet, turns reddish-orange and shoots off to the NW,
 >disappearing in seconds. Clear, unambiguous, daylight videotape
 >of a landed and then flying saucer.

 >Now, out of fear for his or her reputation and/or career, he or
 >she decides it is "too hot to handle" and subsequently erases it
 >or buries it in a vault somewhere.

The first thing that would likely said is the person(s) is a
kook, nut, attempting to bring some kind of attention to his/her
self, part of an elaborate hoax etc etc. You would have
elaborate quotes from various people about how it can't be so
therefore they are explaining it away at all costs.

 >What would they possibly have to fear? And if they were fearful,
 >why not make a copy of the original and send it in anonymously
 >to some news organization -- or better yet, sell it anonymously?

Ridicule by various skeptics, fellow peers and so forth.

In your example some one would recognize what Buffalo heard was
photographed, or the land and it would be pretty easy to trace
back to within a couple of people.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                        Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:12:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:03:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 17:07:40 -0500

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:11:09 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>To: <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>Dennis, Bob, Dick, List,

 >>As Dick indicates, it is erroneous to say that scientific
 >>instruments don't pick up UFOs and to say they don't pick
 >>enough is a non-quantitative argument that may be false when
 >>real numbers are put to it. The Condon Committee analyzed the
 >>different scientific instruments and networks including the
 >>repeatedly pushed Prairie Network and found most of them of very
 >>little use for UFO detection, especially including the Prairie
 >>Network which was designed to capture fast-moving bright
 >>meteors.

 >Brad,

 >So? What about any and everything else that the Condon Report
 >didn't look at at the time simply because it didn't exist then?

 >Or don't you think that global monitoring and surveillance has
 >increased exponentialy in the interval?

 >>The narrowness of application to which instrumentation is used
 >>and the narrow interests of those running the instruments have
 >>been documented throughout history such as in Hynek's 1952 AAS
 >>astronomer survey, the Condon Report of 1969, Sturrock's AAS
 >>astronomer survey in 1977 and elsewhere.

 >Your references are 20 years older or more, in some cases nearly
 >30 or 40.

 >We're talking about what's out there now, an _exponential_
 >increase in every spectrum, visual and otherwise, and not just
 >in terms of quality, but quantity.

 >Much of it accompanied by basic video verification, along with
 >much more esoteric instrumentation.

 >Frankly, I don't care about the Prairie Network. That's ancient
 >history compared to what's now available and operative, with
 >more coming online every day, not to mention merely commercial
 >activities, which are hardly subject to government and
 >mainstream science influences, never mind a U.S.-orchestrated
 >UFO cover up.

 >The world has changed fundamentally and significantly in the
 >last decade alone. Today ain't Hynek's Oldsmobile. It's a whole
 >new ballgame.

 >The paradigm has shifted. The old parrot is deceased, passed
 >away, bereft of breath, gone beyond, hied to heaven, etc.

 >And my apologies for mixing metaphors, but it's a Brave New
 >World out there.

 >I'm surprised you and Dick can't recognize this.

 >Dennis
 >

Wow! Now why don't you tell us how you really feel, Dennis?

The principles remain the same, if you don't look for it, it
probably won't be found. Yes, of course, there are new networks
with better resolution, and also better filters.

Twenty or thirty years ago, there was more of a possibility of
something unusual making it to the press, also. Not today in the
Art Bell, X-files saturated world.

The final skeptical article about Transient Lunar Phenomena
(TLPs) was written just a short time ago. Right after that,
amateurs using their own video equipment were able to confirm
the phenomenon. So much for vaulted surveillence networks!

Your own arguments are dead. Go back in history and review all
the statements that this profession or piece of equipment
doesn't see or pick up UFOs.

Oh, BTW where are all the good pictures, videos and other great
gewhiz stuff on ball lightning from such networks?!


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 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                 Update Of Greenwood'S UFO Article Catalogue

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 11:21:13 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:13:22 -0400
Subject: Update Of Greenwood'S UFO Article Catalogue


Just added to the Sign Historical Group collection!

A new updated version of Barry Greenwood's UFO article catalogue
expanding on the over 7000 UFO and UFO-related articles
collected from poplar and professional journals during 35 years
of research now available at:

http://www.project1947.com/new.htm

Barry's catalogue may be viewed on line or downloaded in various
formats: ASCII, MS Excell 2000, and MS Access 2000.

Newly added entries are highlighted in red.

If you know of other UFO articles not listed in Greenwood's
bibliography, please contact him with the information at:


bgreenwood@mediaone.net


Jan Aldrich
Vice Chairman
Sign Historical Group
http://www.project1947.com/shg
P. O. Box 40
Scotland, CT 06264








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                  Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:25:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:21:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark
 >Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 17:14:49 -0500

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 08:03:59 -0300

<snip>

 >If we are all lucky, nothing remotely like this will ever happen
 >again, and full and free expression, including obnoxious,
 >offensive, and stupid free expression, will enliven, enrage,
 >inform, dumbfound, and flower in ufology for as long as there
 >are ufologists.

<snip>

Just a few quick ones on free expression:

1. Does free expression apply to an individual who has asked for
retraction, was denied same and resorted to a court to get one?

2. Is EBK squelching free expression when deciding what will and
will not be posted? Are media doing the same when deciding what
to report and what not to report?

3. "Jerry, you're a rat, a liar and a cheat... Stan, you're full
of it..." Could any criticism of this statement be considered
intimidation and denial of freedom of expression?

4. Could ignoring this statement be considered intimidation?

5. Is every individual equal before the Law in the US legal
system? In any civilized legal system?

6. Is Stan wrong because he lost a popularity contest?

7. Is Jerry right because of the apparent popularity of his
position?

8. Did someone count all the votes?

9. Would Ray Santilli get the same support as Jenny Randles in
the same situation?

You have the right to delete this post.

<Gulp>








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 10

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 22:38:56 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:35:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark
 >Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 17:14:49 -0500

<snip>

 >Whatever else she might have done that she shouldn't have done,
 >Jenny did not defame you. You can make that claim as often as
 >you wish, but it doesn't make it true.

I went back to the 1997 archives that had the offending article
posted in February of that month. I took the following excerpt
from that original article:

<begin quote>

 >A meeting featuring an American expert on the subject of
 >crashed UFOs was condemned today as "about as factual as a
 >Steven Spielberg movie." The rocket was fired by Jenny Randles,
 >who claims to be Britain's only "professional ufologist."

 >ZAP! She slated "dangerous and highly suspect non-science"
 >from cultists and crackpots.

 >POW! she blitzed the "absolute nonsense about crashed
 >spaceships and dead aliens" as damaging to sober links
 >between serious ufologists and the scientific community.

 >Jenny, who lives in Heathbank Road, Cheadle Heath, Stockport,
 >poured scorn on a presentation due to be made at Radcliffe
 >Civic Hall on Sunday by Harry Harris of Sale and American UFO
 >fanatic Stanton Friedman. Mr Friedman is a disciple of the
 >theory that an alien space-ship crashed in the New Mexico
 >desert in 1947, since when the US Government has made a secret
 >pact with captive aliens about a quota system for spiriting
 >earthlings away to their planet in the system Zeta Reticuli.
 >"These people claim the only information garnered from having
 >aliens in a freezer for 42 years is that they have a fetish for
 >strawberry ice-cream." she declared.

<end quote>

I have to disagree with you, Jerry. The above looks pretty
defamatory to me.

I don't know Jenny Randles personally, but I was shocked to read
the statements attributed to her in that article. Based on her
books and on the postings to various email lists I've seen her
make, the statements in that article seem grossly out of
character. If the article misquoted her and misrepresented her
statements, it seems to me that she could have easily cleared
that up with Stanton (he's not an unreasonable gentleman by any
means) then turned around and busted the paper herself for doing
that to her!

If she did make the quoted statements, then she should have
expected to be held accountable for her actions, as should the
paper.

And this is all old news, water under the bridge. Discussing it
now is just beating a dead horse.

It just looks to me like somebody shot off their mouth and got
busted doing it. Happens all the time. Being a "professional
ufologist" does not make one immune to the consequences of one's
actions.

My opinion on the matter

Bobbie


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








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                        Re: Talk And Action - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:24:07 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:12:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Sparks


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 12:20:03 -0500
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com, eric@n6rpf.com-us.net
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Stacy


 >>Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:26:20 -0400
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:58:21 -0000

 >>>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >>>>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Talk And Action - Young
 >>>>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 17:00:02 -0400

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 02:37:30 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Where are the instrumented records of visitations?

 >>>It's not an "important point" at all. See my postings to Dennis
 >>>and some relevant ones by Brad Sparks. These networks generally
 >>>are programmed to exclude data that doesn't fit the profile of
 >>>some known phenomenon that they are looking for.

 >No doubt. No doubt a lot of it is simple photography (still &
 >video), too. You're limiting the definition of instrumentation
 >here. All sorts of scientists routinely document their
 >activities with a visual record.


Dennis,

Again here we are arguing over matters that go back to the 60's
when Jacques Vallee and others published cases of astronomers
ignoring or destroying instrumented records of UFO's, and we
don't even reference the original discussions. There is no sense
of history here, no proper literature search, and we seem to be
condemned to repeating this history over and over again ad
nauseam. For months now on UFO UpDates I've been making the same
points and they don't register, they keep getting evaded.

We're going to do something different here today. We're going to
do some simple math and physics.

The problem with your argument is that it is vague and
non-quantitative -- as I pointed out last time in response to
which you posted the following, here and in another posting:

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2001/jun/m09-023.shtml

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2001/jun/m09-020.shtml

It is vague because you don't explain whether this is supposed
to mean UFO's don't exist or just what your point really is. So
let's put some numbers to it. You don't like the Condon Report
(you say in your other posting) because you say it's 30+ years
out-of-date, the Sturrock report is 20+ years out-of-date (but
Sturrock's recent _book_ is _not_ -- it is only 2 years old).
Yet you have not addressed any of the arguments with real
numbers about sensitivity of instrumentation and suitability for
UFO detection. So as I say we're going to look at a few numbers,
below:

 >>>If and when something anaomalous is detected (and this is
 >>>fact-based, not speculation on my part) it is either discarded
 >>>as not relevant to the focused purpose of the net, or
 >>>considered "too hot to handle" by people who are intimidated
 >>>by skeptibunkers and fear for their reputations and careers if
 >>>they speak out. Lots of evidence out there to support this.

 >Let me see if I've got this right. By way of example, let's say
 >a biological scientist with the National Parks and Wildlife
 >Service is taking a late summer headcount of the Buffalo
 >population in Yellowstone. To do this he flies over the herd and
 >videotapes it; back in the "lab," the individual animals are
 >counted. (This is exactly the same way many large ranches in the
 >West count their cattle, btw.)

 >While doing this, they happen to videotape a landed, metallic-
 >looking disc approximately 35 feet in diameter, sitting in the
 >middle of the herd. The object then rises to a height of about
 >100 feet, turns reddish-orange and shoots off to the NW,
 >disappearing in seconds. Clear, unambiguous, daylight videotape
 >of a landed and then flying saucer.

Interesting hypothetical example. Let's see how this works out
below when we apply actual numbers.

 >Now, out of fear for his or her reputation and/or career, he or
 >she decides it is "too hot to handle" and subsequently erases it
 >or buries it in a vault somewhere.

 >What would they possibly have to fear? And if they were fearful,
 >why not make a copy of the original and send it in anonymously
 >to some news organization -- or better yet, sell it anonymously?

 >And remember: the above example is something that is probably
 >routinely occurring at least thousands of times around the world
 >on a daily basis, 365 days a year.

Now we have some numbers though probably exaggerated. Suppose we
have 1,000 cattle-counting flights a day in the U.S. alone.
Using round numbers we can roughly estimate by order of
magnitude that a typical herd might be ten miles in size so that
at say 100 mph for a civil aircraft it would be videotaped in
1/10th hour.

Taking your UFO as close to the average size of a UFO, about ten
meters order of magnitude, it could not be resolved as a "Clear,
unambiguous" truly unexplained UFO if it's angular size was
smaller than around a mil or milliradian (roughly 1/10th full
moon), hence a maximum distance of ten thousand meters or about
6 miles. Your cattle-counting flights cut a swath twelve miles
wide and ten miles long in their videotaping or about 120 square
miles per flight per day. Now we multiply times 1,000 flights
per day (which seems like an excessive number but let's play
along here) for a total area covered of about 120,000 sq.mi.,
which is only about 1/25th the area of the forty-eight states of
the U.S. But this area is not covered continuously for 24 hours
but only for 1/10th hour each flight, or 1/240th of a day. And
furthermore there isn't a flying saucer sitting there 24 hours
long waiting for a cattle-counting plane to fly overhead. The
average duration is on the order of about ten minutes, call it
1/5th of an hour, or 1/120th of a day. We'll multiply these
devastating factors in just a moment.

Lastly, consider how many true unexplained UFO cases there are
each year on an average. I think it's on the order of magnitude
of say 100 cases worldwide, of which we'll say half or 50 occur
in the U.S., and of those roughly 10% are CE cases (which we'll
call "landings" even though many are not). We can always adjust
these figures later if someone disputes them or has better data.
But first we should see the magnitude of the problem. So,
roughly speaking, we have 5 landings in the U.S. per year on
average of true Unexplained UFO's. That's only about 1/70th of a
year, so the chances on any given day of there being a landed
flying saucer anywhere in the U.S. is roughly 1/70th.

Now if we multiply these factors all together, we find the
chances of a random coverage of cattle-counting video aircraft
chancing upon a randomly located landed UFO in the U.S. on
average is something like:

   1/25 x 1/240 x 1/120 x 1/70 = 1 chance in 50,400,000

I wanted to present this first so you could see that even
adjusting the input figures to more extreme values won't help
your chances significantly at all.

For example if we adopt absurd and ridiculous figures such as:
10,000 flights per day videotaping massive 100-mile herds of
cattle (thus 1 hour of videotaping each flight), that such
landed UFO's could be identified as such on video from
preposterous distances of 60 miles (why would cameras point out
to the horizon like that instead of focusing on the cattle
below? and they couldn't cover a 360� panorama either, but we're
assuming that here), that the average UFO landing lasts 2 hours,
and that there are 10 times as many landings of UFO's in the
U.S. than I estimated. I chose all these unreasonably large
enhancement factors to be simple factors of 10x each for ease of
illustration and calculation:

   10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 = 100,000x factor enhancement of the
   1 chance in 50,400,000 figure

   = 1 chance in 504

   (using absurdly large enhancement factors, as explained above)

That is why you don't find cattle-counters rushing to the TV
tabloids with video of landed flying saucers. It is extremely
unlikely that they would come across even one.

If you did similar calculations for other surveillance
activities you would arrive at similar numbers. And many such
activities collect recordings that are never reviewed by anyone
but are erased and reused on a continuing basis.

 >And that doesn't begin to count commercial activity, which would
 >include everything from the number of nature documentaries being
 >filmed on any given day, to National Geographic (and the like)
 >still photographers in the field -- who have nothing to fear. A
 >freelancer can't be fired for photographing a UFO. Similarly, do
 >you think an IMAX crew would try to capitalize on a good, clear
 >clip of a UFO -- or sweep it under the rug?

Given that the number of "nature documentaries" being produced
per day is likely to be far fewer than 1,000 or even 10,000
cattle-counting video flights per day, similar calculations as I
did above would prove even more dismal for the chances of
"nature documentary" crews filming a landed UFO.

 >As I said, before, the close and near-space atmosphere of the
 >Earth has never been under such massive surveillance as it is
 >now. _Clear and unambiguous_ pictures should be out there by
 >the dozens, if not hundreds or thousands. UFO reports should be
 >greatly on the rise. Does anyone know if they actually are? Or
 >are they on the decline?

See calculations above. As I had previously posted, see:

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2001/may/m29-013.shtml

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2001/jun/m03-005.shtml

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2001/jun/m09-014.shtml

most of this global surveillance data is under extreme
classification. In the 70's when the first fireball data from
the DSP infrared missile-early warning satellites were released
proving that the Rocky Mountain Fireball of Aug 10, 1972, had
bounced on top of the atmosphere and skipped back out into
space, I filed FOIA requests for DSP data. I got back "neither
can confirm or deny" even the existence of the DSP satellite
system, despite the fact it was already public knowledge with
the declassification of the 1972 Fireball and I had the name of
the system "Satellite Early Warning System (SEWS)" on other
documents that had been released!

Speaking of fireballs, the DSP satellite network detects roughly
on the order of about 10 such fireballs per year on average,
worldwide. Despite the fact these intense light shows should be
visible for upwards of 200 miles or more, and sometimes have the
visible light output of the Hiroshima nuclear blast, they are
almost never seen or filmed by ground or air observers.

 >>>As I said to Dennis, UFOs are anathema in the scientific
 >>>community (as witness your attitudes if, indeed, you are a
 >>>scientist rather than the type of person you accused me of
 >>>being; a pretender cloaking himself in scientific language).

 >>Already cited on this list is the story of the UBO (unidentified
 >>bright object) picked up by a scanning photometer on Mt.
 >>Haleakala (sp?) in Hawaii and reported in the Condon Report.
 >>This object/light would have been ignored if the scientists
 >>involved hadn't deided to, just this once, look for something
 >>that culdn't be identified.

 >>I previously reported the video taken on the same mountain top
 >>in 1993 and reported on NIGHTLINE in July, 1996. Strange moving
 >>lights were found in the imagery taken by a telescope designed
 >>to look for satellites.

 >>IT was analyzed by the scientists who decided that it couldn't
 >>have been an airplane but then they didn't do anything with the
 >>video. It was effectively "covered up" fr several years. It came
 >>to my attention and to the world only because in th fall of 1995
 >>someone surreptitiously provided a copy to Jay Lamonica of
 >>NIGHTLINE.

 >See above. Obviously, someone connected with the project
 >submitted an anonymous copy to a news outlet.

And your point is? This doesn't prove that UFO's are
nonexistent. You need to do the numbers (as I did above) and
show that such instrumentation activities should really be
picking up huge numbers of "clear unambiguous" UFO's (instead of
tiny fractional odds of getting even one such UFO) and that
there are actually personnel reviewing such records for such
purposes.

 >>The point is, here was a case of good video imagery of an
 >>unidentified object (or collection of UFOs), and considered UFOs
 >>because the scientists involved couldn't identify the lights, and
 >>after failing to identify, they ignored this highly credible telescopi
 >>sighting.

 >>They did not consult a ufologist to find out if it could be
 >>identified.

 >No, but a copy of same eventually found its way to the media.
 >One can assume that the source didn't have more or better "UFOs"
 >or they would have been submitted, too.

Don't "assume." Do the numbers! I'm going to be like Bruce
Maccabee with Easton here on his pelican theory of the Arnold
case when Bruce repeatedly pleads "Draw a map!"


 >The point is: it got out to the outside world. It wasn't
 >destroyed or erased.

 >Dennis

Do the numbers!


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 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                      Re: The Will To Believe - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:24:53 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:15:57 -0400
Subject: Re: The Will To Believe - Gehrman


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: The Will To Believe
 >Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:22:20 -0000

Richard,

You wrote:

 >In fact I have read Corso's book carefully and found it to be
 >pure bovine excrement, and he did claim to be the "savior" of
 >the earth. I have to wonder if you have read it if you don't
 >reecall that.

He said "sometimes, once in a very long while, you get a chance
to save your country, your planet, and even your species at the
same time." Neither I nor anyone defending Corso ever repeated
that line. Birnes wrote this and Corso may have said it and
believed it, but I have never repeated it. . I think it's over
the top but I wasn't asked my opinion. I do believe that Corso
distributed alien debris to the US business community, and as a
result he forever changed the world. Time will tell whether he
actually saved the planet. We haven't had the showdown yet.

 >I received very early on a complete, composite set of the AA
 >films on videotape from England (a promotional set by the
 >owners), and immediately spotted that the tent footage was a
 >hokey looking "loop." I studied the tape over and over, and
 >watched the behavior of the proponents, and found nothing but
 >strong indications of fraud, misrepresentation, and opportunism.

The tent footage clearly does have a different look and does not
resemble the autopsy or the debris footage in any way. The
autopsy and debris are both clear and focused, full of wonderful
detail. The problem with the statement above is the complete
lack of specificity. What were the "strong indications of fraud,
misrepresentation, and opportunism." you found? Ray tried to
make a profit, I admit, but why wouldn't he, and wouldn't you
expect that?

 >I even spoke with one of the film people in southern California
 >whose outfit had been offered the film at a high price, and
 >heard the (totally negative) evaluation by their expert film
 >people.

Again who are these folks and what type of evaluation did they
make on the footage. Do you have the report. May I have a copy
or could you put me in contact with them so I could ask. I would
expect that their so-called expert was talking through his hat,
just as you seem to be doing.

 >I have read most of the recent postings (as much as I could
 >stand) looking for anything halfway convincing, but find only
 >apologies for disgusting human behavior, for the most part.

The only disgusting human behavior I've seen comes from
researchers covered with pelican feathers, who won't follow the
new research to logical conclusions. You are always so concerned
with everyone adopting a scientific attitude but fail to notice
your own inconsistencies and humbug.

 >Rebecca said in an earlier posting, when a photographer comes
 >forth, when people stop trying to peddle incomplete and flawed
 >"data," etc., then I might become interested again.

Again you might be specific. Who are these people "trying to
peddle incomplete and flawed "data," etc"? We have been trying
to get folks to view and seriously consider the new research but
so far we've only had a few takers. Our data is not incomplete
or flawed. But how would you know? You haven't bothered to look
or read it as far as I can tell. The only way you could possibly
follow this discussion with any clarity is to get the AA cds.

Then if you thought something was flawed or phony, you could
reference it to the footage. You could then indicate that you
found a zipper at 43 seconds into the forth reel, or at
57seconds of the seventh reel, you saw a surgical error. If the
footage is hoaxed, you should be able to find fatal flaws. Why
not give it a try; order the CDs and look for yourself. I'll be
happy to send you a free set. As I've stated many times before,
there is absolutely no comparison between the CDs and the video
as far as quality and ease of reference and the ability to zoom
in and examine detail using photo shop type software.

 >"Mistakes were made," eh? Corso himself claimed to be the
 >savior. I watched and taped Corso being interviewed several
 >times during the Roswell anniversary, during which he had ample
 >time to disown any statements that were not his. He never said a
 >word.

He certainly would not be expected to spend his time correcting
mistakes. Besides there were no mistakes regarding his main
contentions. The mistakes are mistakes in time and dates and
other details. They do not contradict his main thesis.

 >His macho self-portrayal of charging around Washington
 >with a pistol, facing down "enemies" in the CIA, claiming a
 >central role for himself in major historical events, saving the
 >planet, etc. are clear signs of megalomania.

How could this be "megalomania"? It's all true as I've pointed
out before. He did carry a weapon; he did face down enemies; and
he did play a role in major historical events.

 >"Afraid?" Why should I be? The evidence of fraud, megalomania,
 >and opportunism is all over the landscape, but you refuse to see
 >it, apparently because you want to believe Corso.

I know that he called himself Col when others feel he wasn't
given that rank. I don't know how to explain that but I am
working on it. Other than that, I haven't been shown any
instances of "fraud, megalomania, and opportunism". Both Birnes
and Corso made mistakes but this does not mean that either was a
hoaxer or a fraud. It just means they were human.

 >You don't and can't answer the questions because you don't have
 >answers to the important questions such as the protocols of the
 >film, who it came from, etc., why certain things were done, why
 >the owners have constantly evaded critical testing. All you can
 >do is speculate in a very biased way.

Ray had the film tested just as he has always insisted. Then
Kodak kept increasing the amount of footage necessary until they
wanted fifteen feet of film. Volker refused to give out this
amount of footage. But Ray did have the footage tested. That's
how he first met Bob Shell. Check with Bob if you don't believe
me.

But you can see for yourself and no "protocols" are needed for
that.

While I do speculate, I only use the facts at my disposal. You
on the other hand refuse to look at the evidence, and seem
happily ignorant of the possibilities that the evidence has to
offer.

 >What evidence? You want to believe it's true, therefore it must
 >be true. Right back at ya!

The evidence I'm referring to is the M. Dennis article on the
debris, Neil Morris's research, and the findings of the Roswell
Photo team who are working on the Ft. Worth photos. This is hard
evidence, and in order to refute it you must examine it first
which you refuse to do. When & if you do so, then you might be
able to intelligently comment on the AA. Until that happens,
there's no point in our continuing this discussion.



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 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                   Saxa Vord and Captain Schafer - Anthony

From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:55:13 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:19:20 -0400
Subject: Saxa Vord and Captain Schafer - Anthony


Hi List and Dave Ledger.

Dave with regard to the controversial 8 September, 1970, Captain
Schafer alleged UFO encounter and plane ditch, I have taken the
liberty of pasting the relevant snippets to answer your
questions. These are brief extracts from the original article by
Pat Otter of Grimsby Evening Telegraph.

'Following laid down procedures, radar controllers at Saxa Vord
flashed a scramble message to the Quick Reaction Alert Flight at
the nearest NATO airfield, RAF Leuchars on the east coast of
Scotland not far from Dundee. There two Lightning interceptors,
which had been ready on the flight line for just such an alert,
were scrambled and within minutes were airborne and heading out
over the North Sea.'

'After checking the position of their tanker, A Victor K1A, the
two fighters were guided north by Saxa Vord. So far, it was a
routine scramble for what was then assumed to be a Russian Bear
or Badger, the long-range reconnaisance aircraft used to test
the nerves of the Royal Air Force.'

'But it was then that the radar plotters on the Shetland Islands
saw something on their screens which they found impossible to
believe. The contact they had been tracking at speeds and
altitudes consistent with modern Russian warplanes, turned
through 180 degrees on a due North heading and within seconds
disappeared off their screens. Later they calculated that to do
this its speed must have been in the region of 17,400mph.'

'With the contact now gone, the Lightnings were vectored south
to rendezvous with the tanker and remained airborne on Combat
Air patrol.'

'During the next hour the mystery contact reappeared several
times, approaching from the north. Each time the Lightnings were
sent north to intercept, it turned and disappeared again. by now
two F4 Phantoms of the US Air Force had been scrambled from the
American base at Keflavik in Iceland. They had much more
sophisticated radar than the British Lightnings and were able to
pick up the mystery contact themselves.'

'Two more Lightnings were scrambled from Leuchars, and were
ordered to rendezvous with a Victor tanker and then maintain a
CAP on a 50-mile east-west front, 200 miles north-east of
Aberdeen.

As a precaution, two further Lightnings were ordered into the
air from Coltishall in Norfolk and, with another tanker, to form
a CAP 170 miles east of Great Yarmouth. The contact was
somewhere between these two lines of supersonic fighters.'

Schafer's plane was hastily scrambled from RAF Binbrook. The
official statements concerning these events is, that the
aircraft were taking part in a military exercise testing air
defence when Schafer's plane 'mysteriously' disappeared from
radar and ended up in the North Sea.

Hope this is helpful.

Gary Anthony

P.S. I agree with David Clarke; there have been quite a few
sightings from the Hebrides which all need to be researched in
depth. Saxa Vord personnel, over the years, it would seem have
reported a number of strange returns It would ideal if several
Saxa Vord employees could be traced and interviewed, as this
would help clarify further details.












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:12:21 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:21:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:07:39 -0500

 >Stan,

 >On this MEN/Randles lawsuit matter, did you approach Harry
 >Harris (I think that's his name) first - or did he approach you
 >first?

 >If the latter, did Harris, by any chance, say anything to the
 >effect that, given England's libel law set up, you and he might
 >be able to make "something" out of this, something here meaning,
 >of course, money? (And the original target being MEN's coffers,
 >Jenny being merely the financially strapped bystander? Notice I
 >didn't say innocent.)

 >(And didn't Harris just happen to be a solicitor, or what we
 >Americans refer to as a lawyer?)

Just as a curious footnote to all this, Harry Harris was in
court himself a year or so back, charged with threatening
someone whose dog had chased Harris's cat up a tree. This
explains his current nickname of Harry 'Hands Off My Pussy'
Harris.

--
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 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                            COMETA Media Coverage

From: Haiko Lietz <hyco@haikolietz.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:17:41 +0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:25:57 -0400
Subject: COMETA Media Coverage


Hello all,

Since my lawt request for assistance in this forum bore fruit
and it has been a while ,I want to repeat my request (by the way
I do not do this research FOR COMETA - it's ABOUT COMETA).

I am compiling media coverage of the COMETA event and want all
investigators to check if they can add media events about COMETA
to my list, as given in:

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2001/may/m17-004.shtml

and completed in (1) and (2).

I am still compiling. Leslie Kean added two articles from the US
(1) and Syd Byrne added two from Australia (2)!

I also need help from Portugal. The people from the "Jornal de
Noticias" don't seem to understand my Babelfish Portuguese ;(
This newspaper is said to have published an article on COMETA.

Gildas Bourdais has checked the archives of "Le Figaro" and told
me, that there was _no_ resurfacing of the 1997 CIA Haines paper
in "Le Figaro", which he mistakely said in:

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2000/sep/m03-022.shtml

Thanks for putting the record straight, Gildas.

It would be interesting, however, to find out, if it was
republished in other newspapers/media in France again - or
worldwide?


Keep it coming,


Haiko Lietz


(1)
- "UFOs might be real, French say", Leslie Kean, The Commercial Appeal,
p.A13, Memphis, Tennessee, 27.05.2000
- "UFO theorists gain serious French support", Leslie Kean, Star Tribune,
p.A3, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 29.05.2000

(2)
- 15 Feb 2000
Radio Australia - "Credible French Team Of Experts Produce An Outstanding
Report - COMETA"  LtCol John Auchettl- (Radio National and World).
- 7 Mar 2000
Dr Ron Barnett
The Australia - "French Report Is Positive Brave Disclosure on UFOs"
Commentary - Dr Ron Barnett - (Newspaper).

 >

haiko lietz
journalist
germany
fon.+49.(0)163.6660221
fax.+49.(0)1212.511245305
hyco@haikolietz.de








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 11

               NASA Consults Spain's CSIC Regarding Aeroliths

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:40:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:30:40 -0400
Subject: NASA Consults Spain's CSIC Regarding Aeroliths


Dear Friends

Some members of this List will remember the Spanish ice falls
of January 2000 and the commotion caused at the time. It is
refreshing that NASA has finally taken an interest in the
subject!

Scott


*************************************

Source: "El Mundo" Newspaper Date: June 10, 2001

NASA CONSULTS SPAIN'S CSIC REGARDING AEROLITHS by Carlos Elias

MADRID.- A little over two months ago, a block of ice weighing
over two kilograms pierced the roof of a house in Australia.
Nothing of the sort had ever occurred in those latitudes, and
Roger Buick, a geologist for the University of Sydney who had
worked for NASA, advised his U.S. colleagues about the event.
NASA quickly dispatched a special container to Australia to
collect the frozen sample and keep it free from contamination.
The singular specimen shall be studied at the space agency's
California headquarters.

Investigators like Ron Baalke of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
or Robert Verish, who discovered the Martian metor in the Mojave
Desert, were surprised to learn than several blocks of the same
time had fallen in Spain over a year ago. They have contacted
the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC) to
find out what was discovered in Spain regarding this enignmatic
subject. "An international working group on the subject will be
established," said Jesus Martinez Frias, a CSIC scientist
responsible for researching the Iberian ice falls, to EL MUNDO.

In 1998, NASA tried to study some enormous 50 and 200 kilogram
blocks of ice which fell in Brazil. The investigator in charge,
Hilton pinto, indicated that they were made of "cloud water",
but the subject was forgotten due to the lack of theories to
explain the subject.

Now that everyone is interested in decyphering the mystery of
the Australian aerolith, the CSIC's website devoted to studying
the blocks of ice has been cited as "an excellent source of
reference information."

For the moment, the most acceptable theories on this phenomenon
suggest that they are possibly due to strange cold air currents
which instantly freeze atmospheric water, causing these blocks
through the association of small crystals. NASA and CSIC hope to
have a solution to the aerolith mystery soon..


#####################

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 >
   Jun > Jun 11

              Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' [was: Serious Research] -

From: Ron EagleBoy <eagle100@prodigy.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:38:28 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:37:34 -0400
Subject: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' [was: Serious Research] -


 >Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 16:11:51 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research

 >>Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 10:42:36 -0300
 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 22:33:59 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>>Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 12:51:44 -0000


Don wrote:

 >1. I don't think those helicopters were "chasing" the 'UFO'.
 >The reports sound more like they were escorting it, or pacing
 >it. Bob is right when he says that it doesn't make any sense to
 >send helicopters to "chase" a UFO. (Unless it's a man on foot
 >or a slo-mo O.J. Simson SUV chase scene.)

                                     =========

Hello Everyone,

 >1. I don't think those helicopters were "chasing" the 'UFO'.
 >The reports sound more like they were escorting it, or pacing
 >it.

 >Bob is right when he says that it doesn't make any sense to
 >send helicopters to "chase" a UFO.

I disagree with both points. In fact, the reports indicate just
the opposite. I would agree that using helicopters would make no
sense if this had been a response to a "healthy" UFO, then jets
would have been used. But this incident involved an object that
was at least partially "disabled" to the point that it could
barely hover. I have three different videos of both Betty Cash
and Vickie Landrum making statements about this. They both said
that the object appeared to be in distress. Betty said that
after their initial encounter they observed the object for
approximately 10 minutes, so the total period that the object
was visible to them was roughly 15 to 20 minutes. In such a
situation, this can be a very long time.

This is why jets were not used to respond to this particular UFO
encounter. Jets may have responded initially, but after
determining that the object was in trouble, and basically
hovering in place, the only logical, practical choice was to use
helicopters.(CH-47 Chinooks. Each ship can carry more than 40
troops and can lift and transport up to 12 tons!)

The military would also have to consider the possibility of a
crash or emergency landing, so they decided to use Chinooks, and
23 of them at that. (Vickie said she counted 23.) I'm sure that
the military felt confident that if there was a crash or an
emergency landing of this unknown, 23 Chinooks, crammed with
troops, would be more than adequate to deal with whatever was
inside the object, and if necessary, handle any unfortunate
witnesses to the event. (I think the potential witness "problem"
was half of the reason they decided to use 23 "troop" carrying
helicopters.)

In response to the "escort" theory:

* Why use 23 of "anything" for an air escort? Why not use 3
    or 4 regular military helicopters, or even Apaches to do the
    job, if security was an issue?

* Why escort such a secret, potentially catastrophic,
    radioactive emitting air craft, over civilian populated areas?
    The risk would just be too great. Not just the risk of being
    seen, photographed, and videotaped, but the obvious risk
    of having a major disaster to deal with if that object had
    crashed and/or exploded.

* A final point against the "escort" theory is that Betty stated
    that after their encounter she got back in the car. Both Cash
    and Landrum watched the object for about 10 minutes. They
    said they could see that the object was having trouble staying
    airborne. It would rise and fall repeatedly.Finally, it seemed
    to regain some control and became more stable. The women
    said that the object then started to slowly move in the
    direction of Houston. It was "then" that they saw the
    helicopters "racing" towards the object. To use Betty's words,
    " and they were loosing no time getting there."

    Note: There were a number of other witnesses to both the
    object and the helicopters. Two witnesses to the helicopters
    was a Dayton Texas Police Officer, L.L. Walker, and his wife.
    They were driving in an area that was close to where Cash and
    Landrum had their encounter. Walker said the helicopters were
    close to the ground, had their search lights on, looking for
    something. He said they were heading in the direction where
    Betty and Vickie had their encounter.

This was not an escort, but a pursuit.


Ron E.


P.S.

 >2. The burned section of roadway and the nature of the symptoms
 >that Betty manifested, (as a result of her exposure to the
 >craft) both argue for the presence of 'dirty' - radiation -
 >spewing technology.

 >That ground-hugging, radiation spewing contraption sounds more
 >like something _we'd_ be mucking around with than it is
 >indicative of an advanced or other-world technology. If it's
 >that 'dirty' and it wasn't working very well... it sounds more
 >like it's one of our own prototypes in the test stages of
 >development.


Like maybe one of them compact, fancy, hot air balloons.
(radioactive-turbo-type, 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 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                         Re: Talk And Action - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:23:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:39:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Stacy


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:38:47 -0400

<snip>

 >While it may be possible that certain instrumentations detect
 >UFOs, it unlikely that such would be recognized as researchers
 >are looking for certain well defined data, other material is
 >discarded. Such material might exist within the high profile
 >detection gear, but there has to be a will or reason to seek it
 >out.

 >Early on the Condon committee did consider various EME detection
 >ideas, but nothing came from the discussions.


Jan,

Think of it this way.

We got the UFO reports and instrumentations we did during the
50s and 60s, using the then available technology.

The number of sensors now available -- this would include
scientists and civilians, digital cameras and so on -- has
increased exponentially since then.

My question is: has the UFO evidence increased exponentially
over the same historical time frame in terms of both quantity
and quality? If not, why not?

I submit that it has not.

I understand that certain scientific instrumentation is limited
to a narrow spectrum of everything that's available out there.
That doesn't concern me. So has it been and so shall it ever be.

I'm talking about those activities which capture a broadband of
data, for example, meteorologists videotaping a storm front,
tornado, or high- altitude lightning, or whatever. Placed
against Hall's dictum that UFO= anathema, and that's the end of
it: mention same and kiss your rep and career good-bye.

My point was a simple one: with all this increased monitoring,
observation, and recording of atmospheric data, shouldn't the
evidence for UFOs, quantitatively and qualitatively, be
increasing along similar historical and technological lines? Is
there any evidence that this is actually the case? If not, why
not?

The Trent photos, for example, were taken in 1950, with a camera
that could only be considered a joke by today's standards. It's
been almost 52 years now. Where are the better pictures? Gulf
Breeze?


Dennis Stacy

http://www.anomalist.com











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                         Re: Talk And Action - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:23:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:41:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Stacy


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:12:06 -0400

<snip>

 >Wow! Now why don't you tell us how you really feel, Dennis?

Jan,

I just did. About a particular aspect of UFO evidence, or lack
thereof.

 >The principles remain the same, if you don't look for it, it
 >probably won't be found. Yes, of course, there are new networks
 >with better resolution, and also better filters.

You're the one limiting this overall discussion to "new
networks," of your own description, not me. I'm talking about
everything going on today, including civilian and commercial
activity. I'm not talking about some network designed to track
asteroids picking up something anomalous and having to agonize
over what to do with it. I'm talking about all sorts of
observations that take place on a daily basis -- ie, the
documentation of the Earth's atmosphere -- by scientific,
civilian, and commercial enterprises alike. Yes, they aren't
looking for it, it being a UFO, but who cares? What I'm saying
is that if they accidentally captured clear, convincing,
unambiguous evidence of same, photographic or otherwise, we
would probably know about it by now.

 >Twenty or thirty years ago, there was more of a possibility of
 >something unusual making it to the press, also. Not today in the
 >Art Bell, X-files saturated world.

What? I'll forgive you this lapse in logic. Seems to me almost
everything makes it to the press nowadays, or maybe you haven't
heard of crop circles, chupacabras, and India's Monkey Man just
yet?

 >The final skeptical article about Transient Lunar Phenomena
 >(TLPs) was written just a short time ago. Right after that,
 >amateurs using their own video equipment were able to confirm
 >the phenomenon. So much for vaulted surveillence networks!

Yes, which exactly proves my point, in case you hadn't noticed.

 >Your own arguments are dead. Go back in history and review all
 >the statements that this profession or piece of equipment
 >doesn't see or pick up UFOs.

Respectfully, your arguments are dead. I don't want to go back in
history. I want to go forward with same.

 >Oh, BTW where are all the good pictures, videos and other great
 >gewhiz stuff on ball lightning from such networks?!


Where, indeed? Ask yourself!

Maybe it indicates that ball lightning is an extremely rare,
transient phenomenon. And maybe that indicates that most UFO
phenomena fall into the same category. Who knows? I'm
comfortable with that, if you are.

Or maybe you think that UFOs are physical, flying objects which,
like ball lightning, just happen to be transient in nature? They
do this and that and then fly away to here or there.

I don't know.

Why do you think most UFO reports reflect something of a
transient nature? I mean, they can hover, can't they? So why
don't they just hang around? And where do they go when they
leave? Why isn't the average UFO sighting measured in a matter
of hours, instead of minutes or seconds?

Is there any inherent reason for same that you can think of?


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 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                        'The Lost Haven' New Articles

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 05:57:04 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:45:28 -0400
Subject: 'The Lost Haven' New Articles


Dear Colleagues,

New UFO articles on my site.....

I am pleased to announce that The Lost Haven has a Humanoid
Encounter Compendium, Written By Albert S Rosales. So far we
have 1994 to 96 this will shortly be followed by 1990
/1/2/3/7/8/9/2000/2001 this will also act as good reference
guide to many researchers around the World:

http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/conthumanoid.html

Also there is a new article by a new writer, who is writing from
a very personal perspective, with regards his contact
experiences and subsequent future events of such contact. Check
out Rich Greens Article:

http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/4Real.html

Also, Christopher Martin, UK Author & Researcher, has organized
a UFO Seminar in London. This sounds like a very good day out
for all, and The Lost Haven is supportive of this event. For
more details, please check out Chris's own page on my site:

http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/Chrismart.htm


Best Regards,

Roy Hale

Editor: Down To Earth Magazine
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 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                      EW - 06-11-01 - Mars Face Update

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:13:49 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:48:11 -0400
Subject: EW - 06-11-01 - Mars Face Update



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

The Electric Warrior : Mars Online June 11, 2001
http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/

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

NO NUKES! - MARS FACE UPDATE
Martian Enigma News
by The Electric Warrior

[Planetary Mysteries]

"I am convinced beyond a doubt that all of the MGS images we
have seen are consistent with the original Viking data."

Kynthia, the artist who sculpted a clay model of the famous
Martian mesa, says she continues to receive many angry emails
from the public claiming that NASA somehow destroyed the face.

Is This the Same Face?
http://www.enterprisemission.com/sameface.html

Proof That NASA Did Not Blow Up the Face!
http://www.planetarymysteries.com/mars/blow-up.html

------------------------------------------------------------
[Anomalous Images]

"It is apparent that a nuclear blast was not used to change the
Face."

Steve Wingate resampled the new face image to the same
approximate resolution as the Viking image contained in frame
70A13. In his comparison, the new MGS image looks as much like a
face as the old one did.

MGS vs. Viking View 1
http://home.pacbell.net/stevew77/Face_new_vs_70a13.gif

MGS vs. Viking View 2
http://home.pacbell.net/stevew77/Face_new_vs_70a13--2.gif

------------------------------------------------------------
[The Cydonian Imperative]

"The acquisition of a complete, overhead view of the Face on
Mars is a historic occasion that demands caution and scrutiny."

Mac Tonnies' level-headed approach to the Martian enigmas
continues to "blow away" off-the-cuff speculation.

Overhead Photo of "Face" Released: Natural or Artificial?

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/imperative19.html

------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED RESOURCES

� NASA Pressed to Photograph Mars Anomalies
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0024.htm

In a letter to NASA, a space exploration activist group
presented a list of anomalous formations on the surface of Mars,
which they believe provide compelling evidence of
extraterrestrial intelligence.

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
June 11, 2001
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Web developers, the URL address for this content is:
http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/MarsOnline00B.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 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <j.rimmer@merseymail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:39:47 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:51:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer


 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 22:38:56 -0500
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >I went back to the 1997 archives that had the offending article
 >posted in February of that month. I took the following excerpt
 >from that original article:

 ><begin quote>

 >>A meeting featuring an American expert on the subject of
 >>crashed UFOs was condemned today as "about as factual as a
 >>Steven Spielberg movie." The rocket was fired by Jenny Randles,
 >>who claims to be Britain's only "professional ufologist."
 >>ZAP! She slated "dangerous and highly suspect non-science"
 >>from cultists and crackpots.

 >>POW! she blitzed the "absolute nonsense about crashed
 >>spaceships and dead aliens" as damaging to sober links
 >>between serious ufologists and the scientific community.

 >>Jenny, who lives in Heathbank Road, Cheadle Heath, Stockport,
 >>poured scorn on a presentation due to be made at Radcliffe
 >>Civic Hall on Sunday by Harry Harris of Sale and American UFO
 >>fanatic Stanton Friedman. Mr Friedman is a disciple of the
 >>theory that an alien space-ship crashed in the New Mexico
 >>desert in 1947, since when the US Government has made a secret
 >>pact with captive aliens about a quota system for spiriting
 >>earthlings away to their planet in the system Zeta Reticuli.
 >>"These people claim the only information garnered from having
 >>aliens in a freezer for 42 years is that they have a fetish for
 >>strawberry ice-cream." she declared.

 ><end quote>

 >I have to disagree with you, Jerry. The above looks pretty
 >defamatory to me.

 >I don't know Jenny Randles personally, but I was shocked to read
 >the statements attributed to her in that article. Based on her
 >books and on the postings to various email lists I've seen her
 >make, the statements in that article seem grossly out of
 >character. If the article misquoted her and misrepresented her
 >statements, it seems to me that she could have easily cleared
 >that up with Stanton (he's not an unreasonable gentleman by any
 >means) then turned around and busted the paper herself for doing
 >that to her!

Anybody with an iota of sense who has read any of Jenny Randles'
books, articles and postings on UpDates would know that the
above quotation from the Manchester Evening News is a travesty
of the way Jenny would have expressed her views.

 >If she did make the quoted statements, then she should have
 >expected to be held accountable for her actions, as should the
 >paper.

For a number of personal and family reasons which there is no
need to go into here, Jenny was unable to take action against
the MEN for traducing her views. This left her in in a
vulnerable position where she could be walked over by the press
and m'learned friends.

 >And this is all old news, water under the bridge. Discussing it
 >now is just beating a dead horse

I quite agree. Can we get back to discussing something where
Jerry Clark and I can be at each others' throats again?


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 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:04:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:54:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Kaeser


 >Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 22:38:56 -0500
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder

<snip>

 >I don't know Jenny Randles personally, but I was shocked to read
 >the statements attributed to her in that article. Based on her
 >books and on the postings to various email lists I've seen her
 >make, the statements in that article seem grossly out of
 >character. If the article misquoted her and misrepresented her
 >statements, it seems to me that she could have easily cleared
 >that up with Stanton (he's not an unreasonable gentleman by any
 >means) then turned around and busted the paper herself for doing
 >that to her!

 >If she did make the quoted statements, then she should have
 >expected to be held accountable for her actions, as should the
 >paper.

 >And this is all old news, water under the bridge. Discussing it
 >now is just beating a dead horse.

 >It just looks to me like somebody shot off their mouth and got
 >busted doing it. Happens all the time. Being a "professional
 >ufologist" does not make one immune to the consequences of one's
 >actions.

 >My opinion on the matter

 >Bobbie

If these are consequences that one can expect for voicing their
own beliefs, then we are in deep trouble here. As pointed out,
the only reason that a settlement was sought was because of the
arcane laws in Great Britain and the cost of the potential
defense. This is a common practice in the U.S. in other types of
civil cases, including defamation suits that do make it to
court.

I would have to ask what Stanton's actual financial loss was in
this case? A small newspaper in Great Britain would have little
impact on his reputation elsewhere. Indeed, newspaper articles
about any UFO subject tend to have little or no impact either
locally or regionally, given their handling as "human interest"
stories. From the tone of the piece you quoted, it was obviously
not handled as a "hard" news story.

One also has to understand that the UFO Community in Great
Britain can be very territorial. There is the story of two
researchers from a UFO group going to the meeting of another
group in another Village, where they were promptly identified as
outsiders, taken to the edge of town, advised to leave and not
come back. This is, IMO, behavior that is far more
representative of small religious factions than it is a
scientific pursuit.

Perhaps the point is that Stanton might have taken the high road
and approached Jenny for clarification and an apology, if he
felt that he had to have one. I would suspect that the reporter
combined a number of statements to make his point, and Jenny may
have gotten saddled with being the named source. Any bleed over
onto the Internet could have been countered by Stanton or those
who knew him, and the newspaper's story would have largely been
ignored. The only reason anyone knows about the article outside
of its own circulation is because of the publicity given this
defamation suit and the limited commentary posted to the
Internet (and we continue to give life to it here, along with
quotes from the original article given them new life as well).

We face a situation in a few weeks where there is likely to be a
number of comments made about the speakers at the MUFON
Symposium in Irvine, CA. Many researchers have expressed concern
about the "nonsense" that several of the speakers will be
promoting. Should those who are critical hold their tongues for
fear of retribution in the form of a lawsuit? Perhaps there's a
market here for a new type of insurance for ufologists to cover
the potential cost of one's opinions and beliefs. Libel and
Defamation laws are different on this side of the big pond, but
you never know how some people with more money than sense might
respond to criticism.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:38:59 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:13:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman


 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: John Rimmer <j.rimmer@merseymail.com>
 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:39:47 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 22:38:56 -0500
 >>To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>I went back to the 1997 archives that had the offending article
 >>posted in February of that month. I took the following excerpt
 >>from that original article:

 >><begin quote>

 >>>A meeting featuring an American expert on the subject of
 >>>crashed UFOs was condemned today as "about as factual as a
 >>>Steven Spielberg movie." The rocket was fired by Jenny Randles,
 >>>who claims to be Britain's only "professional ufologist."
 >>>ZAP! She slated "dangerous and highly suspect non-science"
 >>>from cultists and crackpots.

 >>>POW! she blitzed the "absolute nonsense about crashed
 >>>spaceships and dead aliens" as damaging to sober links
 >>>between serious ufologists and the scientific community.

 >>>Jenny, who lives in Heathbank Road, Cheadle Heath, Stockport,
 >>>poured scorn on a presentation due to be made at Radcliffe
 >>>Civic Hall on Sunday by Harry Harris of Sale and American UFO
 >>>fanatic Stanton Friedman. Mr Friedman is a disciple of the
 >>>theory that an alien space-ship crashed in the New Mexico
 >>>desert in 1947, since when the US Government has made a secret
 >>>pact with captive aliens about a quota system for spiriting
 >>>earthlings away to their planet in the system Zeta Reticuli.
 >>>"These people claim the only information garnered from having
 >>>aliens in a freezer for 42 years is that they have a fetish for
 >>>strawberry ice-cream." she declared.

 >><end quote>

 >>I have to disagree with you, Jerry. The above looks pretty
 >>defamatory to me.

 >>I don't know Jenny Randles personally, but I was shocked to read
 >>the statements attributed to her in that article. Based on her
 >>books and on the postings to various email lists I've seen her
 >>make, the statements in that article seem grossly out of
 >>character. If the article misquoted her and misrepresented her
 >>statements, it seems to me that she could have easily cleared
 >>that up with Stanton (he's not an unreasonable gentleman by any
 >>means) then turned around and busted the paper herself for doing
 >>that to her!

 >Anybody with an iota of sense who has read any of Jenny Randles'
 >books, articles and postings on UpDates would know that the
 >above quotation from the Manchester Evening News is a travesty
 >of the way Jenny would have expressed her views.

John, anybody with an iota of knowledge about what Jenny wrote
to the MEN, would know that the article truly reflected Jenny's
views as expressed to the paper. One of the great puzzles is why
her comments were so at odds with what is in her books about me
and Harry. Nobody has solved that puzzle.

John, It is a pity you and Jerry amd a number of Jenny's loyal
supporters apparently have not read or understood the comments
made by Jenny to a reporter for the MEN in a letter written the
day after the MEN in a tongue in cheek article noted my
forthcoming lecture. Some few examples:

"I wanted to write after the piece in Mr. Manchester's Diary
last night plugging the 29 October meeting organised by Harry
Harris and 'starring' American UFO fanatic Stanton Friedman ,
subject 'crashed UFOs.'   {my lecture title was actually
Flying Saucers ARE Real!}

==========

"The trouble is that serious and responsible UFO research gets
little media notice in opposition to the sort of junk about dead
aliens and crashed spaceships that Harry Harris is spouting
(mostly from books he's read and not first hand enquiry, of
course)"

"I know that the liklihood is your editor would now say that
'we've covered UFOs' so our work won't get a look in and the
Manchester public will end up being duped by the sort of stuff
fed out at that coming Radcliffe meeting"... {There were a
couple of earlier paragraphs touting Jenny's planned November
18 UFO show.}

===========

"The stories I could tell you about the outrageous tripe and the
distortions, bogus documents and deceit with which the public in
Britain is about to be confronted are disturbing."

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

"What I do not want to see is the Manchester public taken in by
these wild claims without at least some chance to hear a more
sober assessment of the situation from real investigating
UFOlogists..."

"I don't want to turn this into a personal vendetta gainst the
crackpots or the cultists. But I thought there might be a story
in the acute difference of opinion that has developed within UFO
circles and that Manchester UFOlogists are actually saying that
Stanton Friedman/Harry Harris claims - which you helped him
promote - are dangerous and highly suspect."

I should note that it took a writ from a Court to obtain a
copy of this letter.

 >>If she did make the quoted statements, then she should have
 >>expected to be held accountable for her actions, as should the
 >>paper.

 >For a number of personal and family reasons which there is no
 >need to go into here, Jenny was unable to take action against
 >the MEN for traducing her views. This left her in in a
 >vulnerable position where she could be walked over by the press
 >and m'learned friends.

The simple fact of the matter is that the MEN gave Jenny's
defamatory views a very fair shake. It is the friends of Jenny
who have traduced her views. (Never used that word before. Thank
you John)

 >>And this is all old news, water under the bridge. Discussing it
 >>now is just beating a dead horse

 >I quite agree. Can we get back to discussing something where
 >Jerry Clark and I can be at each others' throats again?

 >John Rimmer

 ><j.rimmer@merseymail.com>

I am all for that, John, and would be happy to get you both away
from my throat when you are standing on such slippery ground.


Stanton Friedman

...suggesting that facts should be in hand before word processor
gets into gear








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:00:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:15:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Lehmberg


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:04:31 -0400

 >>Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 22:38:56 -0500
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder

 ><snip>

 >>I don't know Jenny Randles personally, but I was shocked to read
 >>the statements attributed to her in that article. Based on her
 >>books and on the postings to various email lists I've seen her
 >>make, the statements in that article seem grossly out of
 >>character. If the article misquoted her and misrepresented her
 >>statements, it seems to me that she could have easily cleared
 >>that up with Stanton (he's not an unreasonable gentleman by any
 >>means) then turned around and busted the paper herself for doing
 >>that to her!

 >>If she did make the quoted statements, then she should have
 >>expected to be held accountable for her actions, as should the
 >>paper.

 >>And this is all old news, water under the bridge. Discussing it
 >>now is just beating a dead horse.

 >>It just looks to me like somebody shot off their mouth and got
 >>busted doing it. Happens all the time. Being a "professional
 >>ufologist" does not make one immune to the consequences of one's
 >>actions.

 >>My opinion on the matter

 >>Bobbie

 >If these are consequences that one can expect for voicing their
 >own beliefs, then we are in deep trouble here. As pointed out,
 >the only reason that a settlement was sought was because of the
 >arcane laws in Great Britain and the cost of the potential
 >defense. This is a common practice in the U.S. in other types of
 >civil cases, including defamation suits that do make it to
 >court.

A rose is a rose and by any other name would smell as sweet,
what's gravy for the goose is gravy for the gander, but all
things in moderation includes moderation, and sometimes even
consistency. That being said:

<snip>

 >We face a situation in a few weeks where there is likely to be a
 >number of comments made about the speakers at the MUFON
 >Symposium in Irvine, CA. Many researchers have expressed concern
 >about the "nonsense" that several of the speakers will be
 >promoting. Should those who are critical hold their tongues for
 >fear of retribution in the form of a lawsuit? Perhaps there's a
 >market here for a new type of insurance for ufologists to cover
 >the potential cost of one's opinions and beliefs. Libel and
 >Defamation laws are different on this side of the big pond, but
 >you never know how some people with more money than sense might
 >respond to criticism.

...It just may be that a justifiably proud Mr. Friedman, tired
of the unbridled corrosiveness from the usual coterie of noisy
negativists lurking in the mainstream press (a press that goes
to inordinately unethical links to marginalize his very rational
and very important research), struck back in a venue where he
could assured of having, at least a chance of, some lawful
success. It seems unfortunate that Ms. Randles' comments were
improperly paraphrased (misattributed) by the paper concerned,
but she's just another victim of a tyrannous mainstream that
profits hugely while it discounts so blithely what most of us on
this list contend as truth. It's clear that the bigger loser
here was the mainstream, and Mr. Friedman took a step (however
pyrrhic) to gain a little more grudging respect than was
apparent before, perhaps.

Regardless, everybody is in equal parts right AND wrong in this
artless debate (there is no freedom of expression in this
country either Mr. Clarke - I'm small proof of that), especially
considering that the proponents are more allies than enemies
(blood is thicker than water Mr. Friedman - this list is proof
of that). End it now, the skeptibunky sharks circle in the water
(you may have noticed) and are prepared to use their bandwidth
to further confuse the anomolous issues. Let's knock off the
fruitless wheelspinning and move on.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:47:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:17:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:25:48 -0400


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark
 >>Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 17:14:49 -0500

 >>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 08:03:59 -0300


 >>If we are all lucky, nothing remotely like this will ever happen
 >>again, and full and free expression, including obnoxious,
 >>offensive, and stupid free expression, will enliven, enrage,
 >>inform, dumbfound, and flower in ufology for as long as there
 >>are ufologists.

 ><snip>

 >Just a few quick ones on free expression:

 >1. Does free expression apply to an individual who has asked for
 >retraction, was denied same and resorted to a court to get one?

<snip>

The answer to this and all related questions is a simple one:

Ufologists should not be suing other ufologists.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:02:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:19:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:04:31 -0400

 >>Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 22:38:56 -0500
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder

 ><snip>

 >>I don't know Jenny Randles personally, but I was shocked to read
 >>the statements attributed to her in that article. Based on her
 >>books and on the postings to various email lists I've seen her
 >>make, the statements in that article seem grossly out of
 >>character. If the article misquoted her and misrepresented her
 >>statements, it seems to me that she could have easily cleared
 >>that up with Stanton (he's not an unreasonable gentleman by any
 >>means) then turned around and busted the paper herself for doing
 >>that to her!

 >>If she did make the quoted statements, then she should have
 >>expected to be held accountable for her actions, as should the
 >>paper.

 >>And this is all old news, water under the bridge. Discussing it
 >>now is just beating a dead horse.

 >>It just looks to me like somebody shot off their mouth and got
 >>busted doing it. Happens all the time. Being a "professional
 >>ufologist" does not make one immune to the consequences of one's
 >>actions.

 >>My opinion on the matter

 >>Bobbie

 >If these are consequences that one can expect for voicing their
 >own beliefs, then we are in deep trouble here. As pointed out,
 >the only reason that a settlement was sought was because of the
 >arcane laws in Great Britain and the cost of the potential
 >defense. This is a common practice in the U.S. in other types of
 >civil cases, including defamation suits that do make it to
 >court.

It sounds like the problem is the laws in Great Britain, then.
The solution would be to get the laws changed so this sort of
thing doesn't happen again. That isn't something me or Stan or
any other American can do.

 >I would have to ask what Stanton's actual financial loss was in
 >this case?

I would have to ask what difference that makes? What matters is
that Stanton apparently felt that he was injured in some way.
Money only comes into it because that's the compensation medium
that the court system has set up.

 >A small newspaper in Great Britain would have little
 >impact on his reputation elsewhere.

But it had the potential to impact his reputation in Great
Britain, and with the Internet publication of the article, the
potential to impact his reputation on a global scale is there.

<snip>

 >One also has to understand that the UFO Community in Great
 >Britain can be very territorial.

Sounds to me like Great Britain's UFO Community could benefit
greatly from getting over that particular trait. And it has
nothing to do with whether Jenny or the paper provided cause for
a lawsuit against them. At least, it _should_ have nothing to do
with it. If it did, then perhaps there's the problem.

 >Perhaps the point is that Stanton might have taken the high road
 >and approached Jenny for clarification and an apology, if he
 >felt that he had to have one.

Perhaps Jenny could have approached Stanton and clarified the
matter and apologized if her actions inadvertently hurt Stan in any
way. Apparently she didn't do that. And it doesn't matter now. It
is ancient history.

 >I would suspect that the reporter combined a number of
 >statements to make his point, and Jenny may have gotten
 >saddled with being the named source.

Then Jenny could have gone to the paper and pitched a royal
bitch, demanding a retraction or whatever. If she was wronged by
the paper, then it was up to her to get it corrected. And again,
it doesn't matter now. It is ancient history.

I don't think it is fair, however, to blame Stan for taking
action against the parties that he believed wronged him. That is
his legal right. I don't think it is fair to blame Stan because
he was able to afford to do it, and Jenny apparently was
financially strapped at the time. Jenny's financial situation is
not Stan's responsibility.

And this is all ancient history. There's gotta be something more
interesting to talk about... ssssssoooooo... how 'bout those
UFOs? :)


Bobbie




==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.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 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                 Re: SDI Last Saturday Night Deserves An A+

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:49:46 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:34:23 -0400
Subject: Re: SDI Last Saturday Night Deserves An A+


Hi Errol, hi All

Great segment of 'Strange Days... Indeed' last Saturday night.
The debate between Hall, Bassett, and Myers was excellent and
informative. Anybody who may have been fuzzy as to the nature of
the internal debate in ufology over the 'disclosure project'
could have gotten all the information they needed in that single
90 minutes. Both Dick Hall and Royce J. Meyers III deserve to be
commended for doing a fine 'exposition' job.

Although Steve Bassett tried to justify Greer's odd inclusion of
"space defense weapons" and allegedly 'government repressed'
forms of "free energy" into the UFO agenda via the disclosure
project, he ended up sounding more like an apologist for Greer
than anything else. I have always liked and respected Steve
(apart from his involvement with Greer) and it was a sad
occasion for me to hear such an otherwise bright and thoughtful
guy struggle to rationalize for the listeners the "method"
behind Greer's apparent "madness."

All-in-all an excellent program. Great stuff Errol! Between this
List and SDI you perform an invaluable service and make a
_major_ contribution to 'day to day' ufology. I couldn't
conceive of 'ufology' without the UpDates List. And as it now
stands, SDI is one of the few, if not the only, serious and
credible programs dedicated strictly to UFOs available on the
air or cyberspace. Keep em coming! I am deeply proud of my
association with you both publicly and privately. ;)

Kudos on an informative and important program.


Errol, Dick, Royce, Steve, nice job guys!  (And you
too Furry!) :) Thanx. :)


John Velez

Proud contributor to SDI

                      "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 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:16:49 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:51:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:04:31 -0400

 >>Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 22:38:56 -0500
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 ><snip>

 >>I don't know Jenny Randles personally, but I was shocked to read
 >>the statements attributed to her in that article. Based on her
 >>books and on the postings to various email lists I've seen her
 >>make, the statements in that article seem grossly out of
 >>character. If the article misquoted her and misrepresented her
 >>statements, it seems to me that she could have easily cleared
 >>that up with Stanton (he's not an unreasonable gentleman by any
 >>means) then turned around and busted the paper herself for doing
 >>that to her!

 >>If she did make the quoted statements, then she should have
 >>expected to be held accountable for her actions, as should the
 >>paper.

 >>And this is all old news, water under the bridge. Discussing it
 >>now is just beating a dead horse.

 >>It just looks to me like somebody shot off their mouth and got
 >>busted doing it. Happens all the time. Being a "professional
 >>ufologist" does not make one immune to the consequences of one's
 >>actions.

 >>My opinion on the matter

 >>Bobbie

 >If these are consequences that one can expect for voicing their
 >own beliefs, then we are in deep trouble here. As pointed out,
 >the only reason that a settlement was sought was because of the
 >arcane laws in Great Britain and the cost of the potential
 >defense.

Beliefs and saying false defamatory things are not the same.
thing. I do not accept that the only reason action was brought
was because of the "arcane laws". The MEN has very large
pockets, certainly much larger than Harry's or mine. We were
defamed in the article and in Jenny's letter to the MEN, which
preceded it.

 >This is a common practice in the U.S. in other types of
 >civil cases, including defamation suits that do make it to
 >court.

 >I would have to ask what Stanton's actual financial loss was in
 >this case? A small newspaper in Great Britain would have little
 >impact on his reputation elsewhere. Indeed, newspaper articles
 >about any UFO subject tend to have little or no impact either
 >locally or regionally, given their handling as "human interest"
 >stories. From the tone of the piece you quoted, it was obviously
 >not handled as a "hard" news story.

There is nothing that says defamation has to involve monetary
loss though one might expect that Solicitor Harris who lives in
the Manchester area had reason to be concerned about a loss of
potential clients. I might have lost potential bookings in
Manchester or in other large UK communities. I gather you
haven't followed the thread. Manchester is not a little village
somewhere. It is the 5th largest city in the United Kingdom. The
Manchester Evening News, I was told, has the largest circulation
of any UK paper outside London as has already been noted.
Defamation involves intentional damage to ones reputation. Hard
News? A matter of opinion. There was, after all, a nice photo of
Jenny in the article, not just a head shot,. and medium
headlines.

 >One also has to understand that the UFO Community in Great
 >Britain can be very territorial. There is the story of two
 >researchers from a UFO group going to the meeting of another
 >group in another Village, where they were promptly identified as
 >outsiders, taken to the edge of town, advised to leave and not
 >come back. This is, IMO, behavior that is far more
 >representative of small religious factions than it is a
 >scientific pursuit.

What has this to do with defamation?

 >Perhaps the point is that Stanton might have taken the high road
 >and approached Jenny for clarification and an apology, if he
 >felt that he had to have one.

We tried. Jenny was then x-directory. We contacted Philip Mantle
who had sponsored the talk I gave that Saturday. He wasn't any
help. The MEN does not have a Sunday edition, so there was no
way to reduce the impact of the story on attendance prior to the
lecture Sunday night. Jenny hid from us in the waiting area at
the BBC on Monday. We would have been happy to settle for a
published apology in the paper. The paper came around very
quickly when the facts were put on the table about Harry's and
my professional background, the enthusiastic response to my
lectures in the states, the fact that Jenny had said only nice
things in her books about me, but now was trashing us both. The
decision to move ahead was based on an opinion from a barrister
based on examination of evidence. Jenny fought the release of
her defamatory letter, perhaps considering it's defamatory
contact , understandable.....

 >I would suspect that the reporter combined a number of
 >statements to make his point, and Jenny may have gotten
 >saddled with being the named source.

Why would you suspect this? It is totally untrue. Jenny wrote a 2 page
letter to the paper. containing defamatory statements, Jenny talked to a
reporter making defamatory remarks consistent with what she had said in the
letter. Nobody else was involved.

 >Any bleed over onto the Internet could have been countered by
 >Stanton or those who knew him, and the newspaper's story would
 >have largely been ignored.

I wasn't on the Internet at the time. The article was also
defamatory of Solicitor Harris. Hundreds of thousands of people
read the paper. I am sure the Manchester UFO Research
Association would have spread the word.

 >The only reason anyone knows about the article outside
 >of its own circulation is because of the publicity given this
 >defamation suit and the limited commentary posted to the
 >Internet (and we continue to give life to it here, along with
 >quotes from the original article given them new life as well).

You have to be kidding. Hundreds of thousands of people read the
MEN. The article was October 28, 1989. Not 4 years ago or 8
years ago. What has the internet got to do with anything?

 >We face a situation in a few weeks where there is likely to be a
 >number of comments made about the speakers at the MUFON
 >Symposium in Irvine, CA. Many researchers have expressed >concern
 >about the "nonsense" that several of the speakers will be
 >promoting. Should those who are critical hold their tongues for
 >fear of retribution in the form of a lawsuit?

Perhaps if one wants to blatantly defame someone to a very large
audience via the media, It would be a good idea to hold one's
tongue instead, or tone down the commentary.

 >Perhaps there's a
 >market here for a new type of insurance for ufologists to cover
 >the potential cost of one's opinions and beliefs. Libel and
 >Defamation laws are different on this side of the big pond, but
 >you never know how some people with more money than sense >might respond to
criticism.


 >Steve


I would strongly suggest that you, Steve, and other on this List
do some homework about the difference between fair comment,
criticism, and defamation and also the NY Times vs. Sullivan
which, as Jerry and I have noted, makes public figures much more
of a "fair target" in the US than in the UK.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 11

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:57:48 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:54:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:07:39 -0500

 >Stan,

 >On this MEN/Randles lawsuit matter, did you approach Harry
 >Harris (I think that's his name) first - or did he approach you
 >first?


We were in it together both being aware that a quick apology
from the defaming parties would have taken care of everything.
Remember I came back with Harry from a lecture in Sheffield or
some such place on Saturday afternoon to his home where I was
staying. We were confronted to our considerable dismay with the
MEN article. There was no Sunday MEN (just as there is no Sunday
Toronto Globe and Mail, or National Post, or even Fredericton
Daily Gleaner) We tried to get Jenny. No luck ex-directory.
Philip Mantle was no help. Jenny ducked us on Monday. We had
done some checking of Jenny's quite favorable comments about me
and Harry in various publications. Through counsel Jenny was
opposed to a published apology because "she had done nothing
wrong". I didn't even have a fax machine at the time so
communication was cumbersome and expensive.

 >If the latter, did Harris, by any chance, say anything to the
 >effect that, given England's libel law set up, you and he might
 >be able to make "something" out of this, something here >meaning,

No. He did not. What evil thoughts you have Dennis.

 >of course, money? (And the original target being MEN's coffers,
 >Jenny being merely the financially strapped bystander? Notice I
 >didn't say innocent.)

The MEN also had enormous resources at its command which neither
Harry nor I did. Legal advice from the barrister was to proceed.
I had to put down a deposit which I could have lost.

 >(And didn't Harris just happen to be a solicitor, or what we
 >Americans refer to as a lawyer?)

He was a soliciitor (not a barrister). He was defamed as well
and he lives there. He was the one who would have been hurt by
poorer attendance because of the defamation of us both.

 >Assuming that's not the case, have you ever brought a defamation
 >suit against anyone (Philip Klass included) in this country?

 >If not, why not?

I have considered it in a couple of possible situations. Decided
against it because they were not in large circulation
publications and because of the NY Times vs Sullivan, and
because of the huge costs. That was mitigated a bit by Harry
being a solicitor and knowing the ropes and being able to handle
things for me. I trust him

 >As a resident, now, of Canada, have you ever brought a similar
 >suit against anyone in that country or this one?
 >
 >If not, why not?

No. Didn't find a situation as blatantly defamatory to such a
large audience. Are you intending to defame me to see if I
would?

 >Because there's nothing for you in either instance? But in
 >England you thought you could get - what, money? Is that what
 >Harris advised?

The barrister advised that an action was in order once the
publication of an apology was (initially) rejected by Jenny..

 >Even in that case you could have declined your portion of the
 >financial settlement against Jenny, I assume, simply by
 >accepting publication of a public apology as a just and
 >reasonable solution to whatever ailed or offended you. Seems to
 >me you and Harris went for the money - regardless of who or from
 >wherever it came.

 >But you can correct me if I'm wrong.

The apology appeared a full 10.5 months after the article and
after considerable back and forth communication exacerbated by
the long sought letter from Jenny to the MEN. As I have noted
the portion of the settlement to me from her was less than 4
figures.

 >Incidentally, was the Harris deal a 50/50 split of any and all
 >damages and monies awarded, or were one of you more "harmed"
 >or "defamed" than the other?

The barrister came up with the proposed split. of the net proceeds


 >And what was Harris's cut, by the way?

Less than mine.

 >I assume he was working pro bono on his and your behalf?

Don't forget the many writs, much correspondence, and the costs
of the barrister.

 >Just curious.

Dennis

It is good to know that some people are curious, though it
sounds as if you had made up your mind about a number of things
before asking the questions. I take it you will now pose
questions to Jenny about her motivation for defaming me, her
resistance to releasing her defamatory letter, her reasons for
calling me a good guy in her publications, then attacking me to
the newspaper,etc ,and to John  Rimmer and other UK supporters
of Jenny for wilfully ignoring the facts of the situation??


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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                       More On '75 Saxa Vord UFO Case

From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:02:34 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:47:18 -0400
Subject: More On '75 Saxa Vord UFO Case


Hi Errol, Don, Brad, Gary et al,

Firstly, I would like to say thanks to Gary for forwarding this
press clipping of the Captain Shafer case in 1970. With your
permission, I would like to add this to the Saxa cases on the
UFO Scotland website.

Now onto the other issues:

I have just had a response from my source regarding some of the
points that were raised on the List regarding the '75 radar case
from Saxa Vord in Scotland.

In reply to the height of the recorded anomaly and the valid
points that Brad had made earlier:


(A quote from my source's reply)

OK, my fault for not being specific enough. The 3 returns were
at almost max range to the north, almost adjacent to us in the
middle and at almost max range to the south : IN A DEAD STRAIGHT
LINE like...

We did not have time to swing the height finder around onto it -
the old T13 was just too slow turning onto a heading, even with
the power amplidyne!

Hope that helps to clarify things a bit.

(End quote)


(Could this have been a meteor?)

Finally, in response to Gary's question if my source was
familiar with the Captain Schafer case: He replied that 1970 was
before his posting time at Saxa and had never personally heard
of this case during his tour there, which was a few years after
'70.

Oh yes one last thing to note and this is very significant. It
was brought to my source's attention the math that was done on
the speed calculations of the anomaly and it has to be said that
the correct speed of this anomaly was 36000mph and not
2160000mph. He apologises for the mistake but still maintains
that this velocity is still very high indeed and is still worthy
of merit as a bonafide UFO recorded sighting.

I thank you all for your input on this particular case and will
continue to relay any findings to the list in the future.


All the best to everyone,

Your friend,

Dave Ledger (UFO Scotland)

-
******************************************************************
If you see someone without a smile......give them one of yours :0)
******************************************************************
Posted by: Dave Ledger  (mailto:dledger@ufoscotland.co.uk)
Visit "UFO SCOTLAND" at: http://www.ufoscotland.co.uk
<A HREF="http://www.ufoscotland.co.uk"> UFO Scotland </A>
UFO SCOTLAND mailing list: http://ufoscotland.listbot.com
******************************************************************
THE TRUTH IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER!..................BUT HOW FAR?
******************************************************************
"The sands of time are trickling away from our dear mother Earth
and yet we continue to fight amongst ourselves and destroy our
natural enviroment,leaving all the mess for our children and their
children's children to inherit when we're gone."







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                     Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:05:41 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:51:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Velez


 >From: Ron EagleBoy <eagle100@prodigy.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:38:28 -0400

 >>Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 16:11:51 -0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research

 >>>Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 10:42:36 -0300
 >>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research

 >>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 22:33:59 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>>>Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 12:51:44 -0000

 >Don wrote:

 >>1. I don't think those helicopters were "chasing" the 'UFO'.
 >>The reports sound more like they were escorting it, or pacing
 >>it. Bob is right when he says that it doesn't make any sense to
 >>send helicopters to "chase" a UFO. (Unless it's a man on foot
 >>or a slo-mo O.J. Simson SUV chase scene.)

 >=========

 >Hello Everyone,

 >>1. I don't think those helicopters were "chasing" the 'UFO'.
 >>The reports sound more like they were escorting it, or pacing
 >>it.

 >>Bob is right when he says that it doesn't make any sense to
 >>send helicopters to "chase" a UFO.

 >I disagree with both points. In fact, the reports indicate just
 >the opposite.

<snip>

 >This was not an escort, but a pursuit.

Hi Ron, hi All,

I have no idea whether it was an 'escort' or 'pursuit,' the key
issue I think is that our military _were_ there and closely
involved. Yet publicly they continue to claim "no knowledge" and
"no official involvement".

I raised another question in that post that I don't think anyone
responded to. Why was Betty the _only_ one affected by the, (and
I know I'm assuming here as to the source of her illness,)
"radiation sickness"?

Betty got out of the car to get a closer look at the "UFO", but
the windshield of the car should not have afforded any special
protection to the other occupants (a woman and a child) inside
the vehicle. Why was Betty the only one so dramatically stricken
with what for all intents and purposes presents as; radiation
overexposure/sickness. I had hoped that maybe Stan (being a
physicist) and a few knowledgeable folks, might chime in with a
thought/theory or two about this. It just seems to me that the
other occupants of the vehicle (should have) exhibited the same
symptoms or degree of radiation overexposure/sickness that Betty
did. Symptoms that eventually claimed her life.

I've always thought of the Cash-Landrum case as being a
significant one. People rarely if ever talk about the human
death toll that is associated with UFOs. Betty is only one of
the more recent and dramatic examples. But there's also the
Thomas Mantell (pilot crash) case in the early 50's, and the
case of the (possibly deceased but definitely missing) 20
something year old, Aussie pilot Valentich in the late 80's.

Does anyone know how many UFO related/associated deaths have
ever been reported? Is that information catalogued anywhere? I'm
curious.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                     Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Bott

From: Murray Bott <murrayb@win.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:43:03 +1200 (NZST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:53:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Bott


Greetings List,

With regard to the Lawsuit which was leveled against Jenny
Randles over this alleged statement :-

 >>A meeting featuring an American expert on the subject of
 >>crashed UFOs was condemned today as "about as factual as a
 >>Steven Spielberg movie." The rocket was fired by Jenny Randles,
 >>who claims to be Britain's only "professional ufologist."
 >>ZAP! She slated "dangerous and highly suspect non-science"
 >>from cultists and crackpots.

 >>POW! she blitzed the "absolute nonsense about crashed
 >>spaceships and dead aliens" as damaging to sober links
 >>between serious ufologists and the scientific community.

 >>Jenny, who lives in Heathbank Road, Cheadle Heath, Stockport,
 >>poured scorn on a presentation due to be made at Radcliffe
 >>Civic Hall on Sunday by Harry Harris of Sale and American UFO
 >>fanatic Stanton Friedman. Mr Friedman is a disciple of the
 >>theory that an alien space-ship crashed in the New Mexico
 >>desert in 1947, since when the US Government has made a secret
 >>pact with captive aliens about a quota system for spiriting
 >>earthlings away to their planet in the system Zeta Reticuli.
 >>"These people claim the only information garnered from having
 >>aliens in a freezer for 42 years is that they have a fetish for
 >>strawberry ice-cream." she declared.

In my view this is a rather weak case on which to base a defamation
case (against Jenny Randles) and should have been overlooked.

I strongly suggest that Stanton has put his own reputation into
"Self-Destruct Mode" over this and other actions.


Regards,

Murray Bott

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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                           Two 19th Century Discs?

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:50:27 +0100 (BST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:55:30 -0400
Subject: Two 19th Century Discs?



Hello List Members,

I�m searching for reports of disc-shaped UFOs. Does anyone have
any details about these cases?

1) 31st August 1895. Oxford, England. College students watched a
metallic disc rise above the trees around the campus. It hovered
for a short while, then soared away at high speed. (A
saucer-shaped UFO in 19th century England � sounds interesting,
why haven�t I seen a better report on it? Maybe Jenny Randles
can help.)

2) 29th August 1871. France. Luminous objects in the night sky
witnessed by an astronomer at the Meudon Observatory included
one that landed �like a disc falling through water.� (But was it
disc-shaped? If not, this reminds me of the old �Arnold�s
Saucer� issue.)


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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:04:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:00:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:02:26 -0500
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit


 >>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:04:31 -0400

 >>>Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 22:38:56 -0500
 >>>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit


Bobbie,

 >It sounds like the problem is the laws in Great Britain, then.
 >The solution would be to get the laws changed so this sort of
 >thing doesn't happen again. That isn't something me or Stan or
 >any other American can do.

But if it is, as you yourself acknowledge, a "problem," then it
is something that neither of you ought to be exploiting, and one
of you has already done so, while the other defends the
exploitation. It appears that you two Americans have already
done enough..

 >>I would have to ask what Stanton's actual financial loss was in
 >>this case?

 >I would have to ask what difference that makes?

Of course that makes all the difference. It appears that you
know as little about principles of libel law as you know about
principles of free expression.

 >What matters is
 >that Stanton apparently felt that he was injured in some way.
 >Money only comes into it because that's the compensation medium
 >that the court system has set up.

If that's the standard, I think your non-support for free
expression potentially injures me and all of us who express
opinions with which you disagree. If your views prevail, all of
us will be in trouble. They could even negatively affect our
livelihoods. I could criticize someone on-line or in print or in
speech; he could whine that my criticism "injured [him] in some
way", and he could bring in an attorney to force me to
apologize, retract, promise never to say anything disagreeable
again, and pay him a chunk of money for his hurt feelings. That
could be enough to make me want to stop writing - which is what
I do for a living - altogether.

In order to prevent this from happening, I guess I had better
shut you up. After all, by the reasoning you're employing, I
have the right to sue you because your views hurt my feelings
and are potentially harmful to me, my reputation, my career, and
my income.

 >Perhaps Jenny could have approached Stanton and clarified the
 >matter and apologized if her actions inadvertently hurt Stan in any
 >way. Apparently she didn't do that. And it doesn't matter now. It
 >is ancient history.

In other words, if our words offend somebody in any way, it is
our responsibility to apologize to that individual, or else we
have whatever is coming to us, including court summonses and
libel suits.

That being the case, the only free speech left to us is banal,
innocuous babble that hurts or offends no one. I'm glad I don't
happen to live in _that_ particular police state. Though your
words suggest the contrary, I don't think you _really_ want to
live there, either. At least I fervently hope so.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:25:12 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:03:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:47:09 -0500

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:25:48 -0400

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark
 >>>Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 17:14:49 -0500

 >>>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 08:03:59 -0300


 >>>If we are all lucky, nothing remotely like this will ever happen
 >>>again, and full and free expression, including obnoxious,
 >>>offensive, and stupid free expression, will enliven, enrage,
 >>>inform, dumbfound, and flower in ufology for as long as there
 >>>are ufologists.

 >><snip>

 >>Just a few quick ones on free expression:

 >>1. Does free expression apply to an individual who has asked for
 >>retraction, was denied same and resorted to a court to get one?

 ><snip>

 >The answer to this and all related questions is a simple one:

 >Ufologists should not be suing other ufologists.

 >Jerry Clark


Two questions and a comment:

1. Is it OK for ufologists to sue newspapers?

2. When and where were you elected the sole member of the
legislative assembly for ufologists?

Would not a more appropriate answer for at least one question
be:

"Ufologists should not defame ufologists"?


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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                   Electrogavitics: Control Of Gravity Not

From: Jess Fritch <djfritch@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:22:30 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:20:35 -0400
Subject: Electrogavitics: Control Of Gravity Not


When I responded to a post on the UFO UpDates concerning the
Nellis UFO video I was shown very little respect.....


The Nellis craft is one of our (U.S.) 'Black Projects'. When
these craft, like the F-117's, where flown over the Nellis
range, all radar and remote camera sites are turned off. The
controllers do not have a high enough clearance.

I said that this was not the first time that this craft had been
video-taped.

1991, from the Discovery Shuttle while it was over the South
Pacific, just north of Australia, several bright objects are
seen. Then one comes up on the far edge of the Earth and movies
along until there is a flash, it then makes a sharp, right turn,
and accelerates out, away from the Earth.

I said that it was moving along at 54,000 MPH, and when it made
the turn it accelerated to over 430,000 MPH. The information is
from a report made for the 1994 MUFON International Symposium by
Dr. John C. 'Jack' Kasher, who is a Professor of Physics and
Astronomy at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

If you want to read this report for yourself you can get it from
MUFON.

As for the Nellis craft, I claim that this is ours because of my
study of and understanding of Electrogavitics for over the past
ten years. I have also talked with a member of the inventer's
family.

At this time I can not find any proof of reverse engineering of
alien technology, but the work done by one man who has not been
given credit of any kind. It took him from the mid-1920's up to
1958 to prove to the US Air Force that he was right.

I believe him to be one of those unsung heroes, because he did
not have a college degree.

His name is Thomas Townsend Brown.

Brown published a paper titled "How I Control Gravitation", in
August 1928, Nowhere does he use the term "anti-gravity".

If you would like to read this and much more, you can go to his
site at:

www.soteria.com/brown/

The use of the term 'anti' is wrong when you are talking about
Electrogavitics. When anti is used it means "opposite in kind,
position, or action". If you study Electrogavitics as I have,
you will see that it is controlling it.

Think of how a capacitor works - you have both a positive plate
and a negative plate, with dielectric material between the two
plates. Now this works only with very high DC voltage.

Brown started with about 50,000 volts. He constructed a
lightweight demonstration disc craft consisting of two 1 and 1/2
foot diameter aluminum saucers cupped on each side of a circular
sheet of Plexiglas.

Two of these discs were suspended by tethers from the two ends
of a horizontal beam. Electric power was fed to the discs
through wires attached to their edges. The upper and lower metal
saucers were similarly charged to a negative potential, and a
wire at the leading edge of each disc was charged to a positive
potential. When the saucers were energized with 50,000 volts,
they were propelled forward, toward the positive charge.

Brown believed that the applied electric field induced a gravity
gradient from front-to-back propelling the discs like surfboards
on a wave.

For more information you can buy a book from Atlantis Rising
titled, 'Electrogravitics Systems, Reports On A New Propulsion
Methodology'.

Also a video of Brown's experiments at the Bahnson Lab from 1958
to 1960.

Another site that I feel is very good is:

www.members.aol.com/jnaudin509/index.htm

I hope that before responding to this post you, the reader,
first look at and read the information that I have suggested.

Also, please visit my site at:

www.gravitydrive.com

It is only one page at this time and the e-mail address is no
longer valid. I hope to have my complete site up in a few
months. I have a lot more information to share with you and when
I get the site up, you will be able to find it there.

For those who are truly interested, on September 15th and 16th,
I will have a table at the Bay Area UFO Expo here at the Santa
Clara Mairrout. See a list of speakers at this web site:

www.bayareaufoexpo.com

In closing, Brown thought of the propulsion development as an ash
tray development and the real use of this technology is

Free Energy!


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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET - Wilson

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:25:01 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:23:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET - Wilson


 >From: Diana Cammack <cammack@eomw.net>
 >To: UFO Updates Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET
 >Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:49:06 +0100

 >>Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:58:38 -0400
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >>Subject: Abductees' Books/Videotaping ET

Dear Diana:

You Wrote:

 >KW,

 >I am not an electronics person at all, but would suggest that
 >you try different equipment, maybe at the same time, that uses a
 >different kind of signal - not digital, for instance, but an old
 >fashioned camera that uses 16 mm film would that help? Or even a
 >camera that, say,  takes a photo every 2 minutes? Try to
 >approach the phenomenon with various technologies -- maybe the
 >most primitive (or the most sophisticated) will work?? Just an
 >idea...

 >Diana


Thanks for your response. Of course, you have some great ideas
and I hope others will try them.

I am not attempting to video tape right now, but I'm sure others
are and I hope they will try what you have suggested. If I try
again, it will be via multiple-cameras, like you suggested.


Sincerely,

Katharina








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                        Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:45:30 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:31:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:23:59 -0500

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:12:06 -0400

 ><snip>

 >>Wow! Now why don't you tell us how you really feel, Dennis?

 >Jan,

 >I just did. About a particular aspect of UFO evidence, or lack
 >thereof.

 >>The principles remain the same, if you don't look for it, it
 >>probably won't be found. Yes, of course, there are new networks
 >>with better resolution, and also better filters.

 >You're the one limiting this overall discussion to "new
 >networks," of your own description, not me. I'm talking about
 >everything going on today, including civilian and commercial
 >activity. I'm not talking about some network designed to track
 >asteroids picking up something anomalous and having to agonize
 >over what to do with it. I'm talking about all sorts of
 >observations that take place on a daily basis -- ie, the
 >documentation of the Earth's atmosphere -- by scientific,
 >civilian, and commercial enterprises alike. Yes, they aren't
 >looking for it, it being a UFO, but who cares? What I'm saying
 >is that if they accidentally captured clear, convincing,
 >unambiguous evidence of same, photographic or otherwise, we
 >would probably know about it by now.

The question was already answered!

Where is all the great geewhiz stuff on ball lightning from your
vaunted networks?

 >>Twenty or thirty years ago, there was more of a possibility of
 >>something unusual making it to the press, also. Not today in the
 >>Art Bell, X-files saturated world.

 >What? I'll forgive you this lapse in logic. Seems to me almost
 >everything makes it to the press nowadays, or maybe you haven't
 >heard of crop circles, chupacabras, and India's Monkey Man just
 >yet?

My slip? Your slip? Into this jumble of misagosh some scientist
is going to step forth and say, "Hey, I got this neat picture of
something I can explain."

 >>The final skeptical article about Transient Lunar Phenomena
 >>(TLPs) was written just a short time ago. Right after that,
 >>amateurs using their own video equipment were able to confirm
 >>the phenomenon. So much for vaulted surveillence networks!

 >Yes, which exactly proves my point, in case you hadn't noticed.

 >>Your own arguments are dead. Go back in history and review all
 >>the statements that this profession or piece of equipment
 >>doesn't see or pick up UFOs.

 >Respectfully, your arguments are dead. I don't want to go back in
 >history. I want to go forward with same.

 >>Oh, BTW where are all the good pictures, videos and other great
 >>gewhiz stuff on ball lightning from such networks?!

 >Where, indeed? Ask yourself!

 >Maybe it indicates that ball lightning is an extremely rare,
 >transient phenomenon. And maybe that indicates that most UFO
 >phenomena fall into the same category. Who knows? I'm
 >comfortable with that, if you are.

Exactly! Which all these networks can't seem to find, or maybe
there is geewhiz stuff there within the records which no one has
looked for.

Now in McDonald's time one meteorologist told him he had seen a
tornado funnel come down from the sky and hit the ground. In
McDonald's time that had never been photographed.

Several years after that I was involved in one of the biggest
tornado studies ever undertaken, Project SESAME.

Nearly all the avaiable mobile weather equipment that the US
government and many private sources such as universities owned
was mobilized for this project.

Over nearly two-thirds of the United States land area was
covered. Everywhere there was two fixed weather stations a
mobile was one was slipped in between them.

This was one of the finest (i.e. highly sensitive) weather
girds up to that time.

In the second phase of the experiment the mobile gird was
collapsed into just the Texas panhandle and western Oklahoma
area with over one hundred mobile stations sounding the
atmosphere.

In addition to land and mobile stations just about every kind of
device imaginable was launched into the air. Also large numbers
of aircraft also were engaged in the project.

Guess what? That was one year with very few tornadoes. One of
the biggest weather detection networks ever assembled and not
much to detect.

The best stuff is now gathered by tornado chasers, and they have
great data. This is an active network, not a passive one - it
goes out and seeks out the phenomenon!

Think about that also.


 >Or maybe you think that UFOs are physical, flying objects which,
 >like ball lightning, just happen to be transient in nature? They
 >do this and that and then fly away to here or there.

 >I don't know.

Dennis, I have no theory to push. It seems that some of these things are
unique and need study.

 >Why do you think most UFO reports reflect something of a
 >transient nature? I mean, they can hover, can't they? So why
 >don't they just hang around? And where do they go when they
 >leave? Why isn't the average UFO sighting measured in a matter
 >of hours, instead of minutes or seconds?

Now, if I knew the answers to this and a number of other
questions, there might be not need to engage in this argument.

 >Is there any inherent reason for same that you can think of?


No, but I am sure there is one you have in mind - why didn't you
spell it out here?


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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                        Stanton Friedman Documentary

From: Paul Kimball <Redstarfilm@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:16:18 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:42:37 -0400
Subject: Stanton Friedman Documentary


We're producing a documentary on the life and times of Stanton
Friedman, and ufology in general, for Space: The Imagination
Station and Bravo, two Canadian cable channels, as well as
international distribution.

We're inviting anyone who may wish to participate in the
documentary to contact us and let us know, particularly those
who may be at the 2001 MUFON Symposium, where we'll be filming.


Paul Kimball

Producer Redstar Films Limited
Halifax, Nova Scotia
redstarfilm@aol.com
(902) 429-5254








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:17:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:44:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:47:09 -0500

<snip>

 >Ufologists should not be suing other ufologists.

 >Jerry Clark

If ufologists didn't trash each other, there would be no
grounds for lawsuits.  Your basic no-brainer  :)

SSSSOooooooo.....how about those UFOs?


Bobbie

==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                         Re: Talk And Action - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:29:08 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:47:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Young


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:11:09 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >Dennis, Bob, Dick, List,

 >As Dick indicates, it is erroneous to say that scientific
 >instruments don't pick up UFOs and to say they don't pick
 >enough is a non-quantitative argument that may be false when
 >real numbers are put to it. The Condon Committee analyzed the
 >different scientific instruments and networks including the
 >repeatedly pushed Prairie Network and found most of them of very
 >little use for UFO detection, especially including the Prairie
 >Network which was designed to capture fast-moving bright
 >meteors.


Brad, Dick:

The Prairie Network simply took all-sky pictures which could
record meteors brighter than fourth magnitude (about the
limiting brightness of stars in most suburban skies).

The system was used for 17 days at Harrisburg during the 1967
'flap' (during which no flying saucers were recorded _during_
the time of 100 UFO reports phoned in to Condon Committee
investigators).

I have seen a picture reported to have been possible ball
lightning taken by a Prairie camera.

Why haven't UFO investigators poured over the Prairie pictures
to see if anything unusual is on pictures taken _during_ known
nearby UFO reports?

Afraid of something? Or is it nothing?


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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                         Re: Talk And Action - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:46:50 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:49:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Young


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:38:47 -0400

<snip>

 >Because the vast majority of initial UFO reports are useless,
 >that does not mean that there are not useful cases which may
 >show something unique.

Jan:

This is certainly true.

<snip>

 >Early on the Condon committee did consider various EME detection
 >ideas, but nothing came from the discussions.


What is "EME"?


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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                     Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:09:19 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:51:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Young


 >From: Ron EagleBoy <eagle100@prodigy.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Serious Research [was: Serious Research] - EagleBoy
 >Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:38:28 -0400

<snip>

 >This is why jets were not used to respond to this particular UFO
 >encounter. Jets may have responded initially, but after
 >determining that the object was in trouble, and basically
 >hovering in place, the only logical, practical choice was to use
 >helicopters.(CH-47 Chinooks. Each ship can carry more than 40
 >troops and can lift and transport up to 12 tons!)

 >The military would also have to consider the possibility of a
 >crash or emergency landing, so they decided to use Chinooks, and
 >23 of them at that. (Vickie said she counted 23.) I'm sure that
 >the military felt confident that if there was a crash or an
 >emergency landing of this unknown, 23 Chinooks, crammed with
 >troops, would be more than adequate to deal with whatever was
 >inside the object, and if necessary, handle any unfortunate
 >witnesses to the event. (I think the potential witness "problem"
 >was half of the reason they decided to use 23 "troop" carrying
 >helicopters.)

Where did the 23 mystery Chinooks come from, packed with a full
battalion over a holiday stand-down period?  What units flew
them and where did they operate from?  A formation of this size
is hard to miss at 9 PM, but was not seen from the Houston
airport only a few miles away.

<snip>

 >Note: There were a number of other witnesses to both the
 >object and the helicopters. Two witnesses to the helicopters
 >was a Dayton Texas Police Officer, L.L. Walker, and his wife.

They said they saw a few helicopters hours later.  There is not
one shred of evidence that these were the same helicopters, and
in any case these witnesses didn't see any UFO.  How this can be
used to corroborate the UFO story is beyond me.

<snip>

 >This was not an escort, but a pursuit.

A pursuit by whom, from where to where?  These choppers, in
these numers, didn't exist, anywhere nearby.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:22:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:24:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:04:54 -0500

 >>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:02:26 -0500
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

<snip>

 >>It sounds like the problem is the laws in Great Britain, then.
 >>The solution would be to get the laws changed so this sort of
 >>thing doesn't happen again. That isn't something me or Stan or
 >>any other American can do.

 >But if it is, as you yourself acknowledge, a "problem," then it
 >is something that neither of you ought to be exploiting, and one
 >of you has already done so, while the other defends the
 >exploitation. It appears that you two Americans have already
 >done enough..

Geez, you're in a mood this morning. Run out of coffee or
something?

 >>>I would have to ask what Stanton's actual financial loss was in
 >>>this case?

 >>I would have to ask what difference that makes?

 >Of course that makes all the difference. It appears that you
 >know as little about principles of libel law as you know about
 >principles of free expression.

I may not know a whole lot about libel law, especially
considering that I'm not a lawyer, but I do know about free
speech. And I know a lot about common courtesy... something your
post is sorely lacking.

But that's beside the point...

<snip>

 >If that's the standard, I think your non-support for free
 >expression potentially injures me and all of us who express
 >opinions with which you disagree. If your views prevail, all of
 >us will be in trouble. They could even negatively affect our
 >livelihoods.

So sue me  :)

<snip>

 >In order to prevent this from happening, I guess I had better
 >shut you up.

Good luck :)

One question... who died and made you the Ethics Police of the
UFO field?

Just curious...


Bobbie

==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

             Chile: Senator Asks For Information On Chupacabras

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:52:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:28:32 -0400
Subject: Chile: Senator Asks For Information On Chupacabras


SOURCE: "La Estrella del Loa" (Chile)

DATE: Monday, June 11, 2001

Senator Asks for Information on Chupacabras Case

Senator Carlos Cantero wants to know the truth regarding the
so-called Chupacabras.

Restless due to the extended period of time that the so-called
Chupacabras case has remained in the public order of business
without haveing reached a satisfactory solution by the
authorities, Senator Carlos Catnero requested the Government of
El Loa, through an offical letter, to provide the background
information handled by official agencies regarding the subject.

RESPONSE

As a response to this request, Governor Francisco Segovia sent
the parlamentarian official letter No. 367, dated May 29th,
2001, in which he responds as follows:

"In regard to your questions pursuant to the "Chupacabras" case
and after having made the corresponding consultations with the
Chilean Investigative Police, please find attached a photocopy
of Official Letter No. 587 dated May 14, 2001, detailing the
latest activities engaged in."

In this document, sent on May 14, Adalberto Rehbein Yunge,
Assistant Prefect of the Criminal Investigation Brigade (Bicrim,
in Spanish) of the Calama Civil Police, replied to the
provincial authority in the following terms:

"1.- In response to your Official Letter mentioned in the
preceding, aimed at obtaining information regarding the latest
activities engaged in by the Calama Investigative Police
regarding the so-called Chupacabras case.

2.- Pursuant to the foregoing, said Provincial Government is
advised that no trustworthy information concerning animal deaths
has been found in this jurisdiction, with the exception of press
information that attribute the deaths of animals in this area to
it, without any strange animal being detected as the perpetrator
in such cases.

3.- Likewise, we have not received any complaints in our Unit in
relation to animal deaths under strange circumstaunces, nor have
we received any orders from then local courts to investigate the
matter."

SOCIAL INTEREST

In an interview with this newspaper, the parlamentarian, a
geographer by profession, stated: "I suppose that the subject is
of interest to the entire community [but] no one can engage in
speculation without verifiable background events, and no
scientific basis has been hitherto established."

He made it understood that a subject that has caused such a
sensation and coverage by the media cannot go unanswered by
official agencies.

He maintained that he is still hoping to receive information
from other agencies which played a direct role in the
phenomenon, such as the Carabineros (state police) and the
Health Service.

Once he has all of the background information in his possession,
he shall see if these meet his expectations. Otherwise he does
not rule out requesting details on the case, which was reviewed
at the time (specifically during the first quarter of 2000) by
the courts of El Loa, which received the complaints made by
Calaman parcelers who lost a considerable part or the entirety
of their cattle.

The senator advised that he possesses the authority and the
tools needed to find out the conclusions reached and the detail
of the investigations ordered by the justice department and
implemented by the police agencies during and after the period
in question

Upon being consulted on his impression of the phenomenon's
researchers and ufologists, he noted that he cannot give credit
to individuals whose qualifications are unknown.

################################

Translation (C) 2001. Scott Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology.

Special Thanks to Gloria R. Coluchi.












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                 Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Cash-Lundrum

From: Diana Cammack <cammack@eomw.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:40:23 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:35:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Cash-Lundrum


 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:05:41 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers'

 >>From: Ron EagleBoy <eagle100@prodigy.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:38:28 -0400

 >>>Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 16:11:51 -0400
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research

 >>>>Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 10:42:36 -0300
 >>>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Serious Research

<snip>

 >>Don wrote:

 >>>>1. I don't think those helicopters were "chasing" the 'UFO'.
 >>>>The reports sound more like they were escorting it, or pacing
 >>>>it. Bob is right when he says that it doesn't make any sense to
 >>>>send helicopters to "chase" a UFO. (Unless it's a man on foot
 >>>>or a slo-mo O.J. Simson SUV chase scene.)

 >>>Bob is right when he says that it doesn't make any sense to
 >>>send helicopters to "chase" a UFO.

 >>I disagree with both points. In fact, the reports indicate just
 >>the opposite.

 ><snip>

 >>This was not an escort, but a pursuit.

 >I have no idea whether it was an 'escort' or 'pursuit,' the key
 >issue I think is that our military _were_ there and closely
 >involved. Yet publicly they continue to claim "no knowledge" and
 >"no official involvement".

 >I raised another question in that post that I don't think anyone
 >responded to. Why was Betty the _only_ one affected by the, (and
 >I know I'm assuming here as to the source of her illness,)
 >"radiation sickness"?

<snip>

 >Does anyone know how many UFO related/associated deaths have
 >ever been reported? Is that information catalogued anywhere? I'm
 >curious.

Another question.....

Am I not right in remembering that the Cash Landrum case
happened the same day as the Rendlesham Forest case? If that is
so - and forgive me if my mind is playing tricks on me, as I do
not have my library here with me in C Africa - could there be
some relationship between the craft and its 'escorts', and
events in the UK where there was some sort of disabled craft at
a US military base?


Diana









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                   Re: Electrogavitics: Control Of Gravity

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:01:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:37:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Electrogavitics: Control Of Gravity


 >From: Jess Fritch <djfritch@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Electrogavitics: Control Of Gravity Not 'Anti-Gravity'
 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:22:30 -0700

 >When I responded to a post on the UFO UpDates concerning the
 >Nellis UFO video I was shown very little respect.....

Most of us have been aware of the Biefield-Brown Effect for
decades and agree that it is not anti-gravity.

Possibly you would like to read about some true gravity/inertia
modification systems. Try the links at:

http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/antigrav.html

particularly the works of Wallace, Podkletnov, and Modanese.

Also, here's an interesting article on Arthur C. Clarke's SHARP
drive:

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/11.04.99/lightphysics-9944.html

And, for some really exotic theories, don't miss:

http://www.stardrive.org/title.shtml

which has a definitive article at:

http://www.stardrive.org/starship.shtml


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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                   On Isle Of Man Mount Snaefell Incident

From: Chris Rolfe <astratech@supanet.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:17:55 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:47:22 -0400
Subject: On Isle Of Man Mount Snaefell Incident


Isle Of Man Mount Snaefell Incident

Just thought I would let everyone know the latest on the Mount
Snaefell incident of Sunday, January 14, 2001.

UFO Monitors East Kent, have just recently received an
audio-tape of an interview conducted with one of the witnesses.

The witness was out horse-riding with a friend, when their
attention was drawn to the clear blue sky, after noticing a very
bright flash. As they looked up towards Mount Snaefell, they
noticed an object about the size and shape of a micro-light
heading towards one of the communications masts on top of the
mountain. It then struck the mast, and fell from the sky over
the other side of the mountain in a cloud of smoke. Then thick
black smoke was seen to come up from the general direction of
where the object had gone down (This smoke lasted for about 20
minutes).

The two horse riders rode to the nearest farm, and asked the
farmer if he could call the emergency services. He too observed
the smoke. The emergency services arrived and took the two
witnesses to the top of Snaefell so that they could point out
the direction in which the object went down.

After a few hours the two witnesses went home, and asked the
police officer in charge if they could let them know the outcome
of the search which involved about 40 - 80 persons, which
included police, mountain rescue, fire and Civil defence
personnel.

At about 23:30 hours the police called the witnesses to inform
them that the search had been called-off until first light. The
search the following morning had been called-off at 12:30 pm,
after nothing was supposedly found.

On the following Tuesday morning (16 January), two police
officers turned up at the witness's place of work and asked her
if she would take them to where her and her friend had seen the
object from. When they arrived the police ruled out a model
aircraft due to the distance involved, and told the witness that
they were not particularly happy with whom ever was in charge of
the investigation, as they felt they were not being told
everything that was going on. A cover-up?

I spoke to Inspector Gary Roberts of the Isle of Man in May, and
he told me that they were told the name of someone who was
flying a large remote controlled model aircraft on top of
Snaefell, which had caused the damage to the mast. Well if
that's what the two horse riders saw, then at a distance of 3
miles it must have been a bloody big model that's all I can say.
When I asked him if the police had questioned the individual
responsible he said "No."

So an irresponsible person flies a model aircraft and causes a
few hundred Pounds or more of damage to a communications mast,
apparently putting the emergency services off-air for a few
hours, is not interviewed by the police and reprimanded for his
actions! I find that most unbelievable indeed.

We would like other witnesses to this incident to come forward,
and if anyone has any more information we would be pleased to
hear from them.

The latest issue of UFO Magazine (UK) carries a 6 page update on
the incident with more to follow. They can be contacted on 01943
816611.

I can be contacted at astratech@supanet.com or on 07968 583435.


Chris Rolfe

Director of Research & Investigations
UFO Monitors East Kent.
(United Kingdom)











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:27:12 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:10:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman


 >From: Murray Bott <murrayb@win.co.nz>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:43:03 +1200 (NZST)
 >To: UFO UpDates List <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >Greetings List,

 >With regard to the Lawsuit which was leveled against Jenny
 >Randles over this alleged statement :-

 >>>A meeting featuring an American expert on the subject of
 >>>crashed UFOs was condemned today as "about as factual as a
 >>>Steven Spielberg movie." The rocket was fired by Jenny Randles,
 >>>who claims to be Britain's only "professional ufologist."
 >>>ZAP! She slated "dangerous and highly suspect non-science"
 >>>from cultists and crackpots.

 >>>POW! she blitzed the "absolute nonsense about crashed
 >>>spaceships and dead aliens" as damaging to sober links
 >>>between serious ufologists and the scientific community.

 >>>Jenny, who lives in Heathbank Road, Cheadle Heath, Stockport,
 >>>poured scorn on a presentation due to be made at Radcliffe
 >>>Civic Hall on Sunday by Harry Harris of Sale and American UFO
 >>>fanatic Stanton Friedman. Mr Friedman is a disciple of the
 >>>theory that an alien space-ship crashed in the New Mexico
 >>>desert in 1947, since when the US Government has made a secret
 >>>pact with captive aliens about a quota system for spiriting
 >>>earthlings away to their planet in the system Zeta Reticuli.
 >>>"These people claim the only information garnered from having
 >>>aliens in a freezer for 42 years is that they have a fetish for
 >>>strawberry ice-cream." she declared.

 >In my view this is a rather weak case on which to base a defamation
 >case (against Jenny Randles) and should have been overlooked.

Murray, Have you read the apology published by the MEN and
covering them and Jenny? Have you read the 2 page defamatory
letter sent by Jenny to the paper in order to get the interview
published by the paper? Are you a lawyer? Have you read the
actual clippings from the paper or is this just top of the head
baseless opinion as an illustration of free expression?
Hopefully the relevant materials will be posted. soon

 >I strongly suggest that Stanton has put his own reputation into
 >"Self-Destruct Mode" over this and other actions.

I wonder just what the basis for this conclusion is aside from
your disagreements with my views. But have you done your
homework? Or is this just more free expression


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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                    Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Aubeck

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@email.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:59:28 +0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:13:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Aubeck


 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:05:41 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers'

 >>From: Ron EagleBoy <eagle100@prodigy.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:38:28 -0400

<snip>

 >Hi Ron, hi All,

<big snip>

 >Does anyone know how many UFO related/associated deaths have
 >ever been reported? Is that information catalogued anywhere?
 >I'm curious.


 >Regards,

 >John Velez



Hi John,

Have you forgotten about Mr. Dittman's database of death/injury
cases at:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/2653/injuryessay.html

His site isn't complete, but it's very good.

For the record, the very earliest documented UFO sighting
(whether it was ET or BS) was an injury/death case. It happened
to Thutmosis III's men about 3500 years ago, and involved a
luminous object that descended and attacked. (I am not referring
to the Tulli Papyrus Hoax, of course, but a genuine text found
on a stela in 1933. In 1933! Anyone aware of the details of the
Tulli case will be able to read my thoughts on this matter
already.)

Then you've got this excellent report which I suggest you read,
too:

http://www.webcom.com/sturrock/jse/articles/ufo_reports/schuessler/toc_reverse.h
tml



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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                     Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:01:00 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:15:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hale


 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:02:26 -0500
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

<snip>

 >Then Jenny could have gone to the paper and pitched a royal
 >bitch, demanding a retraction or whatever. If she was wronged by
 >the paper, then it was up to her to get it corrected.


Bobbie,

You are right in what you say. If the paper refused to retract
the Article concerned, her next step would have been to contact
the U.K. Press Complaints Council. Her views would have been
clearly listened to, and if they felt she had been
misrepresented, or misquoted unjustly, they would have insured
that the involved news publication, would correct this with a
retraction and an apology in their Newspaper.

I would imagine Jenny would have been given ample advice on this
issue, some of her close colleagues being journalists. Also
considering that Jenny has an international and professional
reputation to uphold, within the UFO research community, I am
personally at odds as to why none of the above avenues of
redress were indeed taken by Jenny? Or were they?

As for the spotlight on UK UFO groups and researchers going all
out for each other, it is slightly exaggerated. There are a lot
researcher's in the UK, who do nothing but work with full
co-operation. I think the point here is' when you speak to the
UK press, in any way they usually look for the appealing words,
Aliens, Crashes, Abductions, etc. purely on a ridicule basis. If
the UK press were ever serious about UFOs per say then you would
clearly see more detailed reporting on the facts contained in
such good UFO cases. After all, people keep telling me that UFOs
are not real news for the media but somehow I just don't buy
that....


Keep Smiling,

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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:20:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:21:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:25:12 -0300

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:47:09 -0500

 >>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:25:48 -0400

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark
 >>>>Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 17:14:49 -0500

 >>>>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>>Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 08:03:59 -0300


Stan,

 >>The answer to this and all related questions is a simple one:

 >>Ufologists should not be suing other ufologists.
 >Two questions and a comment:

 >1. Is it OK for ufologists to sue newspapers?

Only if they do not value freedom of the press.

Someone once remarked that if an individual proclaims, "I believe
in freedom of expression, but - ", the only operative word is
"but."

 >2. When and where were you elected the sole member of the
 >legislative assembly for ufologists?

Is this question supposed to have meaning?

 >Would not a more appropriate answer for at least one question
 >be:

 >"Ufologists should not defame ufologists"?

Since no one, including you, has been defamed in any legally
defined sense (and defamation is _only_ legally defined), your
statement means nothing in the present context. I would put it
this way:

Ufologists should respect other ufologists' right to express
themselves, however wrong-headed, dumb, unfair, or infuriating
that expression may strike us. When expressing themselves,
ufologists should try to be thoughtful, intelligent, fair, and
courteous. When, however, they are not - and every one of us,
including you and me, is a fallible human and therefore sometimes
not - they should not be threatened with legal action, have
money extracted from them by a lawyer, and be intimidated into
groveling apology and retraction if they are not already inclined
to do so by their own free will.

Stan, you and I have known each other for a long time, and
I have great respect for your many worthy contributions to
ufology. Those are not at issue. What is at issue is something
you did that you ought not to have done. You do yourself no
good by continuing to defend it - not very persuasively, I
might add - a decade later. We all make mistakes, and
this is one of yours.

As our esteemed New Zealand colleague Murray Bott puts it,
you've placed yourself in self-destruct mode. If you can't
bring yourself to apologize, drop it, cut your losses, and move
on. And the rest of us can pledge that we will endeavor not to
make a comparable mistake in a weak moment.

I am reminded of something I used to say to my kids when
they were growing up: "If I can't do anything else for you,
I can serve as a bad example." I guess it must have worked,
because they all turned out all right. In that sense, maybe
ufologists can learn from this example of badly considered
action.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:22:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:22:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:17:32 -0500
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:47:09 -0500

Bobbie,

 >>Ufologists should not be suing other ufologists.

 >If ufologists didn't trash each other, there would be no
 >grounds for lawsuits.  Your basic no-brainer  :)

More to the point: If ufologists didn't trash each other, there
would be no ufology.


Cordially,

Jerry Clark









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:44:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:25:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:22:58 -0500
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:04:54 -0500

 >>>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:02:26 -0500
 >>>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

Bobbie,

 >>>It sounds like the problem is the laws in Great Britain, then.
 >>>The solution would be to get the laws changed so this sort of
 >>>thing doesn't happen again. That isn't something me or Stan or
 >>>any other American can do.

 >>But if it is, as you yourself acknowledge, a "problem," then it
 >>is something that neither of you ought to be exploiting, and one
 >>of you has already done so, while the other defends the
 >>exploitation. It appears that you two Americans have already
 >>done enough..

 >Geez, you're in a mood this morning. Run out of coffee or
 >something?

Now, there's a to-the-point answer.

 >I may not know a whole lot about libel law, especially
 >considering that I'm not a lawyer, but I do know about free
 >speech. And I know a lot about common courtesy... something your
 >post is sorely lacking.

You defend an indefensible legal suit and the public humiliation
of one of our smartest, most productive, most conscientious,
hard-working colleagues (Jenny Randles), and then suddenly you
get all sensitive about _my_ alleged insensitivity to _your_
feelings? Maybe you ought to do some soulful reexamining of
your values and priorities.

 >One question... who died and made you the Ethics Police of the
 >UFO field?

Now, weren't you the person who was defending Stan Friedman just
a posting or so ago? Who died and gave you the right to be the
Thought Policewoman of the UFO Field?

More seriously, perhaps, than your question merits:

What is at issue here is a principle called free expression, and
everybody, including every ufologist, has a right to it. Even
me. Even you. Even Jenny Randles. Learn to live with it, and to
let others practice it, too, and you will never be harangued on
the subect again.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                  Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:48:36 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:30:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:47:09 -0500

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:25:48 -0400

<snip>

 >>Just a few quick ones on free expression:

 >>1. Does free expression apply to an individual who has asked for
 >>retraction, was denied same and resorted to a court to get one?

 ><snip>

 >The answer to this and all related questions is a simple one:

 >Ufologists should not be suing other ufologists.

Principles are one thing. Reality is another.

Let's suppose you, Jerry, come to town for a UFO conference.

A journalist picks up the phone and we discuss my views on
ufology in general and Jerome Clark in particular.

The next morning I read in the paper:

"Jerome Clark: it's a bird, it's a fly, no... it's super
nutcase..."

... and on with the kind of stuff that will make me popular to
your enemies.

Jerry, you can't be happy about the article, especially since
you're doing a conference tomorrow morning.

A couple of possibilities come to mind:

1. I am proud of myself. And I stand by what I said.

2. I am not proud of myself because:

    2a. It was a bad day. I said it and I regret it.

    2b. It was a good day. I said it, I don't exactly regret it,
    but it would be much better to play it "I was misquoted"

    2c. I was misquoted.

    2d. I never said that and the newspaper made it up.

There might be a 3 with a "I don't care". But I can't be that
kind of pratt can I?

It can't be #1 because why in the world would a famous ufologist
in Great Britain trash another famous ufologist. In all cases
I'll do my best to call you and...

"Jerry, it's me... Yeah, me!... Gosh... Gulp... Sorry about this
article..."

Well, OK, I'm the shy type... I don't call you... I even avoid
you. I know it will be difficult to understand how a regular of
conferences, interviews and what have you can be shy, but one
cannot be held accountable for a few twisted idiosyncrasies.

So, I do nothing.

Ultimately you, Jerry Clark, call me to have an explanation and
demand public excuses.

What should I do?

If I don't comply, what will your opinion be about me?

What kind of person would I be?

Is my attitude excusable?

OK, I'm having a bad karma. You finally sue me and the journal,
we settle out of court and it costs me less that a $1000.

Time passes...

More than ten years later the story comes out.

Stan Friedman, a very good friend of mine and a fellow
ufologist, addresses you sharply and spares few hyperbolas to
denounce you as the villain in this story, resorting to
insinuation to suggest that:

1. Your action almost led me to mendicity;

2. More than 10 years later, I am still paying your house and
your cigars;

3. You are Mr. Bad Guy who drove me to the point I can't
properly express my views anymore;

I do read the posts but I sit on my butt without raising a
finger to straighten the facts and clear up the air. My
reputation is on the rise. Remember, I'm the poor victim of a
fiend, and most ufologists, as Stanton pleases to repeat, are
against you.

Can you smell the smell?

If I missed something, please let me know.

Maybe this will end like many Perry Mason episodes: the fragile
silent witness the prosecution never wanted to testify comes to
the bar and Perry Mason asks:

"Why did you do it?"

Serge Salvaille







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 12

                         Ufologists Suing Ufologists

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:15:42 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:38:20 -0400
Subject: Ufologists Suing Ufologists


Y'all,

Stanton Friedman may squeal and squawk in trying to justify his
pointless legal persecution of Jenny Randles over her opinions,
but no-one has yet put the case in any context from a UK ufology
point of view. I was heavily involved in the scene at that time
(indeed we put Stanty on at a gig in Leeds and made a healthy
profit out of _his_ opinions!) and these memories drift into my
mind:

*  There was no love lost between Harry Harris and Jenny prior
to Stanton's law suit. This situation had rumbled on for several
years and had involved BUFORA and others. Many people believed
'something' was bound to happen and that it was just a matter of
when the necessary ammunition could be found. However trivial.
There is vast amounts of evidence in ufologists' correspondence
from the time supporting this assertion. Please note I am not
for a minute suggesting Harris put Friedman up to the law suit,
merely filling in the background details of the social history
at the time.

*  Harris was known in ufological circles in the north of
England as someone who had threatened litigation to at least one
other ufologist prior to the Friedman event.

It is tempting to suggest that, as he was a solicitor, it must
have been, ahem, 'convenient' and 'economical' to send his own
solicitors letters out rather than have to employ someone like
everyone else has to.

Harris's letters were on his letterhead which read:

'Harry Harris'
Solicitor
44 Reading Drive
Sale
Manchester
Closed for lunch 1pm-2pm

It may have been easy for people to believe all Harris' letters
were 'legal' missives when in fact they were probably not.
Somewhat conveniently Harry only made the distinction when
specifically queried (evidence available should anyone doubt
this).

The mere _fact_ that Harris was in the legal game was usually
enough to silence any UK ufologist with an opinion about
anything even vaguely Harris-related. Free speech is easily
stifled by letters with 'solicitor' on them!

Exactly what the ethics of a solicitor acting for himself are is
open to question. It may have been legal but in my book it's
thoroughly unethical and immoral.

*  I still treasure a file of my correspondence with him from
when he threatened me. The depth of his panic was reflected in
the fact that he threatened me merely because I suggested in UFO
Brigantia that his interviewing of some of the witnesses in the
Alan Godfrey case was not done under the same circumstances a
police interview would have been conducted.

Big deal!

Naturally I apologised in print because this served to amplify
what I was trying to say!

Harris never did 'get' UFO Brigantia.

*  I had many hours of phone calls from Harris every time
I disagreed with him and he heard about it. He was always polite
and courteous and even wished me compliments of the season
in the same letter he threatened legal action! I could never
work him out but thought the idea of threatening legal action
to resolve a difference of opinion rather sinister.

* I am sure Harris is still out there, but the last
two occasions I came across him was....

1. In an article in the popular Manchester Evening News
which read (exactly):

"Lawyer's Pet Threat
Solicitor Harry Harris, 55, of (Deleted by AR), will appear
before magistrates on charges of making threats to kill and
possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear - after allegedly
threatening to shoot a pensioner's dog which chased his cat
up a tree."

I don't recall the outcome of this highly influential case.
Personally I thought he was barking up the wrong tree. The facts
- printed in the Manchester Evening News, so we know they are
correct! - speak for themselves, whatever the court's ultimate
disposal.

2. At a LAPIS conference in Lytham St Annes in 1997 Harris
turned up and demanded the right to speak (he wasn't on the
bill). His 'approach' persuaded the organisers to let him have
the stage to rant about some alleged and obscure slight against
him (by Sue Blackmore I think). The video shows he was severely
heckled and was booed by the audience.

As for Stanton, well I just find his actions sad and pointless.
If you can't take criticism or opinion Stanton you shouldn't
expect people to take notice of a single word you say. You can
twist and turn in self-justification Stanton but the ufologists,
here at least, know what was going on and it may have increased
your bank balance but it reduced your stature in our eyes.

I trust these facts put matters into some proper perspective and
give you all pause for reflection on what went on.

I'm sure Stanton will be hot on the 'phone to his friend and a
writ will be winging it's way to me soon. I'll keep you
informed!


Happy Trails

Andy







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                   Crop Circles In Light Of Foot & Mouth?

From: Werner Walter <CENAP@addcom.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:31:06 +0200
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:58:22 -0400
Subject: Crop Circles In Light Of Foot & Mouth?


Hello Listmembers from England,

I�m interested in seeing the actual situation in England about
the development of the circle-phenomena this season.

What is the situation? More circles or less? More hoaxing or
less? Can investigators of such matters give me a real answer to
this question?


WW

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 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:55:04  -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:04:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:48:36 -0400


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:47:09 -0500

 >>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:25:48 -0400


Serge,

Let me put it this way:

Ufologists should not sue other ufologists. They should not sue
publications that write critical articles about them. That
applies to me as much as it applies to Stan Friedman, except the
difference is that Stan has sued a colleague and a publication
and I haven't. I have, however, been on the receiving end of
bullying threats from a debunker's lawyer who, like Stan,
charged defamation. I don't recommend the experience.

And I don't recall saying - in fact I stated quite the opposite
- that Stan had no right to be angry. In his shoes, I would have
been pissed off about the article, and I would have been
incensed about whatever role I thought or imagined Jenny Randles
played in its coming to be written. As a matter of principle and
reality, however, I would take it like a man - and also as an
individual whose commitment to free expression is larger than my
determination to unbruise my ego at any cost - and resist the
temptation to hunt up a lawyer to punish the individuals who
hurt my feelings.

I might well complain loudly and bitterly to Jenny and to our
colleagues and let them - the only relevant audience here, the
only one with whom we share collective memory and a continuing
professional relationship - do the judging about who should be
excoriated.

As Stan likes to say but practices only selectively: If you
can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

 >>>Just a few quick ones on free expression:

 >>>1. Does free expression apply to an individual who has asked for
 >>>retraction, was denied same and resorted to a court to get one?

Interesting definition of "free expression": the right to punish
somebody else for practicing hers. I confess I haven't heard
that one before.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                     Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:32:25 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:30:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hall


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:20:26 -0500

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:25:12 -0300

 >Stan,

 >>>The answer to this and all related questions is a simple one:

 >>>Ufologists should not be suing other ufologists.
 >>Two questions and a comment:

 >>1. Is it OK for ufologists to sue newspapers?

 >Only if they do not value freedom of the press.

 >Someone once remarked that if an individual proclaims, "I believe
 >in freedom of expression, but - ", the only operative word is
 >"but."

 >>2. When and where were you elected the sole member of the
 >>legislative assembly for ufologists?

 >Is this question supposed to have meaning?

 >>Would not a more appropriate answer for at least one question
 >>be:

 >>"Ufologists should not defame ufologists"?

 >Since no one, including you, has been defamed in any legally
 >defined sense (and defamation is _only_ legally defined), your
 >statement means nothing in the present context. I would put it
 >this way:

 >Ufologists should respect other ufologists' right to express
 >themselves, however wrong-headed, dumb, unfair, or infuriating
 >that expression may strike us. When expressing themselves,
 >ufologists should try to be thoughtful, intelligent, fair, and
 >courteous. When, however, they are not - and every one of us,
 >including you and me, is a fallible human and therefore sometimes
 >not - they should not be threatened with legal action, have
 >money extracted from them by a lawyer, and be intimidated into
 >groveling apology and retraction if they are not already inclined
 >to do so by their own free will.

Jerry,

I reluctantly stuck my nose in on this topic yesterday, but my
message careened off into cyberspace. I resubmitted it today,
and hopefully it will show up eventually. You may want to see it
before responding to this; I simply don't have the time to
reiterate my complete argument right now.

My feeling is that Stan has a definite point here, and that you
are being rather absolutist in your view of "free speech" and
lawsuits. Although I am a strong advocate of free speech, there
are limits to what one can personally endure without justifiably
striking back to protect one's reputation. I am going to pose a
few questions just to make the point; you may well have answered
some of them already.

Presumably you would agree with me that laws on defamation,
libel, etc., exist for a valid reason (i.e., there exists in
jurisprudence a conviction that "free speech" is not entirely
unlimited and a lawsuit may at times be a person's sole way of
protecting his/her reputation). Yes?

When you say that ufologists should never sue each other, is
that because they are ufologists? Or is there a more general
rationale?

Do you see any qualitative or quantitative (or moral or ethical)
difference between ufologists ranting at each other and making
outrageous charges, say, on this list as opposed to in a major
newspaper or national or international news media?

The thing that caught my eye was Stan's statement that during
the discovery process, Jenny's letter to the Manchester Evening
News was obtained and it did in fact contain the charges she was
quoted as making. In other words, the buck cannot be passed to
inaccurate quotations by the newspaper.

That, to me, changes the entire dynamics of the debate and (if
true) leaves little doubt that Jenny - in this instance - made a
bad mistake and did say things potentially injurious to Stan's
reputation. (I don't agree that actual financial or other injury
must be proven before a person should act.)

This is composed hastily to substitute for my "missing" message
which I hope turns up. However, I absolutely disgree with you
that one should never sue a newspaper regardless of
circumstances because that would allegedly indicate not
believing in and supporting freedom of the press.

The press already can say just about any damn thing it (they;
not monlithic) pleases, but it had better not publish false and
malicious information about me that distorts my position,
falsely accuses me of various things, leaves the impression that
I am a kook, and maligns my character or I just might sue the
bastards. Of course, I would first try for a retraction.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                         Re: Talk And Action - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:27:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:33:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Stacy


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:45:30 -0400


Jan,

 From my reading of the ball lightning literature, that
phenomenon is extremely transient (sightings of more than a
minute are rare) and small, typically less than 24 inches
across.

Hard to bring a camera or anything else to bear on that.

UFOs, on the other hand, are a different creature altogether. If
I remember aright, I recently read that the average UFO sighting
is somewhere around two and a half minutes, and the average size
somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 feet in diameter, although
we have a lot of recent reports of very slow-moving (35mph or
less) objects described as several football fields in size.

Not so hard to detect, in other words, even if only
photographically and by accident. No sophisticated network(s)
needed, just scientists, civilians, and commercial entities
going about their daily routine.

But two quick examples: 1) Just think what we would might have
if only one individual at the Father Gill sighting had had a
camera with them; 2) think what we would have if only Zamora had
had a built-in videocamera in his patrol car (now virtually
standard issue).

Fact is, if either of those cases had occurred within the last
week, we'd probably have a lot better evidential record.

You seem to think I've got some secret theory up my sleeve, when
I've only got a question: Given the tremendous increase in
technology available to everyone, scientific networks and
civilians alike, in the last 20-30 years, is there any evidence
that the quality of the UFO evidence has advanced or kept pace
accordingly?

You don't need to be defensive. It's not a trick question.
(Although you could take your time in typing.)


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 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                        Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:39:19 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:36:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:29:08 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:11:09 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>To: <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>Dennis, Bob, Dick, List,

 >>As Dick indicates, it is erroneous to say that scientific
 >>instruments don't pick up UFOs and to say they don't pick
 >>enough is a non-quantitative argument that may be false when
 >>real numbers are put to it. The Condon Committee analyzed the
 >>different scientific instruments and networks including the
 >>repeatedly pushed Prairie Network and found most of them of very
 >>little use for UFO detection, especially including the Prairie
 >>Network which was designed to capture fast-moving bright
 >>meteors.

 >Brad, Dick:

 >The Prairie Network simply took all-sky pictures which could
 >record meteors brighter than fourth magnitude (about the
 >limiting brightness of stars in most suburban skies).

 >The system was used for 17 days at Harrisburg during the 1967
 >'flap' (during which no flying saucers were recorded _during_
 >the time of 100 UFO reports phoned in to Condon Committee
 >investigators).

 >I have seen a picture reported to have been possible ball
 >lightning taken by a Prairie camera.

 >Why haven't UFO investigators poured over the Prairie pictures
 >to see if anything unusual is on pictures taken _during_ known
 >nearby UFO reports?

 >Afraid of something? Or is it nothing?


Bob,

I damn well doubt that there was any ball lightning picked up by
Prairie Network. Let's see the reference!!

You just don't get it, do you?! A UFO report and a UFO are two
different things. Say "data reduction" and make it yours. It
does matter if the Condon committee got 5000 reports of UFOs
over the Harrisburgh. Who cares!? Were there any that had no
ready explanation?

If there were indeed reports of something, aircraft, lighted
balloons, etc. over Harrisburgh and the Pairie network picked up
nothing, then what the hell good is it for UFO reports?

As for your last remark, no, no one is pouring over the Pairie
network photographs. The CR Report's assessment that it was
nearly useless for UFOs seems to be a good reason, to let it be.
There are thousands of leads that I wish, I could look into,
unfortunately this is not an occupation.

Why haven't scientists gone and review Tombaugh photographic
plates, because the time and expense was not deemed worth the
effort.

Why aren't thousands (millions) of pieces collateral information
produced by scientists during experiments and observations
reviewed for new and interesting information? Simply because of
lack of resources.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                        Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:49:22 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:38:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Aldrich


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:46:50 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:38:47 -0400

 ><snip>

 >>Because the vast majority of initial UFO reports are useless,
 >>that does not mean that there are not useful cases which may
 >>show something unique.

 >Jan:

 >This is certainly true.

 ><snip>

 >>Early on the Condon committee did consider various EME detection
 >>ideas, but nothing came from the discussions.

 >What is "EME"?


Bob,

EME = ElectroMagnetic Effects.


Jan









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 13

                  Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:14:01 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:41:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:44:23 -0500

 >>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:22:58 -0500
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

<snip>

 >You defend an indefensible legal suit and the public humiliation
 >of one of our smartest, most productive, most conscientious,
 >hard-working colleagues (Jenny Randles)

<snip>

Public humiliation because she was forced to make public excuses
she should have done in the first place?

And this so-called public humiliation now drapes her unjustified
outburst against a fellow ufologist in some aura of
sanctification?

When you get a ticket for burning a red light, this should now
make you more innocent than not getting a ticket?

I see... The crook who gets caught is not a crook anymore?

What kind of logic is that?

Bottom line: Jenny Randles trashed Stanton Friedman. That was
not very pretty.

Do we agree on that?

Stanton Friedman asked for a retraction, which was denied.

That's not very pretty.

Do we agree on that?

Stanton Friedman sued Jenny Randles. Now, you have expressed
your opinion that he made a mistake.

OK, that's your position. I respect that. But I do not think
that you can _decide_ that Stanton Friedman made a mistake.

That's precisely the difference between Stalinism (a term you
used recently in this thread) and freedom of speech.

And why do I get this impression that it has to do only with
Jenny Randles? That if it were the other way around, let's say
Jenny Randles sued Stanton Friedman, we wouldn't be having this
exchange?









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 13

             Chile: Has NASA Set Its Sights On The Chupacabras?

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:42:02 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:44:55 -0400
Subject: Chile: Has NASA Set Its Sights On The Chupacabras?


SOURCE: La Estrella del Loa
DATE: Tuesday, June 12, 2001

Has NASA set its sights on the Chupacabras?


�Ser posible que la Nasa recorra los rincones de la Provincia
El Loa buscando evidencia extraterrestre y supuestos
Chupacabras, tal como lo hizo la Polica de Investigaciones en
Yalquincha el ao pasado?.

The possibility that NASA is committing resources in the
Province of El Loa to secure evidence of extraterrestrial life
in order to obtain scientific knowledge applicable to a number
of earth sciences, including technology, is rather acceptable
and almos likely for Calama UFO Research center investigator
Jaime Ferrer, who claims having in his possession information
which leads to the belief that the organization operates in the
area.

This fantastic theory, which seems drawn from the minds of Orson
Welles and Steven Spielberg, is so firmly rooted in reality for
the UFO investigator that he does not even dismiss the
possibility that the National Aeronautics & Space Administration
may be keenly interested in the capture of alleged Chupacabras
specimens which roam the broad Chilean desert. These entities,
according to Ferrer, possess an enormous amount of qualities
worthy of imitating or extrapolating into human inventions.

Personally, the ufologist from El Loa believes that the
so-called Chupacabras is a biological entity of unknown origin
for the modern world rather than a genetic experiment performed
by NASA, since his studies, as he remarks, managed to ascertain
the creature's existence during remote times and places.

"Of course NASA is interested in it, because it does not posess
natural qualities. The agency has the necessary powers available
for managing this type of operations," he explained.

STRANGE BUT TRUE

According to Ferrer, people tend to believe that NASA is
incapable of venturing into fields of research that may seem
hairbrained or laughable, however, this behavior is more
customary that one would think among scientists belonging to the
U.S. space agency, who face complex cosmic challenges day after
day, and whose solution must be found while its astronauts are
still firmly planted on Earth

A clear example of this is the current NASA project aimed at
creating small aircraft resembling insects or hornets, which
must fly over the surface of Mars in 2014 accompanied by small
robotized vehicles which shall survey the outer layer of the red
planet, analyzing its soil

For over a  decade, Robert Michelson, an engineer with the
Georgia Technical Insitute,  has been working in the creation of
small flying devices similar to butterflies and bees, which may
someday support high-risk Martian and Terrestrial missions.

Dubbed entomopters by their creators, the prototype of this
metal insect only weighs 50 grams, measures 15 centimeters, and
posesses wings that reach a fourth of a meter in size.

Although their bodies do not hold a biological heart like the
human one, they have an equally essential deveice known as the
chemical reciprocal muscle by its inventor--a mechanism which
catalyzes a special substance known as monopropellant, composed
by a special oxidizing agent capable of causing vigorous
movement and displacement in the cybernetic creature

NASA, said Michelson, is rather interested in the progress of
this structure, which with some adjustments, would be very
helpful during future missions to Mars.


################################

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 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                          Filer's Files #24 -- 2000

From: George A. Filer <WeeklyFiles@filersfiles.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 19:18:29 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:10:19 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #24 -- 2000


Filer's Files #24 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
June 11, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts, Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren  http://www.filersfiles.com,


UFO REPORTS CONTINUE TO COME IN FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.
Australia, Korea, India, and US have numerous reports. Illinois
has a series of UFO reports. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Florida,
Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oregon, California, also report UFOs. More
data on Mars and Roswell.

ARTHUR C. CLARKE STANDS BY HIS BELIEF IN LIFE ON MARS

SMITHSONIAN'S NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM -- Sir Arthur C.
Clarke, probably the world's most famous space author, spoke by
phone from Sri Lanka on June 6, to the Wernher von Braun
Memorial Lecture Series. He told the audience he believes that
new images of Mars clearly show the red planet dotted with
patches of vegetation, including trees. He feels this fact may
spark new exploration of Mars. He and director Stanley Kubrick
joined to produce "2001: A Space Odyssey." Clarke claims to have
studied images from Mars taken by the now-orbiting Mars Global
Surveyor on his home computer. Clarke encourges everyone to have
a really good look at these new Mars images," Clarke said.
"Something is actually moving and changing with the seasons that
suggests, at the very least vegetation." There is something akin
to Banyan trees in some Mars photos.

Editor's Note: I personally have also studied these images and
agree with Sir Arthur Clarke that there are signs of vegetation
evident in the photos. I had experience in photo interpretation
while in the Air Force and I think the water at the Martian
Poles is melting in the spring and creating some kind of
vegetation as it moves towards the equator. The color and
branches appear similar to trees. In addition, there also appear
to be structures, possible earth moving equipment, tunnels, and
other indications of Martian Life. Having traveled to many of
our Earth's pyramids, the D&M Pyramid on Mars is particularly
intriguing. The five-sided pyramid reveals a structure that is
contradictory with the surrounding geology. Neither volcanic nor
other geomorphologic processes are likely to create a natural
mechanism for the formation of an equilateral five-sided
pyramid. Further like our own pyramids the structure is situated
in a complex surrounded by other likely structures. The pyramid
is only part of the larger Cydonia complex. The structures have
a similarity to the ancient Kingdom of Kush in Sudan. We can
speculate the Cydonia complex may represent some type of
fortifications or religious compound. The corners of the D&M
Pyramid appear to point towards the city at Cydonia and the Mars
face. The pyramids on Earth are known to be structures built by
intelligent beings, it seems logical that intelligence was
needed to build or shape the D&M Pyramid. Additionally, the
possibility of a tunnel complex on Mars creates even more
interesting questions. The intricate relationships are so
numerous that I must agree with Sir Arthur Clarke that the
highly sophisticated designs indicates life on Mars.

NEW JERSEY SIGHTING AND FLYING TRIANGLE

NEWARK -- On April 11, 2001, I was in my backyard on a
beautiful night, when I decided to look up and noticed a bright
red object very high in the sky. At first it started moving very
slow towards my direction, but stopped right above as though it
were looking at me. It then started making left and right turns
at forty-five degree angles. One time it stopped directly above
my head as though it were studying me. This all took place
within an hour and a half, and then it took off so fast that my
eyes couldn't keep up with its speed. It was bright red and made
a humming sound. I couldn't tell if it was made of metallic or
any other kind of material. I knew it wasn't an aircraft just
by the way it looked. The witness indicated the sighting stunned
him. Thanks to John Schussler Director of MUFON
http://www.mufonoc.org/sighting_report.htm

PENNSYLVANIA UFO AND STRANGE OCCURRENCE

WARREN -- We were returning from the hospital on June 1, 2001,
on old Route near 193 when I thought I saw a UFO or something to
the north. I had the feeling we were being followed. I've seen a
UFO come out of an explosion in the sky and a craft go down by
the power lines near the OHIO/PA line. I've seen everything. My
father was driving me toward Brookfield, but I've never felt
like I was being followed like this before. I just thought I was
stressed out since on the 7th my husband passed away. It was
really weird. At about 3:00 PM I felt this hand grab my right
biceps, I turned around, and nobody was there. Stress can play
tricks on you. I don't know, was it stress that made me feel the
hand? Thanks to June.

FLORIDA SILVER BALL

TAMPA BAY -- Luann Marek remarks, "I have seen many UFOs." I
lived in upstate New York on a reservoir and I've had many
sightings. My husband and I even saw one go into another
dimension. We thought it was going to hit the tree and us, but
it just vanished! I realize a lot of what people are seeing is
our military's new/secret equipment and it makes me proud to be
an American. However, there is something else going on that
isn't "normal." Since moving to Florida three years ago, I saw
"green sparks" falling over the golf course where I live. A
month ago in May, my husband called for me to look at a plane
flying southwest with a small silver ball near the right wing. I
was afraid it would cause an accident. This silver ball stayed
with the plane until the sun's reflection made it no longer
visible or it disappeared. What's interesting is that I found an
article of someone reporting just such a ball flying just off
the right wing of the plane he was on. His UFO was triangular,
from my viewpoint on the ground; mine looked more oblong or
rounded. Thanks to Luann Marek. lmarek@tampabay.rr.com (LMarek)

ST. LUCIE -- F-18 Crash -- Bland Pugh Florida State Director
writes that Tom Shelton, MUFON Field Investigator of Port St.
Lucie reports that supposedly a F-18 US Navy Fighter flew
straight into the ground and was engulfed by the earth leaving a
large crater. Apparently, it was nothing more than an aircraft
crashing. He reports he read articles on a local radio station
website and that was what he reported. If there is anything else
to the crash it will be reported, for now that's all there is to
it. Thanks to Bland Pugh NUFON

ILLINOIS CIGAR, SPHERE, AND FLYING TRIANGLES

BOLINGBROOK -- On May 17, 2001, a dark gray sphere hovered in
one place in the sky for a while. At 6:00 PM, as it hovered it
kind of wobbled, then flew up higher in the sky and took off
really fast in the direction of Lake Michigan.

PALATINE -- At 2:17 PM on Saturday, May 19, 2001, two people
saw a cigar shaped metallic object extremely high above the
scattered clouds. The witness reports, "My friend first sited it
but we didn't know what it was." It flew directly over us and
gleamed in the sun as it was moving at a very high speed. The
shape was an elongated oval. From our perspective it looked
somewhat like a missile or something that we could not identify.
We watched this object for approximately two or three minutes.

ALSIP -- I was walking home from my aunts looking at the stars
on May 19,2001, and saw some unusual light in the sky. It looked
like thunder and lightning but there were too many different
colors. I've seen some crazy stuff in the past but nothing like
this. After the lights stopped, a glowing shape just flew off
before I could make out the shape. I believe our government is
hiding this from us because they probably think humans and
aliens wont get along. I believe that ever since the Roswell
crash the UFO's today are trying to find that one ship. If the
government is covering up UFOs, I think that mankind should
know the truth.

BUFFALO GROVE -- The witness reports that she observed a Flying
Triangle to the north on Wednesday, May 30, 2001. She was
standing on her porch at 10:50 PM, and noticed the UFO with a
light display of three distinct circular shaped lights at the
rear. It was a soundless vehicle. The object flew west and
disappeared at a very high speed into the horizon. The object
was flying at a low altitude--less than the planes that are
descending to land at O'Hare Airport. The craft moved northwest
at an estimated height of less than 10,000 feet, at more than
ten times the speed of an average airplane. The witness reports
this was her first sighting! Thanks to Peter Davenport NUFORC
www.ufocenter.com

MINNESOTA UFO

Craig Lang writes that he received an e-mail from Aerielle
Louise, regarding the Minnesota Talk Radio Network. A caller on
the Bob Davis Show - am 1500, at ten minutes to midnight --
reported seeing an orange UFO in the northwest sky on May 18,
2001. It was sending out shooting sparks from the bottom of the
object. Eventually it split in two and disappeared. The caller
said that he was sure it was not a meteor. It was in sight for
at least long enough to stop his car, get his camera, and shoot
some footage. The witness has it on film and is sending a copy
to Bob Davis. Aerielle Louise writes, "He's a friend of mine and
I'm sure that he'd be willing to share. Thanks to William I.
McNeff MUFON Minnesota SD, Aerielle Louise, and Craig Lang
crlang@mm.com

COLORADO BLUE BERETS

Larry Resel, MUFON State Section director for Southeastern
Colorado writes, "My contacts told me of an event near Pumpkin
Center on May 28, 2001, at 5:00 PM, two hours before a huge
storm. He is retired military intelligence, so this makes this
more interesting! He spotted 4 to 5 black vans, with blacked out
windows, and no identifying marks parked along the side of the
highway. He stated, there were 25 men dressed in blue fatigues,
the likes he had never seen! As he drove on to the east, he
spotted a very large unmarked white semi-tractor trailer. He
thought this was a communications vehicle. Thanks to Larry Resel
lrngresel@centurytel.net

OKLAHOMA TAKES OFF LIKE ROCKET

SAPULPA -- NUFORC reports, "It was a floating craft that shot
away like a rocket when it departed (unlike an airplane) on May
18,2001" At 10:35 PM, two ships were seen that were gray black
in color with lights around them. The lights flashed in a chaser
mode very different from normal aircraft lights. The objects
made a light humming noise like a back massager. I saw these
craft floating over the local grocery store. They just floated
there for about five minutes and shot off like a rocket. Nothing
that I saw came out of or went into the craft, but I could
definitely tell it was not an airplane. Thanks to NUFORC

OREGON UFO SIGHTING

HILLSBORO --On May 21, 2001, at 9:00 PM as the Sopranos came on
TV, my wife's son said, "Look at that light. oh my God look at
that, THAT IS NOT A PLANE Son said, "Look at that light,Oh my
God look that's not an airplane." At first it looked like a
plane south of Famington Road, but the light suddenly got wider
like ten airplane landing lights side by side! It was flashing
as bright as an arc welder's torch and looking like a giant
crack in the sky. Then it got small and dim once again. It faded
out and came on again with a dim red light that pulsed dim then
bright. It was moving very slowly towards the original spot,
then it started to glow brighter, and the red light faded. It
kept dimming out and then appearing in another spot and then
flashing very brightly like sparks in an arc weld at maybe 2000
feet. I ran for my video cam and started to film. The object was
a revolving black circle or spot that went around it and the
whole thing started to change colors like a lava lamp of very
bright rainbow colors. Often the lights were almost too bright
to look directly at. This whole color thing lasted for only a
few seconds. I got my camera and drove to Farmington, and headed
west at 206th Street. I stopped after turning left onto a side
road and could see it about 5 miles away blinking red. I stopped
to get a better video and it got dim and then produced a very
bright white burst of light that made me gasp! I drove on but
couldn't get closer and finally lost it, but we have the video.
Thanks to Peter Davenport NUFORC

PORTLAND -- Derek Sims writes, "I was just outside at 2:10 AM
on June 7, 2001, and was watching the moon when I saw a blue
light flash across the sky." It was moving east over Portland
and was moving fast. At first I thought it was a meteor, but
when I saw it flash again further east, I thought meteors don't
blink like that. This is my first possible UFO sighting. How
exciting. Thanks to Derek Sims trumpetman1970@hotmail.com (Derek
Sims)

CALIFORNIA BLACK TRIANGLES

William Hamilton wrote: I just returned from the Hi-Desert of
Yucca Valley and Joshua Tree. I stopped in to say hello to an
old friend who lives near Goat Mountain to the East and beyond
that is the 29 Palms Marine Base. My friends say they have seen
a flying black triangle that has a blue glow around it and is
hard to see against the night sky. It can do 90-deg turns, had a
helicopter escort, and seems to be coming from the North Base at
Edwards. Orange-amber orbs just like the videotaped Phoenix
Lights have also been seen "flying" around. These are not
flares. That is also true of the orbs in the Phoenix Lights, as
I have said repeatedly. Flares are not round like coins. They
are fires and they do flicker and smoke. Their principal purpose
is to illuminate the night. Orbs do not illuminate. The Flying
Triangle sometimes carries orbs and makes an excellent
penetrator since it is very stealthy. Other craft have been
seen, but they are not ours. They look just likethe old scout
bell ships that used to be seen out there. I haven't seen one
of those since 1957. They are very distinguishable as they
always have three hemispherical pods on the undercarriage.
Thanks to Bill Hamilton Executive Director Skywatch
International Inc.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Ken reports, I feel the need to report a
strange sighting on May 29, 2001. My dog woke me up at 3:20 AM
whining and he never does that. I got up and let him outside at
which time I noticed an object in the sky. It was not moving
when I first saw it, but seemed fairly bright with a white
light. Directly underneath there was intermittent flashing
bright light which seemed to move to different locations
underneath. The object was completely silent but began to move
slowly north until it passed out of sight over a nearby hill.
The object was perhaps a quarter mile away when I first saw it
and was relatively low in altitude. I have never experienced
such a thing. I am an Engineer employed here in the Bay Area and
can only assume that what I saw was either an incredible
military technology or truly something beyond our abilities. I
hope someone else noticed. Thanks to Ken KWJ@dolby.com

INDIA UFO

MUFON Headquarters reports that AMIT V CHHABRIA from India
State Chhattisgarh city Raipur writes, " I got your address from
NASA site and I'm sending you this letter because on June 5,
2001 at 22.38 hours Indian time a strange thing happened. I was
with three of my friends: Sunil Aswani, Abhisar Daftari and Ravi
Gill. We were outside the city limits just enjoying the moon
light when suddenly I saw a strange thing coming from the south.
At first, we thought that it must be a star or asteroid, a
plane, a helicopter, or a missile, but it was none of them.
There was no sound and no smoke as would have been the case if
it had been a helicopter or a missile. If it had been a star it
would not move as fast as it was moving. The thing I am talking
about may be a UFO as it was at first coming so close. It was
very close to the ground and was shinning very brightly. It was
colored bright yellow and orange. Suddenly it started to stop
and it seemed like it was moving upwards. It went up and up. We
stayed there for about tem minutes, but no other strange thing
happened. "I thought this should be told to NASA, as this is not
a common thing for us," she said. Thanks to Amit v Chhabria
amitchhabria1@usa.net and mufonhq@aol.com.

KOREA PHOTO HUNTERS CAPTURING UFO IMAGES

Thomas M. Olsen writes that the Korea Herald of June 6, 2001,
carried an article about the frequent UFO sightings. On
September 4, 1995, a "Load-type" UFO was filmed by a newspaper
reporter in Gyeonggi Province. In February 1998, a saucer-shaped
UFO was filmed in Busan. On April 9, 2001, another TV cameraman
captured a rod-shaped UFO on film. On May 5, 2001, a TV
cameraman catches unidentified flying object on film in
Cheong-ju, Chungcheong Province. Whether you believe in aliens
or not, mysterious objects have been seen buzzing the skies of
Korea. A simple Internet search will reveal hundreds of Korean
UFO home pages, but no crashes or abductions. But that doesn't
mean you can shelve your camera. Seo Jong-han has dedicated 20
years to studying, tearing apart, and occasionally verifying
the twenty or so UFO photographs that crop up every year. Apart
from his day job as computer game developer, Seo is a member of
the Korea UFO Research Association (KUFORA), a small group of
analysts that subjects each reported sighting in Korea to close,
computer-aided scrutiny. "Korea has a long history of UFO
sightings. During the Korean War, both American and Korean
pilots reported encounters with flying saucers. (snip)

Seo says a UFO can be distinguished from an airplane or weather
balloon by its rapid movement, its ability to turn on a dime
and accelerate almost instantly. This violation of the laws of
physics, he says, is what leads most scientists to view UFOs as
a phenomenon rather than an object of study. Those who manage to
get a rapidly moving object on film should not be disappointed
if it doesn't look like a flying saucer. There are over ten
identified classes of UFOs, some believed to be from different
planets. Among the most common UFO types reportedly seen across
the country is the cigar, "load," type, also referred to as the
"mother ship." There's also a "ball" type, triangular type,
"clover with a dome" type, "round with a dome" type and "half a
sphere" model. A Korean Web site, www.ufokorea.net, lists even
more UFOs. Thanks to Thomas M. Olsen By Burke Josslin Staff
reporter (http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/)
bjosslin@koreaherald.co.kr

AUSTRALIA UFOS KEEPING INVESTIGATORS BUSY

SYDNEY -- I am the Acting Director of AUFORN for New South
Wales. We have been extremely busy lately with lots of reports
on bright orange lights appearing up and down the east coast of
New South Wales. Some have been seen coming out from National
Park Lands and others from the Ocean. Others having been
reported flying low over peoples farm houses further west from
the coast. It always seems to be very busy during this time of
the year. What's happening in your neck of the woods? Our
organization is extremely busy now, we have just scored a two
month UFO exhibition at a museum, we're pretty excited. It will
be running through December. I don't know if this is the first
time a UFO network organization has had an exhibition of this
type. We are going to have guest speakers on the agenda
throughout those months and arrange a Conference at the same
time. Thanks to Karen B. UFOKB@aol.com

DEBRIS IN ROSWELL PHOTOS

Niel Morris from the University of Manchester in England writes
that further analysis of the Fort Worth photos taken in 1947 by
James Bond Johnson in General Ramey's office reveal the images
are not similar to the so called faces in a cloud. The Roswell
Photo Interpretation Team (RPIT) encourages you to visit our web
sites so we can prove it. The images also have a 'striking
resemblance' to the descriptions of the debris made by
observers. In addition, some of the components we've seen in the
Ft Worth photos are almost exactly the same debris as in the
"Alien Autopsy" film, that also shows debris from an UFO crash
site. The team has looked at the Ft. Worth photos very closely
and there is no evidence that the material on the floor in
General Ramey's office is a weather balloon as claimed by the
Army Air Force.

The items shown in the images I've just posted on the RPIT
website are most certainly not part of the remains of a ML307
radar target device that were often attached to the weather
balloons. These are just a handful of the 'hard' anomalies found
to date. Bond Johnson's recounting of an incident that happened
fifty years ago may have various interpretations. Yes, Bond's
story has changed over the years as he himself has researched
the minor part he played in the Roswell story. He recounted his
story to me both by email and in person when we met on his trip
to the UK, in all these instances he was consistent in what he
said. In some mitigation, I must observe that in that very first
interview it is quite obvious Bond is very confused regarding
many of the points. A July 9, 1947, news report has been
unearthed by a member of the RPIT team from Canada that supports
Bond's statements.

The report was sourced from a Routers report and gives a
statement from General Roger Ramey read to the Routers reporter
by a Major Kirton FWAAF, Kirton quotes Ramey as saying. "It
looks like a hexagonal object covered with tinfoil or other
shining material suspended from a balloon of about twenty feet
in diameter." This portion of the description is very similar to
that given to the FBI Dallas office, again by Kirton but it's
worth noting the foil material is _not_ positively identified
just as "tinfoil." Ramey's quote continues. "It is possibly a
weather balloon flown at the highest altitude but none of the
Army men at this base recognize it as an Army type balloon."
The report then goes on to give Irving Newton's ID of the
wreckage as a radar target. You will note the report again
closely tracks the description Kirton gave to the Dallas FBI and
which we find in their teletype to FBI headquarters timed at
6:12 PM, but we also know that at 5:30 PM, Major Kirton was
giving the Dallas Morning News the full blown "balloon" cover
story.

We must then presume that Routers received their report before
this time and speculating, before Ramey received his orders from
McMullen to "get the press off the Army's back" as Colonel
DuBose recalled. There are two very significant points made in
the Routers statement that I have not seen elsewhere and which
now support Bond Johnson's later recounting that Ramey did not
know what the debris was, or as he recounted it to me, Ramey
shrugged his shoulders when asked "general, what is this stuff"
and replied along the lines of "dammed if I know." The two
points I refer to are firstly that phrase "tinfoil OR OTHER
SHINING MATERIAL," (my caps) The addition of "other shining
material" implies they were even unable to identify the foil
like material as "tinfoil." Secondly, the clear statement as
quoted from Ramey that, "none of the Army men at this base
recognize it as an Army type balloon." We could not have it
spelled out clearer. At some time between the debris arrival and
inspection and the later timed "debunk" statement to the Dallas
Morning News, General Ramey and the rest of the resources to
hand at 8th Air Force Headquarters Fort Worth were
_unable_to_identify_the_debris_ brought from Roswell _and_ that
this early report supports Bond Johnson's later testimony of
those fragmentary memories he has of the time spent in General
Ramey's office. Even though he _has_ backtracked on his first
statements, it seems that when given time to reflect his later
"refreshed" testimony now has support in the historical record
by this statement to Routers, in all probability given within a
short time of his actual visit to Ramey's office that afternoon
of the 8th of July 1947. Thanks to Niel Morris
neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk

Editor's Note: The people I talked to at the Disclosure Project
felt that the Roswell crash was an alien craft. They have looked
at it from many different positions from within the government,
so I think RPIT is on the right track. The general feeling is it
was probably heel shaped and made of very lightweight metallic
materials. The photos taken by James Bond Johnson are the best
evidence available that something happened at Roswell. Major
Marcel claims he saw alien writing on some of the debris in
General Ramey's office. I think I can also see the alien writing
but decide for yourself. RPIT and Neil Morris have done a great
job in analyzing the debris.
http://www.thefortworthphotographs.freeserve.co.uk/images/index
.html

GEORGE FILER WILL SPEAK IN RHODE ISLAND

0n Friday night, June 15, 2001, I'm scheduled to speak at the
Rhode Island Chapter of the Mutual UFO Network, MUFON at
Cranston Senior Center, 1070 Cranston Street, in their Ceramics
Room, next door to City Hall. The topic is the forgotten alien
at Fort Dix McGuire Air Force Base and the Disclosure Project.

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

SILVER EAGLE BOOK REVIEW

J. Allan Woodard a former Intelligece Agent wrote this very
entertaining book concerning Ramsey, an alien from planet
Diodian, recently escaped from a government installation,
arrives at Jessica' Weston home in the woods of New Hampshire
when his UFO crashes. The story has a great deal of intrique,
romance and humor. I recommend this fictional tale as a exciting
book to read this summer. I thouroghly enjoyed the book and
wonder if it might not be fiction. The book me be obtained from
Writers Press Club www.iuniverse.com.

PHOTOGRAPH BOOKLET of some of the best UFO photographs available
and data on their propulsion systems by US Navy Commander Graham
Bethune. $10.00. Send check or money order to G. Filer 222
Jackson Road, Medford, New Jersey 08055. CD OF FILER'S FILES
for the last four years 1997 through 2000 is available for
$25.00. Both for $30.00.

DISCOUNT LONG DISTANCE -- OldeWorldProducts.com offers the World
Low Rate Discount Long Distance, Calling Cards, Toll Free
services that save you 60% on all of your Communications needs.
We also offer website hosting, promotion, High Speed DSL
service, $12.99 a month 56k ISP, Domain Names for $13.50 a year,
etc. We are also looking for agents who want to earn a serious
income from our affiliate program. Stop by for a visit.

NEW NASA SHUTTLE VIDEO OF UFOs IN SPACE

Jeff Challender has prepared a new tape of various UFOs that
were caught on recent Shuttle video footage. Jeff has over an
hour-long tape of UFOs shot in space. Jeff spends hundreds of
hours watching the shuttle broadcasts from space and is now an
expert on NASA missions and even those onboard the shuttle are
unlikely to see what Jeff does. Using Jeff's directions you will
be able to learn the difference between space junk, ice crystals
and real UFOs. One segment has 24 UFOs watching the shuttle from
space. I feel confident we could go into a court of law and
convince any jury, UFOs are moving around our 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 they credit the newsletter and
its editor by name and list the date of issue that the item
appeared. Caution: Most of these are initial reports and require
further investigation. These reports and comments are not
necessarily the official MUFON viewpoint. Send your letters to
Majorstar@Aol.com. Sending mail automatically grants permission
for us to publish and use your name. Please state if you wish to
keep your name, address, or story confidential.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:41:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:12:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder


 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:01:00 +0100
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:02:26 -0500
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

<snip>

 >You are right in what you say. If the paper refused to retract
 >the Article concerned, her next step would have been to contact
 >the U.K. Press Complaints Council. Her views would have been
 >clearly listened to, and if they felt she had been
 >misrepresented, or misquoted unjustly, they would have insured
 >that the involved news publication, would correct this with a
 >retraction and an apology in their Newspaper.

 >I would imagine Jenny would have been given ample advice on this
 >issue, some of her close colleagues being journalists. Also
 >considering that Jenny has an international and professional
 >reputation to uphold, within the UFO research community, I am
 >personally at odds as to why none of the above avenues of
 >redress were indeed taken by Jenny? Or were they?

Hi Roy.

The only explanation that I can come up with is one of two
things:

1 - the newspaper did indeed horribly misquote Jenny and twist
her words, but she was not concerned about it enough to go
through the steps you describe above. Money to pursue it may
have been a factor, but since others were more than willing to
contribute to her defense fund for a lawsuit, I'm sure they
would have assisted with her efforts to get the the paper to
correct their gross mistreatment of her, if the paper was guilty
of twisting her words to such a degree.

2 - she could not make a complaint against the paper for
misrepresenting her statements because she did, indeed, make the
statements as quoted in the article. And there existed evidence
to prove that she made the statements as quoted; evidence that
she could not refute, such as the letter Stan mentioned.

That is, of course, speculation on my part. The only one who can
answer the question of whether the above actions were taken or
not, and why not if they weren't taken, is Jenny.

But frankly, I don't think it matters anymore. As I
said... ancient history.

Thanks for the info, however. I was not aware that you guys had
that Press Complaints Council.


Bobbie


==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.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 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:46:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:13:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:44:23 -0500

 >>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:22:58 -0500
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

  <snip>

 >You defend an indefensible legal suit and the public humiliation
 >of one of our smartest, most productive, most conscientious,
 >hard-working colleagues (Jenny Randles), and then suddenly you
 >get all sensitive about _my_ alleged insensitivity to _your_
 >feelings? Maybe you ought to do some soulful reexamining of
 >your values and priorities.

Ok, so we all know what your opinion is of Jenny Randles. She
walks on water and Stan Friedman is nothing more than chopped
liver. She was publicly humiliated because someone actually had
the nerve to insist that she take responsibility for her
actions. Can't get more humiliated than that.

And the things printed in that article in no way publicly
humiliated Stan Friedman, right?

Can we say "double standard", Jerry?

This whole thread is ridiculous.

Let's see... Jenny was the innocent victim of the big, bad
American that wanted nothing but her hard-earned cash. The mean
old nasty newspaper took Jenny's innocent words and twisted them
all up and made her look like a big ole meanie. And the big, bad
American took advantage of the pathetic state of British libel
laws to suck the cash out of poor Jenny and this little
newspaper that just wanted to let everyone know that the big,
bad American thinks aliens have a thing about strawberry ice
cream.

Stan Friedman is a horrible, mean ole vicious money-grubbing
American who takes advantage of financially strapped British
ufologists. He and I, both being of the American persuasion, are
undoubtedly guilty of every atrocity that has ever befallen any
British citizen. Britians who happen to be ufologists can't be
held accountable for their actions, after all, so it must be the
fault of someone else. Probably someone American.

I'm a Hitler clone or something, and have no concept of what
free speech involves. Jerry is right, I am wrong. Jerry knows
everything. I don't know anything.

There... ya happy now, Jerry? Can we move along now?

The newspaper screwed up. Jenny screwed up. They both got called
to task for their actions. End of story. Can we move along now?


Bobbie

==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.com
==========



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.261 / Virus Database: 131 - Release Date: 6/6/2001







   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 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                    Strange Glow Over Brisbane, Australia

From: Glennys Mackay <glenmack@pacific.net.au>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:14:57 +1000
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:18:04 -0400
Subject: Strange Glow Over Brisbane, Australia



Greetings,

A large number of people were attracted to a bright glow in the
north/western sky over Brisbane today. It was first noticed at
3.44PM, and Brisbane radio stations 4BC phones were jammed with
people from various suburbs phoning in wanting to know what it
was.?

Like the rest of Brisbane I took myself outside with binoculars
in hand and was spell bound by the spectacular sight I saw, a
huge hue of colour when you looked it was larger than a full
moon and the colours went from a dull yellow to bright golden
glow to orange then red with reflection of a hue of blue, quite
a spectactular sight to be had.

A number of people came up with all sorts of suggestions from
being Mars to a UFO (such excitement) the shape changer went
from a shape of a dove to a V shape with circles of white in the
backgound... I along with several neighbours I watched this
brilliant glow untill 4.10PM when it slowly decreased and
dissappeared into the west.

So What was it? Possibly a reflection from the late afternoon
sun, created by icicles in the atmosphere? (this day, Wednesday,
was a warm sunny June winter day here in the tropics..... This
refraction of light created a dry rainbow so we have been told.
- not the usual rainbow, we are told by our scientists, but a
circular and V shape with solid clouds from behind.....!

What ever it was, it lasted long enough to excite the locals,
unfortunately it was not till afterward that I realised that I
should have had my camera as well to catch it on film. Hopefully
others may have done just that.

With all the predicitons of tidal waves, strange weather
patterns for Australia, the visions people are having., one
wonders is this a warning and the beginning of strange winter
weather? Well, time will tell. Fortunately I live a far
enough distance from the coast so I guess I will not have to
make the exit on the 21st June. :) We sure are living in
interesting times.


Regards, and Blessings,

Rev. Glennys Mackay J.P.

MUFON (QLD) BRISBANE, AUSTRLAIA.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                  Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:48:46 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:20:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Mortellaro


 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:17:32 -0500
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:47:09 -0500

 ><snip>

 >>Ufologists should not be suing other ufologists.

 >>Jerry Clark

 >If ufologists didn't trash each other, there would be no
 >grounds for lawsuits. Your basic no-brainer :)

 >SSSSOooooooo.....how about those UFOs?


 >Bobbie

May I inject a bit of otherworldly wisdom into this cerebral but
understated mooting? Huh?

Thank you.

If researchers didn't trash each other, there would be no reason
for me to live. I would have to end it all. A sort of climax
without all the fun of getting there, eh?

Actually, Ufoolo... Ufologists, sorry, Ufologists should be
Ufologing. Or is that aksing too much?

Nah. Silly boy.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Haley

From: TimHaley <TimHaley@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 01:42:58 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:21:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Haley


Hello All,

 From my perspective, the ongoing debate between Jerome Clark and
Stanton Freidman will not be resolved in the court of public
opinion or on the UFOUpdates listserv. I suppose the recent
posts in this thread underscore just why it is necessary to
resort to lawyers and the courts from time to time.

It seems to me that the line between defamation and free speech
is whether it is someone's character or their opinions,
respectively, that are under attack. If someone attacks
another's character publicly, such attack could potentially lead
to potential monetary loss and the legal system (UK or US) is a
remedy for the one whose character has been attacked. Look at
the recent Art Bell case as an example.

On the other hand, if someone loudly disagrees with another's
opinion, that is free speech and is not actionable. In the case
of Stanton Freidman and Jenny Randles, it appears to me that
Stanton felt that the attack was to his character not limited to
his views and opinions. Others, such as Jerome Clark, disagree.
But we don't have all the information to make a valid judgment.

Doesn't this demonstrate that the "court of ufology" isn't
appropriate for such issues and that is why Stanton decided to
pursue it in a court of law? Maybe he would have prevailed,
maybe not. We will never know and we won't decide it here.

This list is not a court of law and by viewing the various
opinions posted to date on this thread, it appears that there
are some valid points made on both sides. I certainly don't
foresee any of the principles changing their mind because of
counter points posted here on this list.

Since this particular topic is quite old news, and has been
hammered out as much as it has, I suggest we move on to the
issues and topics that we all joined this list for. What is done
is done. Debating it further will not change anything.

My two cents.


Tim Haley







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                     Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 03:57:33 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:23:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Velez


 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@email.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:59:28 +0800
 >Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers'

 >>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:05:41 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers'

 >>>From: Ron EagleBoy <eagle100@prodigy.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:38:28 -0400

 ><snip>

 >>Hi Ron, hi All,

 ><big snip>

 >>Does anyone know how many UFO related/associated deaths have
 >>ever been reported? Is that information catalogued anywhere?
 >>I'm curious.


 >>Regards,

 >>John Velez

 >Hi John,

 >Have you forgotten about Mr. Dittman's database of death/injury
 >cases at:

 >http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/2653/injuryessay.html

 >His site isn't complete, but it's very good.

 >For the record, the very earliest documented UFO sighting
 >(whether it was ET or BS) was an injury/death case. It happened
 >to Thutmosis III's men about 3500 years ago, and involved a
 >luminous object that descended and attacked. (I am not referring
 >to the Tulli Papyrus Hoax, of course, but a genuine text found
 >on a stela in 1933. In 1933! Anyone aware of the details of the
 >Tulli case will be able to read my thoughts on this matter
 >already.)

 >Then you've got this excellent report which I suggest you read,
 >too:

 >http://www.webcom.com/sturrock/jse/articles/ufo_reports/schuessler/toc _revers
e.html

Hiya Chris,

Thanx for URLs! Interesting and disturbing stuff eh? Apparently
UFO cases involving injury or death aren't as 'uncommon' as one
might think. I was surprised at the number of them listed in the
stats at Mr.Dittman's site.

Although they don't make a strong case for the phenomenon being
aggressive or hostile overall, the cases do indicate a
disturbing 'unpredictability' regarding what may or may not
occur during a UFO encounter/sighting. What these cases (and
Betty's case) says clearly is; UFOs are to be respected for
being _unpredictable_  and 'potentially' capable of causing
bodily harm to the witness. Whether the harm is intentional or
accidental is an intellectual exercise for the researchers, but
the outcome of the question wouldn't matter much to a victim of
a fatal or injurious manifestation by a UFO. Intentional or not,
dead is dead.

I've had a 'close-up' sighting so I know they are possible. If
it happened to me it could happen to anyone. I 'ran like hell'
that time. I highly recommend 'running like hell' as a wise
course of action to anyone who may have a similar experience.
;)

Skywatchers and UFO hunters should be aware of the potential for
harm if/when they should ever happen to encounter a UFO.
Especially so if the witness(s) is in close proximity to the
object being observed.

I don't believe any of these cases necessarily indicates
intentional malice on the part of the UFO occupants. Mantell was
'chasing' one in a military aircraft, and Betty was just in the
wrong place, at the wrong time. But these reports shouldn't be
ignored either. Those who do not learn from the mistakes made by
others are doomed to repeat them.

UFOs "can be" dangerous and even deadly on occasion. Folks like
Betty, and Pilots Mantell and Valentich should never be forgotten.
They all paid the ultimate price. The lessons that their cases
teach us shouldn't be lost on any of us.

Disturbing and macabre 'side avenue' of research. Thanx again
for the URLs Chris.  ;)


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 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                   Re: Ufologists Suing Ufologists - Lowe

From: Adam Lowe <nicap@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:31:45 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:26:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Ufologists Suing Ufologists - Lowe


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Ufologists Suing Ufologists
 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:15:42 +0100

Hi Errol, List.

As one of the people who was threatened by James Easton please
allow me make a couple of small points.

 >Free speech is easily stifled by letters with 'solicitor' on
 >them!

Could the same be said of Easton? He said in his email that he
had sent his objection to his solicitors and the first part of
the email address he contacted myself and the others with was
legal@ so the page was removed.

 >As for Stanton, well I just find his actions sad and pointless.
 >If you can't take criticism or opinion Stanton you shouldn't
 >expect people to take notice of a single word you say.

 >Happy Trails

 >Andy

If you have seen what James Easton objected to would you say the
same about him as you have said about Stanton?

If you haven't seen it let me know and I can send you the
paragraph.


Adam.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                      New Magazine Of Possible Interest

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:50:30 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:29:54 -0400
Subject: New Magazine Of Possible Interest


Errol, I thought this might be of interest to the list:

THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH

RENEGADE EX MI5 OFFICER DAVID SHAYLER JOINS
EYE SPY! THE WORLD�S ONLY ESPIONAGE MAGAZINE

Shayler interview tonight at 11 pm on the James Whale Show,
Talk Sport Radio

The newly launched EYE SPY! magazine, which is exclusively
dedicated to intelligence, espionage, terrorism, black projects
and military matters, has announced that controversial ex-MI5
officer David Shayler, has joined the editorial team. Shayler is
acting as a consultant as well as writing his own regular column
appropriately titled 'The Man Who Knew Too Much'.

David Shayler, who is soon to take the stand in the biggest
official secrets trial in Britain, is well known for his efforts
in trying to ensure that the Intelligence Establishment should
be held accountable for the human rights abuses he and many
others claim they have suffered.

There is a growing interest in the subject of espionage and EYE
SPY! certainly feeds that interest. The magazine has access to
numerous 'in the know' individuals and has acquired interviews
with former intelligence agents, as well as first hand reportage
on some of the world's most serious issues concerning espionage
and terrorism.

Other consultants include Nick Pope and Timothy Good.

David Shayler comments on EYE SPY!

"The magazine approaches the issue of intelligence with an open
and mature mind and I have to say it is very thorough, with
enormous amounts of the kind of research that is normally
lacking in spy media."

EYE SPY! is now on sale priced at �2.99. It will be published
eight times a year and feature a mixture of articles,
interviews, news stories and reviews.

For more information, interview or press pack contact Georgina Bruni
PR, London.E-mail: georgina@easynet.co.uk

Editor: Mark Birdsall:  Eye Spy Publishing Ltd
E-mail: mark.bd@totalise.co.uk  Website www.eyespymag.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 >
   Jun > Jun 14

              Re: Crop Circles In Light Of Foot & Mouth? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:08:41 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:34:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circles In Light Of Foot & Mouth? - Hale


Werner wrote:

 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:31:06 +0200
 >Subject: Crop Circles In Light Of Foot & Mouth?
 >From: Werner Walter <CENAP@addcom.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

<snip>

 >What is the situation? More circles or less? More hoaxing or
 >less? Can investigators of such matters give me a real answer to
 >this question?


Hi Werner,

My last count was eleven circles formed. There is one that is
causing some controversy. The one at Avebury Bassett.

I will be there this weekend, so any other info I get I will put
on the List. Failing that' check my web site, and go to the UFO
links section, for Crop Circle links.
Http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk

I will also have my digital camera with me, so watch out for
some crop circle photos appearing on my site.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                          Skywatch News - 06-13-01

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 13 Jun 2001 06:38:19 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:38:50 -0400
Subject: Skywatch News - 06-13-01


The readers of this List may be interested in the recent update
I made to my 'Skywatch News' web site.

1) The report on the so-called Roswell metal samples so highly
touted by Chris Wyatt for the Internet Convention. This report,
written by Derrel Sims, CM.Ht, R.H.A. Chief of Investigations,
Saber Enterprises "DREAM TEAM", F.I.R.S.T., & H.U.F.O.N., is his
account of the scientific testing of this and other metal
samples including the Wolf sample I sent to him, and the
consequences to the professional career of Dr. Russell
VernonClark, and the hyping of these metal samples as evidence
of extraterrestrial artifacts by Dr. Roger Leir and Whitley
Streiber. I think you will find this an honest account that
should serve as a precaution to future evidence examination.

2)Copy of a letter from Senator James M. Inhofe in response to a
letter from Jim Hickman requesting a congressional hearing on
the "Disclosure" witness testimony. He considers that in the
absence of recent UFO activity (referring to the announcement of
the British Flying Saucer Bureau closing its doors), absence of
the scientific gain from any past studies, and the absence of
hostility from any previously reported UFOs that taxpayer money
would be foolishly wasted on hearings.

The web site URL is:

http://home.earthlink.net/~skywatcher12/

Any comments or feedback is welcome...


Sincerely,

Bill Hamilton

Executive Director
Skywatch International 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 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                       Official Turkish UFO Statement

From: Haiko Lietz <hyco@haikolietz.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:47:49 +0200
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:41:01 -0400
Subject: Official Turkish UFO Statement


The German News Agency (dpa) has just put out this piece of news
(June 13th, 2001, 11:58 CET):

--

Turkish department of religion takes position in UFO discussion

June 13th, 2001, 11:58 CET

Istanbul (DPA) - Following reports of alien visits in Turkey the
Department of Religion has taken position in the current UFO
discussion. According to the Islam religion there were not only
beings on earth but also in space, the Turkish newspaper 'Sabah'
cited the head of the dep't. UFOs could be real, it was said.
The past few days several people had contacted the dep't,
reporting aliens which they had seen in West Anatolia.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                         Re: Talk And Action - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:16:46 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:43:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Hall


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:27:47 -0500

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:45:30 -0400

 >Jan,

 >From my reading of the ball lightning literature, that
 >phenomenon is extremely transient (sightings of more than a
 >minute are rare) and small, typically less than 24 inches
 >across.Hard to bring a camera or anything else to bear on that.

 >UFOs, on the other hand, are a different creature altogether. If
 >I remember aright, I recently read that the average UFO sighting
 >is somewhere around two and a half minutes, and the average size
 >somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 feet in diameter, although
 >we have a lot of recent reports of very slow-moving (35mph or
 >less) objects described as several football fields in size.

 >Not so hard to detect, in other words, even if only
 >photographically and by accident. No sophisticated network(s)
 >needed, just scientists, civilians, and commercial entities
 >going about their daily routine.

 >But two quick examples: 1) Just think what we would might have
 >if only one individual at the Father Gill sighting had had a
 >camera with them; 2) think what we would have if only Zamora had
 >had a built-in videocamera in his patrol car (now virtually
 >standard issue).

 >Fact is, if either of those cases had occurred within the last
 >week, we'd probably have a lot better evidential record.

 >You seem to think I've got some secret theory up my sleeve, when
 >I've only got a question: Given the tremendous increase in
 >technology available to everyone, scientific networks and
 >civilians alike, in the last 20-30 years, is there any evidence
 >that the quality of the UFO evidence has advanced or kept pace
 >accordingly?


Dennis,

Easy to ask that last question but not easy to answer, for the
simple reason that a great deal of evidence gets suppressed by
the very people with the most sophisticated tracking equipment.

Anyway, this reminds me that a cop in Belgium, in the 1970s I
think, had a close encounter with a UFO that hovered above his
patrol car and beamed a brilliant light down on him, with
simultaneous E-M effects. I think at night (the case is in the
published literature).

He did manage to bring a mounted camera of some kind to bear on
the object and obtained an image (something like a large blob of
light) which was submitted to scientists for analysis. Guess
what: Typically we never hear the results of the analysis.

The jet pilots in the 1980s interception case, also in Belgium,
obtained airborne radar readings as did ground radar personnel.
This is true in many cases into the 1990s and Y2K.

In 1990 Gulf Breeze, Fla., was instrumented up the gazoo, and a
number of interesting independently witnessed images were
obtained.

Since the proliferation of videocameras, images of purported
UFOs have multiplied and some of those have been published (see
UFOE-II for examples). The trouble here as elsewhere is (a) UFOs
are anathema to science; (b)often only light blobs are obtained;
(c) Bruce Maccabee and Jeff Sainio can only handle so much pro
bono analysis work. The old bugaboo, lack of money and
resources, comes into play.

Without uniform or regular reporting of what is being obtained
in the way of instrumented data, there is no way to know the
quantity and quality. What is already being obtained seldom gets
scientifically analyzed. So your hypothesis can't really be
tested until the ridicule curtain is lifted and scientists (and
everyone else) are willing to take an objective, unbiased look
at the data.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                   Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:36:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:45:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Maccabee


 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:05:41 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers'

<snip>

 >I've always thought of the Cash-Landrum case as being a
 >significant one. People rarely if ever talk about the human
 >death toll that is associated with UFOs. Betty is only one of
t>he more recent and dramatic examples. But there's also the
 >Thomas Mantell (pilot crash) case in the early 50's, and the
 >case of the (possibly deceased but definitely missing) 20
 >something year old, Aussie pilot Valentich in the late 80's.>

 >Does anyone know how many UFO related/associated deaths have
 >ever been reported? Is that information catalogued anywhere? I'm
 >curious.


Vicki Landrum also has some symptoms but she was outside the car
for only a minute or perhaps less. The windshield evidently
protected her from the really damaging radiation which could
have been ultraviolet. However, a radiologist (since deceased)
looked into the case and, if I recall, was basically "stumped"
by the effects.

Valentich was October 1978.

Seems to me there have been reports of deaths in South America.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:27:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 06:55:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:14:01 -0400


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:44:23 -0500

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:22:58 -0500
 >>>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit


Serge,

 >And why do I get this impression that it has to do only with
 >Jenny Randles? That if it were the other way around, let's say
 >Jenny Randles sued Stanton Friedman, we wouldn't be having this
 >exchange?

Wow. Absolutely incredible. As the saying goes, there is none so
blind as one who will not see.

Let me repeat: Ufologists should not sue ufologists. I didn't
say that principle applies only to Stan Friedman's suing Jenny
Rendles. The principle also applies to the reverse. _Of_course_
if Jenny had sued Stan, we would be having this exchange.

Unbelievable.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:32:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 06:57:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:32:25 -0000

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:20:26 -0500

 >>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:25:12 -0300


Dick,

 >My feeling is that Stan has a definite point here, and that you
 >are being rather absolutist in your view of "free speech" and
 >lawsuits. Although I am a strong advocate of free speech, there
 >are limits to what one can personally endure without justifiably
 >striking back to protect one's reputation. I am going to pose a
 >few questions just to make the point; you may well have answered
 >some of them already.

I can't remember when I was last so profoundly disappointed by a
colleague whom I have held in such esteem. Stan's grasp of free
expression, as we all know by now, is pretty primitive, but I
would have expected more of you.

You are simply wrong. Look at the second sentence above, and
recall this principle which is well known to civil libertarians:
If one proclaims, "I believe in free expression, but - ", the
only operative word is "but".

Anyone who believes in free expression - no ifs, ands, or buts -
is on Jenny's side on this one.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                        Re: Talk And Action - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:04:37 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 06:59:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Rimmer


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:27:47 -0500

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Talk And Action
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:45:30 -0400

 >UFOs, on the other hand, are a different creature altogether. If
 >I remember aright, I recently read that the average UFO sighting
 >is somewhere around two and a half minutes, and the average size
 >somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 feet in diameter, although
 >we have a lot of recent reports of very slow-moving (35mph or
 >less) objects described as several football fields in size.

 >Not so hard to detect, in other words, even if only
 >photographically and by accident. No sophisticated network(s)
 >needed, just scientists, civilians, and commercial entities
 >going about their daily routine.

Corn circles hang around even longer than UFOs. Curious then
that none have ever been discovered in any of the numerous
aerial photographic surveys that have been conducted over
Southern England between the 1920s and the 1970s. If they were
evidence of anything other than modern-day hoaxers and artists,
surely there would be aerial photos from previous decades?


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 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                          Secrecy News -- 06/13/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:38:21 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 07:01:07 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 06/13/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
June 13, 2001

**GUATEMALA: DILEMMAS OF INTELLIGENCE REFORM
**INTELLIGENCE ISSUES FOR CONGRESS


GUATEMALA: DILEMMAS OF INTELLIGENCE REFORM

As Guatemala struggles to create democratic institutions out of
the wreckage of its decades-long civil war, one of the most
difficult challenges it faces is to establish control of its
security services.

This is a challenge for any democracy.  Even the United States
has failed to compel its intelligence community to comply with
basic constitutional norms such as budget accountability.

But Guatemala, burdened by its painful history and possessing
only the most rudimentary democratic institutions, has a much
more difficult task.

So it is noteworthy that some Guatemalans are attempting to meet
that challenge.  In two recent papers, analyst Manolo Vela
defines the problem and charts a way forward.

"Dilemas de la Reforma del Sistema de Inteligencia en Guatemala"
(FLACSO, 1999) summarizes the necessity for intelligence reform
and the obstacles to it.

A longer work on "Poder Legislativo y Servicios de Inteligencia
en la Guatemala de Post-Guerra" (Fundacion Myrna Mack, 2000)
envisions a system of parliamentary control of intelligence for
Guatemala.

Vela, a sociologist by training, writes about intelligence with
as much theoretical sophistication as any of his English
language counterparts.  Actually, much of his conceptual
framework and terminology -- "frenos y contrapesos" (checks and
balances), "presupuesto negro" (black budget), etc. -- has its
parallel in, or is simply imported from, the literature on U.S.
intelligence.

On the other hand, Vela's work also reflects a growing body of
Spanish language literature on intelligence and democracy by a
nucleus of political scientists, activists and others.

In support of their educational and political efforts, FAS
offers Manolo Vela's two papers and related materials on
Guatemalan intelligence here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/guatemala/index.html


INTELLIGENCE ISSUES FOR CONGRESS

Intelligence policy issues facing the U.S. Congress are reviewed
and summarized in a Congressional Research Service issue brief
on "Intelligence Issues for Congress."

The issue brief, prepared by Congressional Research Service
analyst Richard A. Best, Jr. and updated on June 4, is posted
here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/IB10012.html


******************************

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                 Re: Ufologists Suing Ufologists - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:44:17 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 07:06:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Ufologists Suing Ufologists - Friedman


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Ufologists Suing Ufologists
 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:15:42 +0100

 >Y'all,

 >Stanton Friedman may squeal and squawk in trying to justify his
 >pointless legal persecution of Jenny Randles over her opinions,
 >but no-one has yet put the case in any context from a UK ufology
 >point of view. I was heavily involved in the scene at that time
 >(indeed we put Stanty on at a gig in Leeds and made a healthy
 >profit out of _his_ opinions!) and these memories drift into my
 >mind:

I should think that editors such as yourself and Jerry would do
some home work and recognize that there is a difference between
defamation and opinion, or fair comment, criticism..... Surely
there are books you can look at that speak of these differences?
Every country has laws about defamation to protect the
reputations of its citizens. The best defense against such a
claim is truth. Jenny fails. A second defense is that the
defamer honestly believes the untrue defamation. Jenny fails
since the views she expressed to the MEN in her letter and to
the MEN reporter are in complete conflict with her published
views in her books in which she speaks very favorably of the
work of Harry and myself. Jenny tried to claim that the MEN
misrepresented what she said since she was just referring to
American ufologists in general, having just returned from the
USA, and not to Harry and me. This not true as she very clearly
in her letter to the MEN defames us both in very strong terms.

One way to minimize damages to be apportioned because of
defamation is to publish an apology in the same venue in which
the defamation appeared (MEN) promptly... meaning something like
within a week. It took almost a year and access to the defaming
letter took a writ from the courts because Jenny refused
permission for it to be released earlier though the MEN had no
objection. Quick apology would have ended it.

 >* There was no love lost between Harry Harris and Jenny prior
 >to Stanton's law suit. This situation had rumbled on for several
 >years and had involved BUFORA and others. Many people believed
 >'something' was bound to happen and that it was just a matter of
 >when the necessary ammunition could be found. However trivial.
 >There is vast amounts of evidence in ufologists' correspondence
 >from the time supporting this assertion. Please note I am not
 >for a minute suggesting Harris put Friedman up to the law suit,
 >merely filling in the background details of the social history
 >at the time.

Andy is correct.There had been some bad blood between Harry and
Jenny, though there had been none between Jenny and myself.

 >* Harris was known in ufological circles in the north of
 >England as someone who had threatened litigation to at least one
 >other ufologist prior to the Friedman event.

 >It is tempting to suggest that, as he was a solicitor, it must
 >have been, ahem, 'convenient' and 'economical' to send his own
 >solicitors letters out rather than have to employ someone like
 >everyone else has to.

This would seem to ignore the substantial role played by a
barrister who, of course, had to be paid.

 >Harris's letters were on his letterhead which read:

 >'Harry Harris'
 >Solicitor
 >44 Reading Drive
 >Sale
 >Manchester
 >Closed for lunch 1pm-2pm

 >It may have been easy for people to believe all Harris' letters
 >were 'legal' missives when in fact they were probably not.
 >Somewhat conveniently Harry only made the distinction when
 >specifically queried (evidence available should anyone doubt
 >this).

 >The mere _fact_ that Harris was in the legal game was usually
 >enough to silence any UK ufologist with an opinion about
 >anything even vaguely Harris-related. Free speech is easily
 >stifled by letters with 'solicitor' on them!

Sounds like you have accepted the notion that there are and
ought to be limits on "free speech". Calling somebody a
convicted felon such as a murderer, burglar, etc is libel per se
(providing the claims are not true). Should there not be laws
against inciting a riot? My goodness, Andy, the UK is a leader
in believing that a man is entitled to not have his good name
sullied by false claims. Winston Churchill won a famous libel
suit against Lord Douglas. Have you forgotten?

 >Exactly what the ethics of a solicitor acting for himself are is
 >open to question. It may have been legal but in my book it's
 >thoroughly unethical and immoral.

He was also acting for me and there was also a solicitor
involved. What book is that in about unethical and immoral?
Should not the other counsels have spoken out about this??

 >* I still treasure a file of my correspondence with him from
 >when he threatened me. The depth of his panic was reflected in
 >the fact that he threatened me merely because I suggested in UFO
 >Brigantia that his interviewing of some of the witnesses in the
 >Alan Godfrey case was not done under the same circumstances a
 >police interview would have been conducted.

 >Big deal!

 >Naturally I apologised in print because this served to amplify
 >what I was trying to say!

 >Harris never did 'get' UFO Brigantia.

 >* I had many hours of phone calls from Harris every time
 >I disagreed with him and he heard about it. He was always polite
 >and courteous and even wished me compliments of the season
 >in the same letter he threatened legal action! I could never
 >work him out but thought the idea of threatening legal action
 >to resolve a difference of opinion rather sinister.

 >* I am sure Harris is still out there, but the last
 >two occasions I came across him was....

 >1. In an article in the popular Manchester Evening News
 >which read (exactly):

 >"Lawyer's Pet Threat
 >Solicitor Harry Harris, 55, of (Deleted by AR), will appear
 >before magistrates on charges of making threats to kill and
 >possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear - after allegedly
 >threatening to shoot a pensioner's dog which chased his cat
 >up a tree."

 >I don't recall the outcome of this highly influential case.
 >Personally I thought he was barking up the wrong tree. The facts
 >- printed in the Manchester Evening News, so we know they are
 >correct! - speak for themselves, whatever the court's ultimate
 >disposal.

 >2. At a LAPIS conference in Lytham St Annes in 1997 Harris
 >turned up and demanded the right to speak (he wasn't on the
 >bill). His 'approach' persuaded the organisers to let him have
 >the stage to rant about some alleged and obscure slight against
 >him (by Sue Blackmore I think). The video shows he was severely
 >heckled and was booed by the audience.

This surely shows how concerned UK ufologists are about free
speech, doesn't it? Free speech is for me but not for those with
whom I disagree, eh??

 >As for Stanton, well I just find his actions sad and pointless.
 >If you can't take criticism or opinion Stanton you shouldn't
 >expect people to take notice of a single word you say. You can
 >twist and turn in self-justification Stanton but the ufologists,
 >here at least, know what was going on and it may have increased
 >your bank balance but it reduced your stature in our eyes.

How many UK ufologists did know what was going on? It seemed to
me that the rantings of some of Jenny's supporters clearly
indicated they didn't know what was going on. How many had read
her letter? How many apologized for their rantings after reading
the apologies? I still seem to be the same stature as I was. Did
a bunch of lectures and media appearances after all that.
Response seemed to me to be excellent. But then I am biased.

Andy I have taken loads of critcism and opinions. Defamation is
not the same thing. It crosses the line. Jenny and the MEN both
crossed the line and both eventually apologized in print on
advice of counsel..... May I presume that no UK publication had
courage enough to publish the apology except the Flying Saucer
Review and the Manchester Evening News. Did you?

 >I trust these facts put matters into some proper perspective and
 >give you all pause for reflection on what went on.

 >I'm sure Stanton will be hot on the 'phone to his friend and a
 >writ will be winging it's way to me soon. I'll keep you
 >informed!


I am afraid you don't influence the same size audience as the
MEN, Andy. It seems you were careful not to be defamatory.

Fascinating posting Andy: civil and witty, but totally ignoring
the relevant facts.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                  Re: Chile: Has NASA Set Its Sights On The

From: Cory Cameron <kecksburg@cnwl.igs.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:38:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 07:12:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Chile: Has NASA Set Its Sights On The


 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:42:02 -0400
 >Subject: Chile: Has NASA Set Its Sights On The Chupacabras?

 >SOURCE: La Estrella del Loa
 >DATE: Tuesday, June 12, 2001

 >Has NASA set its sights on the Chupacabras?

 >�Ser posible que la Nasa recorra los rincones de la Provincia
 >El Loa buscando evidencia extraterrestre y supuestos
 >Chupacabras, tal como lo hizo la Polica de Investigaciones en
 >Yalquincha el ao pasado?.

 >The possibility that NASA is committing resources in the
 >Province of El Loa to secure evidence of extraterrestrial life
 >in order to obtain scientific knowledge applicable to a number
 >of earth sciences, including technology, is rather acceptable
 >and almos likely for Calama UFO Research center investigator
 >Jaime Ferrer, who claims having in his possession information
 >which leads to the belief that the organization operates in the
 >area.

<snip>

The resulting experiments of NASA and the tiny insect-like
aircraft to me, would indicate far more sinister plans to spy on
civilians.

It defies reason to attempt to make aircraft as small as well as
fragile as insects and place them on space
exploration/expeditions.

I have watched documentaries of these tiny experimental aircraft
and would argue that they appear to be too flacid for
environments outside of earth. That could basically lead to a
conclusion - and that is that of spying.

What would be the chances of per say, someone waking up in the
middle of the night once he/she hears a buzzing sound coming
from their window(s) on a hot summer day?

It seems to me that what I read as a child in Orwell's '1984'
may be occuring right before our eyes.

If these experiments are successful, it could mean that these
tiny insect-like aircraft could fly un-detected into our homes
at night for who knows what purpose?


Cory Cameron








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 14

                  Chilean Senator: "Something Fishy" About

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 06:43:38 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 07:19:22 -0400
Subject: Chilean Senator: "Something Fishy" About


SOURCE: "La Estrella del Loa" de Chile (newspaper)

DATE: June 13, 2001

Senator believes that there's "something fishy" going on with
the Chupacabras

Para Cantero no es posible que no hayan antecedentes ms
completos de diligencias como esta operacin rastrillo,
efectuada el ao pasado por personal policial en el sector
Yalquincha, en la ribera del ro Loa.

In a lively conversation held with noted radio host Pablo
Aguilera on Radio Pudhauel, Senator Carlos Cantero of the Second
Region stated that reports of the so-called Chupacabras case,
issued by the public agencies participating in the strange
events recorded near Calama, have given rise to suspicions given
the paucity of their content.

"What led me to engage in this activity, representing my region
and national community, was to tell the public
agenices-Carabineros, Investigations, and even the Health
Services: Gentlemen! there is so much press coverage on this
subject and you won't say a single word. This gives rise to
suspicions, much mistrust, since there are no conclusions to be
found among the reports presented--no information is given about
what was found or what wasn't found." the senator stated
emphatically.

He stated that there must be information regarding the autopsies
conducted at the time and he recommended that the case should
not be left hanging in the air without background information,
particularly when Chilean culture has several ideas that
centuries-old

"It is proper that the authorities should act with both
timeliness and transparency. I get the impression that there
hasn't been full transparency in this case and that all of the
information available on this subject has not been made
available to the public."

The parlamentarian stated that there were several weeks of
vigilance and the mobilization of armed polie forces in order to
find some type of evidence attributable to the massive and
mysterious deaths of farm animals and Calama, which in his
opinion, gave rise to considerable fantasy and anxiety among the
community, leading to the belief that "there must be something
going on, otherwise, high-ranking functionaries, very well
educated people with considerable experience, cannot be making
decisions in these matters if they are baseless."

He is interested in learning more about the reports from groups
base in Calama and dedicated to following such cases." I think
that public opinion has the right to know what is going on,
particularly when Carabineros, Investigations and the Health
Service are precisely public services whose mission calls for
maintaining the greatest transparency in this type of
situations."

The senator told the interviewer that he isn't quite comfortable
when it comes to discussing fantasy, given the tremendous
concern that the handling of genetics is causing among the
world's leaders. Finally, he stated that it is presumptuous to
look at the night sky and think that Earth is the only planet
harboring intelligent life in the universe

"I'm a professional person, I'm a geographer, I was mayor of
Calama, I know every corner of that locality, I've been a
representative twice for that territory, I speak with people and
have the impression that all of the information has not been
released in a timely manner."Soy profesional, soy gegrafo, fui
alcalde de Calama, conozco palmo a palmo esa localidad, he sido
dos veces diputado de ese territorio, converso con la gente y
tengo la impresin que no se est entregando toda la informacin
y con la oportunidad que corresponde".

############################################

Translation (C) 2001. S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology.

Special Thanks to Gloria R. Coluchi








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                                More Changes

From: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@home.ca>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:33:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:33:31 -0400
Subject: More Changes

Gentle Subscriber,

The difficulties with List-bound mail over the last couple of
weeks have not abated.....

@home's mail-servers on the Lower Left-Coast continue to go
'down' - refusing to accept outbound mail and claiming that
either the List's password or user-name are invalid. They've
also been taken down, sometimes during high-traffic periods,
"for servicing" without any prior notification to ISP's [cable
companies] using those @home mail-servers.

The reason for switching the List to @home was that Bell
Canada's @sympatico servers were instructed to not accept
out-bound messages with more than 50 addressees. Other than
that, Sympatico's DSL service has been mostly hassle-free.

I've been hunting around for software that will allow List-mail
to by-pass out-bound SMTP servers at this end and arrive,
directly, in your mailbox at your service provider.....

This message is the first to the UFO UpDates List using 'Group
Mail Pro'. The headers will look slightly different - the major
difference being that your name and address should be in the
'To:' portion of the header and not either 'To: 01'/'02 - UFO
UpDates Subscribers. You won't see any other subscribers names
or addresses.

It'll take a day or two to shake this new software down and once
that's complete [and, apologies in advance] the List address will
revert back to an @sympatico.ca iteration.


Working to bring you the service that you deserve and I'll
be proud of,


Errol Bruce-Knapp
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 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                     Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:27:31 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:02:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hall


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:32:17 -0500

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:32:25 -0000

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:20:26 -0500

 >>>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:25:12 -0300

 >Dick,

 >>My feeling is that Stan has a definite point here, and that you
 >>are being rather absolutist in your view of "free speech" and
 >>lawsuits. Although I am a strong advocate of free speech, there
 >>are limits to what one can personally endure without justifiably
 >>striking back to protect one's reputation. I am going to pose a
 >>few questions just to make the point; you may well have answered
 >>some of them already.

 >I can't remember when I was last so profoundly disappointed by a
 >colleague whom I have held in such esteem. Stan's grasp of free
 >expression, as we all know by now, is pretty primitive, but I
 >would have expected more of you.

 >You are simply wrong. Look at the second sentence above, and
 >recall this principle which is well known to civil libertarians:
 >If one proclaims, "I believe in free expression, but - ", the
 >only operative word is "but".

 >Anyone who believes in free expression - no ifs, ands, or buts -
 >is on Jenny's side on this one.

 >Jerry Clark

Jerry,

With all due respect, you have simply reiterated an absolutist
position on "free speech" and not answered my questions. Let me
reiterate my questions phrased slightly differently:

Should laws about defamation and libel be expunged altogether,
or do they exist for a legitimate purpose recognized by
jurisprudence?

Would you recognize a difference (as someone else suggested
today) between a "free speech" right to say bad and erroneous
things about my opinions as opposed to about my character or
integrity?


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 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:33:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:10:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:46:49 -0500
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:44:23 -0500

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:22:58 -0500
 >>>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit


Bobbie,

 >>You defend an indefensible legal suit and the public humiliation
 >>of one of our smartest, most productive, most conscientious,
 >>hard-working colleagues (Jenny Randles), and then suddenly you
 >>get all sensitive about _my_ alleged insensitivity to _your_
 >>feelings? Maybe you ought to do some soulful reexamining of
 >>your values and priorities.

 >Ok, so we all know what your opinion is of Jenny Randles. She
 >walks on water and Stan Friedman is nothing more than chopped
 >liver. She was publicly humiliated because someone actually had
 >the nerve to insist that she take responsibility for her
 >actions. Can't get more humiliated than that.

This is, of course, rubbish. Both Jenny and Stan are human
beings, and both have their virtues and their faults. Both have
made contributions to our subject, and both have made mistakes.
The only thing that matters in the present discussion is that
one sued the other and silenced her free expression - a
silencing, I might add, that continues even to this day. Ever
wondered why Jenny is not participating publicly in this
discussion, Bobbie? Or, as I suspect, doesn't the suppression of
expression bother you in the slightest?

 >And the things printed in that article in no way publicly
 >humiliated Stan Friedman, right?

 >Can we say "double standard", Jerry?

Nope, we can't. We can, however, say that you aren't exactly
familiar with principles of free expression, and you seem to
have devoted all of a few nanoseconds to reflection on the
issues some of us are trying to discuss intelligently.

Stan was not forced, by legal bullying, into a humiliating
retraction/confession of the sort notoriously associated with
Stalinist show trials (you _do_ know what a Stalinist show trial
is, don't you?), as Jenny was. Stan is a public figure, and he -
like Jenny, like me - is a fair target for published or spoken
criticism fair or unfair. He has every right not to like it and
every right to exercise his right to free expression to defend
himself or attack his accusers in return. Suing his critics
simply because they said something that hurt his feelings - and
that's all they did; he could not demonstrate empirically that
the criticisms had any other effect than that - is, however,
indefensible - as, by your failed defense of it, you are
demonstrating yourself.

 >Let's see... Jenny was the innocent victim of the big, bad
 >American that wanted nothing but her hard-earned cash. The mean
 >old nasty newspaper took Jenny's innocent words and twisted them
 >all up and made her look like a big ole meanie. And the big, bad
 >American took advantage of the pathetic state of British libel
 >laws to suck the cash out of poor Jenny and this little
 >newspaper that just wanted to let everyone know that the big,
 >bad American thinks aliens have a thing about strawberry ice
 >cream.

In the obtuse exercise above, we learn all we need to know about
Bobbie Felder's dim grasp of the free-expression issues central
to this debate. I'm just glad that you don't have power to
enforce your very narrow view of allowable speech on the rest of
us.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                         Re: Talk And Action - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:00:41 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:00:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Talk And Action - Hale


 >Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:04:37 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Talk And Action

 >Corn circles hang around even longer than UFOs. Curious then
 >that none have ever been discovered in any of the numerous
 >aerial photographic surveys that have been conducted over
 >Southern England between the 1920s and the 1970s. If they were
 >evidence of anything other than modern-day hoaxers and artists,
 >surely there would be aerial photos from previous decades?

 >John Rimmer


A touch of research regarding the above statement on Crop Circles.

" In my search and research for them during that period of time
I uncovered a mention of them in early French literature (800
AD). The bishop of Lyon at that time had written to the local
parish priest who was taking over his parish just outside Lyon.
The contents of the manuscript were basically to warn the new
priest that there had been "devil worship" by his local
parishioners who were collecting seeds out of "flattened
circles" and using them for fertility rites. I spoke to quite a
few farmers who remembered seeing "odd shapes" in their fields
or their parent's fields when they themselves were young but no
real proof. I uncovered information from a second world war
pilot who had been returning to RAF Tangmeir after an aerial
reconnaissance mission over Germany, as he approached the grass
runway at his base he saw two flattened circles in the nearby
growing cereal crop and photographed them not knowing what they
were. I tried in vain to locate these two black and white
photographs which the pilot remembered were handed on the aerial
reconnaissance film but once again to no avail. The pilot
remembers seeing the film with the German aerial photographs and
the two Crop Circles on it which were sent to the Air Ministry
Intelligence at Whitehall.

During the early 1980's there were simple circles appearing in
cereal crops ranging in sizes from ten to thirty feet in
diameter but as we moved into the latter half of the eighties
more complex shapes started to form which generated a lot of
media attention. We had a definite evolution happening with the
Crop Circle formations or Crop Glyphs as they were called and
lots of theories being put forward as to the causes ranging from
meteorological effects, military experiments through to UFO's
and encounters of the human kind. They were, and do not only
appear during the hours of darkness, they were and still do not
only appear in just summer cereal crops, but in grass, stinging
nettles, winter crops such as beet and kale, sugar cane,
underwater in rice paddy fields in Japan, in the snow 13,000ft
up in the mountains in Afghanistan, in fact world wide, not just
restricted to southern England as quite a few people believed
such as the two famous Doug and Dave.

These two hoaxer's had claimed to have made all the crop circles
in England since 1980. Little did they know then the extent of
the formations. Yes, each year we do have a certain amount of
the formations that are man made, this is no dispute with any of
the researchers, but this does not account for remaining ones
for which there appears to be no logical explanation. With my
investigations into the UFO enigma since the 1950's I felt, and
still do, that there is a link and in 1981 I started up my own
research unit called Crop Phenomena Investigations. Since that
period I have been working with several institutes including the
famous Dr. William Levengood's laboratory in America. He is a
bio-physicist and with his team carry out research on all
samples sent to him from around the world that are taken out of
Crop Circle Formations including the ones from this country. He
has had his research papers published in several scientific
journals.


Excerpt Taken From The History Of Crop Circles By David Kingston.

This article can be found on The Lost Haven Web Site.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                         The Real X-Files - 06-14-01

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:44:51 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:25:31 -0400
Subject: The Real X-Files - 06-14-01


THE REAL X-FILES
www.hotgossip.co.uk

Hello everyone, and welcome to the June issue of The Real
X-Files, the column that aims to provide an overview of all the
latest news and developments from the world of the unexplained.


DISCLOSURE � LET THE TRUTH BE TOLD

The worldwide UFO research community is currently buzzing with
discussion about what is undoubtedly the most significant recent
development in the attempt to end the tradition of UFO secrecy.
On Wednesday 9th May, 20 witnesses from the American military,
intelligence services, and scientific establishments convened at
a Washington Press conference to confess knowledge of UFOs,
extraterrestrials, and government secrecy.

Some spoke of a conspiracy of silence and official intimidation
designed to suppress knowledge pertaining to UFOs and
extraterrestrials. Others claimed that technology derived from
recovered extraterrestrial vehicles has been back-engineered and
used in highly advanced military hardware.

The conference was organised by Dr. Stephen Greer and his
Project Disclosure, which was established in 1993 '...to
identify firsthand military and government witnesses to UFO
events and projects, as well as other evidence to be used in a
public disclosure.' Dr Greer and his fellow investigators have
interviewed over 400 witnesses who, in exchange for immunity
from prosecution, are prepared to violate their secrecy oaths
and reveal what they know about the UFO phenomenon.

Picture 1 Dr. Stephen Greer

"A number of members of Congress have told us privately that
this is the way it has to happen for people to take the
initiative," said a spokeswoman. "These [witnesses] are highly
credible. They used to be trusted with nuclear weapons. Why
would they not be trusted to believe what the saw with their own
eyes?"

Indeed, no one can seriously doubt the provenance of the
witnesses who came together last month, united by a common
desire to tell what they know, and launch a campaign that will
unburden them of the secrets they have been made to keep.

Among those calling for pubic disclosure of the truth behind
this phenomenon is Britain's former chief of defence staff,
Admiral Lord Hill Norton, who said: "...there is a serious
possibility that we are being visited � and have been visited
for many years � by visitors from outer space, from other
civilisations; that it behoves us to find out who they are,
where they come from, and what they want. This should be the
subject of rigorous scientific investigation"

Sadly, the media response to Project Disclosure was not, in all
cases, as positive as one might have hoped. This is quite
baffling, not to mention frustrating, especially when one
contemplates the courage of those witnesses who have agreed to
participate in the Project. As Beverley Glick wrote in The
Sunday Express, 'In any other field, such as pollution scares or
political scandals, - senior military officers from the US, UK
and Russia, decorated pilots and astronauts, reputable
scientists, and even a Cardinal from the Vatican � would be
taken seriously. People would be clamouring for an open
inquiry.'

Nevertheless, apparently news of the story has already reached
over 1 billion people worldwide. And as the story spreads from
country to country, one can only anticipate further media
coverage and pressure for the witnesses seeking immunity to tell
what they know, for their pleas to be answered. I only hope
that they are successful.

To view the Disclosure Project press conference or to download a
copy of the Project's Executive Summary, visit
www.disclosureproject.org. It's well worth a look.


GEORGINA BRUNI SPEAKS AT OXFORD UNIVERSITY

"UFOs? You must get your facts right, and you can't tell the
people." That, allegedly, is what former Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher said to Georgina Bruni � Hotgossip's very own editor in
chief, at a social function in May 1997. In doing so, Baroness
Thatcher unwittingly inspired the title of the book Georgina
would come to write three years later.

It is perhaps appropriate, then, that on Sunday the 13th May,
Georgina delivered a talk to the Open Minds Society at
Somerville College � the very same college attended by Margaret
Thatcher during her time spent as an undergraduate at Oxford
University. Georgina is now the second guest speaker to have
spoken at the Open Minds Society, Oxford University's first
student UFO research group.

Following Graham W. Birdsall who, earlier this year, presented
students at Oxford with an overview of the UFO phenomenon,
Georgina limited her discussion to her in-depth investigation of
a case that many consider to be the British equivalent to the
Roswell Incident: The Rendlesham Forest Mystery.

(Picture 2 � Georgina Bruni delivering her lecture to students
at Oxford University.)

According to Georgina, she began her investigation of the
'British Roswell', whilst researching a series of articles on
the case. However, she soon realised, as more witnesses came
forward, some of who had hitherto never been traced by
researchers, that there was "a lot to this case" deserving of
serious investigation.

For those who haven't yet read 'You Can't Tell the People',
Georgina's ' definitive account' of this incident, the
Rendlesham Forest mystery revolves around a series of
spectacular UFO sightings that are alleged to have occurred on
the perimeter of two USAF bases, Bentwaters and Woodbridge, in
Suffolk, England, in December 1980.

(Picture 3 � Georgina Bruni with Neil Spring.)

Georgina's talk was very well attended, with over 70 students
present in the audience. Those present listened intently as
Georgina expanded on the revelations contained in her
controversial book, arguing that the Rendlesham Forest Incident
is far more significant � and certainly more enigmatic � than
some have argued. Poring scorn on the notion that these
sightings are explainable as a curious combination of naturally
occurring events, Georgina produced photographs, official
documents, and an audio recording made by witness Lieutenant
Colonel Charles Halt in 1980, as he and his men investigated
unusual lights over Rendlesham Forest. During their
investigation, the patrol picked up radiation readings and
encountered 'unidentifieds'. This tape had, of course, already
been in the public domain for quite sometime now. However,
Georgina acquired her copy from the original master recording,
which reveals much more of the background conversations and
names of additional witnesses that could not be heard on the
poor quality recording. As the Chairman of the British UFO
Research Association, Brian James, remarked: "the copy of 'The
Halt Tape' was very interesting, as I'd only heard the poor,
'many-generation' copy before.' (Note: Excerpts from this
fascinating recording can be heard on my website:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~openmind)

(Picture 4 � Georgina Bruni takes questions from interested
conference delegates).

The night's talk was followed by a casual drinks gathering,
where conference delegates shared their views on the case
Georgina had presented, and the UFO phenomenon in general. I
was especially glad to see that so many serious minded
individuals had taken the presentation seriously and considered
fairly what Georgina had said. A thoroughly enjoyable evening,
with thoroughly enjoyable company. Thanks Georgina!

(Picture 5 � Conference delegates discuss Georgina's lecture,
and the UFO phenomenon in general.)


PAINTING PATTERNS IN THE SKY

Readers will recall that in last month's column I reported that
Derek Gough, a witness residing in South Wales, was regularly
observing and photographing 'chemtrails', which would 'spread
out like clouds and remain visible in the sky for hours'. Mr
Gough has since been in contact with his local Member of
Parliament who wrote on his behalf to the Under Secretary of
State to inquire about these phenomena.

The two pictures below were taken by Mr. Gough earlier this
month. They are indicative of a phenomenon that is receiving
widespread attention from websites such as
www.chemtrailcentral.com. According to one researcher, "These
aircraft trails appear below 10,000 feet and do not act like ice
crystals. Spray from aircraft are observed cutting on and off as
you would throw a switch on the aircraft control panel. Grid
patterns are painted in the sky with 'X' and circles are also
painted."

(Picture 6 � Photograph of an alleged chemtrail, showing an
unknown object in the near vicinity)

(Picture 7 � Photograph of an alleged chris-cross chemtrail,
taken on the 20th May 2001)

A copy of the British Government's response to Mr. Gough's
inquiries will be posted at the Open Minds website
(http://users.ox.ac.uk/~openmind) for scrutiny in the near
future. In the meantime, Mr. Gough would welcome any information
pertaining to the controversial 'chemtrail phenomenon' and his
photographs. He can be reached at the following email address:
confidentialwitness@ask.co.uk


IT'S OXFORD ON TV

On Friday 11th May, Spanish TV's "Channel 5", telecinquo arrived
in Oxford to produce an 'Alternative Guide' to the City. The
aim of the programme was to contrast the conventional and
conservative aspects of the University with its more fun, and
unusual side, and thereby to help destroy some of the common,
formal stereotypes surrounding Oxford University.

(Picture 8 � Neil Spring's interview with Spanish TV's Channel
5)

The project sounded fun, and, noted for our interest in UFOs and
the unexplained, we at the Open Minds Society were asked to
contribute by taking part in an interview about our research and
meetings. We agreed, and found the project light-hearted and
thoroughly enjoyable.


UFO MAGAZINE

The June issue of UFO Magazine, Britain's major newsstand UFO
publication, goes on sale on Thursday 31st May. Packed full of
informative articles, and the most recent ufology news, it's
well worth getting. This month's issue includes features on the
Kennedy Space Centre, daytime footage from Manchester of the
'mysterious spheres', and my own contribution - the first of a
two-part exclusive on a major Welsh UFO incident. Don't miss
it!

Until next time my friends, take care and keep watching those
skies. There's a lot happening � trust me.


Neil Spring.

Email me: Neil.spring@some.ox.ac.uk

Or visit my web site:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~openmind


From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
Subject: The Real X-Files
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:44:51 +0100


THE REAL X-FILES
www.hotgossip.co.uk

Hello everyone, and welcome to the June issue of The Real
X-Files, the column that aims to provide an overview of all the
latest news and developments from the world of the unexplained.


DISCLOSURE � LET THE TRUTH BE TOLD

The worldwide UFO research community is currently buzzing with
discussion about what is undoubtedly the most significant recent
development in the attempt to end the tradition of UFO secrecy.
On Wednesday 9th May, 20 witnesses from the American military,
intelligence services, and scientific establishments convened at
a Washington Press conference to confess knowledge of UFOs,
extraterrestrials, and government secrecy.

Some spoke of a conspiracy of silence and official intimidation
designed to suppress knowledge pertaining to UFOs and
extraterrestrials. Others claimed that technology derived from
recovered extraterrestrial vehicles has been back-engineered and
used in highly advanced military hardware.

The conference was organised by Dr. Stephen Greer and his
Project Disclosure, which was established in 1993 '...to
identify firsthand military and government witnesses to UFO
events and projects, as well as other evidence to be used in a
public disclosure.' Dr Greer and his fellow investigators have
interviewed over 400 witnesses who, in exchange for immunity
from prosecution, are prepared to violate their secrecy oaths
and reveal what they know about the UFO phenomenon.

Picture 1 Dr. Stephen Greer

"A number of members of Congress have told us privately that
this is the way it has to happen for people to take the
initiative," said a spokeswoman. "These [witnesses] are highly
credible. They used to be trusted with nuclear weapons. Why
would they not be trusted to believe what the saw with their own
eyes?"

Indeed, no one can seriously doubt the provenance of the
witnesses who came together last month, united by a common
desire to tell what they know, and launch a campaign that will
unburden them of the secrets they have been made to keep.

Among those calling for pubic disclosure of the truth behind
this phenomenon is Britain's former chief of defence staff,
Admiral Lord Hill Norton, who said: "...there is a serious
possibility that we are being visited � and have been visited
for many years � by visitors from outer space, from other
civilisations; that it behoves us to find out who they are,
where they come from, and what they want. This should be the
subject of rigorous scientific investigation"

Sadly, the media response to Project Disclosure was not, in all
cases, as positive as one might have hoped. This is quite
baffling, not to mention frustrating, especially when one
contemplates the courage of those witnesses who have agreed to
participate in the Project. As Beverley Glick wrote in The
Sunday Express, 'In any other field, such as pollution scares or
political scandals, - senior military officers from the US, UK
and Russia, decorated pilots and astronauts, reputable
scientists, and even a Cardinal from the Vatican � would be
taken seriously. People would be clamouring for an open
inquiry.'

Nevertheless, apparently news of the story has already reached
over 1 billion people worldwide. And as the story spreads from
country to country, one can only anticipate further media
coverage and pressure for the witnesses seeking immunity to tell
what they know, for their pleas to be answered. I only hope
that they are successful.

To view the Disclosure Project press conference or to download a
copy of the Project's Executive Summary, visit
www.disclosureproject.org. It's well worth a look.


GEORGINA BRUNI SPEAKS AT OXFORD UNIVERSITY

"UFOs? You must get your facts right, and you can't tell the
people." That, allegedly, is what former Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher said to Georgina Bruni � Hotgossip's very own editor in
chief, at a social function in May 1997. In doing so, Baroness
Thatcher unwittingly inspired the title of the book Georgina
would come to write three years later.

It is perhaps appropriate, then, that on Sunday the 13th May,
Georgina delivered a talk to the Open Minds Society at
Somerville College � the very same college attended by Margaret
Thatcher during her time spent as an undergraduate at Oxford
University. Georgina is now the second guest speaker to have
spoken at the Open Minds Society, Oxford University's first
student UFO research group.

Following Graham W. Birdsall who, earlier this year, presented
students at Oxford with an overview of the UFO phenomenon,
Georgina limited her discussion to her in-depth investigation of
a case that many consider to be the British equivalent to the
Roswell Incident: The Rendlesham Forest Mystery.

(Picture 2 � Georgina Bruni delivering her lecture to students
at Oxford University.)

According to Georgina, she began her investigation of the
'British Roswell', whilst researching a series of articles on
the case. However, she soon realised, as more witnesses came
forward, some of who had hitherto never been traced by
researchers, that there was "a lot to this case" deserving of
serious investigation.

For those who haven't yet read 'You Can't Tell the People',
Georgina's ' definitive account' of this incident, the
Rendlesham Forest mystery revolves around a series of
spectacular UFO sightings that are alleged to have occurred on
the perimeter of two USAF bases, Bentwaters and Woodbridge, in
Suffolk, England, in December 1980.

(Picture 3 � Georgina Bruni with Neil Spring.)

Georgina's talk was very well attended, with over 70 students
present in the audience. Those present listened intently as
Georgina expanded on the revelations contained in her
controversial book, arguing that the Rendlesham Forest Incident
is far more significant � and certainly more enigmatic � than
some have argued. Poring scorn on the notion that these
sightings are explainable as a curious combination of naturally
occurring events, Georgina produced photographs, official
documents, and an audio recording made by witness Lieutenant
Colonel Charles Halt in 1980, as he and his men investigated
unusual lights over Rendlesham Forest. During their
investigation, the patrol picked up radiation readings and
encountered 'unidentifieds'. This tape had, of course, already
been in the public domain for quite sometime now. However,
Georgina acquired her copy from the original master recording,
which reveals much more of the background conversations and
names of additional witnesses that could not be heard on the
poor quality recording. As the Chairman of the British UFO
Research Association, Brian James, remarked: "the copy of 'The
Halt Tape' was very interesting, as I'd only heard the poor,
'many-generation' copy before.' (Note: Excerpts from this
fascinating recording can be heard on my website:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~openmind)

(Picture 4 � Georgina Bruni takes questions from interested
conference delegates).

The night's talk was followed by a casual drinks gathering,
where conference delegates shared their views on the case
Georgina had presented, and the UFO phenomenon in general. I
was especially glad to see that so many serious minded
individuals had taken the presentation seriously and considered
fairly what Georgina had said. A thoroughly enjoyable evening,
with thoroughly enjoyable company. Thanks Georgina!

(Picture 5 � Conference delegates discuss Georgina's lecture,
and the UFO phenomenon in general.)


PAINTING PATTERNS IN THE SKY

Readers will recall that in last month's column I reported that
Derek Gough, a witness residing in South Wales, was regularly
observing and photographing 'chemtrails', which would 'spread
out like clouds and remain visible in the sky for hours'. Mr
Gough has since been in contact with his local Member of
Parliament who wrote on his behalf to the Under Secretary of
State to inquire about these phenomena.

The two pictures below were taken by Mr. Gough earlier this
month. They are indicative of a phenomenon that is receiving
widespread attention from websites such as
www.chemtrailcentral.com. According to one researcher, "These
aircraft trails appear below 10,000 feet and do not act like ice
crystals. Spray from aircraft are observed cutting on and off as
you would throw a switch on the aircraft control panel. Grid
patterns are painted in the sky with 'X' and circles are also
painted."

(Picture 6 � Photograph of an alleged chemtrail, showing an
unknown object in the near vicinity)

(Picture 7 � Photograph of an alleged chris-cross chemtrail,
taken on the 20th May 2001)

A copy of the British Government's response to Mr. Gough's
inquiries will be posted at the Open Minds website
(http://users.ox.ac.uk/~openmind) for scrutiny in the near
future. In the meantime, Mr. Gough would welcome any information
pertaining to the controversial 'chemtrail phenomenon' and his
photographs. He can be reached at the following email address:
confidentialwitness@ask.co.uk


IT'S OXFORD ON TV

On Friday 11th May, Spanish TV's "Channel 5", telecinquo arrived
in Oxford to produce an 'Alternative Guide' to the City. The
aim of the programme was to contrast the conventional and
conservative aspects of the University with its more fun, and
unusual side, and thereby to help destroy some of the common,
formal stereotypes surrounding Oxford University.

(Picture 8 � Neil Spring's interview with Spanish TV's Channel
5)

The project sounded fun, and, noted for our interest in UFOs and
the unexplained, we at the Open Minds Society were asked to
contribute by taking part in an interview about our research and
meetings. We agreed, and found the project light-hearted and
thoroughly enjoyable.


UFO MAGAZINE

The June issue of UFO Magazine, Britain's major newsstand UFO
publication, goes on sale on Thursday 31st May. Packed full of
informative articles, and the most recent ufology news, it's
well worth getting. This month's issue includes features on the
Kennedy Space Centre, daytime footage from Manchester of the
'mysterious spheres', and my own contribution - the first of a
two-part exclusive on a major Welsh UFO incident. Don't miss
it!

Until next time my friends, take care and keep watching those
skies. There's a lot happening � trust me.


Neil Spring.

Email me: Neil.spring@some.ox.ac.uk

Or visit my web site:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~openmind








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                     Nick Pope's Weird World - 06-04-01

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:44:59 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:31:01 -0400
Subject: Nick Pope's Weird World - 06-04-01


NICK POPE'S WEIRD WORLD
www.hotgossip.co.uk


Welcome to the June 2001 round-up of news and views from the
world of ufology, the paranormal, strange mysteries, the weird
and the wonderful.

An Indian Chupacabras?

Many national newspapers have covered the search for a strange
creature that has terrified citizens of New Delhi in India, and
has supposedly been responsible for two deaths. Dubbed "Monkey
Man", this creature apparently stands four and a half feet high
and is hairy. Other witnesses have described the creature having
shining eyes and wearing a helmet. Two are said to have died
while fleeing it, and other reports suggest that over 50 others
have been mauled. Indian police have formed a special 14 man
squad and have offered a reward, while others have joined
vigilante squads, patrolling the streets armed with torches and
sticks. Is this creature a monkey, perhaps escaped from a
circus? Should we look to cryptozoology for answers? Or is the
whole thing a hoax, or some sort of mass delusion? I'll be
watching with interest, to see how this one pans out.

Silbury Hill Probe

Could Silbury Hill be about to give up some of its secrets? The
130 feet high, artificially constructed mound was built
somewhere between 2000 and 2800 BC, and despite numerous
theories, nobody really knows why it was built. Its a popular
site for the New Age community. Crop circles have appeared in
surrounding fields, and strange lights have been seen in the
vicinity. There have been several previous attempts to excavate
on the site, looking for hidden chambers and passages, and some
of these digs obviously caused some damage. Last May, a shaft
opened up on the top of the hill, and had to be covered. There
was a further collapse in December, and before engineers decide
how to deal with this, a 3-D seismic survey will be carried out.
This survey will start in the near future, and may help clear up
the mystery of what - if anything - lies beneath the mound. Any
hidden chambers or tunnels should be revealed. I'll keep you
posted.

Disclosure Project Views

Like him or loathe him, you can't avoid him. Dr Steven Greer is
fast becoming one of the most high-profile characters in
ufology, and his so-called 'Disclosure Project' has been one of
the most talked about ufological ventures in some time. In a
nutshell, this was an attempt to draw together various people to
give media briefings on the UFO issue, from positions of
authority. Essentially, this excluded ufologists and restricted
participants to those such as pilots or military personnel who
had seen UFOs, or those who had been involved in some aspect of
official, government UFO programmes. The short-term aim was to
brief the media, with the goal of generating serious coverage,
although the longer-term goal is a series of Congressional
hearings, leading to disclosure. But disclosure of what,
precisely? Critics of Greer have questioned the bona fides of
some of his witnesses, and have accused Greer himself of being a
self-publicist, with a decidedly New Age, cultist approach to
ufology. What's my view on all this? Well, I've met Steven Greer
a couple of times, and have recorded some material for his
archive of statements from those involved in government UFO
projects. He invited me to his May 9 event in Washington,
although for a number of reasons, I didn't attend. I really have
mixed feelings about the whole situation. Some of Greer's
witnesses are good people with genuine and important stories to
tell. He has undoubtedly generated some publicity for some of
that material, and if this brings ufological data to a new
audience, that can only help. But if the good material appears
alongside false claims and cultist claims about benevolent
aliens that ignore - for example - much of the abduction data,
then ufology will have been done a disservice. It's too early to
say how this will turn out. I'll end this segment by reproducing
a quote of mine that was printed in The Sunday Express, who ran
a big feature on the Disclosure Project on May 6: "Those people
who have genuinely been involved in government or military UFO
projects undoubtedly have fascinating stories to tell. I hope
people will pay attention and realise that the UFO phenomenon
raises some serious defence and national security issues".

Eye Spy Out Now

Britain's newest and most controversial magazine has just hit
the streets, having been launched officially on 24 May. Eye
Spy! is likely to cause a sensation with its hard-hitting mix of
articles and interviews on subjects such as espionage,
terrorism, military matters and conspiracies. As such, the
magazine is a sort of cross between Intelligence and National
Security and Jane's Defence Weekly, although the glossy style is
more suited to the populist market. It should be available from
all good newsagents, but if you have any difficulty in getting
hold of it, you can take out a subscription at:

www.eyespymag


Hypnosis Under Attack

As I write this column, the High Court is hearing the case of
Lynn Howarth, who claims that a stage hypnotist's act (where she
was regressed to the age of eight) led her to recall sexual
abuse, leading her to become depressed and attempt suicide. She
is claiming that the hypnotist was negligent, and is seeking
damages for personal injury. As the case is continuing, I can
say very little about this, for legal reasons. But it should be
pretty obvious that this case has implications for anybody who
uses regression hypnosis in work with abductees. I'll be able to
say more about this next month.


Nick Pope's four books, Open Skies, Closed Minds, The Uninvited,
Operation Thunder Child and Operation Lightning Strike are
available from most good bookshops and from all the usual
Internet book sites. His British publishers are Simon &
Schuster. In America, his first two books are published in
hardback by The Overlook Press and in mass-market paperback by
Dell Publishing.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                  Re: Ufologists Suing Ufologists - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:58:08 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:47:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Ufologists Suing Ufologists - Roberts


 >From: Adam Lowe <nicap@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Ufologists Suing Ufologists
 >Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:31:45 +0100


Pilgrims,

I promise not to clog the List up with posts about the
Friedman/Randles matter but two need replying to:

I wrote:

 >>Free speech is easily stifled by letters with 'solicitor' on
 >>them!

Adam wrote:

 >Could the same be said of Easton? He said in his email that he
 >had sent his objection to his solicitors and the first part of
 >the email address he contacted myself and the others with was
 >legal@ so the page was removed.

 >If you have seen what James Easton objected to would you say the
 >same about him as you have said about Stanton?

Hi Adam. It wouldn't have mattered _what_ James wrote I
would be disturbed by his mentions of solictors. It's
just unnecessary. Contray to popular opinion we UK
sceptics do not share one large pelican's nest and I have
never met or spoken to James. I just disagree with any
threats of legal action for the use of words.

 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Ufologists Suing Ufologists
 >Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:44:17 -0300

Stan's post was far more entertaining and he wrote:

 >I should think that editors such as yourself and Jerry would do
 >some home work and recognize that there is a difference between
 >defamation and opinion, or fair comment, criticism..... Surely
 >there are books you can look at that speak of these differences?

There are. But I'm not interested in them because I believe that
people should be able so say what they want to whom they want
providing they are not inciting criminal actions such as
violence or racial hatred.

I wrote:

 >>It is tempting to suggest that, as he was a solicitor, it must
 >>have been, ahem, 'convenient' and 'economical' to send his own
 >>solicitors letters out rather than have to employ someone like
 >>everyone else has to.

and Stanton replied:

 >This would seem to ignore the substantial role played by a
 >barrister who, of course, had to be paid.

Stanton, dear boy, barristers would say sticking your tongue out
at a nun was 'actionable'. They are in the business of taking
money however they can. Trust me on this one. I work with many
criminal cases and the majority of barristers are venal toads
who would testify against their mother's if they thought there
was some money in it.

 >Sounds like you have accepted the notion that there are and
 >ought to be limits on "free speech".

See above.

 >My goodness, Andy, the UK is a leader
 >in believing that a man is entitled to not have his good name
 >sullied by false claims.

The UK is also a leader in allowing rapists to roam free - so
what? Every nation has its faults and our libel system is deeply
rooted in the class and money structures of several centuries
ago.

 >He was also acting for me and there was also a solicitor
 >involved. What book is that in about unethical and immoral?
 >Should not the other counsels have spoken out about this??

The simple fact he should not have been allowed to act for
himself.

 >This surely shows how concerned UK ufologists are about free
 >speech, doesn't it? Free speech is for me but not for those with
 >whom I disagree, eh??

No, Harry was booed _because_ her right to express an opinion
was stifled for no good reason by people who couldn't hack what
someone else thought.

 >How many UK ufologists did know what was going on? It seemed to
 >me that the rantings of some of Jenny's supporters clearly
 >indicated they didn't know what was going on. How many had read
 >her letter? How many apologized for their rantings after reading
 >the apologies?

But why should they apologise? Jenny capitulated because she was
scared that the amounts of money taken off her would severly
impair her ability to look after her old and disabled parents.
Jenny apologised and paid up. I still haven't met a ufologist
who knew what was going on who agreed with her doing that and
the topic remains a subject of heated debate whenever it is
raised.

 >I still seem to be the same stature as I was. Did
 >a bunch of lectures and media appearances after all that.
 >Response seemed to me to be excellent. But then I am biased.

Er, so you weren't affected after all by what she said?
So what was all the fuss about Stanton?

 >Andy I have taken loads of critcism and opinions. Defamation is
 >not the same thing.

Defamation is made up nonsense.

 >It crosses the line. Jenny and the MEN both
 >crossed the line and both eventually apologized in print on
 >advice of counsel.....

The MEN apologised because it was strategic to do so. Jenny
apologised because she was financially threatened and
effectively bullied into it.

 >May I presume that no UK publication had
 >courage enough to publish the apology except the Flying Saucer
 >Review and the Manchester Evening News. Did you?

Nope. Nothing to do with 'courage', more to do with not
ackowledging a sad and farcical course of action on yours and
Harry's part.

 >I am afraid you don't influence the same size audience as the
 >MEN, Andy.

But you have clearly stated that you:

 >Did a bunch of lectures and media appearances after all that.
 >Response seemed to me to be excellent.

So either your confused, lying or just plain wrong.

 >It seems you were careful not to be defamatory.

Not intentionally. There are many things I could say. As I don't
know you personally Stanton all I can criticise are your ideas -
far-fetched, unproven and rather silly. As for Harry Harris,
well, I think my last post said all that was needed. Many UK
ufologists have had dealings with him and we all know the score.
Anyone interested can take the trouble to find out. This
discussion will never leave ufology as long as ufologists can't
cope with each others' opinions. And that will never happen.

 >Fascinating posting Andy: civil and witty,

Why thank you. Civil ufology is my aim -except where necessary.

 >but totally ignoring the relevant facts.

I was aware of -all- the relevant 'facts', had _all_ the letters
and arcticles and far more background information about what was
going on at the time than you either had or were aware of
Stanton.

Personally I thought you were naive in the whole affair.

And, lawdy me, I've been totally in agreement with Jawy Cluck.
This is indeed the dawning of the Ague of Aquarius.


Happy Trials

Andy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 15

              New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:53:57 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:50:48 -0400
Subject: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created


This item from another newsgroup may be of interest:

Source: University Of Washington (http://www.washington.edu/)

Date: Posted 6/12/2001


"I Tawt I Taw" A Bunny Wabbit At Disneyland: New Evidence Shows
False Memories Can Be Created

About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print
advertisement that described a visit to Disneyland and how they
met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny later said they remembered
or knew the event happened to them.

The scenario described in the ad never occurred because Bugs
Bunny is a Warner Bros. cartoon character and wouldn't be
featured in any Walt Disney Co. property, according to
University of Washington memory researchers Jacquie Pickrell and
Elizabeth Loftus. Pickrell will make two presentations on the
topic at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Society (APS) on Sunday (June 17) in Toronto and at a satellite
session of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and
Cognition in Kingston, Ontario, on Wednesday.

"The frightening thing about this study is that it suggests how
easily a false memory can be created," said Pickrell, UW
psychology doctoral student.

"It's not only people who go to a therapist who might implant a
false memory or those who witness an accident and whose memory
can be distorted who can have a false memory. Memory is very
vulnerable and malleable. People are not always aware of the
choices they make. This study shows the power of subtle
association changes on memory."

The research is a follow-up to an unpublished study by Loftus, a
UW psychology professor who is being honored by the APS this
week with its William James Fellow Award for psychological
research; Kathryn Braun, a visiting scholar at the Harvard
Business School; and Rhiannon Ellis, a former UW undergraduate
who is now a doctoral student at the University of Pittsburgh.
In the original study, 16 percent of the people exposed to a
Disneyland ad featuring Bugs Bunny later thought they had seen
and met the cartoon rabbit.

In the new research, Pickrell and Loftus divided 120 subjects
into four groups. The subjects were told they were going to
evaluate advertising copy, fill out several questionnaires and
answer questions about a trip to Disneyland.

The first group read a generic Disneyland ad that mentioned no
cartoon characters. The second group read the same copy and was
exposed to a 4-foot-tall cardboard figure of Bugs Bunny that was
casually placed in the interview room. No mention was made of
Bugs Bunny. The third, or Bugs group, read the fake Disneyland
ad featuring Bugs Bunny. The fourth, or double, exposure group
read the fake add and also saw the cardboard rabbit.

This time 30 percent of the people in the Bugs group later said
they remembered or knew they had met Bugs Bunny when they
visited Disneyland and 40 percent of the people in the double
exposure group reported the same thing.

"'Remember' means the people actually recall meeting and shaking
hands with Bugs," explained Pickrell. "'Knowing' is they have no
real memory, but are sure that it happened, just as they have no
memory of having their umbilical cord being cut when they were
born but know it happened.

"Creating a false memory is a process. Someone saying, 'I know
it could have happened,' is taking the first step of actually
creating a memory. If you clearly believe you walked up to Bugs
Bunny, you have a memory."

In addition, Pickrell said there is the issue of the consequence
of false memories or the ripple effects. People in the
experiment who were exposed to the false advertising were more
likely to relate Bugs Bunny to other things at Disneyland not
suggested in the ad, such as seeing Bugs and Mickey Mouse
together or seeing Bugs in the Main Street Electrical Parade.

"We are interested in how people create their autobiographical
references, or memory. Through this process they might be
altering their own memories," she said. "Nostalgic advertising
works in a similar manner. Hallmark, McDonald's and Disney have
very effective nostalgic advertising that can change people's
buying habits. You may not have had a great experience the last
time you visited Disneyland or McDonald's, but the ads may be
inadvertently be creating the impression that they had a
wonderful time and leaving viewers with that memory. If ads can
get people to believe they had an experience they never had,
that is pretty powerful.

"The bottom line of our study is that the phony ad is making the
difference. Just casually reading a Bugs Bunny cartoon or some
other incidental exposure doesn't mean you believe you met Bugs.
The ad does."



--
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 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                  Re: Ufologists Suing Ufologists - Bolton

From: David Bolton <David@bolton.sol.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 23:12:39 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:53:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Ufologists Suing Ufologists - Bolton


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >Subject: Re: Ufologists Suing Ufologists
 >Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:44:17 -0300
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Ufologists Suing Ufologists
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:15:42 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >Andy I have taken loads of critcism and opinions. Defamation is
 >not the same thing. It crosses the line. Jenny and the MEN both
 >crossed the line and both eventually apologized in print on
 >advice of counsel.....

As Jerry Clarke pointed out in the "other" thread - since the case
never went to court "defamation" was never proved.

Stan also mentioned, in the other thread, that a sum of money was
lodged with the court when commencing the action. This strategy
is another one of those odd quirks of English "justice" as it
somehow alters the rights of the sued party to subsequently claim
costs even if they win the case (Its a fairly standard ploy). This
means that the MEN (& JR) would be placed in a no-win situation,
with regards to defending the action - since, regardless of the
outcome, their costs would have been far larger than the eventual
"out of court" settlement.

The argument that the MEN had deep pockets, and therefore could
have defended the action is spurious - since the publicity gained by
the paper for winning an eleged defamation case, that would have
only been of interest to ufologists, would have been nugatory.

Papers *do* defend such cases (and usually win) when they get
sued by British politicians. However, cases involving big-name
politician usually help the paper's ratings - whereas ufology is just
regarded by the UK press as "silly season" filler material.

Its a pity, in many ways, that the case didn't make it to court. We
may have even been able to learn some interesting facts about the
"crashed saucers" and "strawberry icecream" claims - whilst
various parties were under oath.


--
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 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                   Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 06:43:47 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:10:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Bourdais


 >Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 03:57:33 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers'

 >>From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@email.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:59:28 +0800
 >>Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers'

 >>>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:05:41 -0400
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers'

 >>>>From: Ron EagleBoy <eagle100@prodigy.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Serious Research
 >>>>Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:38:28 -0400

 >><snip>

 >>>Hi Ron, hi All,

 >>>Does anyone know how many UFO related/associated deaths have
 >>>ever been reported? Is that information catalogued anywhere?
 >>>I'm curious.

 >>>Regards,


Hello John and All,

One of the sources I know of is the letter sent by Dr Olavo
Fontes to Jim and Coral Lorenzen of APRO, dated February 27,
1958.

That letter was confidential, but an important excerpt of it was
published by William Steinman in his book 'UFO Crash at Aztec',
in 1986. A part of it was also published by Timothy Good in his
book 'Above Top Secret', in 1987.

Fontes told of revelations made to him by two Brazilian Navy
intelligence officers, in order to convince him to give them the
Ubatuba fragments.

A long paragraph (point 6) says that "these visitors from outer
space are dangerous when apprehended and definitely hostile when
attacked. We have already lost many planes attempting to shoot
down one of them. We have no defense against them till now."

I think that Donald Keyhoe also alluded to that in his books

Understandably, your question hits a very sensitive area.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                                UFO In 1863?

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:28:04 +0100 (BST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:14:07 -0400
Subject: UFO In 1863?


Hello List Members,

I have found this article. Can anyone shed some light on what it
refers to? I can't get to the book it mentions from here. Can
someone check it for me?

---

SUBJECT: Flying Saucer Report

I discovered recently a report of a flying saucer type incident
which occured during the Civil War on October 1, 1863. I am
reporting it only because it closely resembles those recently
given in Life Magazine, and appears that it may be authentic.

I have no way of knowing the importance placed by your office on
this type of report or whether this report has previously been
discovered. If evaluation indicates it to be authentic, its
primary importance would be a further indication that the flying
saucer is not a new development of an earth type aircraft.

This report can be found on page 373 of the book 'Anecdotes,
Poetry and Incidents, of the War, North and South, 1860-1865' by
Frank Moore, printed in 1866. This report is rather long and I
understand that this book is quite common. If your office cannot
find a copy I will place mine at the disposal of any agency you
may direct. I am an officer in an organized reserve unit and
will forward a true copy of the original through military
channels if you desire.

---

See:

http://www.ufocity.com/guest/ga-079.cfm


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 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:38:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:15:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Stacy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:27:31 -0000


Dick,

I just want to say one thing here:

Rush Limbagh is a big fat idiot!


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 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                  Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:22:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:20:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:33:23 -0500

 >>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:46:49 -0500
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit


<snip>

 >The only thing that matters in the present discussion is that
 >one sued the other and silenced her free expression - a
 >silencing, I might add, that continues even to this day. Ever
 >wondered why Jenny is not participating publicly in this
 >discussion...

[...]

(Friedman) >Suing his critics
 >simply because they said something that hurt his feelings - and
 >that's all they did; he could not demonstrate empirically that
 >the criticisms had any other effect than that - is, however,
 >indefensible - as, by your failed defense of it, you are
 >demonstrating yourself.

<snip>

1. Can you demonstrate empirically that Randles has presently a
legal restraint preventing her from participating in this
debate?

2. Can you demonstrate empirically that Friedman did not have
anything else than his feelings hurt?

3. Has it occured to you that, since the beginning of this
debate:

a. You have systematically charged your position with facts;

b. Which facts have been systematically proven erronous;

c. Your position, ultimately based on false assertions, hasn't
changed a bit.

Isn't this precisely what Stalinism is all about: a system
serving only its obscure purposes with no respect for truth?


Serge Salvaille









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 15

                    Re: COMETA Media Coverage - Fernandes

From: Joaquim Fernandes <jfernan@clix.pt>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:38:23 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:24:15 -0400
Subject: Re: COMETA Media Coverage - Fernandes


 >From: Haiko Lietz <hyco@haikolietz.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: COMETA Media Coverage
 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:17:41 +0200


 >Hello all,

 >Since my lawt request for assistance in this forum bore fruit
 >and it has been a while ,I want to repeat my request (by the way
 >I do not do this research FOR COMETA - it's ABOUT COMETA).

 >I am compiling media coverage of the COMETA event and want all
 >investigators to check if they can add media events about COMETA
 >to my list, as given in:

 >http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2001/may/m17-004.shtml

Yes, Jornal de Noticias has published a story about the COMETA
affair, indeed, wrote by its Paris correspondent. I am a
science writer for this newspaper.


Joaquim Fernandes

University Fernando Pessoa
Porto
Portugal







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:10:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 04:14:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:27:31 -0000

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:32:17 -0500

<snip>

Dick,

 >>Anyone who believes in free expression - no ifs, ands, or buts -
 >>is on Jenny's side on this one.

 >With all due respect, you have simply reiterated an absolutist
 >position on "free speech" and not answered my questions. Let me
 >reiterate my questions phrased slightly differently:

What strikes me about your approach is its coldly clinical
quality, as if we were dissecting some issue in which there were
no human beings and no human costs. I am frankly disappointed at
your moral relativism on this issue. All you can manage is the
adjective "absolutist," which I take it is some kind of
unflattering characterization. From my perspective, however, if
one has to be "absolutist" about something, it might as well be
free expression.

Standing up for free expression in the Friedman/Randles suit has
been a real education. In the past week or so, I have received a
number of e-mails from persons close to the situation, filling
me in on things I had not known. In nearly all cases the
correspondent has been sufficiently nervous about retribution
that he or she has demanded confidentiality. In one extreme
instance a correspondent inquired if I would receive a message,
then delete it immediately after reading it. Not just keep it to
myself, mind you - actually _destroy all record of it_.

The anger, resentment, and fear lingering from this miserable
episode - which goes back a decade now - are shocking and
profoundly disturbing. The chilling effect Friedman's legal suit
had continues to freeze expression this day, and even now it is
impossible to discuss openly all the aspects of the matter.

In an earlier posting Stan essentially boasted that he had
managed to make British newspapers weigh their words very
carefully before daring to say anything about American
ufologists. That's bad enough; but the silencing of our British
colleagues is even worse. I now understand what underlies much
of the tension our British associates sometimes exhibit toward
us American ufologists - nearly all of whom, I might add, have
kept a tactful silence during all of this -- and I confess I
can't blame our friends across the water. I'd feel the same in
their place.

 >Should laws about defamation and libel be expunged altogether,
 >or do they exist for a legitimate purpose recognized by
 >jurisprudence?

There is, as you should know, no simple answer to that question,
and in addition, British law in the matter is notoriously
restrictive and antiquated, whereas America's - owing to
principles derived from our First Amendment - is more open. For
example, in our country public figures, of whom Stan is one (as
well as you and me), are regarded as fair game for just about
any kind of comment.

Aside from that, I think that all of us would agree that Stan
would have had a legitimate grievance if Jenny had accused him,
say, of something truly off the wall, such as that he
supplements his income by robbing banks or dealing cocaine.
Obviously, she said nothing of the sort; she did criticize
Stan's beliefs and methods, which she had every right to do,
whether we agree or disagree with her views or consider them
fair or otherwise. As a grown-up and an intelligent, articulate
man, Stan should have been able to defend himself vigorously and
effectively without bringing in an attorney and forcing a
degrading, dubiously sincere retraction.

In any event, though Stan continually uses the word "defamation"
as if by sheer repetition he can make it true, he has
established no such thing. A colleague far more knowledgeable in
British jurisprudence than I tells me that, had Jenny had the
money to bring the matter to court, it would have been laughed
out of same. One suspects that Harry Harris, who handled Stan's
case (using the noun in the strictly legal sense), knew of
Jenny's financial situation and exploited it mercilessly. I also
suspect that the Manchester newspaper's attorneys told it that
it could win, but that it would cost less to settle. Being
evidently an unprincipled bunch (as one might have inferred
already from the lousy article that started all this), the
publishers and editors took the easy, relatively cheap, craven
way out.

For all the huffing and puffing we've heard about the alleged
damage to Stan from Jenny's words, it must be pointed out -
again - that nobody has been able to cite any empirical evidence
whatever of that harm. All we have established is that Stan's
ego was bruised. Big deal.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                          Secrecy News -- 06/15/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:18:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:14:55 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 06/15/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
June 15, 2001

**DEALING WITH POLYGRAPH TESTING
**MISSILE DEFENSE CRITIQUE SUPPRESSED
**CRS REPORTS ON INTELLIGENCE


DEALING WITH POLYGRAPH TESTING

Scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are
organizing to defend their legal rights in the face of new
Department of Energy polygraph testing requirements.

The Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers (SPSE), an
organization of Livermore employees, has developed its own
"consent" form that documents the rights of those who are
compelled to undergo polygraph testing. The new form and related
materials may be found on the SPSE web site here:

http://www.spse.org

Of particular interest, SPSE commissioned a background paper
from attorney Andrew Thomas Sinclair entitled "If You are Asked
to Take a Polygraph Examination: A Guide for Employees at LLNL"
that is posted here:

http://www.spse.org/Polygraph_guide.pdf

The continuing controversy over the efficacy and propriety of
polygraph testing is rehearsed most recently by Diana Ray in the
Washington Times' Insight Magazine (July 2-9, 2001):

http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200107025.shtml

Antipolygraph.org, led by polygraph critic George Maschke,
provides the latest news on polygraph testing, pursues the
release of polygraph-related documentation under the Freedom of
Information Act, and makes a commendable effort to engage
polygraph proponents in dialog and debate. See:

http://www.antipolygraph.org


MISSILE DEFENSE CRITIQUE SUPPRESSED

The Department of Defense is resisting publication of a report
that "makes it clear that potentially profound problems exist
with the National Missile Defense System," according to Rep.
John F. Tierney (D-MA).

The 80 page report was prepared last year by the Pentagon's
Office of Technology and Evaluation, then directed by Philip
Coyle.

Two weeks ago, it was released to Congress "after 8 months and
at least six separate requests and a subpoena threat," Rep.
Tierney said. "But the Department of Defense asked that that
study be kept confidential."

"This is no time for the Department of Defense to bury a study.
It is time for full disclosure, for deliberation and for
debate."

Rep. Tierney discussed the Pentagon report and related issues in
a House floor statement on June 12. See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/h061201.html


CRS REPORTS ON INTELLIGENCE

Two more Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports on
intelligence have recently become available to the public in
softcopy. As with most CRS products, they break little new
analytic ground, but they offer reliable summaries of complex
issues in relatively concise and readable form.

Both of the following reports, last updated January 16, 2001,
were authored by CRS intelligence specialist Richard A. Best,
Jr.

"The National Security Agency: Issues for Congress" (29 pages):

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30740.pdf

"Intelligence and Law Enforcement: Countering Transnational
Threats to the U.S." (32 pages):

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30252.pdf

******************************
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the Federation of A
merican Scientists.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                        X-PPAC Update - June 15, 2001

From: Stephen G. Bassett <ExPPAC@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:35:53 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:17:56 -0400
Subject: X-PPAC Update - June 15, 2001


X-PPAC

Extraterrestrial Phenomena Political Action Committee
         Update - June 15, 2001

    "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out
    how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could
    have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is
    actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat
    and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short
    again and again, because there is no effort without error or
    shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great
    devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the
    best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and
    who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while
    daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those
    cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

        [This most famous of quotes is the original version
        delivered by Theodore Roosevelt in his speech on April
        23, 1910 at the Sorbonne, Paris titled "Citizen in a
        Republic. It would be used by Franklin Roosevelt, John
        Kennedy and countless others.

        Two world wars won, the moon landing, a successful civil
        rights movement, a successful woman's rights movement
        (which would make the male exclusivity of the quote
        inappropriate), and a host of extraordinary
        accomplishments by men and women willing to enter the
        arena, would follow.]

The Disclosure Project and Dr. Steven Greer

The moment in which the United States government, and by
extension all first world governments, formally acknowledge
there is in fact an extraterrestrial presence in our world now,
will easily rank as one of the most important, if not THE most
important, event in human history. It will only be surpassed by
formal contact, which more than a few researchers feel will
follow in short order (ten years or less).

The press conference held at the National Press Club on May 9,
was unprecedented. The fresh interviews of 100 military, agency
and international witnesses; 33, 18 and 4 hour condensed video
compilations of these testimonies, a 500 page witness
transcript; 60 page briefing summary; congressional submissions;
a fully attended press conference; two dozen plus congressional
meetings; dozens of media interviews and articles; a
comprehensive website [www.disclosureproject.org] - this is a
massive achievement.

Several score of volunteers, some involved for a decade, helped
to attain this breakthrough in the disclosure process. But make
no mistake, none of this would have happened without the almost
fanatical dedication of Dr. Steven Greer. He is a driven man
with strong views concerning the substance and import of the ET
phenomena. It could hardly be otherwise.

X-PPAC and the Paradigm Research Group support Dr. Greer, the
Disclosure Project, and the fundamental goal of open and
comprehensive congressional hearings, and have done so since
1996. Dr. Steven Greer has used all of the appropriate tools -
freedom of speech; websites; personal contacts; public education
via books, speeches, video, internet and radio; congressional
pressure; direct engagement of the government opposition; and
public petition.

He has made mistakes and is neither perfect in his person nor
flawless in his analysis. But he deserves the support and
attention of the entire UFO/ET research/activist community
because HE GETS IT DONE. He moves forward. If he fails at one
approach, he tries another. Those who find it convenient and
satisfying to criticize every aspect of the history and
implementation of his contribution to the disclosure process,
may wish to read the above quote one more time.

There can be no proper debate of the host of attached issues
until the government propaganda campaign, the embargo on the
truth of the extraterrestrial reality, is ended. The government
and the media are scanning the field now, looking for a unified
political front demanding disclosure. What point of personal
difference can be worth the furtherance of more years of lies
and abuse of government power?


The Future of X-PPAC

Given the events of May 2001, now more than ever is the time for
aggressive action.

X-PPAC was created for no other purpose than to provide the
general public a vehicle by which to affect the disclosure
process and its aftermath. A political action committee makes it
possible for thousands of people to instantly fund a specific
set of initiatives. X-PPAC is only as powerful as the money
provided to it by those who care about the outcome of the most
important event in human history.

Political action committees are formal entities responsible to
the rules and regulations of the Federal Election Commission.
Contributions and expenditures must be accounted for, and X-PPAC
has gone further and published the totality of all its
transactions on its website.

It is never comfortable to asked for funding, but it is
essential. This list has 4000 participants. If only half were to
contribute $100, there would be $200,000 to immediately direct
toward congressional pressure to hold hearings. It cannot be
overstated how much impact even this modest sum would have on
the immediate process of truth telling and public involvement.

Contrary to the spin from PAC critics, PACs are not designed to
be tools of the rich and powerful. Contributions are limited to
citizens only, no corporations, no noncitizens, and to $5000 per
person per year. PACs are in fact specifically created to be
used by the broader public to drive whatever concern they might
have - if they are used.

Contributions to X-PPAC can be mailed to:

X-PPAC
4938 Hampden Lane, #161
Bethesda, MD 20814

Credit card contributions can be made via this webpage:

          http://www.x-ppac.org/Contribute.html

Potential projects awaiting funding include town hall meetings in
Washington and New York; a revised full page ad in the Washington
Post; providing two new and powerful books, Missing Times:
News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-up by Terry Hansen
and UFOs and the National Security State by Richard Dolan to
each member of the House and Senate; and much more.
  ___________________________________________________

        Extraterrestrial Phenomena Political Action Committee
         URL: www.x-ppac.org
       E-mail: exppac@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."
  __________________________________________________

    "The truth costs money. Lies, on the other hand,
      will be provided to you for free."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:42:01 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:58:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille
 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:22:40 -0400


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:33:23 -0500

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:46:49 -0500
 >>>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit


Serge,

 >Isn't this precisely what Stalinism is all about: a system
 >serving only its obscure purposes with no respect for truth?

Interesting that, in defense of the indefensible, Stan's
apologists have been reduced to defining defense of free
expression as Stalinism.

Go read some Orwell.    After you've recognized yourself in this
great man's wise insights into how Stalinists and other
totalitarians twist words to mean their opposite (i.e., freedom
= slavery, war = peace), you might learn something.    Till then,
it appears that you have nothing to contribute to the
discussion, beyond your effort to demonstrate your unthinking
loyalty to Stan - with whom, by the way, I've had an almost
entirely cordial relationship over many years and with whose
ideas about UFOs I am largely in agreement.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                     Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 22:38:01 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:01:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hall


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:38:05 -0500

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:27:31 -0000

 >Dick,

 >I just want to say one thing here:

 >Rush Limbagh is a big fat idiot!

 >Dennis

Dennis,

My only question would be, Is his obesity more egregious than
his idiocy?

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 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:00:43 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:03:52 -0400
Subject: Re:  New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be


 >Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:53:57 +0100
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 >This item from another newsgroup may be of interest:

 >Source: University Of Washington (http://www.washington.edu/)

 >Date: Posted 6/12/2001

 >"I Tawt I Taw" A Bunny Wabbit At Disneyland: New Evidence Shows
 >False Memories Can Be Created

 >About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print
 >advertisement that described a visit to Disneyland and how they
 >met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny later said they remembered
 >or knew the event happened to them.

 >The scenario described in the ad never occurred because Bugs
 >Bunny is a Warner Bros. cartoon character and wouldn't be
 >featured in any Walt Disney Co. property, according to
 >University of Washington memory researchers Jacquie Pickrell and
 >Elizabeth Loftus.
 >...

John,

It's been over 30 years since my wife and I, with 3 young
children, visited Disneyland in Los Angeles. I remember seeing a
cartoon character there at the time, who wowed the kids, but I
couldn't remember which one it was - perhaps Mickey Mouse. So I
asked my wife, and she couldn't remember which one either, but
thought it may either have been Mickey Mouse or Goofy.

Now, if I had recently seen some ad that seemed legitimate,
showing that it had been Bugs Bunny, I would probably assume
that that was who it had been (not knowing it's not a Disney
character). Only if it were a matter of considerably more
importance would I take the time to look into it and see if this
was right or not.

So, all this study showed to me was that some people will
believe other people's lies. But we already knew that,
especially when we see after an election that usually the person
who won was the one who had the most money to spend on ads that
distorted the truth. Thus, I'd say that politicians are an
example of a group that can generate a lot of false memories.

Someone will have to let us know just who that cartoon character
was at Disneyland. The article didn't say, though it may have
hinted at Mickey Mouse. It also didn't mention that there had
indeed been a life-size animated cartoon character at
Disneyland, walking around and greeting people and kids. And it
didn't say what fraction, if any, of the participants in the
study had been to Disneyland.


Jim Deardorff








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:57:53 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:08:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille
 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:22:40 -0400

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:33:23 -0500

 >>The only thing that matters in the present discussion is that
 >>one sued the other and silenced her free expression - a
 >>silencing, I might add, that continues even to this day. Ever
 >>wondered why Jenny is not participating publicly in this
 >>discussion...

 >[...]

 >(Friedman)

 >>Suing his critics
 >>simply because they said something that hurt his feelings - and
 >>that's all they did; he could not demonstrate empirically that
 >>the criticisms had any other effect than that - is, however,
 >>indefensible - as, by your failed defense of it, you are
 >>demonstrating yourself.

 ><snip>

 >2. Can you demonstrate empirically that Friedman did not have
 >anything else than his feelings hurt?

He himself said in a previous posting that his subsequent
lecture tours and media appearances were unaffected by anything
Jenny Randles wrote:

Quote - "I still seem to be the same stature as I was. Did a
bunch of lectures and media appearances after all that. Response
seemed to me to be excellent. But then I am biased."

Obviously the only thing hurt was his ego. In English law there
is a difference between libel and "common abuse". To prove libel
you have to demonstrate that either your livelihood or your
reputation was damaged. Friedman admits in that sentence that
neither was, so his attempted libel action had no validity and
was mere bluster.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 16

             Re: Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created -

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:25:54 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:15:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created -


 >Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:53:57 +0100
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 >This item from another newsgroup may be of interest:

 >Source: University Of Washington (http://www.washington.edu/)

 >Date: Posted 6/12/2001

 >"I Tawt I Taw" A Bunny Wabbit At Disneyland: New Evidence Shows
 >False Memories Can Be Created

First of all, there is nothing _new_ about this experiment.

 >About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print
 >advertisement that described a visit to Disneyland and how they
 >met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny later said they remembered
 >or knew the event happened to them.

So, does  that means two-thirds of the people who did the
same thing did _not_  later say they remembered or knew
the event happened to them?

 >"The frightening thing about this study is that it suggests how
 >easily a false memory can be created," said Pickrell, UW
 >psychology doctoral student.

Pickrell, a "psychology doctoral student" would only find this
"frightening" because it makes it _all_important_ to their long
term career. Most people could - and should - care less, especially
when they study the background of the founding members of the
False Memory Syndrome Foundation.

 >"It's not only people who go to a therapist who might implant a
 >false memory or those who witness an accident and whose memory
 >can be distorted who can have a false memory. Memory is very
 >vulnerable and malleable. People are not always aware of the
 >choices they make. This study shows the power of subtle
 >association changes on memory."

Not really, and when you look closely at the study, you will see
why.

 >In the original study, 16 percent of the people exposed to a
 >Disneyland ad featuring Bugs Bunny later thought they had seen
 >and met the cartoon rabbit.

Maybe these people _did_ meet the rabbit at another theme park?
Isn't it possible to get the many different theme parks we have
across the country confused? In addition, 16 percent isn't
really that great of a number. Should we really be "frightened"
by this number?

 >In the new research, Pickrell and Loftus divided 120 subjects
 >into four groups. The subjects were told they were going to
 >evaluate advertising copy, fill out several questionnaires and
 >answer questions about a trip to Disneyland.

 >The first group read a generic Disneyland ad that mentioned no
 >cartoon characters. The second group read the same copy and was
 >exposed to a 4-foot-tall cardboard figure of Bugs Bunny that was
 >casually placed in the interview room. No mention was made of
 >Bugs Bunny. The third, or Bugs group, read the fake Disneyland
 >ad featuring Bugs Bunny. The fourth, or double, exposure group
 >read the fake add and also saw the cardboard rabbit.

 >This time 30 percent of the people in the Bugs group later said
 >they remembered or knew they had met Bugs Bunny when they
 >visited Disneyland and 40 percent of the people in the double
 >exposure group reported the same thing.

I can only surmise that this was posted here to discredit the
memories of abductees and people who have seen unidentified
flying objects. The FMS foundation has been trying to discredit
the memories of abductees for years. Their long-term goal is to
invalidate "eye witness testimony" all together. Imagine what
this will do to our court system? If you convince the public
they can't trust their own memories, what use is eye witness
testimony in a court of law?

If you convince the justice system you can't trust eye witness
testimony, what good is a court of law in the first place? Why
not just have one person, say a judge or a government official
make life and death decisions for us?

 >"'Remember' means the people actually recall meeting and shaking
 >hands with Bugs," explained Pickrell. "'Knowing' is they have no
 >real memory, but are sure that it happened, just as they have no
 >memory of having their umbilical cord being cut when they were
 >born but know it happened.

Was there any kind of "control" questionnaire to account for
people who actually _did_ meet a person dressed like Bugs Bunny
at some point in their life? If not, then this experiment is
flawed.

 >If ads can get people to believe they had an experience they never
 >had, that is pretty powerful.

Maybe the ads are really making people wish for something they
don't have in their lives, or making them feel that if they
purchase the item in the ad, their lives will be like the ad
they saw. This is very different from "remembering" something
that never occurred.

Advertising is always used to _sell_ something. Whether it be an
image, a memory, or a product. Remember one of the most famous
ad campaigns of all time? The Kodak Ad - "Remember
Yesterday....We Wake Up, And Time Just Slips Away..."

Imagine what an "experiment" centered on that type of ad would
have yielded in the way of false memories! Gee, we might have
even remembered positive family events that weren't real!

Pictures in our photo albums tell a distorted story for those
who did not live our lives, and so do the methods of the False
Memory Syndrome Foundation.

 >"The bottom line of our study is that the phony ad is making the
 >difference. Just casually reading a Bugs Bunny cartoon or some
 >other incidental exposure doesn't mean you believe you met Bugs.
 >The ad does."

And, why is this important again? Are advertisements giving us
false memories? No - this study was undertaken to help some
student pursue their doctoral dissertation and to keep Elizabeth
Loftus' name in the media.

Ms. Loftus testified in court (here in Charlotte, North
Carolina) and performed a sickening analysis on a highly
televised media trial, the Ray Curruth case, during which she
tried to undermine the testimony of the victim because she was
on _pain_medication_. In the presence of her doctors, Cherika
Adams talked about who she saw try to kill her - and there is
Ms. Loftus, the so-called memory "expert" telling the jury that
she alone - not Cherika Adams or Cherika Adams' doctors, really
knew what Cherika Adams was remembering. It was, up to that
point in time, the lowest point of Ms. Loftus' career.

*** Of course, in light of the recent debates on this List, this
is just my _opinion_ and in no way should undermine the
wonderful, positive and helpful data Ms. Loftus is providing us
with. ***  If you can't trust your own mind and memories, whose
can you trust? Whose should you trust?

The FMS foundation should be more concerned about ads selling
products that KILL people, but clearly, helping people is _not_
what the False Memory Syndrome Foundation is about.

Snippet From "Project Open Mind" about the FMS Foundation:

FMS or False Memory Syndrome is an unproved "syndrome" that is
popular to use in order to attempt to discredit several
unpleasant subjects, one of which is "alien abduction." However,
FMS is not officially recognized in the DSM-III-R, [Or DSM-IV]
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders, so
how has it become such a powerful weapon?

Remember Dr. Martin T. Orne, (who helped the CIA develop
coercive uses of hypnotic mind control) from our previous
discussion about hypnosis? You might find it somewhat of a
conflict of interest to know that he "is also an original member
of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation's advisory board."[99]

The author of "Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A." writes, "The
recovered memory debate was discussed at a 1993 conference on
multiple personality disorder. Richard Lowenstein, a
psychiatrist from the University of Maryland Medical School,
argued that the Foundation is 'media-directed, dedicated to
putting out disinformation.' "[100]

"The FMSF board is almost exclusively composed of former CIA and
military doctors currently employed by major universities. None
have backgrounds in ritual abuse - their common interest is
behavior modification."[101]

Although I would like to see more references sited to back up
all of Constantine's claims, his chapter on the False Memory
Syndrome and the "Foundation" behind it should be reviewed. Lee
and Schlain's "Acid Dreams" and Marks' "The Search for 'The
Manchurian Candidate' " verify Martin Orne's and Louis Jolyon
West's connections to the CIA, both of whom are past members of
the False Memory Syndrome  Foundation.

For more information about discrediting the memories and
experiences of abductees, read:


http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Part_I/keithenigma.html


http://www.alienjigaw.com

Thanks All --

Katharina Wilson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:27:55 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:04:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Randle


 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:46:49 -0500
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:44:23 -0500

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:22:58 -0500
 >>>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

<snip>

 >Let's see... Jenny was the innocent victim of the big, bad
 >American that wanted nothing but her hard-earned cash. The mean
 >old nasty newspaper took Jenny's innocent words and twisted them
 >all up and made her look like a big ole meanie. And the big, bad
 >American took advantage of the pathetic state of British libel
 >laws to suck the cash out of poor Jenny and this little
 >newspaper that just wanted to let everyone know that the big,
 >bad American thinks aliens have a thing about strawberry ice
 >cream.

 >Stan Friedman is a horrible, mean ole vicious money-grubbing
 >American who takes advantage of financially strapped British
 >ufologists. He and I, both being of the American persuasion, are
 >undoubtedly guilty of every atrocity that has ever befallen any
 >British citizen. Britians who happen to be ufologists can't be
 >held accountable for their actions, after all, so it must be the
 >fault of someone else. Probably someone American.

Bobbie, Jerry, Stan, List, all -

Let's see if I can ratchet this up a notch or two. First a
little background that will necessary to understand the whole
thing.

Back in the olden days, say late 1988, CUFOS decided that the
Roswell case deserved some further investigations. Good Ole Stan
told them that there were additional witnesses to be interviewed
and additional work to be done. They decided to launch their own
investigation. Because of my military background, and because I
might have a better feeling for things military than some, I was
invited to participate. I didn't expect much, but thought it
would be interesting and one of the first things I did was
persuade Bill Brazel to meet with us... something that others
had been unable to do, but that's another story.

As we worked, I realized that there was the possibility for
doing a book about the case. Working with my agent, I was able
to convince Avon that they should publish said book and a
contract was eventually let. Please note that this was my idea
and my agent was the one pushing the book.

On September 15, 1989, we (and by we, I mean Don Schmitt and I)
received a letter from Stan concerning the book. He wrote, "My
suggestion would be that all three of our names appear on the
book (mine last) and with my getting a 25% share [of the advance
and royalties]... We are obviously all different, but so far, I
would say that, in general, our interpretations or testimony and
people and methodology are reasonable consistent..." (For our
British colleagues, I might suggest this was a bit cheeky).

Stan had promised to share some material with us, but somehow
that never quite materialized. He told Don Schmitt that he
believed Lewis (Bill) Rickett to be dead when he was not, told
Schmitt that Johnny McBoyle lived in Wyoming when he did not,
promised to send copies of his interviews with Marcel, but did
not, and promised to provide other information, but did not. On
the other hand, I supplied Stan with a number of the interviews
we had conducted, some of which he quoted in his Crash at Corona
with neither credit nor attribution. The Bill Brazel interview
that Schmitt and I had conducted in February, 1989 is used with
the wording of one small section changed to corroborate the
tales told by Glenn Dennis and later Gerald Anderson. There was
no reason to make that change, but that, too, is another story.

Since Stan's contribution to our book had been razor thin, at
best, I thought that sharing the by-line and the advance with
him was not appropriate (not to mention the fact I had
contributed more to his Crash at Corona but received neither a
partial by-line nor an acknowledgment, not that I would have
expected that). Others had contributed a great deal more, such
as those as CUFOS, Robert Hastings, and, of course, the
witnesses who were kind enough to talk with us. Besides, we were
already out of pocket several thousand dollars each and the
advance wouldn't begin to cover the expenses.

Then, on June 11, 1990, Stan wrote to my editor at Avon, Mr.
John Douglas (not to be confused with the FBI profiler) and made
a number of allegations. Remember, we had all been cooperating,
but Stan wrote "... perhaps unfortunately have shared some of my
recent research with Randle and Schmitt..." Of course, this was
nothing other than information that we had already discovered
from our interviews.

While this statement is certainly innocuous, Stan continued, "As
you can tell from the enclosed paper, I was not happy with the
Roswell Incident because of the inappropriate material that was
included, the misquotation of myself, the absence of the
contractually obligated acknowledgment of my major contribution.
I am certainly anxious to see the Randle Schmitt book to see if
once again my contribution is undervalued and if there are many
factual mistakes, flights of fancy, lifting of my research much
of which remains unpublished. I think the story needs to be
told, but with full credit for my and other investigations.
After all, by the end of 1985, [Bill] Moore and I had located 92
persons connected with the event. It is difficult indeed to
believe that S and R didn't depend strongly on that base for
their book. They have made trips to Roswell and have found
people not previously located partly through government
computers to which I did not have access... Please call if you
have any questions. Anxiously awaiting a copy of the manuscript
for review only..." From a publishing standpoint, these
allegations could be deadly, thinly disguised as they were.
Please do note the careful wording though the implications are
evident.

Stan was not the only one to write. Bill Moore, Charles Berlitz
(who said he was going to sue me for talking about Roswell) and
Whitley Strieber (yes, that Whitley Strieber) all wrote to the
publisher demanding copies of the manuscript and claiming all
sorts of nefarious actions on our part.

I'm going to take a moment here and point out a truth.
Publishers don't like lawsuits. They take them seriously and the
mere suggestion that someone might sue is sufficient to derail
some books. Add in a couple of best-selling writers (Berlitz and
Strieber) one of whom has written for that publisher (Strieber),
and the trouble escalates. I received a call from the Avon
attorney about this, supplied the documentation about the level
of our research and assured him that I had recorded the vast
majority of the interviews (meaning that a few people declined
to let me tape) and that I had handwritten notes from the
others.

In a letter dated August 17, 1990, Moore and Shandera accused
Schmitt and me of a "willful conspiracy" to steal their
material, "copyright infringement, slander and fraud." They
reinforced that in a second letter of March 15, 1991. Please
note that Stan's letter started with a statement that Bill Moore
had suggested that he write to the publisher.

Even with all of this, when the book was completed, Schmitt and
I decided to provide an acknowledgment for Stan. His reaction?
In his review of our book, he pointed out that he had gotten
only 8 lines but Robert Hastings had gotten eight and a half.
How many people count the lines of an acknowledgment?

Since this deals with Stan's lawsuit against Jenny Randles (no
relation, notice the "S" at the end of her name), let's look at
some other actions here. Robert Hastings has been lecturing on
the topic of UFOs for a number of years. His topic is not the
"Cosmic Watergate" but of intrusions over military airspace and
into restricted areas. However, Stan apparently wrote to (or
called) Ms. Karyl Kumer, Director of Student Support Services of
Central Florida Community College. According to a letter sent
from Hastings' attorney to Stan, "Ms. Kumer unequivocally
reports that you had previously informed her that Robert
Hastings did not know what he was talking about, that he did not
have the 'real facts' and that 'he was just another fraud.'"

Hastings' attorney wrote, "Ms. Kumer is prepared to sign an
Affidavit, under oath, concerning the substance of that
particular conversation. If other reports of defamatory
statements attributable to you are received and confirmed, my
client has instructed me to initiate apropriate (sic) legal
proceedings."

I could go on here, but there isn't any real purpose. Others
have reported similar behavior on a number of occasions. Stan
sued Jenny Randles because her statements angered him, but
turned around and made similar statements about other,
"competing" researchers.

I could point out that Stan's review of our book was less than
glowing but given the above history, is anyone really surprised?
Of that review, Jerry Clark noted, on July 27, 1991, "You [Stan]
suggest that both Randle and Schmitt are government agents
'desperately trying to attract attention from the Plains where
one of the aliens was 'alive'. True, in the next paragraph you
provisionally (as in 'I think') retract this outrageous
charge..."

I suggested to Stan that I would not retaliate for these sorts
of attacks if he would not initiate them. I believed then, and I
believe now that this acrimony is not good for the field in
general and it supplies ammunition for the debunking crowd. I
have seen some of our statements twisted by debunkers to damage
both the Roswell case and UFO research.

In 1995, as I was working with John Purdy on his documentary
about both the Roswell case and the Alien Autopsy film, Purdy
said that he had attended a lecture in Great Britain given by
Stan (So, Jenny's comments apparently didn't hurt him). Purdy
bought a copy of one of Stan's many self-published papers, and
pointed out that he, Purdy, thought that it was defamatory and
that I should do something about it. Much of the paper was
Stan's complaints about me (including "Figure 2" which were
initially 38 false claims by Randle and Schmitt that eventually
became 38 false claims by just me). I showed it to my attorney
and he wrote a letter to Stan suggesting that he tone down the
rhetoric. Since it was part of Stan's MUFON Symposium paper of
that year, I wrote a rebuttal (without threat of lawsuit) to
Walt Andrus who was gracious enough to publish it in the
Journal.

Stan's response to my attorney's letter was to explain why he
was right and I was wrong and why he was only saying what he
thought to be the truth. To me, the matter wasn't that
important. Purdy was satisfied (and that was the point because
here I could show a financial impact of Stan's statements if
Purdy had not been satisfied).

So, here we are five or six years after all of this, and what do
we have to show for it? The same thing going on. I am well aware
that many of my opinions offend those inside the UFO community.
I wish that we could discuss all those things (such as alien
abduction) without resorting to ad hominem attacks, but often we
can't. The same thing goes on today that went on yesterday. I
certainly understand the desire to file a lawsuit because it is
hurtful to have people say mean, and often untrue things about
you just because your opinion does not agree with theirs.

I guess my point here is that none of us conforms to the
doctrine of clean hands. Most of us have engaged in these sorts
of arguments, have been guilty of saying things out of school,
and creating a few of the problems we see in the field today. I
have, more than once, suggested that Don Schmitt is a
pathological liar especially after he was caught with his hand
in the cookie jar. While that might be true, maybe we should
temper our anger with a little compassion because none of us is
perfect. Maybe Stan should have just taken a step back and let
it go because Jenny has said nice things about him and the
article only appeared in a local newspaper in England (Yes, yes,
it is a large circulation newspaper and is widely read in that
area of England, but the point is, it is read in that area of
England and the rest of us would not have seen this argument had
[a] Stan not sued and [b] this argument had not erupted in this
forum.). I have realized, after all these years that sometimes
that is the best course. Sometimes it isn't and sometimes you
must fight back. That is for each individual to determine.

And, I think most will understand the purpose of this post. Cry
havoc and let slip the dogs of war.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 21:26:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:17:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:33:23 -0500

 >>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:46:49 -0500
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

<snip>

 >This is, of course, rubbish.

This is, of course, _your_ opinion, which you are entitled to.
Just as I am entitled to _my_ opinion on the matter.

Free speech being what it is, I _do_ have the right to express
my opinion on this matter. Which I have done.

You're beating a dead horse, Jerry. My best suggestion is that
you get over it. This is ancient history. You are not going to
change my opinion on the matter, and I am not going to change
your opinion.

Viva la difference :)

<snip>

 >The only thing that matters in the present discussion is that
 >one sued the other and silenced her free expression - a
 >silencing, I might add, that continues even to this day.

You can champion Jenny in this all you want. You are not
championing the cause of free speech. You are championing Jenny
Randles. You're not fooling anyone, Jerry. While your
motivations may be in the highest tradition of chivalry, I think
Jenny is perfectly capable of championing herself. If she
doesn't want to do that, that is her choice. But please don't
paint her as the oppressed little female ufologist who can't say
a word for fear of the big, bad American getting a lawyer on her
ass. I don't know how Jenny feels about that characterization,
but I find it offensive and chauvinistic.

Jenny Randles is, in my opinion, every bit as capable of taking
up for herself as me or any other female on this list. So do us
a favor and knock off the "Knight in Shining Armor" bit. Like
this thread, that particular brand of male posturing is quickly
growing wearisome.


Bobbie


==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.com
==========



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.261 / Virus Database: 131 - Release Date: 6/6/2001







   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 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                EW - Mars Activists Fault NASA Spin Doctoring

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:26:07 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:19:17 -0400
Subject: EW - Mars Activists Fault NASA Spin Doctoring


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

The Electric Warrior : News June 16, 2001
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/

------------------------------------------------------------
� MARS ACTIVISTS FAULT NASA SPIN DOCTORING
martian enigmas news
from The Electric Warrior

http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0026.htm

A space exploration activist group that persuaded NASA to
photograph the Face on Mars has questioned NASA's
responsiveness, and demanded an explanation for a delay that
frustrated access to the new image.

In a letter to FACETS, NASA's Public Affairs Officer conceded
that a top agency official had made an error regarding the date
of public availability for this latest image of the
controversial Mars Cydonia feature.

Peter Gersten, FACETS' legal council, demanded accountability by
requesting both an apology and assurances that the same type of
error would not happen again.

FACETS' director David Jinks lamented NASA's bureaucratic
correspondence in an online statement:

"I am still cautiously optimistic, but it is my fear that we are
witnessing the beginning of a shift from new found (and
ultimately short lived) openness at NASA to a new phase of spin
doctoring at the hands of the NASA P.R. machine."

(Online: Text of letters from NASA & FACETS)

------------------------------------------------------------
� ET DISCLOSURE CREATES NEW CAUSe

http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0025.htm

 From Peter Gersten (CAUS)

I now believe that disclosure will be in a form that is the
least threatening to our species... I am referring to the future
acknowledgement by NASA that there is evidence of artificial
artifacts on the planet Mars...

------------------------------------------------------------
� THE DISCLOSURE PROJECT AND DR. STEVEN GREER

http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0027.htm

 From Steven Basset (X-PPAC)

The moment in which the United States government, and by
extension all first world governments, formally acknowledge
there is in fact an extraterrestrial presence in our world now,
will easily rank as one of the most important, if not the most
important, event in human history.

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
June 16, 2001
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Web developers, the URL address for this content is:
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0026.htm
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0025.htm
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0027.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 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:49:18 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:21:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Roberts


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:10:59 -0500

 >Standing up for free expression in the Friedman/Randles suit has
 >been a real education. In the past week or so, I have received a
 >number of e-mails from persons close to the situation, filling
 >me in on things I had not known. In nearly all cases the
 >correspondent has been sufficiently nervous about retribution
 >that he or she has demanded confidentiality.


Hello,

Very interesting Jerry. But what this shows to me is that, as in
all walks of life, if bullies are not stood up to publically
then they will, by whatever method they choose to use, whether
it be physical or legal violence, they will always win.

What it needs - in this case - is these 'anonymous' people to
have the guts so say publically what they believe here. Don't
worry about the possible retributions - phrase things carefully
and you can say what you need. Bar one or two misguided fools
there is no-one supporting Stanton Friedman here and I'm afraid
his responses are getting more and more desparate as he clings
to the wreckage of a legal system which isn't even his!

Stan's audacity to write:

 >Did
 >a bunch of lectures and media appearances after all that.
 >Response seemed to me to be excellent. But then I am biased.

Indicating that the whole sorry event didn't affect him one
little bit rather says it all. Pathetic. But at least he can run
round the playground telling everyone how he stopped someone
saying what they thought. Pah!

Ufology is a mad bonkers subject, full of fools, charlatans,
fanatics, obsessives and even some sane people who just wandered
in off the street. Our right to say what we want about who we
want (providing it isn't intended to incite violence or race
hatred), should be sacrosanct. If you're so chickenshit you have
to hide behind threats of legal action to protect your self
important world view against that of others then I'm afraid
we're still living in the middle ages. Perhaps we should
reintroduce burning at the stake Stan - that should do away with
all your detractors.


Happy Trails

Andy







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 16

                Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:05:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:25:33 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be


 >Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:53:57 +0100
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 >This item from another newsgroup may be of interest:

 >Source: University Of Washington (http://www.washington.edu/)

 >Date: Posted 6/12/2001

 >"I Tawt I Taw" A Bunny Wabbit At Disneyland: New Evidence Shows
 >False Memories Can Be Created

First of all, there is nothing _new_ about this experiment.

 >About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print
 >advertisement that described a visit to Disneyland and how they
 >met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny later said they remembered
 >or knew the event happened to them.

So, does that mean two-thirds of the people who did the same
thing did _not_ later say they remembered or knew the event
happened to them?

 >"The frightening thing about this study is that it suggests how
 >easily a false memory can be created," said Pickrell, UW
 >psychology doctoral student.

Pickrell, a "psychology doctoral student" would only find this
"frightening" because it makes it _all important_ to their long
term career. Most people could - and should - care less,
especially when they study the background of the founding
members of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation.

 >"It's not only people who go to a therapist who might implant a
 >false memory or those who witness an accident and whose memory
 >can be distorted who can have a false memory. Memory is very
 >vulnerable and malleable. People are not always aware of the
 >choices they make. This study shows the power of subtle
 >association changes on memory."

Not really, and when you look closely at the study, you will see why.

 >In the original study, 16 percent of the people exposed to a
 >Disneyland ad featuring Bugs Bunny later thought they had seen
 >and met the cartoon rabbit.

Maybe these people _did_ meet someone dressed like Bugs Bunny at
another theme park.

Isn't it possible to get the many different theme parks we have
across the country confused? In addition, 16 percent isn't
really that great of a number. Should we really be "frightened"
by this number?

 >In the new research, Pickrell and Loftus divided 120 subjects
 >into four groups. The subjects were told they were going to
 >evaluate advertising copy, fill out several questionnaires and
 >answer questions about a trip to Disneyland.

 >The first group read a generic Disneyland ad that mentioned no
 >cartoon characters. The second group read the same copy and was
 >exposed to a 4-foot-tall cardboard figure of Bugs Bunny that was
 >casually placed in the interview room. No mention was made of
 >Bugs Bunny. The third, or Bugs group, read the fake Disneyland
 >ad featuring Bugs Bunny. The fourth, or double, exposure group
 >read the fake add and also saw the cardboard rabbit.

 >This time 30 percent of the people in the Bugs group later said
 >they remembered or knew they had met Bugs Bunny when they
 >visited Disneyland and 40 percent of the people in the double
 >exposure group reported the same thing.

I can only surmise that this was posted here to discredit the
memories of abductees and people who have seen unidentified
flying objects. The FMS foundation has been trying to discredit
the memories of abductees for years. Their long-term goal is to
invalidate "eye witness testimony" all together. Imagine what
this will do to our court system? If you convince the public
they can't trust their own memories, what use is eye witness
testimony in a court of law?

If you convince the justice system you can't trust eye witness
testimony, what good is a court of law in the first place? Why
not just have one person, say a judge or a government official
make life and death decisions for us?

 >"'Remember' means the people actually recall meeting and shaking
 >hands with Bugs," explained Pickrell. "'Knowing' is they have no
 >real memory, but are sure that it happened, just as they have no
 >memory of having their umbilical cord being cut when they were
 >born but know it happened.


Was there any kind of "control" questionnaire to account for people
who actually _did_ meet a person dressed like Bugs Bunny  at
some point in their life? If not, then this experiment is flawed.

 >If ads can get people to believe they had an experience they never
 >had, that is pretty powerful.

Maybe the ads are really making people wish for something they
don't have in their lives, or making them feel that if they
purchase the item in the ad, their lives will be like the ad
they saw. This is very different from "remembering" something
that never occurred.

Advertising is always used to _sell_ something. Whether it be an
image, a memory, or a product. Remember one of the most famous
ad campaigns of all time? The Kodak Ad - "Remember
Yesterday....We Wake Up, And Time Just Slips Away..." Imagine
what an "experiment" centered on that type of ad would have
yielded in the way of false memories! Gee, we might have even
remembered positive family events that weren't real!

Pictures in our photo albums tell a distorted story for those
who did not live our lives, and so do the methods of the False
Memory Syndrome Foundation.

 >"The bottom line of our study is that the phony ad is making the
 >difference. Just casually reading a Bugs Bunny cartoon or some
 >other incidental exposure doesn't mean you believe you met Bugs.
 >The ad does."

And, why is this important again? Are advertisements giving us
false memories? No - this study was undertaken to help some
student pursue their doctoral dissertation and to keep Elizabeth
Loftus' name in the media.

Ms. Loftus testified in court (here in Charlotte, North
Carolina) and performed a sickening analysis on a highly
televised media trial, the Ray Curruth case, during which she
tried to undermine the testimony of the victim because she was
on _pain medication_. In the presence of her doctors, Cherika
Adams talked about who she saw try to kill her - and there is
Ms. Loftus, the so-called memory "expert" telling the jury that
she alone - not Cherika Adams or Cherika Adams' doctors, really
knew what Cherika Adams was remembering. It was, up to that
point in time, the lowest point of Ms. Loftus' career.

*** Of course, in light of the recent debates on this list, this
is just my _opinion_ and in no way should undermine the
wonderful, positive and helpful data Ms. Loftus is providing us
with. ***  If you can't trust your own mind and memories, whose
can you trust? Whose should you trust?

The FMS foundation should be more concerned about ads selling
products that KILL people, but clearly, helping people is _not_
what the False Memory Syndrome Foundation is about.

Snippet From "Project Open Mind" about the FMS Foundation:


FMS or False Memory Syndrome is an unproved "syndrome" that is
popular to use in order to attempt to discredit several
unpleasant subjects, one of which is "alien abduction." However,
FMS is not officially recognized in the DSM-III-R, [Or DSM-IV]
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders, so
how has it become such a powerful weapon?

Remember Dr. Martin T. Orne, (who helped the CIA develop
coercive uses of hypnotic mind control) from
our previous discussion about hypnosis? You might find it
somewhat of a conflict of interest to know that he
"is also an original member of the False Memory Syndrome
Foundation's advisory board."[99]

The author of 'Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A.' writes, "The
recovered memory debate was discussed at a 1993 conference on
multiple personality disorder. Richard Lowenstein, a
psychiatrist from the University of Maryland Medical School,
argued that the Foundation is 'media-directed, dedicated to
putting out disinformation.'"[100]

"The FMSF board is almost exclusively composed of former CIA and
military doctors currently employed by major universities. None
have backgrounds in ritual abuse - their common interest is
behavior modification."[101]

Although I would like to see more references sited to back up
all of Constantine's claims, his chapter on the False Memory
Syndrome and the 'Foundation' behind it should be reviewed. Lee
and Schlain's 'Acid Dreams' and Marks' 'The Search for The
Manchurian Candidate' verify Martin Orne's and Louis Jolyon
West's connections to the CIA, both of whom are past members of
the False Memory Syndrome  Foundation.

For more information about discrediting the memories and
experiences of abductees, read:


http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Part_I/keithenigma.html


http://www.alienjigaw.com

Thanks All --

Katharina Wilson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 07:52:13 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:07:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hatch


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:38:05 -0500

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:27:31 -0000

 >Dick,

 >I just want to say one thing here:

 >Rush Limbagh is a big fat idiot!



Dear Sir:


1) I think his name is spelled with a U, as in Limbaugh or
something similar.

2) Never underestimate a fat, cigar chomping conservative,
especially one who can quickly string a sentence together.

3) #1 and #2 said, I don't much like the Limbaugh regimen
either. At one time it was interesting.

4) Whoever brought up RL in these discussions? I thought it was
all about Easton threatening lawsuits. What happened to that
thread?


Just curious [burp!] in Redwood City

- 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 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                            Alfred's Odd Ode #352

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 10:12:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:08:38 -0400
Subject: Alfred's Odd Ode #352


Alfred's Odd Ode #352

I'd called myself a patriot when I didn't know its meaning, but
I've discovered much since then, and much is contravening.  Oh,
I'm still a patriot, and fought this country's wars, but I'd
been sold a bill of goods... down primrose paths was lured.
There's never been the balance, then, that "they" implied they'd
had, that hero's were the hero's, and the villains worse than
bad?  Black was *black* and white was *white* and ne'er the
twain should meet, the gray inconsequential, only cowards sought
retreat? Plus UFOs were foolishness, and that science has a
right... to its campaign to "lead the way" to fight that wacky
blight?  Evasions are made justified, and logic's bent to suit
-- the facts are misdirected and the data rendered moot.  Plus
history's obfuscated, and our character's destroyed -- our
rights are confiscated while injustice is enjoyed.

There's too damn many people, so respect is parsed too fine, and
we lose out on premium and must worship this "divine" (or at
least its self appointed) while the *classes* are proscribed.
And there is class, make no mistake; it's lurking in our
schools... that train those charged for "service work", but
*good* employees -- tools.  The upper class won't truck with
that and places privileged kids... in academic luxury denied to
those they've "dissed." That's the rhyme and reason for a
warfare based on class. The rich get ever richer, and the poor
pay more for gas.  "What's that to do with UFO's"?, the purists
have to ask.  The upper class is in control! That info is its
_task_!  It's them that owns the moldy key to black vaults
underground. It's them that holds the reigns they own through
graft that would astound!  It's them controls the scientists
with "the best place at the trough," it's them controls the
doctors using drugs to do mad stuff.

Theirs is but the status quo they're happy with... one can't but
know,  and to that end they've raised an army: politicos all
smiles and smarmy, talking heads of any gender (more
slick-mouthed, smoothly groomed pretenders) ...grifting lawyers
in platoons that wear you down and suck your juice. There're
judges in elitist pockets, soldiers with atomic rockets, and all
the cops that shoot you down for taking, just, your wallet
out...  You could bet that UFO's are better for you, then, than
those.  UFOs? You're off the meter?  UFOs?  The end of cheaters?
UFO's mean you'd get juice to feed yourself and be set loose?
Do they point to that free lunch that rightists scold will bring
that "crunch", but really lets one reach far higher if "lunch"
is not their top desire?

Everything is UFOs, I point out yet again.  They parallel our
culture. They're woven with it, friend.  It's them outside your
eggshell that has just begun to crack.  They redefine your
futures lately tyrannous and black. And they eschew the priests
and kings (the dogma those create and bring), and point to
futures born in space where Humans have a point -- a place!
They're the _reason_ we're controlled by those that keep the
status quo. They can access cleaner power, help us raze some
flimsy *towers*, lead us to a state of being existing in our
better dreams?  That's the thread of _my_ suspicion and the root
of _my_ ambition,.  I've a feeling that we'd share the same
concerns that _must_ be there. ALL are born of star stuff,
friend, and that's a fact we shan't contend, forgetting that we
don't admit that they EXIST, in spite of it.

It may be that we're mere fruit (as genetics are a fact!). From
someone else's test tube, we're designed right off the rack.

It may be that we are NOT (and never really were) the sun source
of creation, but a common backyard cur.

It may be the gods we have... are shadows on the wall,
reflections from a cosmic light that we don't get at all.

It may be we live like apes who screw for the percentage, and do
so with a soul that's weak and of a lesser vintage.

It may be that we don't earn the arrogance we feel.  But, ALONE
in all this cosmos? I would chance some better deal.

We don't have to pay the freight for those who WON'T believe,
who are comfy in their towers at the center of their *needs*.
Given common 'druthers, and please try to understand, but over
one who blithely "won't" (?), please give me one who CAN!  Give
me folks who aren't afraid to reach beyond themselves... to an
efficacious future that disclosure would foretell!  Let the
secrets all run free, and through the clearing dust... we'll
find that we're set free, at last, to a freedom we can trust.
Give us just a decade, and the asteroids are ours (with plenty
left to share on out to others from the stars).

We are individuals! We've talent all our own. Yet we are
subjugated to an arbitrary throne.  That throne rewards
intolerance.  That throne's a shallow line.  That throne would
have our thoughts proscribed by those we should despise. Now
teams are all important, where the bigger weave gets spun, and I
can see utility from stuff that teams have done, but I point out
a truer truth that an upper class *forgets*:  the weakest link
defines the chain; It's strong links pass that test.  These
links are individuals and by needs would stand alone.  It's best
if they're autonomous for the thought they would compose.  These
pieces will still link right up, but then a CHAIN they make!
The individual's KEY my friends, or teams are rigged and fake.

Remember I'm a patriot... whose reach has gotten wide.  I've
embraced a renaissance that includes the widest sky.  My country
is the whole of Earth, the moon and NEAs; my land includes the
moons of Jove, the belt and Mars I say!  My home is where I'm
conscious, and my bed is deep in space, my table is civility,
and new settings are in place. My world is the multiverse, this
place where we CAN dare... where life evolves to teach itself
the meaning it can share.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com

NEAs are Near Earth Asteroids, the ascending steps to the
cornucopic stars...

As regards that arguably over-maligned upper class, they could
have it their way, painlessly and above board, riches beyond
their most sociopathic imaginings... if they but demonstrated
the most minimal respect for the instruments of that wealth.
It's them that stands in the way of space exploration, cosmic
disclosure, and respect for the common person, make no mistake.
They've a bird in hand and wouldn't even consider a cornucopia
in the bush. That's no mistake either.

As regards individual autonomy... It is NOT anarchy and the end
of polite society.  Those well foundationed individuals just
have a more secure spot from which to lever their greater power
and are able to contribute even more to the positive synergy of
an efficacious team.  Autonomy won't drive teams apart as much
as make a team even MORE productive, intelligent, and far
reaching.  More people, astonishingly, not less... should carry
concealed weapons, for example.  I say that... not even owning a
gun. Anything that leads to more individual autonomy should be
busily encouraged.  It adds quality to the contribution one can
make to a team. That makes the care and feeding of individuals
key, and NOT of secondary importance.  Right now, we don't have
a lot of respect for our individuals, and as the population goes
steadily up, less respect all the time.

As regards UFOs being everything...  Well, the fact of their
existence would change everything in the same way occurring were
we to abruptly discover that there were other *civilizations* in
some unexplored region across a metaphorical river -- if we
discovered that we had powerful witnesses to our arbitrary
crimes of convenience and serial sociopathy.  The kids in
Golding's "Lord of the Flies", unfettered by any mentoring and
adult leadership, ran hot and rampant until the grownups showed
up at the end of the novel... then sat down abruptly wherever
they were and cried with a regret that they felt but could not
articulate.  Just call me "four eyes".







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                  Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:57:54 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:10:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:10:59 -0500


 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:27:31 -0000

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:32:17 -0500

<snip>

 >Standing up for free expression in the Friedman/Randles suit has
 >been a real education. In the past week or so, I have received a
 >number of e-mails from persons close to the situation, filling
 >me in on things I had not known. In nearly all cases the
 >correspondent has been sufficiently nervous about retribution
 >that he or she has demanded confidentiality. In one extreme
 >instance a correspondent inquired if I would receive a message,
 >then delete it immediately after reading it. Not just keep it to
 >myself, mind you - actually _destroy all record of it_.

<snip>

Well, what do you know, Jerry, exactly the same here!!!!

No kidding.

And synchronicity has it that it concerns people on this List
who are _afraid_ to participate in this debate and to present
views opposite of yours.

I'll confess that my correspondents didn't ask me to destroy
_all_ record of it.

They seem to trust me more than yours trust you.


Serge Salvaille








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                          Re: UFO In 1863? - Aubeck

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@email.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 04:34:47 +0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:17:24 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO In 1863? - Aubeck


 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:28:04 +0100 (BST)
 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: UFO In 1863?
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >Hello List Members,

 >I have found this article. Can anyone shed some >light on what
it refers to? I can't get to the book >it mentions from here.
Can someone check it for me?

<snip>

Not long after I mailed requests for information on the 1866
book 'Anecdotes, Poetry and Incidents, of the War, North and
South, 1860-1865' by Frank Moore, which was said to contain a
UFO report of some kind, Kenny Young wrote to tell me he had
obtained a copy of the relevant text (p.373)from the Hamilton
County Public Library in Cincinnati.

The actual report given in the book turned out to be as follows:

A Curious Story - The Southern papers told a curious story about
a ghostly army that was seen down there. Nobody has pretended to
give a solution to the mystery; but it was wisely suggested that
it was an optical illusion. A remarkable phenomenon was
witnessed a few miles west of Lewisburg, Greenbrier County, on
the 1st of October, 1863 about three o'clock P.M., by Mr. Moses
Dwyer, who happened to be seated on his porch at the time, as
well as others at or near his house.

The weather was quite hot and dry; not a cloud could be seen; no
wind even ruffled the foliage on the surrounding trees. All
things being propitious, the grand panorama began to move just
over and through the adjacent hills, to the south, immense
numbers of rolls, resembling cotton or smoke, apparently of the
size and shape of doors, seemed to be passing rapidly through
the air, yet in beautiful order and regularity.

The rolls seemed to be tinged on the edges with light green, so
as to resemble a border of deep fringe. There was apparently
thousands of them; they were perhaps an hour in getting by.
After they passed over and out of sight, the scene was changed
from the air above to the earth beneath, and became more
intensely interesting to the spectators who were witnessing the
panorama from different standpoints. "In the deep valley
beneath, thousands upon thousands of [apparently] human beings
[men] came into view, traveling in the same direction as the
rolls, marching in good order, some thirty or forty in depth,
moving rapidly - 'double-quick' - and commenced ascending the
almost insurmountable hills opposite, and had the stoop peculiar
to men ascending a steep mountain.

There seemed to be a great variety in the size of the men; some
very large, whilst others were quite small. Their arms and legs
and heads could be seen distinctly in motion. They seemed to
observe strict military discipline, and there were no
stragglers. There was uniformity in dress. White blouses or
shirts, with white pants; they were without guns, swords or
anything that indicate 'men of war'. On they came through the
valley and over the steep road, crossing the road, and finally
passing out of sight, in a direction due north from those who
were looking on.

"The gentleman who witnessed this is a man with whom you were
once aquainted, Mr. Editor, as truthful a man as we have in
this country, as little liable to be carried away by 'fanciful
speculations' as any man living. Four other [respectable ladies]
and a servant girl witnessed this strange phenomenon." On the
14th the same scene, almost identical , was seen by eight or ten
of the Confederate pickets at Runger's Mill, and by many of the
citizens in that neighborhood; this is about four miles east of
Percy's. Again, it was an hour in passing. --

This text allowed me to search more easily for the original
newspaper reports. Eventually I discovered that the original
articles were published in a newspaper called "The Staunton
Spectator," which existed from 1823 to 1864. Fortunately, the
relevant edition of the newspaper (Sept 22nd) is available on
line.

The first indication that something had been seen was a letter
to the editor of the newspaper:

LEWISBURG, Sept. 15, 1863.

Mr. Mauzy--I drop you a few hastily written lines, hoping they
may not be altogether uninteresting to you and the readers of
the "Spectator."

Whilst great and wonderful events are occurring in our political
world, apparently stranger things are going on in the physical
world. But as we have no good Daniel, in these degenerate days,
to tell us what they mean, every one must become his own
interpreter. Whether what I am going to relate is a good or a
bad omen to the cause we are defending with all our energies,
and which we all love so much; whether it means peace or a
longer continuance of this bloody struggle, or is a mere
delusion, who can say?

A remarkable phenomenon was witnessed a few miles west of this
place, at the house of Mrs. Pearcy, on the first day of this
month at about 3 o'clock, P. M., by Mr. Moses Dwyer, her
neighbor, who happened to be seated in her porch at the time, as
well as by others at or near the house.

The weather was quite hot and dry, not a cloud could be seen, no
wind even ruffled the foliage on the surrounding trees. All
things being propitious, the grand panorama began to move.--Just
over and through the tops of the trees on the adjacent hills on
the South, immense numbers of rolls resembling cotton or smoke,
apparently thousands of them, and were, perhaps, an hour in
getting by. After these had passed over and out of sight, the
scene was changed from the air above to the earth beneath, and
became more intensely interesting to the spectators who were
witnessing the panorama from different stand points. In the deep
valley beneath thousands upon thousands of [apparently] human
beings [men] came in low traveling in the same direction of the
rolls marching in good order, some thirty or forty in depth,
moving rapidly--"double quick," and commence ascending the sides
of the almost insurmountable hills opposite, and had the stoop
peculiar to men when they ascend a steep mountain. There seemed
to be great variety in the size of the men, some were very large
whilst others were quite small. Their arms, legs and heads could
be distinctly seen in motion. They seemed to observe strict
military discipline and there were no stragglers.

There was uniformity of dress, loose white blouses or shirts
with white pants, wore hats and were without guns, swords or
anything they indicated "men of war."--On they came through the
valley and over the steep hill crossing the road and finally
passing out of sight, in a direction due North from those who
were looking on.

The gentlemen who [illegible] this is a man with whom you were
once acquainted, Mr. Editor, and as truthful a man as we have in
the county, and as little liable to be carried away by "fanciful
speculations" as any man living.--Four others (respectable
ladies) and a servant girl witnesses this strange phenomenon. W.

P. S. On the 14th that., the same scene almost identical, was
soon by 8 or 10 of our pickets at Bunger's Mill, and by many of
the citizens in that neighborhood; this is about 4 miles east of
Pearcy's. It was about the hour passing. --

The newspaper noted that the witnesses had been questioned in
depth:

An officer, of intelligence and character, in writing to the
Richmond Whig concerning this story, in a private note, says:

"I put myself to some trouble to ascertain the facts, and
questioned the witnesses separately. They are above suspicion. I
have given all the material facts, except that the so called men
were marching north or northwest, right thro' the mountains.
They were of all sizes, and as much like men as if they had been
real flesh and blood." --

Two interpretations of the vision were suggested. The first was
a piece of political propaganda:

The characters of the witnesses, who say they saw the phenomenon
described in these communications, are endorsed by those who
have known them intimately for many years. That these witnesses
saw a remarkable spectacle there can be but little doubt. What
is the proper interpretation of this procession due North of
white bundles followed by figures of men robed in scanty apparel
of the same color? We suggest the following:

The white bundles represent the cotton bales which the
weak-kneed secessionists of Mississippi are now sending North,
and the fringe of green - the emblem of that color being
"forsaken" - indicates how green these planters are for having
forsaken their country, and the figures of men marching North at
a rapid pace in the scanty garb described, represent that these
traitorous cotton sellers should be reduced in their dress to a
cotton shirt fastened on their "tight hides" by a plaster of
tar, and be made to march North at a "double quick." - The
absence of arms and equipments represent that they belong to
that, numerous class of "men of war" who, before the war, were
so willing to spill their "last drop of blood," but since the
war have shown an unconquerable dread of spilling the "first
drop."

The second interpretation, which was more scientific, suggested
that the vision should be regarded as a mirage.

Rather than give my opinion of the case here, it would be
interesting to see what others make of this very unusual 19th
century sighting. Perhaps its value is not in the probability of
it being an account of an actual UFO per se, but in the way that
such a report was dealt with so long ago. How does it compare
with modern UFO investigations?


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 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:56:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:18:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 22:38:01 -0000


 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:38:05 -0500

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:27:31 -0000

Dennis and Dick,

 >>I just want to say one thing here:

 >>Rush Limbagh is a big fat idiot!

 >My only question would be, Is his obesity more egregious than
 >his idiocy?


Hell, he's not even fat anymore. So that leaves him with only
the other quality.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be

From: Steve Owens <steve@usviews.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:39:56 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:22:13 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be


Jim,

 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:00:43 -0700
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 >>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:53:57 +0100
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 >>About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print
 >>advertisement that described a visit to Disneyland and how they
 >>met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny later said they remembered
 >>or knew the event happened to them.

 >So, all this study showed to me was that some people will
 >believe other people's lies. But we already knew that,
 >especially when we see after an election that usually the person


I believe it would be more accurate to say that the study in
question proved that 'False Witnesses' may be created than
anything else. Imagine now if Disney thought it had an
actionable claim against Warner Brothers. After all, the WB
character had been seen trying to draw business away from Disney
ON Disney property by the above mentioned one third...

Now apply this to Ufology. The more we talk about Greys it seems
the more people say they were abducted by them. Is this type of
false witness in action here? If so, how do we weed out the well
intentioned from the real?

I grew up in Roswell. Before the story broke (around 1980?) no
one, and I mean _no_one_ ever mentioned anything about a crash
ever having occured near there. Now it seems that everyone in
town saw something that supposedly happened or their parents
knew someone at Walker who saw the stuff and talked about it or
something else. I would say that the whole population of Roswell
is one tainted witness pool (the Dennis affair bears this out)
and that nothing coming out as witness testimony may be taken at
face value without LOADS of corraborating evidence.

I admit to being a little miffed by what this has done to my
home town. When I went through there a few years back I almost
didn't recognize downtown. However, that doesn't mitigate the
fact that a few books and pictures have completely altered one
communities view of the past.

How do we get around that to find the facts in this and other
instances?


Steve Owens








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                  Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:17:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:24:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:42:01 -0500


 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:22:40 -0400

Jerry,

<snip>

 >>Isn't this precisely what Stalinism is all about: a system
 >>serving only its obscure purposes with no respect for truth?

 >Interesting that, in defense of the indefensible, Stan's
 >apologists have been reduced to defining defense of free
 >expression as Stalinism.

<snip>

You have it all wrong.

1. I am not an apologist of Stanton Friedman.

2. I am just a nearly 50 year old guy who's seen a couple of
things and has a few twisted idiosyncrasies, the least one not
being a sensitivity to BS.

3. It would be interesting to see you, on the present thread,
address specific facts. So far, you have resorted to snipping
90% of my posts and used the last 10% to serve us your usual
pitch which resembles more and more a desperate mantra to dodge
the real issues at hand, of which one could include:

  a. Your intellectual honesty
  b. Jenny Randles' intellectual honesty

Your exceeding verbose redundant baseless arguments and her
silence only serve to bring into light your dark sides.

<snip>

 >Go read some Orwell. After you've recognized yourself in this
 >great man's wise insights into how Stalinists and other
 >totalitarians twist words to mean their opposite (i.e., freedom
 >= slavery, war = peace), you might learn something.

<snip>

Whoah. I'm floored.

<snip>

 >it appears that you have nothing to contribute to the
 >discussion, beyond your effort to demonstrate your unthinking
 >loyalty to Stan

<snip>

Ahah. How does this go again? "If you can't attack the facts..."

Careful, Jerry, you're flirting with bigotery 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 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:20:13 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:26:31 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be


 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:00:43 -0700
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 >>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:53:57 +0100
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 >>This item from another newsgroup may be of interest:

 >>Source: University Of Washington (http://www.washington.edu/)

 >>Date: Posted 6/12/2001

 >>"I Tawt I Taw" A Bunny Wabbit At Disneyland: New Evidence Shows
 >>False Memories Can Be Created

 >>About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print
 >>advertisement that described a visit to Disneyland and how they
 >>met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny later said they remembered
 >>or knew the event happened to them.

 >>The scenario described in the ad never occurred because Bugs
 >>Bunny is a Warner Bros. cartoon character and wouldn't be
 >>featured in any Walt Disney Co. property, according to
 >>University of Washington memory researchers Jacquie Pickrell and
 >>Elizabeth Loftus.
 >>...

 >John,

 >It's been over 30 years since my wife and I, with 3 young
 >children, visited Disneyland in Los Angeles. I remember seeing a
 >cartoon character there at the time, who wowed the kids, but I
 >couldn't remember which one it was - perhaps Mickey Mouse. So I
 >asked my wife, and she couldn't remember which one either, but
 >thought it may either have been Mickey Mouse or Goofy.

 >Now, if I had recently seen some ad that seemed legitimate,
 >showing that it had been Bugs Bunny, I would probably assume
 >that that was who it had been (not knowing it's not a Disney
 >character). Only if it were a matter of considerably more
 >importance would I take the time to look into it and see if this
 >was right or not.

 >So, all this study showed to me was that some people will
 >believe other people's lies. But we already knew that,
 >especially when we see after an election that usually the person
 >who won was the one who had the most money to spend on ads that
 >distorted the truth. Thus, I'd say that politicians are an
 >example of a group that can generate a lot of false memories.

 >Someone will have to let us know just who that cartoon character
 >was at Disneyland. The article didn't say, though it may have
 >hinted at Mickey Mouse. It also didn't mention that there had
 >indeed been a life-size animated cartoon character at
 >Disneyland, walking around and greeting people and kids. And it
 >didn't say what fraction, if any, of the participants in the
 >study had been to Disneyland.

 >Jim Deardorff

Hi John, Jim, All,

First: John, meeting a "Bugs Bunny" character in costume would
not create or induce trauma in a witness. Because it is appearing
on a UFO List I'll assume you think it has some bearing on UFO
witnesses and their reports. The basic flaw in it however is
that this exercise attempts to compare an innocuous event such as
meeting a familiar and beloved cartoon character at an amusement
park, with unexpectedly being confronted by something unknown and
unexplainable.

Rather than compare apples to apples this intellectual exercise
(false memory) is used here as a 'one size fits all' explanation
which calls into question the reliability of witness's ability to
recall an (possibly traumatic) event accurately.

Unless you are one of the fortunate few who have managed to
get through life unscathed, without any traumatic experiences
at all, then you know how painfully detailed the recollection
of such events can be. Unless it something 'soul-shattering'
that requires a protective bandage of forgetfulness, (amnesia)
certain events will become _burned_ into our consciousness. In
my case, with the repeated UFO sighting and abduction material,
it would replay itself over and over in my mind. Demanding
attention. And more than that, demanding an answer.

False memory my ass.

Ask any WWII combat vets who watched their buddy's face
blown off as they sat inches away if they can't recall it in
painfully minute detail. Ask them if the memory isn't vivid/
livid in their minds still. Even now, a half century later. If you
were to compare traumatic memory to traumatic memory
then we could have an intelligent debate about it. This implanted
false memory of meeting Bugs Bunny has -nothing- to do with
what a person who has seen a UFO experiences and recalls.

How can you or Loftus or any of these others compare planting
a false memory of meeting Bugs Bunny with a sighting of a UFO?
Especially if the witness experienced some kind of direct contact.
Why is this Bugs Bunny example even being brought on a UFO list?
It quite simply does not apply. UFO sightings deeply affect the
witnesses. It is a _life altering_ event. Time becomes split into
"before the UFO experience" and "after the UFO experience."

John: If -you- had ever seen a UFO we would not be having this
discussion. You'd understand how unfair and almost absurd it is
to compare falsely recalling meeting "Bugs Bunny" with "meeting a
UFO."

And,...if after all the reports from perfectly credible witnesses
for all these many years, all of the photographic, pilot, radar data,
and ground trace evidence,- all of the government documents
that have been obtained via FOIA, etc. etc. etc. you _still_ seek
to dismiss or explain it all as "false memory syndrome" (or some
other equally simplistic explanation,) then something is seriously
wrong with the way you perceive, think about, and analyze material.

I'd purely love to have a talk with you 10 minutes -after- you've had
the kind of close-up and personal kind of UFO sighting that some folks
have had to live through. (And live with) After allowing you to freshen
your undergarments, I'd bet dollars to donuts that none of your theories
(to explain the event to yourself) would include "false memory." Myself
and many other witnesses are sick and tired of saying: "We know what
we saw!"

Regards,

John "I can recall it now as if it happened 10 minutes ago" 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 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                  Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:06:08 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:29:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Mortellaro


 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:57:53 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:22:40 -0400

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:33:23 -0500

 >>>The only thing that matters in the present discussion is that
 >>>one sued the other and silenced her free expression - a
 >>>silencing, I might add, that continues even to this day. Ever
 >>>wondered why Jenny is not participating publicly in this
 >>>discussion...

 >>[...]

 >>(Friedman)

 >>>Suing his critics
 >>>simply because they said something that hurt his feelings - and
 >>>that's all they did; he could not demonstrate empirically that
 >>>the criticisms had any other effect than that - is, however,
 >>>indefensible - as, by your failed defense of it, you are
 >>>demonstrating yourself.

 >><snip>

 >>2. Can you demonstrate empirically that Friedman did not have
 >>anything else than his feelings hurt?

 >He himself said in a previous posting that his subsequent
 >lecture tours and media appearances were unaffected by anything
 >Jenny Randles wrote:

 >Quote - "I still seem to be the same stature as I was. Did a
 >bunch of lectures and media appearances after all that. Response
 >seemed to me to be excellent. But then I am biased."

 >Obviously the only thing hurt was his ego. In English law there
 >is a difference between libel and "common abuse". To prove libel
 >you have to demonstrate that either your livelihood or your
 >reputation was damaged. Friedman admits in that sentence that
 >neither was, so his attempted libel action had no validity and
 >was mere bluster.

 >John Rimmer


Dear John, Listers and Errol,

First, abuse is never common. Were it so, then life would be
worth the living for only a very few royal sociopaths. So much
for Brit law.

Second, I have been accused of _not_ taking the subjects firmly
ensconced to this list's objectives... seriously. To which I
freely admit. Wait, there is a point. Honest. Having admitted to
feelings of shameless amusement over some of the horse hockey I
read here, I will explain further that there are some subjects
which are simply overworked, none of our freaking business,
fraught with libel (at least potentially, or perilously close
anyway), aimed at hurting not debating and well, I could go on.

So, having said alla that stuff... I have this to say about
that... Stan the Man Friedman has never in the history of my
awareness, ever been anything but a gentleman. For his efforts
at that, he has been criticized mercilessly, and without
restraint, some of you have chosen him to be the temple of doom,
an alta cocka with the same line of horse hockey at every
meeting (which is a crock of cocka) and worse. Some of you
simply cannot refrain from complete and unbridled criticism of
the man at every turn. If I were Stan (and if I were Stan and
also Sicilian) I would aks alla my uncles, particularly uncle
Toto, to do a humongous number of kneecaps of bListers herein
... or on, or whatever.

Very few people know that although I am Sicilian (Palermo none
the less), I am also derived of a tribe of Jews from Hungary and
Rumania, by the name of Schwartz. Or as Mel Brooks would say,
"Day Schwartzes!" whilst referring to the maternal side of
Morty. In 1935 the Schwartzes were about 100. By 1945 they were
two. So much for International Laws... not to say moral ones...

Which is why I sometimes come out with not only a Sicilian quip,
but a genuine Yiddish one too. And to you, Stan (my man) I give
the following advise, Ignore the assholes, for "Asakh mentshn
vern groys ven zey shteyen oyf yenems shoys."

Some people grow tall by standing on the shoulders of others.
And some, as Frank Herbert wrote in Dune (paraphrased): There
was once a fishing boat which sank in the water. The depth was
such as the height of less than two man standing one atop the
other. Which is the way one of the fishermen saved himself. By
standing on the shoulders of the other fisherman, the one who
was drowning.


Love and respect to all of you,


Jim







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:15:44 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:32:27 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be



 >Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:05:20 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >Subject: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 >>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:53:57 +0100
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: New Evidence Shows Fals Memories Can Be Created

 >>This item from another newsgroup may be of interest:

 >>Source: University Of Washington (http://www.washington.edu/)

 >>Date: Posted 6/12/2001

 >>"I Tawt I Taw" A Bunny Wabbit At Disneyland: New Evidence Shows
 >>False Memories Can Be Created

 >First of all, there is nothing _new_ about this experiment.

 >>About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print
 >>advertisement that described a visit to Disneyland and how they
 >>met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny later said they remembered
 >>or knew the event happened to them.

 >So, does that mean two-thirds of the people who did the same
 >thing did _not_ later say they remembered or knew the event
 >happened to them?

Deer Kate, Errol and the rest of you bListers,

No, Katarina... incidently, my mom's first name is Crucifisa. Uh,
the NAOSWASS (National Academy of Silly Walks and Sillier
Studies) has done a monograph on this very subject. The results
of that study prove inconclusively, that one turd of the people who
claimed to have visioned an event at Disneyland, actually were
smoking hemp instead. So the results were skewed. Hemp, if
I recall correctly, is smoked by a few of the poster boys here on
UpDates. Cogito, ergo - Duh!

<snip>

 >Pickrell, a "psychology doctoral student" would only find this
 >"frightening" because it makes it _all important_ to their long
 >term career. Most people could - and should - care less,
 >especially when they study the background of the founding
 >members of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation.

Listen up girl, I have been a doctoral student on many
occasions, and what the hell does that mean? In my case,
multiple orgas... uh, multiple Ph.D.'s. Which translated from
the Latin mean, "Piled High and Deep!" As for this so-called
false memory foundation, I am unaware of any ladies' or mens'
foundation garments which lend credibility to this scenario.
Besides, ladies should never concern themselves with
foundations. Like Pia Zadora (don't tell anyone, this must
remain here on UpDates, but Pia IS an experiencer - she just
never experienced with me is all), like Pia, I too have
attempted to undo the damage done by these hard to unlock
undergarments. My fingers are worn down to the nub in places.
Such useless wear and tear on the human male fingers.

 >>Snip

 >Maybe these people _did_ meet someone dressed like Bugs Bunny at
 >another theme park.

Most of the peoples who claim to have been abducted have told me
that Bugs Bunny was the entity they remember the most. Obviously
a planeted false memory. Like deer and hippopotamous thighs.

 >Isn't it possible to get the many different theme parks we have
 >across the country confused? In addition, 16 percent isn't
 >really that great of a number. Should we really be "frightened"
 >by this number?

No Katharina. Only those which serve Gripple.

<snip>

 >I can only surmise that this was posted here to discredit the
 >memories of abductees and people who have seen unidentified
 >flying objects. The FMS foundation has been trying to discredit
 >the memories of abductees for years. Their long-term goal is to
 >invalidate "eye witness testimony" all together. Imagine what
 >this will do to our court system? If you convince the public
 >they can't trust their own memories, what use is eye witness
 >testimony in a court of law?

We of the NAOSWASS agree that you can fool some of the peoples
some of the time, all of the peoples some of the time, but never
all of the peoples all of the time. Bob Dylan said that a long
time ago. You people just don't listen or research do you? Well,
it's a common fault around these here parts. I said that.

 >If you convince the justice system you can't trust eye witness
 >testimony, what good is a court of law in the first place? Why
 >not just have one person, say a judge or a government official
 >make life and death decisions for us?

Hah! You mean Justice has a SYSTEM?

 >>"'Remember' means the people actually recall meeting and shaking
 >>hands with Bugs," explained Pickrell. "'Knowing' is they have no
 >>real memory, but are sure that it happened, just as they have no
 >>memory of having their umbilical cord being cut when they were
 >>born but know it happened.

 >Was there any kind of "control" questionnaire to account for people
 >who actually _did_ meet a person dressed like Bugs Bunny at
 >some point in their life? If not, then this experiment is flawed.

 >>If ads can get people to believe they had an experience they never
 >>had, that is pretty powerful.

 >Maybe the ads are really making people wish for something they
 >don't have in their lives, or making them feel that if they
 >purchase the item in the ad, their lives will be like the ad
 >they saw. This is very different from "remembering" something
 >that never occurred.

 >Advertising is always used to _sell_ something. Whether it be an
 >image, a memory, or a product. Remember one of the most famous
 >ad campaigns of all time? The Kodak Ad - "Remember
 >Yesterday....We Wake Up, And Time Just Slips Away..." Imagine

<snip>

I am so sorry to have to say this, but advertising most
certainly _does_ give some of us false memories. But only those
who have an intellect the size of a slice of "One Knat's Ass
Pie!"

 >Ms. Loftus testified in court (here in Charlotte, North
 >Carolina) and performed a sickening analysis on a highly
 >televised media trial, the Ray Curruth case, during which she
 >tried to undermine the testimony of the victim because she was
 >on _pain medication_. In the presence of her doctors, Cherika
 >Adams talked about who she saw try to kill her - and there is
 >Ms. Loftus, the so-called memory "expert" telling the jury that
 >she alone - not Cherika Adams or Cherika Adams' doctors, really
 >knew what Cherika Adams was remembering. It was, up to that
 >point in time, the lowest point of Ms. Loftus' career.

 >*** Of course, in light of the recent debates on this list, this
 >is just my _opinion_ and in no way should undermine the
 >wonderful, positive and helpful data Ms. Loftus is providing us
 >with. *** If you can't trust your own mind and memories, whose
 >can you trust? Whose should you trust?

 >The FMS foundation should be more concerned about ads selling
 >products that KILL people, but clearly, helping people is _not_
 >what the False Memory Syndrome Foundation is about.

 >Snippet From "Project Open Mind" about the FMS Foundation:

 >FMS or False Memory Syndrome is an unproved "syndrome" that is
 >popular to use in order to attempt to discredit several
 >unpleasant subjects, one of which is "alien abduction." However,
 >FMS is not officially recognized in the DSM-III-R, [Or DSM-IV]
 >the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders, so
 >how has it become such a powerful weapon?

 >Remember Dr. Martin T. Orne, (who helped the CIA develop
 >coercive uses of hypnotic mind control) from
 >our previous discussion about hypnosis? You might find it
 >somewhat of a conflict of interest to know that he
 >"is also an original member of the False Memory Syndrome
 >Foundation's advisory board."[99]

<snip>

Lofty reading, Kate.


Love from the NAOSWASS,

Jim Mortellaro,
President. Now you know of 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 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                      Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter

From: Paul Kimball <Redstarfilm@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:29:20 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:36:33 -0400
Subject: Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter


List:

For those who are interested, the entire letter Jenny Randles
sent to MEN on 19 October 1989, upon which Stan Friedman based
his case, reads exactly as follows (I should note that I
obtained the letter from Friedman, interested as I was in
actually seeing the evidence before offering an opinion) :

"I wanted to write after the piece in 'Mr. Manchester's Diary'
last night plugging the 29 October meeting organised by Harry
Harris and 'starring' American UFO fanatic Stanton Friedman,
subject 'crashed UFOs'.

I believe Paul Jackson has already spoken with you about the
event that we (ie the Manchester UFO Research Association, in
conjunction with the British UFO Research Association) are
staging at the Manchester Central Library at 1:30 pm on
Saturday, 18 November. This is not a bandwagon leaping exercise
and has been planned for some months to try to curb the
ridiculous extremes that UFOlogy is coming to of late. I
understand your interest was piqued by the fact that on our
programme there is an exclusive presentation of the only three
pieces of movie film ever taken in this country purporting to
show UFOs. One remains puzzling and the other two have clear
aviation links which we will be discussing. These involve
frightening situations where aviation fuel seems to have been
illegally dumped from aircraft over populated terrain, garnered
into a very dangerous hovering ball of fire by localised air
thermaic and in one case being connected with the horrific crash
of a USAF F-111 jet.

There will be other UFO features on our programme that will be
of national, international and local relevance. For instance, I
have just spent a week of hard work since I first discussed the
case on ITN news last Tuesday and have now effectively solved
the highly touted sighting from the Soviet Union which you -
amongst most other papers - carried as a news story last week.
One of our last tasks at the Manchester Conference will be to
educate the public on the truth about those events, which they
usually hear no more about after the initial stories.

The trouble is that serious and responsible UFO research gets
little media notice in opposition to the sort of junk about dead
aliens and crashed spaceships that Harry Harris is spouting
(mostly from books he's read and not first hand enquiry, of
course).

I know that the likelihood is your editor would now say that
'we've covered UFOs' and so our work won't get a look in and the
Manchester public will end up being duped by the sort of stuff
fed out at that coming Radcliffe meeting. But they should get a
chance to hear the other side of the coin. So I was rather
hoping there might be something you could do to make a news
story out of our objections to the hyping of this
sensationalised nonsense which is in danger of running amok
throughout Britain.

I should point out that I am the only professional UFOlogist in
the countryand [sic] so do not dismiss claims lightly. I have
just returned from a month travelling the USA conducting many
interviews and lecturing (I was actually in the Marina district
of San Francisco just devastated by the earthquake). On my
journey over there (22,000 miles and 21 internal flights in 3
weeks!!!) I was able to pursue this absolute nonsense about
crashed UFOs and dead aliens first hand with educational
results.

The stories I could tell you about the outrageous tripe and the
distortions, bogus documents and deceit with which the public in
Britain is about to be confronted are disturbing. I see Harry
Harris is charging L4, when I imagine our venue (the Central
Library) is more celubrious (and certainly more central) and we
are offering a whole range of lectures, slide shows, exhibitions
and movie films for only half that price. If he tries to claim
its because he's flying over Stanton Friedman from the USA that
isn;t true either, because he was coming to a conference in
Europe and was already booked for a lecture in Sheffield the
same weekend as Harry is presenting him!

What I do not want to see is the Manchester public taken in by
these wild claims without at least some chance to hear a more
sober assessment of the situation from real investigating
UFOlogists. Our group has been evaluating UFOs in the Manchester
and the north west region since 1963 (twenty years longer than
Harry's part time interest) and we have extensive contacts with
scientists, working regularly with University departments at
Manchester and UMIST, Preston Polytechnic, Jodrell Bank etc.
When they see UFOs paaraded as the outrageous non-science which
fills most newspapers it makes our task doubly difficult because
we have to assure all academics anew that not all UFOlogists are
like that.

I don't want to turn this into a personal vendetta against the
crackpots or the cultists. But I thought there might be a story
in the acute difference of opinion that has developed within UFO
circles and that Manchester UFOlogists are actually saying the
Stanton Friedman/Harry Harris claims - which you helped him
promote - are dangerous and highly suspect.

Certainly I would like to make people understand that most of
what you read about UFOs is simply not representative of the
truth. The real shame is that it is not merely the local or
tabloid press now going to town on half-baked tales that are
never investigated like normal news stories. The cuttings we
receive through Durrant's have risen from 350 a year to over
2000 during the last 30 months. And sources such as the Wall
Street Journal, Financial Times, the Times, Guardian,
Independent, Observer etc are all carrying several UFO reports a
year and innocently misleading the public. Someone has to start
to get the honest truth across before we end up as demented as
many Americans (where the highbrow press treat claims of vats of
human body parts and pacts between cannibalistic aliens and the
US government as worthy of serious articles!!!)

Don't let that happen here, please!

Jenny Randles"


Whatever one thinks about Friedman or Randles, it should be
clear now that the latter was no innocent victim here. She
obviously solicited the MEN to do a story, not the other way
around. Her views are clearly set out in the letter - most
tellingly, there is no mistaking the fact that she is accusing
Harris and Friedman of being deceitful (the line "The stories I
could tell you about the outrageous tripe and the distortions,
bogus documents and deceit with which the public in Britain is
about to be confronted are disturbing" is about as unambiguous
as it gets). This goes well beyond a simple disagreement over
principle. Make no mistake - this kind of charge is grounds for
a lawsuit even in the good old US of A.  Hardly Stalinism, the
victims of which Mr. Clark demeans when he uses it here as a
debating tactic. One could just as easily say that the defenders
of Randles are Nazi-esque - you know the method I'm sure. Attack
a person with unprovable lies, and then attack them again for
having the temerity to use the law to defend themselves, and
claim that somehow they are to blame.

As for the civil libertarian motif that some folks seem to be
stuck on - the founding fathers _never_ claimed that freedom of
speech is absolute. Indeed, few political philosophers have done
so - it has always been inextricably linked to responsible
speech. That's why all western countries have libel, slander and
defamation laws. In some cases - and this seems to have been one
- its the only way to protect a person's reputation.

As for the proposition that ufologists should not be suing other
ufologists - why not, if a person has been defamed? To think
otherwise if to live in some kind of ivory tower, where the
ramifications with respect to the "unknowing" general public are
irrelevant. That kind of elitism will always get you in trouble.


Most respectfully,

Paul Kimball





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                  International UFO Research Day - June 24

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:28:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:39:59 -0400
Subject: International UFO Research Day - June 24


PRESS RELEASE and INVITATION

With participants from England, Scotland, Italy, Turkey, France,
Spain, The Netherlands, Borneo, United States, Mexico,
Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Uruguay, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia,
Puerto Rico, Brazil, and Canary Islands the first INTERNATIONAL
UFO RESEARCH DAY has been declared officially a success.

This event will take place on June 24, 2001, with the support of
the all research organizations, city mayors, radio programs,
newspapers, businesses, magazines, and individuals listed below.

The purpose of this event is to offer proper recognition to the
efforts made by researchers in the evolution of Ufology as a
serious and disciplined field of study. Many of these
researchers, who largely remain anonymous, have devoted a
considerable part of their lives and resources in sacrifice to
the search for the truth about extraterrestrial life in our
universe. Some of them have placed their reputations, their
lives and their livelihoods in jeopardy. This is the day on
which we choose to honor them.

June 24th was chosen as the date for this celebration due to the
U.S. civilian aviatori Kenneth Arnold's life-changing experience
on that day in 1947--an event which led him to describe the
formation of objects he saw as "flying saucers", a term which
acquired currency all over the world.

To this end, on the evening of June 23rd, beginning at 10:00
p.m. and running to 2:00 a.m. in the morning of June 24th, we
shall celebrate a major UFO Alert jointly with Argentina's
Project Condor. Thousands of people all over the planet will
raise their eyes skyward in a common search for any unusual
aerial phenomena as a sign of their support for this event.

All interested parties are invited to join this major event.

For more information, please
visit:http://www.ovni.net/noticias/ufo_day.html

The following lists the participating organizations to date:

Groups And Organizations

  1) PROYECTO CONDOR - Argentina - Oscar Alfredo Mario
  2) OVNI.NET - Puerto Rico,USA - Luz B. Guzmn & Ing. Orlando Pla
  3) C.E.U.F.O. - Argentina - Oscar Alfredo Mario
  4) GRUPO CAFE - Mxico - Ing. David Triay Lucatero
  5) C.E.I.N.P.L.A. - Venezuela - Martha Rosenthal
  6) OVNIVISION CHILE - Chile Cristian - Riffo M.
  7) MIAMI UFO CENTER - Florida, USA - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo
  8) SIB BETELGEUSE - Spain - Antonio Salinas
  9) CALAMA UFO CENTER - Chile - Jaime Ferrer R.
10) P.R.R.G. - Puerto Rico,USA - Willy Durn Urbina
11) C.I.O.D.O. - Puerto Rico,USA - Carlos Torres
12) C.E.I.A. - Brazil - Esdras Martins
13) AL FILO DE LA REALIDAD - Argentina - Gustavo Fernndez
14) CENTRO DE ARMONIZACION INTEGRAL - Argentina - Gustavo Fernndez
15) ALCIONE - Mxico - Alex Franz
16) PRESENZALIENA.IT - Italy - Fabio Di Rado
17) Lista MISTERIO-AR - Argentina - Dr. Roque Mecoli
18) FUNDACION COSMOS A.C. - Mxico Ing. - Marco Reynoso
19) ESTRATERRESTRESONLINE.COM - Canary Islands - Christian Prez
20) LOS OVNIS PROYECTO DE INVESTIGACION  - Ecuador - Jaime Rodrguez
21) CONCIENCIA CELESTE - Puerto Rico,USA - Jos Carlos Cruz
22) T.O.C. - Chile - Rodrigo Cuadra Salazar
23) JJBENITEZ-ONLY-EYES.com -  Spain - JJ Benitez
24) INSTITUTE OF HISPANIC UFOLOGY - Penn., USA - Scott Corrales
25) OPERACION CONTACTO - Mxico - Lus Ramrez Reyes
26) IMPRIMATUR - Penn., USA - Scott Corrales
27) MUFON Nuevo Len - Mxico - Ing. Marco Reynoso
28) CLUB OVNIS-TERRA - Mxico - Ing. Marco Reynoso
29) I.U.S.E.D.O.D.S. - Puerto Rico,USA - Wilson Sosa
30) O.J.I.O - Mxico - Martin Medina
31) C.E.M.C.A - Puerto Rico,USA - Andrew Alvarez Phd.
32) CONTACTO OVNI - Colombia - William Chavez Ariza
33) O.D.E.F.O. - Chile - Rodrigo Gonzlez
34) GRUPO AUSTRAL - Chile - Juan G. Aguilera
35) E.S.I.O - Chile - Miguel Jordan
36) C.I.E.L.O. - Argentina - Dr. Antonio Las Heras
37) O.V.N.I.S. Inc. - Puerto Rico,USA - Noel Vazquez
38) EBE-ET - Brazil - Thiago Luiz Ticchetti
39) VISION OVNI - Argentina - Simondini Andrea
40) G.I.F.A.E - Mexico - Ing. Fernando A. Castro Posada
41) GRUPO FENIX - Spain - Diego Cintas Alberola
42) F.O.C. - Chile - Pablo Omastott
43) I.P.R.I. - Peru - Rose Marie Paz Wells
44) El Dragn Invisible - Argentina - Carlos A. Iurchuk
45) A.I.F.O.C. - Chile - Hector Mendez O.
46) Diario Estrella del Loa - Chile - Csar Rosas
47) Enigma 13 - 1290AM - Mxico - Joel Bello & Yohanan Daz Vargas
48) EYE - Spain - Juanjo Martinez
49) G.I.F.O.R. - Chile - Elizabeth Ramrez
50) S.P.O.C. - Brazil - Rogiro Chola
51) N.A.S.A.I.C. - Puerto Rico,USA - Wilfredo Gonzlez
52) IV ALERTA OVNI DE MLAGA - Spain - Lus Mariano Fernndez & Miguel Angel
del Puerto
53) CENTRAL UFOLOGY AGENCY,Inc. - Puerto Rico,USA - Luiseppi Quiones A.
54) Canal OVNI de TERRA - Chile - Cristian Riffo M.
55) PROYECTO ORION - Venezuela - Jos Iglesias
56) T.U.V.P.O. - Turkey - Erol Erkmen
57) GLAUCOART - Argentina - Ricardo Dangelo
58) DREAMSCAPE - Va.,USA - Tim Edwards
59) UFO LAB & DNA LIVE radio - R.I.,USA - Dennis & Ann Bossack
60) World of the Strange - Penn.,USA - Louise A. Lowry
61) U.N.O. - Puerto Rico,USA - Reinaldo Rios
62) Project P.R.O.V.E - Ca.,USA -  Jeff Challender
63) The FURST Group - Fl.,USA - Susan Cerdan
64) S.P.A.C.E. - N.Y.,USA - Harold Egeln
65) Saber Enterprises "DREAM TEAM" - Tx.,USA - Derrel Sims
66) F.I.R.S.T - Tx.,USA - Derrel Sims
67) H.U.F.O.N - Tx.,USA - Derrel Sims
68) C.E.I.F.A.J. - Argentina - Jos Lus Miranda
69) I.N.A.P.E. - Brazil - Gener Silva
70) UFOCHALLENGE - Ca.,USA - Kevin Knoblock
71) E.C.E.T.I. - Wa.,USA - James Gilliland & John Novak
72) Revista OVNIS - Mxico - Martn Ferreira
73) AlienJoes - Nev.,USA-  Joe Held
74) Contactsentinel - Ind.,USA - Contactsentinel
75) Utopia Investigations - Somerset,U.K. - Dave Thomas
76) MysteryPlanet - Argentina - Cristian Juri
77) Grupo Ufolgico de Guaruj - Brazil - Edison Boaventura Jnior
78) Alternativa Extraterrestre FM Astral 93.7 - Argentina - Jorge Suarez
79) THE UFO VAULT - Va.,USA - Adam Clark
80) Cornwall U.F.O Research Group - Corwall,U.K. - Dave Gillham
81) The City of Lajas - Puerto Rico,USA - Marcos Irizarry - Mayor
82) WAPIT UFO GROUP - Lancashire,UK - John Cottom
83) REVISTA VIGILIA - Brazil - Jeferson Martinho
84) The City of Santa Rosa, La Pampa - Argentina

Independent Affiliates:

Miguel Angel Gmez Pombo - Argentina
Jose Lus Miranda - Argentina
Gregorio Paez - Bolivia
Guillermo Gimenez - Argentina
Sam Wright - USA
Carlos & Sonia - USA
Miguel Angel del Peso - Espaa
Nerida Muiz Muiz - Puerto Rico
Nestor de los Santos - Argentina
Alverny Velazquez - Colombia
Pedro Palermo - Puerto Rico
Jim Dilettoso - USA
Patrick Moncelet - France
David Santo - NY.,USA
Jos M. Rodriguez - Puerto Rico
Miguel & Nancy Cepeda - Puerto Rico
Arzu Barsk - Netherlands
Anbal Martnez - Puerto Rico
Emilio A. Cabot - Argentina
Ariel Lejman - Argentina
Ana del Carmen Torres - Puerto Rico
Don't forget:
JUNE 24 - UFO RESEARCH DAY
Join this worldwide event !
Luz B. Guzman & Eng. Orlando Pla - www.ovni.net
Oscar Alfredo Mario  - www.ovni.org.ar
For more information please visit:
(espaol) www.ovni.net/noticias/dia_ovni.html
(English) www.ovni.net/noticias/ufo_day.html

Dr. Virgilio Snchez-Ocejo

Miami UFO Center
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/ufomiami/index.html
Chupacabras
http://ufomiami.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 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:16:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:43:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:27:55 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >I guess my point here is that none of us conforms to the
 >doctrine of clean hands. Most of us have engaged in these sorts
 >of arguments, have been guilty of saying things out of school,
 >and creating a few of the problems we see in the field today.

<snip>

 >I have realized, after all these years that sometimes
 >that is the best course. Sometimes it isn't and sometimes you
 >must fight back. That is for each individual to determine.

Hi Kevin.

You are correct in that no one is perfect. Everyone makes
mistakes, has made mistakes, and will make more in the future.
This "throwing it up in someone's face" isn't changing a thing
and it isn't accomplishing anything productive, in my opinion.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the last sentence:
"That is for each individual to determine". It doesn't matter
what I think about the whole Friedman/Randles legal doings. It
is a done deal, over and done with. Jenny did what she did for
reasons of her own. Stan did what he did for reasons of his own.
Each individual determined their course of action. Just like all
of us do.

Hashing and re-hashing it isn't doing anything constructive, in
my opinion. Friedman and Randles are both highly respected by us
non-ufologists types. All this arguing over spilled milk is
accomplishing nothing.

I think it was Jerry Clark who said in an earlier post that
there would be no ufology if ufologists didn't trash each other.
If that's all there is to the field, then maybe the field isn't
worth pursuing. I like to think there is more to it than that.

The facts in this particular case can speak for themselves. I
will be putting up online scanned copies of the newspaper
article, the letter in question, the published apology, etc.,
for anyone who cares to take a look and draw their own
conclusions. I will post the URL to this List when I get
everything scanned and loaded to the server.

In the future, then, when the subject comes up, rather than
argue over it, I will simply point to the documents in question
and suggest that the reader make up their own mind about the
matter.


Bobbie

==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.com
==========



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.261 / Virus Database: 131 - Release Date: 6/6/2001







   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 >
   Jun > Jun 17

               Cydonian Imperative - 06-17-01 - Face on Mars:

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:45:45 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative - 06-17-01 - Face on Mars:


The Cydonian Imperative
6-17-01

The Face on Mars: Morphological Peculiarities
by Mac Tonnies

For links and illusttrations, see:

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


[image]

Both sides of the Face mirrored to produce apparent "simian" and
"feline" likenesses.

Careful study of the new frontal image of the Face on Mars has
resulted in a variety of provocative finds that strengthen the
hypothesis that the Face is an artificial structure. The bizarre
"feline" half of the Face, as discussed in detail on the
previous page, appears in keeping with Richard Hoagland's "split
image" hypothesis. Rather than detracting from the case for
artificial origin, the details seen on the eastern side of the
Face raise powerful questions that demand credible answers if
NASA is to continue flaunting its stubborn and unscientific
"conclusion" that the Face is a naturally occurring "hill."

[image]

Cydonia researchers have puzzled over the strange "terrace"
(above) visible in the angle-shot of the Face acquired in 1998.
This feature appears on the northeastern portion of the
symmetrical "headdress." Prior to the apparent confirmation of
the "hominid-lion" hypothesis, I had wondered if this was a
drainage channel designed to keep rain from eroding the Face
beyond recognizability. The lack of a corresponding terrace on
the "hominid" side of the Face mesa made a possible aesthetic
(i.e. ornamental) interpretation hard to accept. However,
"mirrored" views of the Face's respective halves lend
credibility to the idea that the "terrace" was designed to
symbolize the "ear" of a lionesque feline. If the Face is
artificial, then there is little doubt that the "ear" is a real
feature, and not an unforeseen result of erosion.

[image]

In the image above, Chris Joseph applies shape-from-shading
technique to illustrate the depth and vaguely "columnated"
exposed edge of the "channel" leading up to the "ear."
Enterprise Mission consulting geologist Ron Nicks has suggested
that the smooth surface material on the Face's eastern half is a
protective/decorative casing. Given the radically differing
surfaces seen on the Face's two halves, a structural model makes
at least as much sense as an ad hoc geological explanation,
which would have to explain not only why the Face's halves are
so different in texture, but so morphologically similar, as
explored earlier. Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara, in their
latest article, argue (correctly, in my opinion) that even if
the eastern portion of the Face wasn't intended to resemble a
feline, it would still appear quite facelike--certainly more
facelike than would be expected from purely natural causes.

[image]

The Face, in its entirety, reveals a discrepancy of surface
composition most likely attributed to wind erosion.

If the Face is a monolithic work of art, then the two halves of
the "Martian Sphinx" seamlessly compliment one another. However,
this is an aesthetic response perhaps best left to
archaeologists and anthropologists; the planetary science
community, such as it is, is quite simply unequipped for the
presence of possible extraterrestrial artifacts. This inability
to make the leap from threadbare geological models to potential
cultural scenarios typically manifests in the scoffing (and more
than a little desperate) public dismissals of the Face examined
by David Jinks, director of FACETS, and Hoagland/Bara.

[image]

The best view yet of the "nostril" feature on the simian side of
the Face. An appropriately "feline" "nostril" appears on the
tapering "nose" of the eastern half.

Properly assessing the Face is made doubly confounding by NASA's
refusal to release the ancillary data from the latest Face
overpass. Lan Fleming of Scientists for Planetary SETI Research
warns that a proper rectification of the Face (essential in
constructing a definitive split-image model) is difficult, if
not impossible, without access to the imaging procedures used to
arrive at the photo released online.

[image]

The possibility exists that the new image of the Face, as good
as it is, is not the "final product" many of us have assumed. As
with the image taken in 1998, JPL's attempts to orthorectify the
image may have caused displacement of Face features [a la T.J.
Parker's painfully misleading "Picasso" enhancement (see Face
Photos)]. This possibility is hinted at by the slightly
off-center appearance of the feature known as the "harelip" when
compared to the properly contrasted 1998 Face image. Viewed in
isolation, the "harelip" itself is enigmatic. Running
perpendicular to the gaping trench that forms the western
"mouth," it's composed of two fairly well-defined triangular
formations joined at their tips.

[image]

Shallow, room-like cells beneath the western "eye" suggest
decorative or structural elements worn away by wind.

When examined in light on Ron Nicks' erosional model, in which
the western "humanoid" half of the Face is the most highly
abraded, the "harelip" may have inadvertently served as a
windbreak; close inspection of the terrain to the feature's
eastern side suggests structural precision while the western
portion appears noticeably more wind-damaged and porous.

[image]

Chris Joseph's shape-from-shading derived model of the Face's
"feline" half, as viewed from near the Martian surface.

I personally suspect that the "harelip" was intended to mark the
Face's centerline as well as contribute to the eastern half's
feline anatomical impression. But in the new image, the
"harelip" appears too far west when compared to Mark Carlotto's
digital analysis of the non-orthorectified 1998 image. Based on
this apparent discrepancy, I predict that when and if NASA
deigns fit for the tax-paying public to examine the "missing"
ancillary data, we will find that Carlotto was right all along.
Confirmation will, of course, add even more evidence to the
Artificiality Hypothesis (which may or may not be a contributing
factor for NASA's demonstrated reticence).

Further evidence of an artificial origin for the Face comes in
the form of a square-shaped gouge on the Face's southeastern
edge (near the "chin"). This feature looks deliberately created,
almost like a large "bay" or "port" designed to facilitate large
vehicles. The floor of the gouge is marked by interesting
parallel striations that terminate abruptly, quite unlike the
"rays" of debris expected from windblown material. Hoagland and
others have argued that the gouge, far from an intentional
feature, is evidence of a partial collapse, implying a hollow
interior accessible to future on-site explorers.

Similarly, Lan Fleming has drawn attention to an unusually dark
crescent shape slightly below the gouge, and speculates that it
might also be an opening into the Face. More information on this
and other anomalous features can be expected as the Face image's
elevation-derived rectification is corrected and brought to bear
on future shape-from-shading renderings.

However, the success of this inquiry hinges on NASA's
cooperation, which at present can only be called paradoxical.
Short-term bureaucratic agendas cannot be allowed to derail this
most astonishing of scientific puzzles.

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

-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 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 07:41:20 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:47:15 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be


 >Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:05:20 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >Subject: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 >>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:53:57 +0100
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 >>This item from another newsgroup may be of interest:

 >>Source: University Of Washington (http://www.washington.edu/)

 >>Date: Posted 6/12/2001

 >>"I Tawt I Taw" A Bunny Wabbit At Disneyland: New Evidence Shows
 >>False Memories Can Be Created


 >I can only surmise that this was posted here to discredit the
 >memories of abductees and people who have seen unidentified
 >flying objects.

This was posted merely because I thought it would be of some
interest and might stimulate discussion... which obviously it
has.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 17

                  Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:50:49 -0300
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:57:10 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can


 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:00:43 -0700
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 >>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:53:57 +0100
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 >>This item from another newsgroup may be of interest:

 >>Source: University Of Washington (http://www.washington.edu/)

 >>Date: Posted 6/12/2001

 >>"I Tawt I Taw" A Bunny Wabbit At Disneyland: New Evidence Shows
 >>False Memories Can Be Created

 >>About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print
 >>advertisement that described a visit to Disneyland and how they
 >>met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny later said they remembered
 >>or knew the event happened to them.

 >>The scenario described in the ad never occurred because Bugs
 >>Bunny is a Warner Bros. cartoon character and wouldn't be
 >>featured in any Walt Disney Co. property, according to
 >>University of Washington memory researchers Jacquie Pickrell and
 >>Elizabeth Loftus.
 >>...

 >John,

 >It's been over 30 years since my wife and I, with 3 young
 >children, visited Disneyland in Los Angeles. I remember seeing a
 >cartoon character there at the time, who wowed the kids, but I
 >couldn't remember which one it was - perhaps Mickey Mouse. So I
 >asked my wife, and she couldn't remember which one either, but
 >thought it may either have been Mickey Mouse or Goofy.

 >Now, if I had recently seen some ad that seemed legitimate,
 >showing that it had been Bugs Bunny, I would probably assume
 >that that was who it had been (not knowing it's not a Disney
 >character). Only if it were a matter of considerably more
 >importance would I take the time to look into it and see if this
 >was right or not.

 >So, all this study showed to me was that some people will
 >believe other people's lies. But we already knew that,
 >especially when we see after an election that usually the person
 >who won was the one who had the most money to spend on ads that
 >distorted the truth. Thus, I'd say that politicians are an
 >example of a group that can generate a lot of false memories.

 >Someone will have to let us know just who that cartoon character
 >was at Disneyland. The article didn't say, though it may have
 >hinted at Mickey Mouse. It also didn't mention that there had
 >indeed been a life-size animated cartoon character at
 >Disneyland, walking around and greeting people and kids. And it
 >didn't say what fraction, if any, of the participants in the
 >study had been to Disneyland.


False memories, mass hallucination, mass hysteria-it never ends
does it. Of course false memories occur or are created-the
courts stumbled across this many years ago when they found that
kids were suing parents-mostly males-when they grew up for child
abuse that never happened. There's a famous case in California
where the whole family was was accused of molesting children in
a daycare center mostly at the insistence of an un-professional
quack who implanted these ideas in the heads of kids while
interviewing them.

But there's a big difference between that carefully controlled
environment and some one having a UFO sighting then reporting it
or even recalling it some years later-the recall might not be as
accurate after say 10 years-but the kernel is still there-the
same as a childs birthdate [remembering the day it was born], or
a car accident you had or Kennedy getting shot.

The police are and have been aware of this for a long time, and
so have UFO investigators. I take it into account when I have
old cases reported to me.

Remember, it's all pervasive, John you will suffer from it too.
Don't read too much into it. Remeber the Stanford experiment.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                    Re: Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:12:21 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:29:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter


 >From: Paul Kimball <Redstarfilm@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:29:20 EDT
 >Subject: Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >List:

 >For those who are interested, the entire letter Jenny Randles
 >sent to MEN on 19 October 1989, upon which Stan Friedman based
 >his case, reads exactly as follows (I should note that I
 >obtained the letter from Friedman, interested as I was in
 >actually seeing the evidence before offering an opinion) :

<snip>

Paul,

Could you or someone else refresh my addled memory?

Was Jenny's letter just written to the MEN, or was it actually
published therein?

Or did they take quotes from it which they used in an article?

Do you know if they sought permission to use those quotes?


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 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:31:57 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:31:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Maccabee


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 22:38:01 -0000


 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:38:05 -0500

 >>I just want to say one thing here:

 >>Rush Limbagh is a big fat idiot!


 >Dennis,

 >My only question would be, Is his obesity more egregious than
 >his idiocy?


What do you think this is, the EIB network?

(EIB = Ego In Broadcasting)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:50:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:32:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Stacy


 >Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 07:52:13 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >4) Whoever brought up RL in these discussions? I thought it was
 >all about Easton threatening lawsuits. What happened to that
 >thread?


Larry,

Limpbag, Limberg, Limbaugh...whatever.

Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot was the title of a book by Al
Franken. I referred to it as an example of the kind of freedom
of expression we have in this country.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:34:52 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be


 >Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:20:13 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

<snip>

 >Unless you are one of the fortunate few who have managed to
 >get through life unscathed, without any traumatic experiences
 >at all, then you know how painfully detailed the recollection
 >of such events can be. Unless it something 'soul-shattering'
 >that requires a protective bandage of forgetfulness, (amnesia)
 >certain events will become _burned_ into our consciousness. In
 >my case, with the repeated UFO sighting and abduction material,
 >it would replay itself over and over in my mind. Demanding
 >attention. And more than that, demanding an answer.

<snip>

John,

The issue of a traumatic event being "burned" into one's memory
vs. the issue of protective amnesia may be a telling clue in
getting to the bottom of the psychology of the abduction
phenomenon. I have no doubt that you saw a UFO, and no doubt
that you are relating an abduction episode as you recall it. But
my first question would have to be: how much of the abduction
event was burned into your conscious memory before recourse to
hynopsis?


Mac "alien abduction agnostic" Tonnies

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.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 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:24:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:36:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 21:26:15 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:33:23 -0500

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:46:49 -0500
 >>>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit


Bobbie,

 >Free speech being what it is, I _do_ have the right to express
 >my opinion on this matter. Which I have done.

And _not once_ have I threatened to sue you, have I?

 >You're beating a dead horse, Jerry. My best suggestion is that
 >you get over it. This is ancient history. You are not going to
 >change my opinion on the matter, and I am not going to change
 >your opinion.

Unfortunately, as I have demonstrated in a post you seem to have
missed, the horse is very much alive. The damage, resentment,
fear, and reluctance to speak out continue to this day.

 >>The only thing that matters in the present discussion is that
 >>one sued the other and silenced her free expression - a
 >>silencing, I might add, that continues even to this day.

 >You can champion Jenny in this all you want. You are not
 >championing the cause of free speech. You are championing Jenny
 >Randles.

You just don't get it, do you? You are cleary incapable of
telling the difference between principle and personality
conflict. Free expression, it seems, is a concept you have a
very hard time with. Personality conflict, on the other hand....

 >You're not fooling anyone, Jerry. While your
 >motivations may be in the highest tradition of chivalry, I think
 >Jenny is perfectly capable of championing herself. If she
 >doesn't want to do that, that is her choice.

Here, again, you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Which, I guess, doesn't stop you. I suggest that you educate
yourself on this issue before hurling further reckless charges
and making baseless claims about the situation.

I suggest you communicate privately with some British
ufologists, including Jenny Randles (if she is willing to
communicate with you; she has, I'm sorry to say, no reason to
trust you), and find out what they have to say. Ignorance is
_not_ strength.

 >But please don't
 >paint her as the oppressed little female ufologist who can't say
 >a word for fear of the big, bad American getting a lawyer on her
 >ass. I don't know how Jenny feels about that characterization,
 >but I find it offensive and chauvinistic.

I can't help noting that your characteristic mode of arguing is
heavy sarcasm. I'm sorry to tell you that it is not effective.
All it tells the rest of us is that you have nothing of
substance to contribute to this discussion.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:37:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:38:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:57:54 -0400

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:10:59 -0500


 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:27:31 -0000

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:32:17 -0500


Serge,

 >>Standing up for free expression in the Friedman/Randles suit has
 >>been a real education. In the past week or so, I have received a
 >>number of e-mails from persons close to the situation, filling
 >>me in on things I had not known. In nearly all cases the
 >>correspondent has been sufficiently nervous about retribution
 >>that he or she has demanded confidentiality. In one extreme
 >>instance a correspondent inquired if I would receive a message,
 >>then delete it immediately after reading it. Not just keep it to
 >>myself, mind you - actually _destroy all record of it_.

 >Well, what do you know, Jerry, exactly the same here!!!!

Why all the exclamation points? Ah, well, it's not "exactly the
same here," exclamation points or no explanation points. I
haven't threatened to sue anybody, and I have no plans to do so,
and nobody lives in fear that if he or she speaks his or her
mind and I don't like what's said, I'll hire a lawyer and hound
them into silence or clean out their bank account. And, I might
add, I have been at the receiving end of nasty attacks far viler
than anything Stan Friedman complains about.

 >And synchronicity has it that it concerns people on this List
 >who are _afraid_ to participate in this debate and to present
 >views opposite of yours.

And I don't feel the least sorry for them. Since they face no
potential legal threats (unlike my informants), they sound like
a bunch of hypocrites who'd rather speak behind one's back than
to one's face. As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat,
stay out of the kitchen. They're staying out of the kitchen. If
they ever decide that they're grown up enough to enter the
kitchen and dine with the big kids, they need fear no legal
retribution from me for anything they may choose to say. Ever.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:41:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:39:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:17:45 -0400

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:42:01 -0500

 >>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille
 >>>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:22:40 -0400


Serge,

 >1. I am not an apologist of Stanton Friedman.

You sure could have fooled me and, I suspect, just about
everybody else.

 >2. I am just a nearly 50 year old guy who's seen a couple of
 >things and has a few twisted idiosyncrasies, the least one not
 >being a sensitivity to BS.

Not that I've witnessed.

 >3. It would be interesting to see you, on the present thread,
 >address specific facts. So far, you have resorted to snipping
 >90% of my posts and used the last 10% to serve us your usual
 >pitch which resembles more and more a desperate mantra to dodge
 >the real issues at hand, of which one could include:

 > a. Your intellectual honesty
 > b. Jenny Randles' intellectual honesty

Interesting that, unable to mount any rational, to-the-point
defense of what Stan did to Jenny, you seek to shift the subject
of discussion to questions about my and Jenny's intellectual
honesty. Actually, I don't blame you. In your situation I'd want
to change the subject, too.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                Re: Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter - Keith

From: Rebecca Keith <xiannekei@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:43:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter - Keith


 >From: Paul Kimball <Redstarfilm@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:29:20 EDT
 >Subject: Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >List:

 >For those who are interested, the entire letter Jenny Randles
 >sent to MEN on 19 October 1989, upon which Stan Friedman based
 >his case, reads exactly as follows (I should note that I
 >obtained the letter from Friedman, interested as I was in
 >actually seeing the evidence before offering an opinion) :

Thanks for this.

 >"I wanted to write after the piece in 'Mr. Manchester's Diary'
 >last night plugging the 29 October meeting organised by Harry

The line above references what I believe to be an article
previously written in the MEN that sparked Jenny's letter. I'd
like to see that!

Perhaps there were some wild claims in the article that Jenny
wanted to counter.

However, upon seeing this letter, I don't find it particularly
disturbing or libelous.

 >Harris and 'starring' American UFO fanatic Stanton Friedman,
 >subject 'crashed UFOs'.

Here, Jenny appears to be quoting something, perhaps the
previously published article? If so, what's the damage there?

 >I believe Paul Jackson has already spoken with you about the
 >event that we (ie the Manchester UFO Research Association, in
 >conjunction with the British UFO Research Association) are
 >staging at the Manchester Central Library at 1:30 pm on
 >Saturday, 18 November. This is not a bandwagon leaping exercise
 >and has been planned for some months to try to curb the
 >ridiculous extremes that UFOlogy is coming to of late. I

Sure, she would like something written about an upcoming event,
and why not?

<snipped the bit about what the Manchester progam would feature>

 >One of our last tasks at the Manchester Conference will be to
 >educate the public on the truth about those events, which they
 >usually hear no more about after the initial stories.

Isn't that true of most conferences?

 >The trouble is that serious and responsible UFO research gets
 >little media notice in opposition to the sort of junk about dead
 >aliens and crashed spaceships that Harry Harris is spouting
 >(mostly from books he's read and not first hand enquiry, of

Has Harry Harris done first hand research? Considering I never
heard his name prior to this lawsuit business came about several
years ago, I'm thinking the answer is no.

 >course).

 >I know that the likelihood is your editor would now say that
 >'we've covered UFOs' and so our work won't get a look in and the
 >Manchester public will end up being duped by the sort of stuff
 >fed out at that coming Radcliffe meeting. But they should get a
 >chance to hear the other side of the coin. So I was rather
 >hoping there might be something you could do to make a news
 >story out of our objections to the hyping of this
 >sensationalised nonsense which is in danger of running amok
 >throughout Britain.

What's wrong with this plea? Don't responsible researchers
criticize the work of other researches with whom they disagree?

 >I should point out that I am the only professional UFOlogist in
 >the countryand [sic] so do not dismiss claims lightly. I have
 >just returned from a month travelling the USA conducting many
 >interviews and lecturing (I was actually in the Marina district
 >of San Francisco just devastated by the earthquake). On my
 >journey over there (22,000 miles and 21 internal flights in 3
 >weeks!!!) I was able to pursue this absolute nonsense about
 >crashed UFOs and dead aliens first hand with educational
 >results.

Jenny is just making her case for being an educated researcher.
I don't see any harm here.

 >The stories I could tell you about the outrageous tripe and the
 >distortions, bogus documents and deceit with which the public in
 >Britain is about to be confronted are disturbing. I see Harry

I've never heard Harry Harris speak, but I do know there have
been some distortions, deceit, and yes, even bogus documents
presented at many UFO conferences I have attended.

 >Harris is charging L4, when I imagine our venue (the Central
 >Library) is more celubrious (and certainly more central) and we
 >are offering a whole range of lectures, slide shows, exhibitions
 >and movie films for only half that price. If he tries to claim
 >its because he's flying over Stanton Friedman from the USA that
 >isn;t true either, because he was coming to a conference in
 >Europe and was already booked for a lecture in Sheffield the
 >same weekend as Harry is presenting him!

I can't thank you enough for printing this entire letter! The
brief excerpts Stanton provided, IMO, were misleading.

 >What I do not want to see is the Manchester public taken in by
 >these wild claims without at least some chance to hear a more
 >sober assessment of the situation from real investigating
 >UFOlogists. Our group has been evaluating UFOs in the Manchester
 >and the north west region since 1963 (twenty years longer than
 >Harry's part time interest) and we have extensive contacts with
 >scientists, working regularly with University departments at
 >Manchester and UMIST, Preston Polytechnic, Jodrell Bank etc.
 >When they see UFOs paaraded as the outrageous non-science which
 >fills most newspapers it makes our task doubly difficult because
 >we have to assure all academics anew that not all UFOlogists are
 >like that.

I really don't see the harm here.

 >I don't want to turn this into a personal vendetta against the
 >crackpots or the cultists. But I thought there might be a story
 >in the acute difference of opinion that has developed within UFO
 >circles and that Manchester UFOlogists are actually saying the
 >Stanton Friedman/Harry Harris claims - which you helped him
 >promote - are dangerous and highly suspect.

A strong opinion here, but I honestly don't think she's calling
Stanton or even Harry Harris a crackpot or a cultist. Not the
way I read it anyway. But I'm just an American, who doesn't
really understand all ins and outs of many things, including the
laws of the UK.

 >Certainly I would like to make people understand that most of
 >what you read about UFOs is simply not representative of the
 >truth. The real shame is that it is not merely the local or
 >tabloid press now going to town on half-baked tales that are
 >never investigated like normal news stories. The cuttings we
 >receive through Durrant's have risen from 350 a year to over
 >2000 during the last 30 months. And sources such as the Wall
 >Street Journal, Financial Times, the Times, Guardian,
 >Independent, Observer etc are all carrying several UFO reports
 >a year and innocently misleading the public. Someone has to start
 >to get the honest truth across before we end up as demented as
 >many Americans (where the highbrow press treat claims of vats
 >of human body parts and pacts between cannibalistic aliens and
 >the US government as worthy of serious articles!!!)

OK, the demented American thing is a bit much!! Call my lawyer!
Just kidding.

 >Don't let that happen here, please!

 >Jenny Randles"

In case anyone cares what I think:

Frankly, I agree with the last part of this letter very much.

I don't see the harm here at all. I think Stan was way out of
line by pursuing this matter. What a sad day.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:37:37 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:46:30 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be


 >Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:20:13 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

<snip>

 >Unless you are one of the fortunate few who have managed to
 >get through life unscathed, without any traumatic experiences
 >at all, then you know how painfully detailed the recollection
 >of such events can be. Unless it something 'soul-shattering'
 >that requires a protective bandage of forgetfulness, (amnesia)
 >certain events will become _burned_ into our consciousness. In
 >my case, with the repeated UFO sighting and abduction material,
 >it would replay itself over and over in my mind. Demanding
 >attention. And more than that, demanding an answer.

 >False memory my ass.

 >Ask any WWII combat vets who watched their buddy's face
 >blown off as they sat inches away if they can't recall it in
 >painfully minute detail. Ask them if the memory isn't vivid/
 >livid in their minds still. Even now, a half century later. If you
 >were to compare traumatic memory to traumatic memory
 >then we could have an intelligent debate about it. This implanted
 >false memory of meeting Bugs Bunny has -nothing- to do with
 >what a person who has seen a UFO experiences and recalls.

I had the good fortune to know many vets from WW2, through
present. Of interest is that they do recall events, traumatic,
and otherwise that happened to them during the war. What I
always found interesting is they were able to "recall" the
events *without* the need of regressived hypnosis.

The same thing appears to be true with UFO reports, landings or
whatever. Take the Roswell crash. Everybody recalled in the
present state so to speak their story or event. The only person
that was regressively taken back was Dr. Marcel and that was to
further clarify a story he had already been telling. To some or
many of these witnesses the experience was a tramautic
event... but they still remembered in the present state.

On the other hand it has always struck me that most of the UFO
abductees can't seem to recall in the present state so to speak
the "Grays", "medical tests" and so forth _unless_ they are
regressively hypnosis by someone. I have no doubt that the
abductees _believe_ what comes forward in the hypnosis sessions
as an absolute true-to-life experience. Which reminds me. Didn't
one of the UFO abduction researchers have some lady abductee
that went under hypnosis, told tales and storys of abduction and
medical testing while under regressive hypnosis, then later
admitted it was a total stroke job?

If someone on the list knows of case or cases of abduction that
did not involve hypnosis I am sure many people would be
interested.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                       UFO Visits Chilean Supermarket

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:40:47 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:48:45 -0400
Subject: UFO Visits Chilean Supermarket



SOURCE: Diario Las Ultimas Noticias (newspaper)
DATE: Sunday, June 17, 2001

UFO VISITS SUPERMARKET
Diario Las Ultimas Noticias


Photo: Christian Castro

Cameras at the Puente Alto Lider supermarket captured the
strange apparition.

When security guard Victor Montero did his rounds on May 27 at
the Lider supermarket of the communed of Puente Alto, something
made him lose his calm. It wasn't an emergency or a robbery, but
the sighting of a strange luminous object which sped toward him
and then moved away, only to remain static. in sky.

Seized by fear, Montero ran toward the office where the rest of
the guards were stationed to warn them about the unusual
apparition. It was then when his colleague Lorena Castro decided
to shift the positions of the store's safety cameras, located on
the corners of the roof, to record what was going on in the
heavens.

"Without thinking if it was allowed or not, I decided to record
the object with the supermarket's security cameras. I used the
city's lights as a point of refernece to show its altitude and
the object sometimes jumps out of the recording, since it was
very fast and moved suddenly," stated a still shocked Lorena.

"The first time we saw it was about five o'clock in the morning.
It was round and had red and green lights, remaining like a
fixed point [in the sky] and then moving swiftly toward the
sides or up and down," noted the worker.

The store's chief of security, Julio Gatica, was startled by the
images recorded, which prompted him to bring his portable camera
and come to wor around six o'clock in the morning to see the
phenomenon with his own eyes.

"It changed position and spectacularly so. First it looked like
a single sphere, the a black circle appears in its middle, and
then it hangs like a jellyfish in the air, " reported
Gatica,.who also said tha the object has appeared on a daily
basis and remains in the sky for hours, even after daybreak.
"Even the executives who opened the supermarket got a chance to
see it."

The employees have gotten used to this strange visitor, since
they haven't even bothered to tape it again. However, aside from
the impression it caused on the first day, it also caused an
accident two days later. "A security guard almost killed himself
because of that object. He was working when the luminous sphere
headed for him at full speed. When the man stepped back,
thinking the object was about to pounce on him, he fell, "
related the security chief.

Julio Gatica is certain that the UFO visiting the sector is a
flying saucer. For this reason, based on the five tapes which
have already been recorded, he made a complete follow up,
carefully noting the exact times in which the object engages in
its rapid motions and collecting eyewitness testimony.


##################################

Translation (C) 2001. Scott Corrales, Institute of Hispanic
Ufology (IHU)

Special Thanks to Rodrigo Cuadra, 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 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:03:55 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:52:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Gates


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:27:55 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:46:49 -0500
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:44:23 -0500

 >>>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:22:58 -0500
 >>>>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 ><snip>

 >>Let's see... Jenny was the innocent victim of the big, bad
 >>American that wanted nothing but her hard-earned cash. The mean
 >>old nasty newspaper took Jenny's innocent words and twisted them
 >>all up and made her look like a big ole meanie. And the big, bad
 >>American took advantage of the pathetic state of British libel
 >>laws to suck the cash out of poor Jenny and this little
 >>newspaper that just wanted to let everyone know that the big,
 >>bad American thinks aliens have a thing about strawberry ice
 >>cream.

 >>Stan Friedman is a horrible, mean ole vicious money-grubbing
 >>American who takes advantage of financially strapped British
 >>ufologists. He and I, both being of the American persuasion, are
 >>undoubtedly guilty of every atrocity that has ever befallen any
 >>British citizen. Britians who happen to be ufologists can't be
 >>held accountable for their actions, after all, so it must be the
 >>fault of someone else. Probably someone American.

 >Bobbie, Jerry, Stan, List, all -

 >Let's see if I can ratchet this up a notch or two. First a
 >little background that will necessary to understand the whole
 >thing.

 >Back in the olden days, say late 1988, CUFOS decided that the
 >Roswell case deserved some further investigations. Good Ole Stan
 >told them that there were additional witnesses to be interviewed
 >and additional work to be done. They decided to launch their own

Kevin,

When he made the request, was it for investigative funding or what?

<snip>

 >Stan had promised to share some material with us, but somehow
 >that never quite materialized. He told Don Schmitt that he
 >believed Lewis (Bill) Rickett to be dead when he was not, told
 >Schmitt that Johnny McBoyle lived in Wyoming when he did not,
 >promised to send copies of his interviews with Marcel, but did
 >not, and promised to provide other information, but did not. On
 >the other hand, I supplied Stan with a number of the interviews
 >we had conducted, some of which he quoted in his Crash at Corona
 >with neither credit nor attribution. The Bill Brazel interview
 >that Schmitt and I had conducted in February, 1989 is used with
 >the wording of one small section changed to corroborate the
 >tales told by Glenn Dennis and later Gerald Anderson. There was
 >no reason to make that change, but that, too, is another story.

Point of clarification. Am I correct in assuming that the Brazel
interview that "is used with the wording of one small section
changed to corroborate the tales..." referring to Crash at
Corona as opposed to your first book?

<snip>

 >Then, on June 11, 1990, Stan wrote to my editor at Avon, Mr.
 >John Douglas (not to be confused with the FBI profiler) and made
 >a number of allegations. Remember, we had all been cooperating,
 >but Stan wrote "... perhaps unfortunately have shared some of my
 >recent research with Randle and Schmitt..." Of course, this was
 >nothing other than information that we had already discovered
 >from our interviews.

Point being that if Researcher A interviews a witness, then
along comes researcher B and C, the witness is likely to tell
the same story to all three researchers. If he doesn't, one can
question the reliability of the witness.

 >While this statement is certainly innocuous, Stan continued, "As
 >you can tell from the enclosed paper, I was not happy with the
 >Roswell Incident because of the inappropriate material that was
 >included, the misquotation of myself, the absence of the
 >contractually obligated acknowledgment of my major contribution.

One assumes that Stan was speaking about the Berlitz/Moore book
called The Roswell Incident that had come out 10 year earlier.
Has anybody other then Berlitz/Moore ever actually seen a copy
of the RI contract?

 >I am certainly anxious to see the Randle Schmitt book to see if
 >once again my contribution is undervalued and if there are many
 >factual mistakes, flights of fancy, lifting of my research much
 >of which remains unpublished. I think the story needs to be
 >told, but with full credit for my and other investigations.
 >After all, by the end of 1985, [Bill] Moore and I had located 92
 >persons connected with the event. It is difficult indeed to
 >believe that S and R didn't depend strongly on that base for
 >their book. They have made trips to Roswell and have found
 >people not previously located partly through government
 >computers to which I did not have access... Please call if you
 >have any questions. Anxiously awaiting a copy of the manuscript
 >for review only..." From a publishing standpoint, these
 >allegations could be deadly, thinly disguised as they were.
 >Please do note the careful wording though the implications are
 >evident.

The publisher (whom are always sensitive to law suits and such)
apparently yawned big time.

 >Stan was not the only one to write. Bill Moore, Charles Berlitz
 >(who said he was going to sue me for talking about Roswell) and
 >Whitley Strieber (yes, that Whitley Strieber) all wrote to the
 >publisher demanding copies of the manuscript and claiming all
 >sorts of nefarious actions on our part.

Apparently the publisher yawned again and never released a copy
of the manuscript.

As I recall Bill Moore had a big deal going about a MJ-12
related book when the MJ-12 papers became public in 1987. I had
phoned Moore a few times and as I recall on this one
conversation he spoke of a book contract that was going to be
akin to the revelation of the century so to speak whose authors
were going to be Moore and Shandara only and no others. I was
somewhat surprised at the time. As I recall later Moore
suggested to Saucer Smear that he now believed the MJ-12 papers
were disinfo/bogus. I heard later that the book fell through
around the time of Moore's 1988 talk where he allegedly claimed
to be part of a government disinfo effort against UFO
researchers.

<snip>

 >I could point out that Stan's review of our book was less than
 >glowing but given the above history, is anyone really surprised?
 >Of that review, Jerry Clark noted, on July 27, 1991, "You [Stan]
 >suggest that both Randle and Schmitt are government agents
 >'desperately trying to attract attention from the Plains where
 >one of the aliens was 'alive'. True, in the next paragraph you
 >provisionally (as in 'I think') retract this outrageous
 >charge..."

As I recall the theory that ufology had two paid govt
disinformation agents was originally floated without names by
Bill Moore, long before Randle/Schmitt came along.

The crash on the plains theory was allegedly supported by the
barney Barnett story. During this period of time somebody
(Kevin?) got ahold of all of Barneys diary and he wasn't in the
plains on the dates in question. Then the Gerald Anderson tale
came along, then died which is what has happened to the plains
story in general..unless you take into account the story
allegedly told by the Roswell Cameraman as passed on in
Mantle/Hessman book.

When the Gerald Anderson story was a hot item so to speak,
I was speaking to Walt Andrus over the phone. When I ask him
what he thought...he was always very forth right and straight
forward... he said the story appeared to be phony. His wisdom
proved out much later.

<snip>

 >[a] Stan not sued and [b] this argument had not erupted in this
 >forum.). I have realized, after all these years that sometimes
 >that is the best course. Sometimes it isn't and sometimes you
 >must fight back. That is for each individual to determine.

This is so true, i.e. "that is for each individual to
determine.." Years ago somebody suggested that had an individual
been sued, and it gone through discovery, i.e. deposition, we
might have found out alot about alleged insider informants and
so forth. On the other hand we might have actually found out
that the aliens really liked Chocolate Chip ice cream instead of
strawberry. :)

 >And, I think most will understand the purpose of this post. Cry
 >havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

The post was well done and very interesting bit of ufological
"insider" research history.

Ah, famous quote used by a Klingon commander in "Star Trek,
Undiscovered County" which in fact was borrowed from William
Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene I.

Well, "To be or not to be, that is the question..."

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 >
   Jun > Jun 18

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:34:40 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:54:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - McCoy


 >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 21:26:15 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:33:23 -0500

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:46:49 -0500
 >>>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 ><snip>

 >>This is, of course, rubbish.

 >This is, of course, _your_ opinion, which you are entitled to.
 >Just as I am entitled to _my_ opinion on the matter.

 >Free speech being what it is, I _do_ have the right to express
 >my opinion on this matter. Which I have done.

 >You're beating a dead horse, Jerry. My best suggestion is that
 >you get over it. This is ancient history. You are not going to
 >change my opinion on the matter, and I am not going to change
 >your opinion.

 >Viva la difference :)

 ><snip>

 >>The only thing that matters in the present discussion is that
 >>one sued the other and silenced her free expression - a
 >>silencing, I might add, that continues even to this day.

 >You can champion Jenny in this all you want. You are not
 >championing the cause of free speech. You are championing Jenny
 >Randles. You're not fooling anyone, Jerry. While your
 >motivations may be in the highest tradition of chivalry, I think
 >Jenny is perfectly capable of championing herself. If she
 >doesn't want to do that, that is her choice. But please don't
 >paint her as the oppressed little female ufologist who can't say
 >a word for fear of the big, bad American getting a lawyer on her
 >ass. I don't know how Jenny feels about that characterization,
 >but I find it offensive and chauvinistic.

 >Jenny Randles is, in my opinion, every bit as capable of taking
 >up for herself as me or any other female on this list. So do us
 >a favor and knock off the "Knight in Shining Armor" bit. Like
 >this thread, that particular brand of male posturing is quickly
 >growing wearisome.


To every personage on this List, Stan, Jenny, Dick  Juan,
Alfred, Bobbie, Bobs (plural) Don's (plural) and Bruce's and
Ed's. Also the Serges, and others, whom I am too tired  to
mention.(no offence, I really am too tired.)

I am one who is not alarmed easily. But folks, we are eating
ourselves alive. Yes Stan may have a case, and after reading
Jenny's letter to the Manchester paper, he may have a good one.
But , as one who respects them both, aren't we chewing on our
own foot (if not shooting at it) this kind of effort is not
going to resolve the problem- are UFO's and the associated
Phenomina -real-.( Empirical experience not withstanding, of
course, )or not.

We can shoot at Chimeras, and fish for Sharks in a goldfish
bowl, we cannot afford a fight that is destructive to the
pursuit of the truth. If there is no resoultion, we could see
the demolition of an effort to figure out just what is going on.

Or we hand the Reins to Bell, Greer, and the rest of the Klowns!


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 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                        Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:19:43 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:09:44 -0400
Subject: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest


As of June 17 my monthly column for the MUFON UFO Journal was
vetoed (read: censored) by John F. Schuessler, the International
Director, because it included critical comments about the
line-up of speakers for the 2001 symposium in Orange County,
California. No dissension allowed. As a result, I have submitted
my resignation and will contribute no further columns to the
Journal.

I was informed that the Orange County MUFON chapter had selected
the speakers and considered them "appropriate for the theme of
the event as well as the location of the event." How true! But
how appropriate are they for the national MUFON organization
which claims to be scientific in orientation?

Following my own advice to others on this list, I did some
research and looked at the MUFON Orange County web site
(www.mufonoc.org), and discovered that the "New Age" is alive
and well in Southern California. Their stated goals include
"Actively promoted INTERACTION with intelligent life and URP."
(Shades of Steven Greer, the speaker that I protested most
strongly.)

URP (UFO-related Phenomena) is defined to include PSI Phenomenon
[sic], astro-geology, paleo-archeology, and human and animal
mutilations, among other things. MUFON-OC public education
programs include presentations about hypnotic regression by a
woman associated with the Association for Past Life Research and
Therapies, and who has recently published a book titled "Crop
Circles Revealed: Language of the Light Symbols."

Other public education programs featured remote viewing,
underground bases, Area 51, etc. If this mish-mosh is where
MUFON is going, I'm not going with them. My advice to
scientifically oriented MUFON members is to instruct your
leadership to clean house and start behaving scientificially,
which includes peer review as a central element.

My offending column is attached.


_____________

Perspective

On the Role of MUFON


By Richard H. Hall


I have been made aware of an undercurrent of "unrest" or
"concern" about MUFON policies and activities that I wish the
people concerned would address directly to International
Director John Schuessler rather than to me. Essentially, they
center around the apparent (and I stress "apparent") endorsement
by MUFON of some very extreme and questionable people and
viewpoints.

It all comes down to leadership style, standard setting, "free
speech" and fairplay issues, and other sometimes subjective
judgments as well as honest evaluation of objective facts.
Primarily I am referring here to the 2001 MUFON symposium in
California, though it is merely putting a sharp focus on an
incipient issue. That issue concerns the credibility and,
indeed, honesty and integrity of some of the people in ufology
who have now been invited to be featured speakers at the
symposium.

Let me say up front that I have privately protested the
inclusion of Dr. Steven Greer as a speaker for reasons that I
won't reiterate here, but that are obvious to anyone who has
observed, or followed, or participated in his activities. To me,
it is a travesty that he is being allowed to speak at a MUFON
symposium. However, the leadership of MUFON - for reasons that
they have not expressed to me - disagree and are allowing him to
be on the program. So be it. We will see what the fallout is.

In addition to Greer, we find on the program a highly
controversial leftist lawyer, Daniel Sheehan, who supports Greer
but also drags Left vs. Right politics into the arena as an
unnecessary complicating factor. He and another highly
controversial character, Alfred L. Webre (who has made some
exceedingly strange political comments and dragged in the issue
of weapons in space) both were prominently involved in Greer's
press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.,
advocating Congressional hearings about UFOs.

Is the UFO subject not controversial enough in its own right
without introducing these politically loaded issues of
questionable relevance?

Some of the other speakers are controversial as well,
particularly Roger Leir and his claims about alien implants,
Joseph McMoneagle and remote viewing, and the Woods who are
claiming (despite a great deal of knowledgable commentary to the
contrary) to be "expert" document analyists. Leir and the Woods,
at least, are making claims that are more logically relevant and
more subject to legitimate peer review. However, it is my firm
opinion that unless they are subjected to "real time" peer
review during (not after) the symposium, MUFON comes off looking
naive and gullible.

As for "remote viewing," once again there is an appearance of
naivete and gullibility unless MUFON takes pains to provide
background as to its relevance and as to its validity.

A symposium on UFOs obviously ought to explore a range of issues
with an open mind, but my suggestion is that perhaps more
attention should be paid to (a) vetting speakers, and (b)
providing background information and context to an ill-informed
public to help them understand what the speakers are saying.
This is even more important in regard to the impressions that
scientific and news media observers who may be observing will
obtain on how MUFON (and "ufology")  go about their work.

My final thought is that John Schuessler and MUFON need to give
strong consideration to what the purpose of the annual symposium
is and how to go about it. My bias is that the symposium should
have as a primary purpose informing the public about reliably
established UFO information, a secondary purpose of providing
background and contextual information to help the public
unerstand the information, and a tertiary purpose of encouraging
and promoting critical discussion of controversial issues.

_____________

Richard 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 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                     UFO Over Santa Maria, Near Brasilia

From: Thiago Luiz Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 12:57:36 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:36:09 -0400
Subject: UFO Over Santa Maria, Near Brasilia


Yesterday we received a information about the sighting of a UFO
over the city of Santa Maria, 30 km from Brasilia, Brazil's
Capital. According to the witnesses of the neighborhood of
block 313, the object appeared around 7:30PM, hovered in the sky
for 20 minutes at about 30 meters hight.

The object was described as one bright ball surrounded by eight
smaller balls. They were spinning. Then they stopped spinning
and faded. The Fire Corps received several calls but when
they arrived at the spot, the objetcts had gone.

The Brazilian Entity of Extraterrestrial Research are looking
for more infoamrtion.



Source: Correio Brasiliense newspaper, June 18th, 2001.


Regards,

Thiago Luiz Ticchetti

Vice-chairman EBE-ET/Braslia-DF/Brazil







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                   Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - EagleBoy

From: Ron EagleBoy <eagle100@prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:59:52 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:39:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - EagleBoy


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:09:19 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers'
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Ron EagleBoy <eagle100@prodigy.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' [was: Serious Research]
 >>Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:38:28 -0400

<snip>

 >>This is why jets were not used to respond to this particular
 >>UFO encounter. Jets may have responded initially, but after
 >>determining that the object was in trouble, and basically
 >>hovering in place, the only logical, practical choice was to
 >>use helicopters.(CH-47 Chinooks. Each ship can carry more
 >>than 40 troops and can lift and transport up to 12 tons!)

 >>The military would also have to consider the possibility of a
 >>crash or emergency landing, so they decided to use Chinooks,
 >>and 23 of them at that. (Vickie said she counted 23.) I'm
 >>sure that the military felt confident that if there was a
 >>crash or an emergency landing of this unknown, 23 Chinooks,
 >>crammed with troops, would be more than adequate to deal
 >>with whatever was inside the object, and if necessary, handle
 >>any unfortunate witnesses to the event. (I think the
 >>potential witness"problem" was half of the reason they
 >>decided to use 23 "troop" carrying helicopters.)

 >Where did the 23 mystery Chinooks come from, packed with a full
 >battalion over a holiday stand-down period?  What units flew
 >them and where did they operate from?  A formation of this size
 >is hard to miss at 9 PM, but was not seen from the Houston
 >airport only a few miles away.

 ><snip>

 >>Note: There were a number of other witnesses to both the
 >>object and the helicopters. Two witnesses to the helicopters
 >>was a Dayton Texas Police Officer, L.L. Walker, and his wife.

 >They said they saw a few helicopters hours later.  There is not
 >one shred of evidence that these were the same helicopters, and
 >in any case these witnesses didn't see any UFO.  How this can
 >bemused to corroborate the UFO story is beyond me.

 ><snip>

 >>This was not an escort, but a pursuit.

 >A pursuit by whom, from where to where?  These choppers, in
 >these numers, didn't exist, anywhere nearby.


Bob,

Are you saying that since the logistics of such an operation
can't  be explained, at least to your satisfaction, then the
helicopters can not (did not) exist, therefore the witnesses
were lying or hallucinating?

Using your logic, we'd have to conclude that the damaged
(irradiated) area of the highway where the encounter took place
wasn't really removed and replaced (twice) because the equipment
and trucks that were used were unmarked and unidentifiable, and
therefore didn't exist!

So the bottom line is, "ignore the evidence and the witness'
testimony simply because we don't know the who, where, and why
of it!

Bob, I don't mean to be disrespectful here, but isn't there
something kind of backwards about how you're analyzing this
case?

Regardless of the fact that we don't know where all those
choppers came from on such short notice, I believe that once
it's been reasonably established (and I think it's fair to say
that it has) that the radioactive emitting object was there,
along with the 20+ helicopters, this question, and others you
pose become secondary, even irrelevant.

BTW, John Schuessler investigated this case extensively. He
indicated that there were a number of witnesses to the UFO (10),
the helicopters (7), and the trucks/equipment (multiple
witnesses) which removed the roadway.

Oh, one more thing. Mr. Walker stated that he and his wife drove
onto a section of road where they saw multiple helicopters, all
with their search lights on. They choppers all very close to the
ground. One of the them flew over his car, shining the search
light directly at him and he was forced to pull off the road.

Mr. Walker didn't go into detail but said, as the choppers
passed over him they were heading in the direction of where
Betty and Vickie were.

So Mr. and Mrs. Walker's encounter with the helicopters took
place just "before" Vickie and Betty's encounter, not 3 hours
later. And, while it's true that the Walkers didn't see the UFO,
there were 10 other witnesses who did.


Ron









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                   Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 12:28:02 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:43:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Balaskas


 >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:05:41 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers'

<snip>

 >Does anyone know how many UFO related/associated deaths have
 >ever been reported? Is that information catalogued anywhere?
 >I'm curious.

Hi John.

Friday afternoon I picked up a half-price copy of Tony Dodd's
1999 'Alien Investigator' book. To my surprise, I found many
accounts of deaths in this book that I was unaware of, including
loss of aircraft and even warships which Tony attributed
directly to UFOs or E.T. alien activity.

When author Palmiro Campagna was speaking with you on Errol's
'Strange Days... Indeed' radio show about UFOs last weekend, he
mentioned about a recent 'Aviation Week And Space Technology'
article which suggested that some UFO related deaths are a
result of human, not E.T. alien, intervention to permanently
silence people from talking about top secret/inside information.

As for exactly how many UFO related/associated deaths have
happened, this may be difficult to determine since bodies are
not always found. Dodd, an ex-policeman, mentions that 250,000
are reported missing every year in Britain alone. How many of
these are UFO related/associated?

In his book Dodd includes a disturbing photo and details of a
human mutilation from Brazil which closely resembles the
reported animal mulilations that are attributed to UFOs. Dodd
also talks about a quick-reponse team set up during Margret
Thatcher's and Ronald Reagan's terms of office which
investigated UFO incidents and, according to Dodd's un-named
sources, also found mutilated human bodies.

There are similar accounts about these teams, also known as the
'Blue Boys', in other UFO publications including ones by Donald
Keyhoe, Leonard Stringfield, Clifford Stone, etc.

According to Dodd, a fellow UFO researcher and ex-policeman, Don
Ecker tried to access the FBI crime database and get help from
the DEA to determine just how many human mutilation cases there
were in the U.S. north-west. Don never found out. A DEA agent
advised him to stay away 'if you know what is good for you'. Why
the big secrecy?


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 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                              Dust Bunny Hunt?

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:39:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:46:38 -0400
Subject: Dust Bunny Hunt?


Dust Bunny Hunt/SpinalTap Mach II  ;)

Hi All,

The quickest way for me to do this is to post it to the List, so
here goes.

Nick:

I need to know how many samples (in total) were submitted to you
for the dust bunny experiment. How many were from Abductees and
how many from the control group.

Could you please return all samples and documentation to me
asap? If you have written up any results of your own
investigation please submit it to me along with the other
materials as I would like to publish it (as I originally
promised) to this list, and on the Web.

Abductee participants:

If you submitted a dust sample; was the sample taken shortly
after an experience? If not, please let me know. If yes, I will
need as detailed information as you can provide as to 'when' the
experience took place, and how soon afterwards the sample was
taken. Right now I'm looking to isolate any samples that may
have been collected shortly after an encounter.

To All participants:

The moment I have the materials in my hands from Nick, I will
publish it here, (UpDates) and on the Web as well. I am
currently negotiating to have dust samples that may have been
collected _shortly_ after an abduction experience checked by an
electron microscope (which will also be able to help us
ascertain the composition of the particle.)

It is important to determine if the crystaline-like particles
detected/reported by Dr. Levengood originally are ubiquitous or
unique. Electron microscopy will also facilitate finding out the
composition of these particles. Because we are both astronomers,
(myself an amateur) Nick and I were speculating that these odd
silicate/crystaline particles that Dr. Levengood discovered may
be the atmospheric fallout from the microscopic remains of
super-heated and vaporized meteorites. That 'theory' could
explain where the heat needed to create the little bubble-like
crystals out of silica particles came from. (Meteorite burn up
on entry) But we need to determine if the particles are
(everywhere) first. (Ergo the control samples) If it is a
localized phenomena (appearing only after reported abduction
experiences) we may have found physical material worthy of
further study and analysis. I don't for a moment consider
something like this to be "conclusive" in any way shape or form.
It would just be an avenue of investigation involving physical
evidence that we didn't have/were not aware of, before.

Until I hear from Nick and the participants,

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 >
   Jun > Jun 19

             Is This The Same As The Mysterious 'Roswell Metal'?

From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:52:01 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:50:13 -0400
Subject: Is This The Same As The Mysterious 'Roswell Metal'?


Space-Age Alloy Mends Blood Vessels And Bones


By Amanda Cooper

VALENCIA, Spain, June 18 (Reuters) - Repairing broken bones or
patching up faulty blood vessels could soon be easier than ever
before, thanks to a metal as supple as a bendy toy.

Nitinol -- an alloy of nickel and titanium -- can adopt
different shapes and bounce back to original form depending on
temperature much like the evil metal humanoid in action movie
Terminator II regroups despite having been smashed to bits.

"Nitinol has two useable features -- one is the change in shape
that comes with the change in temperature, and the other...is
that it can exert a constant pressure on the point to which it
is attached over a wide range of shapes," said Dr Jaime Prat of
the Institute of Biomechanics of Valencia in Spain.

Nitinol, a shape memory alloy, might not have the advanced
self-healing powers of the Terminator II's fictional alloy, but
its extraordinary elasticity makes it the most mechanically
similar to organic materials such as human hair or tendons.

Nitinol can be deformed by cooling or heating and then recover
its original shape when re-heated or re-cooled.

It takes its name from the chemical symbols of its two
components --nickel (Ni) and titanium (Ti)-- and the U.S. Naval
Ordnance Laboratories (NOL) where it was discovered in the
1960's when scientists noticed that a nickel-titanium alloy
ingot produced in a vacuum furnace changed shape after it was
left in sunlight.

FILTERS BLOOD

Nitinol's main use is in the production of blood filters, which
trap and eliminate clots that can cause a stroke or heart
attack. The filters are used in patients who are unable to take
conventional blood-thinning drugs to control their blood flow.

 From its raw state, the nitinol is moulded into a filter shape
and then cooled and given another shape to make it easy to
introduce into the body.

A surgeon then guides it to a blood vessel, where the alloy
adopts its original filter shape, as its temperature rises to
meet the body's temperature of 37 degrees Celsius, leaving the
device lodged safely in place.

After many years of peering at the outside world from the
shelter of a laboratory, nitinol made its way into the human
body in the 1990s in cardiovascular applications including
filters and stents -- small tubes made of metal mesh.

These are used to treat conditions such as arterosclerosis and
aneurisms, which damage the walls of blood vessels.

Since a nitinol stent can easily be shrunk and inserted into the
body, only minimum invasive surgery is required.

"We are at the stage where a stent can be shrunk to just three
millimetres in diametre," said Professor L'Hocine Yahia,
director of the biomechanics and biomaterials research group of
the Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal in Canada.

"Another metal such as stainless steel once it is deformed,
cannot come back, there is no spring-back, and this is another
reason why we use nitinol," Yahia said.

Until now, the most widespread method of treatment has been
using stainless steel or other titanium alloys, in part because
of worries about toxicity which some scientists dismiss.

"We don't know why this (nitinol) is not more widely used," Dr.
Jose Luis Peris, head of biological research at the Institute of
Biomechanics of Valencia said.

"Nitinol is far more biocompatible than other alloys."

BONE-HARD SUBSTITUTE

Nitinol's "spring-back" and ability to apply a constant pressure
also make it an attractive option in plates and clamps used in
the treatment of bone fractures.

"Everywhere where you need to replace bone...there is a
potential to apply this metal," Yahia said.

"We can approach original bone resistance. We can match the
mechanical property of the bone which is required in order to
have optimal replacement."

Nitinol bone implants have not yet reached clinical trials in
humans, as many health authorities in North America and Europe
have questioned its safety. But countries such as Russia and
China have used nitinol in humans for many years.

The benefits of using titanium in bone tissue are well-known --
it is corrosion-resistant, light and very strong.

But nickel is highly poisonous and its toxicity initially caused
scientists to snub nitinol as a viable material for human
implants, and this remains one of the reasons why it is not
widely used in North America or Europe.

NO ORDINARY ALLOY

But in its defence, nitinol does not behave like other alloys
and this only adds to its appeal as an implant material.

"Nitinol was not created by metallurgists, but by subatomic
physicists," Yahia of Montreal said.

Once in the body, the alloy becomes coated with titanium oxide,
which poses no threat to humans and no trace of nickel remains
on the surface.

The nickel ions in the compound cannot escape into the body due
to their strong inter-atomic bonds with the titanium.

"Stainless steel is about 40 percent nickel. It has a smaller
content but because the nickel is free in the stainless steel
there is some risk of release of these nickel ions which is not
the case with nitinol," Yahia said. Unlike stiffer alloy plates
used in fractures, nitinol lets the broken bone bear more of the
body's load while mending, making it less liable to break once
the plate is removed.

Nitinol's elasticity makes it unable to act as a load-bearer and
it is unsuitable for generalised use in fractures.

But it could one day be key in treating back problems such as
scoliosis -- curvature of the spine -- or replacing discs that
have deteriorated.

Researchers are currently developing nitinol foam pads which may
be used to replace damaged discs using the alloy's ability to
bend, twist and absorb shock without deforming in any way.


02:01 06-18-01

Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

Researcher Steven L. Wilson, Sr
To submit paranormal/UFO activity email Ndunlks@aol.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                 Comparison Of Unidentified Triangular Craft

From: Colm Kelleher <nids@earthlink.net>
Date: 18 Jun 2001 19:24:53 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:53:30 -0400
Subject: Comparison Of Unidentified Triangular Craft


National Institute for Discovery Science - http://www.nidsci.org

Comparison of Unidentified Triangular or Deltoid Aircraft
Location Patterns in Three Independent UFO Databases: NIDS,
MUFON and Larry Hatch

In April 2001, the National Institute for Discovery Science
(NIDS) published a summary of research into a subset of our
database that comprised reports of low flying triangular objects
(see www.nidsci.org/articles/pdf/triangularcraft.pdf). In that
report we concluded that the extremely low altitudes reported in
over thirty separate cases from around the country may
constitute a safety hazard. NIDS then examined the relationship
between triangular object sightings and the locations of a small
subset of United States Air Force bases: i.e. the bases under
the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) and Air Mobility Command
(AMC). Combined, these two commands control the logistics of
troop and equipment deployment within the United States and
internationally. NIDS found an interesting scatter of triangular
object sighting locations around air corridors between AFMC and
AMC bases See:

www.nidsci.org/articles/pdf/triangularcraft_addendum.pdf

In the latter report, we pointed out a gap in the part of the
United States encompassing the plains states from which both
triangular object sightings and AMC/AFMC bases were absent.

In order to examine the integrity of our data, we solicited
reports on triangular aircraft sightings between 1990-2001 from
MUFON (Wendy Ban and Don Weatherby) and from Larry Hatch who
currently manages one of the largest UFO databases in the world
(see www.jps.net/larryhat/index.html). Both these databases
fulfill our requirement of being totally separate from the NIDS
data collection. NIDS obtained the data on over 450 additional
sightings from MUFON and Larry Hatch.

NIDS plotted the sighting locations on maps of the United States
and then superimposed the locations of the AMC and AFMC bases.
We find that (a) the broad trend of many triangular craft
sighting locations occurring between AFMC and AMC bases in both
MUFON and Hatch databases is consistent with our previous report
and (b) a corridor in encompassing the plains states that is
devoid of either triangular craft sightings or AFMC/AMC bases
emerges from both MUFON and Hatch databases. This corridor is
also consistent with the previously published NIDS data.

Based on these data from over 500 eyewitnesses (assuming minimal
overlap between three databases), we hypothesize that the United
States Air Force has been flying large triangular or deltoid
shaped aircraft between AFMC or AMC bases. We invite comments
from the interested public on this hypothesis. Comments can be
sent to: nids@anv.net

The report can be viewed at: www.nidsci.org under 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 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                             'Out Of This World'

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:04:52 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:58:03 -0400
Subject: 'Out Of This World'

Source: Scientific American

http://www.sciam.com/2001/0701issue/0701antimatter.html


Out of This World

One UFO Expert Says That Aliens Don'T Get Around Much Anymore.
But What If That's Just What They Want You To Think?

By Steve Mirsky

...........

The sun, or perhaps some other star that warms intelligent
beings light-years from Earth, has set on a venerable English
institu- tion. After half a century of inspired eccentricity,
the British Flying Saucer Bureau has closed the pod bay doors.
It has ceased to be. It has expired. It is pushing up crop
circles. It is an ex-bureau. The reason: the bureau has
virtually stopped receiving reports of flying saucers.

A family enterprise, the bureau was the 1953 brainchild of the
late Edgar Plunkett and his son Denis (which makes Denis both
the bureau's father and brainbrother). At the height of alien
activity, the Plunketts fielded some 30 reported sightings a
week, and the bureau claimed about 1,500 members scattered
around the world, if not beyond. But now no one seems to be
reporting UFOs.

According to the Times of London, Plunkett believes that the
drop-off in close encounters may have a reasonable explanation:
perhaps the aliens have completed their survey of Earth. One can
sympathize with such an interpretation. My own home, for
example, has been blessedly elephant-free lo these many years,
clearly the result of some incredibly efficacious antielephant
spray. With an abiding faith in Occam's new Mach3 razor--one
blade tugs on loopy logic while the second blade cuts it off,
leaving the third blade to skate on exceptionally thin ice--I
propose other possible explanations for the downturn in UFO
reports:

- The aliens have finally perfected their cloaking technology.
   After all, evidence of absence is not absence of evidence
   (which is, of course, not evidence of absence). Just because
   we no longer see the aliens doesn't mean they're not there.
   Actually, they are there; the skies are lousy with them,
   they're coco-butting one another's bald, veined, throbbing,
   giant heads over the best orbits. But until they drop the cloak
   because they've got some beaming to do, we won't see them.

- Sightings are as frequent as ever; people are merely neglecting
   to report them.  With 401(k)s threatening to leave impact
   craters, no one is interested in aliens unless Alan Greenspan
   is one.

- People are still seeing them, but the aliens have administered
   a mass posthypnotic suggestion: "When you start to think of
   aliens, immediately switch to thinking about mad cow disease."

- The aliens have cleverly designed their ships to look just like
   standard commercial aircraft, thus explaining the massive
   delays at LaGuardia airport.
   (Newark airport is alien-free, the extraterrestrials having
   avoided New Jersey since the Grovers Mill snafu of '38.)

- The aliens are indeed gone, but the idea that they could
   complete their survey of Earth in a mere 50 years is both
   ludicrous and insulting. In fact, they ran out of alien
   government funding. Besides, a lot of the aliens back on
   their home planet thought that the missions to Earth were
   just a big hoax anyway.

These alternatives should buoy Denis Plunkett's continued belief
in extraterrestrial interlopers. "I am just as enthusiastic
about flying saucers as I always was," he told the Times, "but
the problem is that we are in the middle of a long, long
trough." Assuming "trough" means "lull," my calculations
indicate that he shouldn't give up so easily. The bureau started
in 1953, so being in the middle of the trough means that UFO
sightings should be peaking no later than 2049. If by "trough,"
however, Denis means "feedbox," we should climb out immediately.
Especially if there are any stray copies of that alien
best-seller To Serve Man lying around.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                          Secrecy News -- 06/18/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:14:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:59:54 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 06/18/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
June 18, 2001

**LAWSUIT FILED OVER BOOK ON CHINESE NUKES
**SPAIN APPRECIATES ECHELON


LAWSUIT FILED OVER BOOK ON CHINESE NUKES

Former Los Alamos intelligence official Danny B. Stillman
brought suit today arguing that the U.S. government unlawfully
exceeded its constitutional authority when it blocked
publication of his 500 page manuscript describing China's
nuclear weapons program.

The manuscript is based on Stillman's nine visits to China's
little-known nuclear weapons facilities, most of which took
place following his retirement from Los Alamos in 1993.  "More
Americans have walked on the moon than have seen the Chinese
laboratories Danny Stillman has visited," said attorney Mark S.
Zaid of the lawfirm Lobel, Novins & Lamont, who represents
Stillman.

At every stage, Stillman complied with his legal obligations and
provided the government an opportunity to review the manuscript
to identify potentially classified information.  Where specific
classification issues were raised, Stillman (who used to be an
original classification authority himself) modified the text to
accommodate government concerns.

But his good faith was not reciprocated and the government has
attempted to suppress not just particular technical facts but
the entire manuscript.

"The Department of Defense objects to public release of the
manuscript," according to a September 2000 DoD memorandum.  "We
have determined that excisions will not correct the problems
this manuscript presents."

"Open publication could also damage American foreign relations
with China and have a deleterious effect on future scientific
exchanges between the two countries," the DoD memo continued.
The Department of Energy and the Central Intelligence Agency are
also resisting publication.

The government's blanket opposition to publication seems
particularly unwarranted because the information in the book was
openly collected.  It is a premier example of what is sometimes
humorously called "ASK-INT" -- the intelligence that may be
acquired by simply asking for it (as distinct from HUMINT, IMINT
or SIGINT).  Stillman's Chinese hosts told him only what they
wanted to tell him, while he openly took notes.

Aside from the fundamental First Amendment issues involved,
Stillman's case has other important implications.  Anxiety over
Chinese espionage has inspired a host of ill-considered security
requirements, impeding scientific contacts with foreign
visitors.  But Stillman's book reportedly casts doubt on
widespread allegations that China relied on espionage to achieve
advances in its nuclear weapons program.  And while Rep. Curt
Weldon has impugned the Clinton Administration for supposedly
aiding Chinese nuclear development by relaxing controls on
export of supercomputers in 1996, accounts of Stillman's work
indicate that China began using supercomputers for nuclear
weapons design in 1993 and that they were designed and built
domestically.

Meanwhile, counterintelligence specialist Paul Moore said at a
press conference today that publication of Stillman's book would
serve a positive counterintelligence purpose by illustrating how
Chinese officials interact with Western visitors.

The text of Stillman's complaint, filed this morning by Mr.
Zaid, is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/06/stillman.html

The New York Times account of the case ("Author to Sue U.S. Over
Book on China's Nuclear Advances" by William J. Broad) may be
found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/world/18BOOK.html


SPAIN APPRECIATES ECHELON

The government of Spain proudly announced last week that the
United States will share intelligence derived from electronic
intercepts to help fight terrorism in Spain.

While several European countries have criticized the
American-led electronic surveillance network often referred to
as "Echelon," arguing that it represents a massive violation of
privacy and even a violation of human rights, the government of
Spain was much more upbeat following a meeting with President
George W. Bush last week.

American electronic surveillance could help "put an end to
terrorism," said Foreign Minister Josep Pique after President
Bush offered U.S. intelligence assistance against the ETA, the
Basque terrorist organization.

"The intelligence gathered by the CIA and by satellite and the
USA's capacity to intercept communications and decipher emails
may help monitor the activities of the terrorist band,"
according to government sources cited by the Spanish newspaper
El Mundo.

Intelligence liaison relationships between the U.S. and foreign
governments are almost never discussed publicly.  But in this
case, Spanish government officials found it advantageous to do
so and the long, hairy arm of CIA classification policy was not
in a position to prevent them.

The new intelligence sharing arrangement was first reported on
June 14 by El Mundo.  See "EEUU espiara las comunicaciones de
ETA para el Gobierno" here:

http://www.elmundo.es/2001/06/14/espana/1009781.html

******************************

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 19

                        Cydonian Imperative 06-19-01

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 20:14:17 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative 06-19-01

The Cydonian Imperative
06-19-01

Mark Kelly: New Image Affirms Old Observations

Mark Kelly, who produced the Face rectification originally seen
on Dr. Tom Van Flandern's Meta Research site, has created a
convincing rendition of the newly reimaged Face shown as it
would likely appear under Viking lighting conditions. To view
the interactive animation, click here.

[image]

Mark Kelly's new graphic shows the new Face image under lighting
conditions identical to those in Viking frame 70A13.

Kelly has also produced an intriguing Shockwave graphic showing
a possible hexagonal "crater" above the Face that apparently
shares the Face's alignment. An assortment of additional Martian
hexagons are featured on the Photographic Evidence start page.

For links, please visit page 20 at:

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/imperative20.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 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 08:56:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 09:45:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Felder


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark
 >Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:24:06 -0500

<snip>

 >I can't help noting that your characteristic mode of arguing is
 >heavy sarcasm. I'm sorry to tell you that it is not effective.
 >All it tells the rest of us is that you have nothing of
 >substance to contribute to this discussion.

My, my! Such pleasantries this early in the morning. Forget your
happy pill this morning? (that would be your basic sarcasm).

If I have nothing to contribute, then why do you bother to read
my posts?

Translation: I don't agree with you, therefore I have nothing of
value to contribute. That would be 'Jerry's Law', I suppose.

Whatever, Jerome. Do your thang, dahlin'. If you want to
continue you just go right ahead on.
Whatever makes you happy......

See ya around


Bobbie

==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.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 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                    Friedman Vs. Randles Articles Online

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:00:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 09:47:28 -0400
Subject: Friedman Vs. Randles Articles Online


I have posted, in .pdf format, a chronological accounting of the
Friedman vs. Randles, et al, legal doings. I have scanned the
MEN article, Jenny's letter, the published apology, the Flying
Saucer Review article. The facts can speak for themselves in
this case, I think.

Feel free to check it out if you so desire.

http://www.jilain.com/ufo/friedman/index.htm

You do have to have Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the .pdf
format. If you don't have that program, it is a free download.
There is a link at the webpage.

SSSSssoooo....how about those UFOs?


Bobbie


==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.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 >
   Jun > Jun 20

               Re: Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter - Boreham

From: Robert Boreham <fatrob83@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:10:58 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 09:52:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter - Boreham


 >Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Rebecca Keith <xiannekei@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>From: Paul Kimball <Redstarfilm@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:29:20 EDT
 >>Subject: Friedman v. Randles - MEN Letter
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>List:

 >>For those who are interested, the entire letter Jenny Randles
 >>sent to MEN on 19 October 1989, upon which Stan Friedman based
 >>his case, reads exactly as follows (I should note that I
 >>obtained the letter from Friedman, interested as I was in
 >>actually seeing the evidence before offering an opinion) :

 >Thanks for this.

<snip>

 >In case anyone cares what I think:

 >Frankly, I agree with the last part of this letter very much.

 >I don't see the harm here at all. I think Stan was way out of
 >line by pursuing this matter. What a sad day.

 >Rebecca


It seems to me that most people are missing one simple fact,
Stan and Jenny are human.

Humans make mistakes and argue,that comes from being individuals
and having points of veiw,i really don't see what the big deal
is.

Why should ufologists not sue other ufologists? why should we be
any different to others? some may say to offer a better view of
ourselves, but lets face it i think most people prefer honisty
to a calm lie any day, just look at how bill clintons popularity
rose after telling the truth.

I think people find something warming in finding out that these
people in the public light such as pollititions or ufologists
are human after all and maybee are not crackpot but just people
who do all the things 'normal' people do and make the same
mistakes.

The only thing i find sad about the whole affair is the fact
that after so long people still want to place blame.

Do Stan and Jenny still fight and sue? if no then why can't
others let it go,why argue about old fights when there are so
many new one's to disscuss.

"Judge not lest thee be judged thyself" --Metalica


Rob







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:15:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 09:55:55 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:37:37 EDT
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >>Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:20:13 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 ><snip>

 >I had the good fortune to know many vets from WW2, through
 >present. Of interest is that they do recall events, traumatic,
 >and otherwise that happened to them during the war. What I
 >always found interesting is they were able to "recall" the
 >events *without* the need of regressived hypnosis.

 >The same thing appears to be true with UFO reports, landings or
 >whatever. Take the Roswell crash. Everybody recalled in the
 >present state so to speak their story or event. The only person
 >that was regressively taken back was Dr. Marcel and that was to
 >further clarify a story he had already been telling. To some or
 >many of these witnesses the experience was a tramautic
 >event... but they still remembered in the present state.

 >On the other hand it has always struck me that most of the UFO
 >abductees can't seem to recall in the present state so to speak
 >the "Grays", "medical tests" and so forth _unless_ they are
 >regressively hypnosis by someone. I have no doubt that the
 >abductees _believe_ what comes forward in the hypnosis sessions
 >as an absolute true-to-life experience...

 >If someone on the list knows of case or cases of abduction that
 >did not involve hypnosis I am sure many people would be
 >interested.


Dear Robert:

There are _many_ people who remember their abduction experiences
without undergoing hypnosis. I am one of those people.

I kept a journal several years before undergoing any hypnosis
and published the information in my books 'Alien Jigsaw' and
'Researcher's Supplement'.

It is important to remember that not everything we have learned
about abductions has come from the use of hypnosis, far from it.

Katharina http://www.alienjigsaw.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 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                            THE WATCHDOG 06-19-01

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:26:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 09:59:09 -0400
Subject: THE WATCHDOG 06-19-01


UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind"
http://www.ufowatchdog.com


***NEWS***

~ Richard Hall Resigns From MUFON Over Allegations of Censorship
~ Ed Dames Gets Sued, Judgment: Return Property or Pay $2 Million
~ UFO Visits Supermarket
~ UPDATE: Criminal Charges Filed Against Area 51 Worker
~ UFO Hunters Stake Out Korea
~ Bookies Slash Odds of Alien Being Officially Confirmed

***OF INTEREST***

A new member has made his way into the UFO Hall of Frauds,
Dirtbags, Dupes, Morons:

Reed UFO Hoax supporter Dan Iaria is the latest to make way into
Ufological infamy.

Iaria is a fanatical supporter of the Reed Hoax and will do
anything and everything he can to validate this UFO fraud.

Jaime Mausssan is not far behind Iaria...








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                  Re: UFO Visits Chilean Supermarket - Geib

From: Dan Geib <geibdan@qtm.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:58:33 GMT
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:02:22 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Visits Chilean Supermarket - Geib


 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:40:47 -0400
 >Subject: UFO Visits Chilean Supermarket


 >SOURCE: Diario Las Ultimas Noticias (newspaper)
 >DATE: Sunday, June 17, 2001

 >UFO VISITS SUPERMARKET
 >Diario Las Ultimas Noticias

 >Photo: Christian Castro

 >Cameras at the Puente Alto Lider supermarket captured the
 >strange apparition.


So I must ask.....

Since this was so completely documented, could we see the images
or clips from the video?

Thanks,

Dan







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                  Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:59:29 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:19:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Salvaille


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark
 >Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:37:19 -0500

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:57:54 -0400

 >Serge,

<snip>

 >>And synchronicity has it that it concerns people on this List
 >>who are _afraid_ to participate in this debate and to present
 >>views opposite of yours.

 >And I don't feel the least sorry for them. Since they face no
 >potential legal threats (unlike my informants), they sound like
 >a bunch of hypocrites who'd rather speak behind one's back than
 >to one's face. As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat,
 >stay out of the kitchen. They're staying out of the kitchen. If
 >they ever decide that they're grown up enough to enter the
 >kitchen and dine with the big kids, they need fear no legal
 >retribution from me for anything they may choose to say. Ever.

<snip>

Certain notions about human communication seem to escape you.

Verbal intimidation makes more free speech victims than
lawsuits. You see that on a day to day basis. All Constitutions
of all free countries use secret ballots to elect people. Should
we call all electors cowards?

Writing in a forum may be a piece of cake for you, but this is
not the case for the great majority.

Don't confuse fear and cowardness.

The way this thing goes, fear has many different faces, most
related to insecurity.

I do not think that calling people with opposite views
"Stalinists" helps free expression a bit. Quite to the contrary.
This kind of verbal intimidation can only smother the freedom of
expression you defend.

Free expression means to possibility to express oneself without
being called names or _standing heat_.

But since, by your own terms, the heat is high, maybe the best
thing we could do is lower the fire or call for a pizza.


Serge Salvaille








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:22:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:31:56 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:37:37 EDT
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >On the other hand it has always struck me that most of the UFO
 >abductees can't seem to recall in the present state so to speak
 >the "Grays", "medical tests" and so forth _unless_ they are
 >regressively hypnosis by someone. I have no doubt that the
 >abductees _believe_ what comes forward in the hypnosis sessions
 >as an absolute true-to-life experience. Which reminds me. Didn't
 >one of the UFO abduction researchers have some lady abductee
 >that went under hypnosis, told tales and storys of abduction and
 >medical testing while under regressive hypnosis, then later
 >admitted it was a total stroke job?

 >If someone on the list knows of case or cases of abduction that
 >did not involve hypnosis I am sure many people would be
 >interested.

At the 1992 conference on abductions at MIT, Eddie Bullard
presented a paper showing that - from published abduction
accounts - the stories resulting from hypnosis weren't different
from those derived from conscious memories. This is available in
the published proceedings. ("Alien Discussions," edited by Andrea
Pritchard, David E. Pritchard, John E. Mack, Pam Kasey, and
Claudia Yapp. Published by North Cambridge Press, Box 241,
Cambridge, MA 02140. USA; (617) 354-6007. Limited Edition
Hardcover $69.95.)

Many people who discuss abductions may not have read Bullard's
work, because it's not online, and hasn't been published in any
mass-marketed book. But it's some of the most solid ever done on
the subject. Much of it appeared in IUR (International UFO
Reporter, the CUFOS publication).


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 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:28:46 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:44:17 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:37:37 EDT
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >On the other hand it has always struck me that most of the UFO
 >abductees can't seem to recall in the present state so to speak
 >the "Grays", "medical tests" and so forth _unless_ they are
 >regressively hypnosis by someone. I have no doubt that the
 >abductees _believe_ what comes forward in the hypnosis sessions
 >as an absolute true-to-life experience. Which reminds me. Didn't
 >one of the UFO abduction researchers have some lady abductee
 >that went under hypnosis, told tales and storys of abduction and
 >medical testing while under regressive hypnosis, then later
 >admitted it was a total stroke job?

 >If someone on the list knows of case or cases of abduction that
 >did not involve hypnosis I am sure many people would be
 >interested.

Here's a little more data, quoted from Stewart Appelle's
important paper, "The Abudction Experience: A Critical
Evaluation of Theory and Evidence." Appelle is a psychology
professor at SUNY Brockport; his paper was originally published
in the Journal of UFO Studies in 1996. It's available online at
http://www.spacelab.net/~jvif/appelle1.htm. (Thanks, John Velez,
for posting it!)

"Influence of hypnosis and hypnotists.

"Abduction narratives can be compared to determine if they vary
according to the particular theoretical inclinations of the
investigator or therapist eliciting the account. Also, accounts
which emerge during hypnosis can be compared with those stemming
from conscious experience. Such analyses have been carried out
by Bullard (1989, 1994). On the basis of his findings, Bullard
(1989) concluded that "the form and content of abduction stories
seems independent of hypnosis" (p. 3). In a more recent
examination, Bullard (1994) concludes that hypnosis is a
significant factor in regard to the quantity of material
"recovered," but not in any direct way to the content."


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 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:58:09 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:47:39 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be


 >Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:20:13 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 ><snip>

 >>Unless you are one of the fortunate few who have managed to
 >>get through life unscathed, without any traumatic experiences
 >>at all, then you know how painfully detailed the recollection
 >>of such events can be. Unless it something 'soul-shattering'
 >>that requires a protective bandage of forgetfulness, (amnesia)
 >>certain events will become _burned_ into our consciousness. In
 >>my case, with the repeated UFO sighting and abduction material,
 >>it would replay itself over and over in my mind. Demanding
 >>attention. And more than that, demanding an answer.

 ><snip>

 >John,

 >The issue of a traumatic event being "burned" into one's memory
 >vs. the issue of protective amnesia may be a telling clue in
 >getting to the bottom of the psychology of the abduction
 >phenomenon. I have no doubt that you saw a UFO, and no doubt
 >that you are relating an abduction episode as you recall it. But
 >my first question would have to be: how much of the abduction
 >event was burned into your conscious memory before recourse to
 >hynopsis?

 >Mac "alien abduction agnostic" Tonnies

Hiya Mac,

It's not as simple as taking one incident or encounter in
isolation from what is (for many of us,) a _lifetime_ of strange
and unexplainable events. Many abductees can consciously recall
'bits and pieces' of abduction events. For instance, in my own
case; I recall the close-up sighting of the UFO, -vividly- then
running away from it, and then came the missing time and a trip
to the hospital. I was not only physically injured, I lost a
whole freakin' night.

What this is indicative of is some form of 'selective' amnesia
or,... externally created/induced memory loss. I recall vividly
everything that happened up to the "missing time." And I recall
clearly everything that happened following it. The part that was
'missing' turned out (under hypnosis) to be so
frightening/traumatizing that it is no wonder to me that either
the "aliens" or my own psyche's self defense mechanisms set up a
memory block.

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

Backgrounder:

It was night, I was running away from the UFO, (as fast as I
could) and without any sense of time having passed, (from one
second to the next,) it was suddenly morning and I was sitting
bolt upright in my own bed. I have never felt so completely
frightened, confused, and disoriented in my whole life before or
since.

Note:

I ended up in an emergency room 45 minutes later to treat a
swollen right eye, and to determine the source of bleeding from
my nose. The ER physician fetched an ENT (ear, nose, and throat)
specialist to have a look inside my head (through my nose)
because he saw evidence of a "surgical procedure" and I was
telling him that I had never had one.  According to the ER
physician the eye had not swollen due to either trauma (I was
not hit which is what I was assuming had happened to me) or from
'infection'. He could not explain to me why my eye was so
severely swollen like that. It was puffed out the size of a
tennis ball.

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

I consciously recalled the 'before' and 'after' part but none of
what had transpired during the missing time period. That part
came back to me in snatches during subsequent nightmares and
sudden (they always caught me by surprise) waking 'visions' of a
pair of big black eyes staring me in the face. The vision of
those big black eyes suspended right in front of my face would
trigger what I thought were heart attacks but were later
diagnosed as 'anxiety attacks' by the doctors at the Emergency
Rooms I would end up in. I landed in the emergency room of
Luthern Medical Center (in Brooklyn) three times in the year
following the sighting/missing time. All of them triggered by
this 'big black eyes' vision that I could not explain, but which
scared the hell out of me nonetheless. At the time I thought I
might be/must be, losing my mind. The very last thing I ever
would have suspected or even considered as a possibility was
that I was being "abducted by aliens." I was looking for other
'more sane' (I thought) explanations at the time.

The "Big black eyes" visions:

The 'vision' (I am calling it a 'vision' because there were no
big black eyes physically staring at me) of the 'big black eyes'
in front of my face would set off heart palpitations, rapid
shallow breathing, cold sweats, dizzyness, and a feeling of
mortal dread (it felt like I was going to die) etc. Classic
symptoms of both heart attack and anxiety attack.

On one occasion (the last time it happened) an "anxiety attack"
was set off by the sight of a short oriental lady that was
wearing a kerchief over her head and dark black aviator style
wrap around sunglasses. It wasn't until years later that I was
able to figure out 'why' that little woman had freaked me out
so.

I think it's like that for many abductees/experiencers. We
recall bits and pieces of 'some' of the encounters. We can
recall how this or that one started and ended but not what
happened in the middle. Or we will recall the 'abduction' but
not how it started or ended. UFO sightings happen while you're
wide awake and there's no 'forgetting' those. These 'selective
gaps' in the experiencers memory is why many abduction
researchers resort to hypnosis in so many cases. It is a
convenient way (quick fix) to fill in the gaps between the
consciously recalled events and the 'missing bits.' Personally I
don't put very much stock in the material I "retrieved" using
hypnosis. I have much more confidence in the things I can recall
from conscious life experience. It is upon all the conscious
life experiences that I base my conclusion that something
physically real is heppening. That's why I rarely if ever
discuss  or even mention the details that came up _during_
hypnosis. I have no way to verify any of that stuff. Neither
does Budd. I don't completely discount it, but I don't "trust
it" either.

It is when you take these many bits & pieces all together that
you find something truly mysterious going on Mac. Beginning in
childhood, running all through life into adulthood, is this
unbroken string of consciously experienced 'unexplainable'
events that do not fit into what we have been raised to believe
is possible, or that is considered to be the "norm" in terms of
most folks life experiences. Our lives are actually just like
yours, only ours includes intermittent encounters with strange
unexplainable phenomena, UFOs, and non-human beings. There is an
archive of a lifetime of memories of interacting with "them" in
ways that range from, 'paralyzed prisoner' all the way to 'warm
and friendly peer.'

Then there are the scoop marks, and the ground trace evidence,
and third party (independent) witnesses, and all the
corroboration of testimony that flows from witness to witness.
It is when all of this material is taken together as a whole
that the "pattern" which is associated with UFO/alien abduction
emerges.

Whether the 'amnesia' regarding the abduction part is
'externally induced' (by the aliens) or it is the result of our
own human' psychological self defense mechanisms, (selective
amnesia) there is still enough consciously experienced/recalled
material involving UFOs, physical marks on the body, and
interactions with strange non-human beings to justify vigorous
investigation. It's ok for you to remain agnostic as long as you
maintain an open mind. And do not discount the possibility that
we are telling/reporting the simple (but strange) truth of what
is happening to us.

There is also the fact that (barring a few off-beat and vocal
experiencers) the abductees are a group of fairly intelligent
and 'sound' individuals. I'm not crazy, stupid, or deluded.
Neither am I a blind, unthinking follower/parrot of anything or
anyone. I have been thoroughly evaluated psychologically (7
years ago) and found to be in pretty good
psychological/emotional shape and of sound mind. In fact, when
the therapist was sharing her evaluation she was so
complimentary/gushy almost, that it made me feel embarrassed.
Those who _know_ me will vouch for my honesty, sincerity, and my
character. There are many others like; Katarina Wilson, Debbie
Jordan-Kauble, the late Karla Turner, Travis Walton, they are
all bright, mentally sound, courageous and articulate spokesmen
and women for a phenomenon that many of our peers are wont to
laugh at and dismiss.

To tell/report the truth (unembellished) is the only reason I am
here. Believe me, I have much better things to do with my time
than to putz around on a UFO List trying to convince complete
strangers that I see UFOs and that I am being abducted by
aliens. (Or to write barely coherent, nonsense postings just to
hear the lilting sound of my own voice.)

And unless you believe me, you cannot know that what motivates
me is a genuine _concern_ and _deep_sense_of_urgency_ that I
feel about this whole UFO abduction business.

I have three grandkids and one more on the way, it is their
future, their world, their truth that I am here fighting for.
Think what you will. I'm telling you what happened to me and
what I have seen with my own eyes. My social responsibility ends
with my reporting to you and making myself available for
investigation/verification.

What you do with it after that is on you. My conscience is
clear.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 16:24:22 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:51:52 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:37:37 EDT
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:20:13 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

<snip>

 >If someone on the list knows of case or cases of abduction that
 >did not involve hypnosis I am sure many people would be
 >interested.


Hiya Robert, hi All,

Robert,

Please read my response to Mac Tonnies in this same thread. Both
posts, (the reply to Mac and this one) should be in the same
batch. You are welcome to respond/comment to anything I shared
with Mac as if I had written it in response to your post here.

It was long-winded and I'm just trying to give the List readers
a break from hearing my voice, and to 'down two birds with one
stone' if you will.   ;)


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 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 06:43:27 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:00:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Hatch


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:50:43 -0500

 >>Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 07:52:13 -0700
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>4) Whoever brought up RL in these discussions? I thought it was
 >>all about Easton threatening lawsuits. What happened to that
 >>thread?

 >Larry,

 >Limpbag, Limberg, Limbaugh...whatever.

 >Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot was the title of a book by Al
 >Franken. I referred to it as an example of the kind of freedom
 >of expression we have in this country.


Hello Dennis:

I had missed that point entirely. Now I even know who Al
Franken is; the guy who wrote the book.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                          Filer's Files #25 - 2001

From: George A. Filer <WeeklyFiles@filersfiles.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:57:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:03:10 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #25 - 2001


Filer's Files #25 -- 2001, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
June 18, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts, Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

THE GREAT AWAKENING

Increased UFO activity is being reported in Maine, New York,
Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Washington,
California, and Australia. Cattle mutilations reported in
Texas. Thirty UFO near misses are reported from England.

On June 21, 2001, there will be a full solar eclipse the same
day as the Summer Solstice, Additionally, there is unusually
high sunspot count and solar flares called coronal mass
ejection's (CMEs). Millions of tons of energy are exploding
from the sun in solar flares.

A new and ever brightening comet called "Linear C/2001 A2" is
in our skies moving near the sun. The Comet is flaring once
again as it heads this way for a late-June close encounter with
Earth with a visual magnitude of 3.3. The comet is visible with
the naked eye south of the equator now and moves into better
viewing for those in the Northern Hemisphere later in June.

The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced that
a study of brown dwarf stars suggests more planets may exist
than predicted. Astronomers analyzing brown dwarf stars in the
Orion nebula with an infrared telescope have determined that
many of the failed stars are ringed by protoplanetary disks of
dust and gas just like true stars. The finding suggests a high
percentage of stars have planets or solar systems similar to
our own. Although, only fifty or so planets have been
identified outside our solar system, millions or even billions
of planets may exist.

Most scientists believe the reason UFOs cannot be here is
because of the great distance between star systems. NASA
scientist Paul Hill in his book "Unconventual Flying Objects"
provides the mathematical formulas to show that the travel time
between planets in various solar systems for the occupants is
less than it took for our ancestors to reach America. The
equations have been checked by the Langley Research Center and
interstellar mission profiles can take only weeks or a few
months. For example Paul Hill states, "It is possible for an
interstellar trip to be very short . The trip from our nearest
neighbor, Alpha Centuri, a triple star system 4.3 light years
away, made by accelerating at 140 g to av/c of 0.9999 is
accomplished from a standing start to a standing finish in 6
weeks, 0.115 year." (P. 272)

Mars has flares of light and is a brilliant red in the night
sky just above the southern horizon during the Earth - Mars
alignment. Although it only reaches 12 degrees above the
horizon it cannot be missed because of its striking red color.

Ancient writings frequently mention a great awakening, when
there are similar signs of termoil in the heavens. When I
visited Chickn-Itz, Mayan predictions indicated a great
change shortly after the beginning of the new century. The
Bible and Sumerian, Tibetan texts all predict a great awakening
and a return of extraterrestrials.

MARS FLARES ERUPT.

Mitch Battros reports that the flare sightings suggest
geomagnetic storms are alive and well on Mars. He reports, in
the latest issue of Sky & Telescope (pages 115 to 123), Thomas
Dobbins and William Sheehan discussed rare observations of
bright star-like flares from the Edom region of Mars. They
suggest the flares might be caused by specular reflections of
sunlight off water-ice crystals in surface frosts or
atmospheric clouds, when the sub-Sun and sub-Earth points were
nearly coincident and near the planet's central meridian. Based
on their analysis, Dobbins and Sheehan predicted that flares
like those last reported in 1958 might erupt in Edom
Promontorium, near the Martian equator at longitude 345
degrees.

Dobbins organized an expedition to the Florida Keys to view
Mars. On June 7th, beginning at 2:40 PM the team observed a
series of brightenings on Mars. Each lasted 3 to 5 seconds;
sporadically over the next 90 minutes until blocked by clouds.
At times Edom appeared to pulse with a period of 10 to 15
seconds for a minute or two. The flares were seen visually and
were recorded on video at 1,400 power through a Meade 12-inch
telescope. The flares seemed to cut the dark linear feature
Sinus Sabaeus nearly in two. Thanks to Rick Fienberg
(http://elvis.rowan.edu/marswatch) and Mitch Battros
http://www.earthchangesTV.com

US AND RUSSIA MAY AGREE ON NEW ABM TREATY

MOSCOW -- Last year President Clinton and Russian leader
Vladimir V. Putin agreed to establish an Early Warning Center
in Moscow. US and Russian military experts will exchange
information within minutes on the launching of ballistic
missiles or space vehicles detected by either nation. Last
weekend, President George Bush and President Putin strongly
endorsed each other and a continuing friendship appears likely
between the two countries. Agreeing with the American
assessment that so-called rogue states pose a nuclear threat,
Vladimir V. Putin hinted that the two nations could collaborate
on new ways to shoot down enemy missiles soon after they were
launched, rather than in space. The US plans to build a missile
defense system that would require changes in the 1972
Antiballistic Missile Treaty. Bush hopes to offer Russia
inducements such as military aid, arms purchases, and joint
anti-missile exercises to get a new treaty. Russia wants the
United States to choose a boost ! phase defense that destroys
enemy missiles shortly after launch rather than in space. The
US Air Force's 747 aircraft armed with laser weapons are likely
to be able to accomplish this mission. These lasers are not as
effective against the Russian nuclear ICBM force, and make a
more acceptable weapons system to Russia. Sunday, President
Putin told President Bush, "The US and Russia must work
together to identify security threats and officials from both
countries should sit down to 'try to find a way together to
solve these problems.'" (AP) June 17, 2001.

Editor's Note: The so-called Antiballistic Missile Defense
System was first proposed by President Reagan who stated, that
his discussions with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev at Geneva,
touched not only on "Star Wars," but the extraterrestrial.
Reagan said, "We're all God's children. I couldn't help but say
to him just think how easy his task and mine might be in these
meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this
world from some other species from another planet outside in
the universe." Reagan went on to say that, "such an event would
force himself and Gorbachev to forget all the little local
differences that we have between our countries and they would
find out that we really are all human beings here on this earth
together." Well, I don't suppose we can wait for some alien
race to come down and threaten us, Reagan added. But I think
that between us we can bring about that realization." (Speech
Fallston High School, December 4, 1985) It is possible tha! t a
missile defense could also be used against UFOs. If you make
the assumption that UFOs are real and occupied by aliens. You
now realize what 400 government employees were trying to tell
Congress at the Disclosure Project.

MAINE FLYING STREET LIGHT

OXFORD - Ruth sent an email saying, "In the first week of
October 2000, I was driving on a dirt road east of Route 26 and
I was looking in the eastern sky. At 9:00 PM, I was in a
clearing that allowed me to see a heavily wooded hill. I knew
that beyond that hill was a small side road where there should
not be lights. I saw a white glow, reminiscent of a
streetlight. My first thought was, "Wow, they put a street
light there on that road, but I stared in wonder as this
streetlight was slowly rising!" The light was not even a
half-mile away. It was completely silent, and did not flicker.
I stared as it rose maybe 200 feet in the air, climbing above
the tree line, I panicked, and I headed for my truck still
keeping an eye on it. The object flew toward the Mechanic Falls
and speeded off so fast that I knew I had just seen a UFO. I
have kept silent, and tried to see if others had seen things
that night in my area. Thanks to Ruth.

NEW YORK LIGHT SPOTTED AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND PLACES

STATEN ISLAND -- Ray Klopchin while on a picnic at the shore on
Monday, June 11, 2001, saw a strange light in the afternoon
sky. At 12:21 PM, he happened to be watching planes make their
approaches to the three metro airports. He noticed a definite
and stationary pinpoint of light way up in the southeast sky.
The object moved very slowly and was then obscured by clouds.
He alerted at least two other people who saw this light.
Looking around the sky, they noticed similar pinpoints of light
in the distant sky, now due east of us. They now had more
witnesses this time that saw this singular and very distant
pinpoint of light. It moved very slowly and disappeared behind
the clouds. They saw the light again thirty minutes later,
again in the southeast. The witnesses claim they have never
seen anything like this before. It was not an approaching
plane, nor was it a star. It was very unusual. Thanks to Ray
Klopchin www.nymufon.org for this report.

VIRGINIA FLYING TRIANGLES

Robert Collins writes that in Filer's Files 23 and 24 you
mention large Flying Triangles. I thought you would be
interested in an E-mail sent to me that states, "I was taken
many years ago to Ft Eustis located in Newport News, Virginia
where I saw two items. One was in a corrugated Metal Hangar
that was not really well lit, but the skylights let me see
enough. It was about 60-75' like your triangle item mentioned,
it was roundish/blimpish in design and nothing was holding it
up or it was not resting on anything below. The second hangar
was very well lit; people were in it wearing only white
jumpsuits and round metal badges with a roundish disc that had
a small droplet of mercury, if it blew you had to leave. One
was put on my shirt. I was about 15' away from this triangular
looking-cool as hell black shiny ceramic looking covered craft.
It too had nothing holding it up or resting on it. The blimpish
one, as told was recovered in upper NY near the Canadian/NY
boarder. ! The black one as I was told was a Cadillac model
that brought an ambassador to visit with us and would be
leaving after 19-year stay to acquaint us to them. We were
allowed to fly the Cadillac and marvel/back-engineer. It had a
headband and the "driver" was mechanical and became "one-with"
the UFO." Thanks to Robert Collins, rigoletto@sprintmailcom.

KENTUCKY IT WAS A BIG HUGE SAUCER AND CLOSE!

LOUISVILLE -- On May 22, 2001, several witnesses reported
seeing a huge craft with lights all over it! The witnesses
observed the craft at 11:17 PM, stating, "It was shaped like a
saucer, my mother was in the car with me and she about had a
heart attack." The UFO had an orange/white/opaque tint to it.
The witnesses tried to follow but it was moving too fast! Now
I'm sure we're are not the only people here on earth!!!!
LOUISVILLE - Thirteen minutes later a second group of witnesses
saw an object like a flat diamond, orangish/white in color with
a bit of green stripping along the sides. The object was first
observed from the top of Iroquois Hill by a 9 year old. The
child's parents then saw the craft. The mother is a registered
nurse and the father works as a severe weather spotter. He is
also a military aircraft hobbyist. The youngest child who is 3
also saw the object. They described the UFO as very bright and
at first they thought it was a harvest moon. There was no noise
and the object flew very fast moving in a north direction. It
was first noticed over the Kenwood Hill area. They lost site of
the object around Floyd Knobs area. Thanks to Peter Davenport
Director of National Reporting Center www.ufocenter.com

TENNESSEE DOUBLE SIGHTING

WEST PALM BEACH PLANETARIUM -- Susan Cerdan writes she has
learned of a sighting and a possible new supporter or believer.
I got a call from a man who says he does not believe in UFOs,
but on June 12, 2001, he saw two objects that might qualify as
UFOs. Apparently, the International Space Station was to make a
pass over Middle Tennessee late in the evening - after 10:30
PM. At 10:50 PM, a "light," that was considerably brighter than
the space station, appeared about 45 degrees above the eastern
horizon moving westward. It was moving slowly and was visible
for 3 or 4 minutes. It caught his attention because it would be
bright for 10 seconds and then dim for 5 seconds. It was moving
slow enough that he was able to observe it through his small
telescope. He says, "It looked like a very bright star and that
it was definitely NOT an airplane. To top it off, it reached a
certain height and then made a 90-degree turn to the north
where it dimmed once or twice more before fadi! ng from view.
He and his son were discussing what it might have been when
what appeared to be a meteor appeared high overhead in the
west, traveling downward toward the eastern horizon. It was
visible for 5 to 7 seconds. Of course, this was no "normal"
meteor. It was blinking off and on like someone flipping a
light switch off and on. I have had no reports of unusual
sightings. Thanks to Susan Cerdan Director The Florida UFO
Research & Study Group Vero Beach, Florida, sunset@sunet.net
and Vic Stryker <vicstryker@yahoo.com Astronomer.


ILLINOIS SLOW MOVING LIGHTS INTERCEPTED

SCHAUMBURG - The witness reports, that as a business owner, I
often work late and take my dog to a grassy area near our
office where I stargaze and frequently observe lights that I
assume are low orbiting satellites. On May 28, 2001, at 10:10
PM I saw slow moving lights that came into my visible horizon
from the center of the constellation Orion on about a 15-degree
arc westbound. The slower than normal movement and higher than
normal arc suggested a higher orbit to me. The light was of the
same brightness relative to the constellation, constant, clear,
and easily discernible. After approximately 35 seconds the
light was approximately 20 degrees past straight above me, when
a very fast moving light appeared overhead. I was lying on my
back, looking up, and slightly NE so "overhead" means S/SE.
This light crossed from my Southern horizon a few degrees east
of due north to the first light in not more than 5 seconds. Its
speed initially startled me. This was too slow, del! iberate,
and visible for too long to be falling debris or a meteorite.
It was twice as bright as the first light. I took these facts
to mean it was a very low altitude satellite. My heart
literally skipped a beat as the odds of catching two visible
satellites crossing paths flashed in my mind. Rather than
simply crossing paths, they met exactly. The brighter, fast
moving light was not visible after the intersection and the
slower dimmer light seemed more slow and more dim and in fact
disappeared within another 10 seconds. I see no simple
explanation for the disappearance of the fast mover 20 degrees
past directly overhead. I own a software consulting company
here in Schaumburg Illinois and consult for a specialty
coatings company that caters to the US Navy and Air Force.

Peter Davenport spoke at length with this witness, and we found
him to be an exceptionally skilled observer and reporter of
objective fact. Under ordinary circumstances, we would have
assumed that a witness who reported such an event would be
describing two satellites, which happened to be visible in
proximity to one another. However, the witness in this case had
allowed for such a possibility, and had rejected that on the
basis of facts of the case. Further, we observe that an
orbiting body in polar orbit, traveling to the north, would not
enter the Earth's shadow. Thanks to Peter Davenport and NUFORC
__ WASHINGTON SIGHTING

SHELTON -- Brian with the Houston, British Colombia, and Canada
UFO Research (HBCC) group writes that on June 14, 2001, at
11:45 PM, my son and two of his friends were watching the stars
as we always do on clear nights. About 11:45 PM just below the
handle of the Big Dipper we saw a very bright object moving
across the sky stopping then moving again then stopping then
moving over the trees and disappearing. It was like watching a
bright star up close but it was not close enough to see if it
had lights. We have been watching the sky at night for several
years and this is the first time we have seen something this
close. We always see strange things moving across the sky but
this was the best and the excitement kept us up till 2:00 in
the morning. I have never known a satellite or asteroid to stop
and start like this. My whole family and I watch the stars
frequently and have witnessed many strange lighted objects go
across the night sky. We have seen some that fade and sh! ine
brighter. My father saw a formation of three with the two outer
ones splitting off in different directions while the third one
sped up until it disappeared. Thanks to HBCC, yogi@lakesweb.com
http://www.homestead.com/ufo3/ufo.html

SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON STATE -- Ken Imes writes that, "My
sighting differs a tad from the stories I read on your website.
The triangle formation we saw was out of our atmosphere, I
could tell by size and distance etc. The triangle was up in
space in the Milky Way but it flew backwards. It was an
inverted triangle flying in a manner in which I had never seen
before at a speed much greater than a human made craft. It took
approximately 45 seconds for it to fly out of sight, across a
crystal clear June 14, sky with no clouds. My friend Joy
actually pointed it out asking, "What the hell is that?" I
can't say it was an alien aircraft, but it was certainly
unidentified. Thanks to Ken Imeskenimes@hotmail.com

UK's CAA FILES DOCUMENT 30 UFO NEAR MISSES

WESTERN DAILY PRESS, BRISTOL ENGLAND June 15, 200, reports:
Hundreds of passengers were within a split second of Britain's
worst aviation disaster when two jets missed colliding by just
100 feet at Heathrow airport. The public was shocked and public
confidence severely dented. However, what air travelers didn't
know was that in the last two decades there have been around 30
similar near misses -- with UFOs. The Western Daily Press has
uncovered a dossier detailing the sensational incidents. The
Civil Aviation Authority's 'X-Files' are now in the possession
of top investigative author Nick Redfern who has shown the
contents to the Daily Press. The CAA's hidden files, only
recently released after years under wraps, documents pilots'
and air traffic controllers' descriptions of the unidentified
flying objects, which were close to bringing down jets loaded
with passengers. Last night the CAA's spokesman Chris Mason
said of the classified papers: "Our reports are from highly
trained pilots and air traffic controllers. We have no argument
with what they say they have seen, even if what they saw can't
be explained.

"We admit that in some cases the aircraft which were nearly in
collision with the aircraft have never been traced. We keep an
open mind about UFOs. Some things just can't be explained, but
they have been reported by top professionals and we do take
that into account." The CAA has been carefully and quietly
collecting and analyzing data pertaining to near-collisions
between airliners and UFOs for a number of years. In addition,
while such a claim might sound like something straight out of
an episode of 'The X-Files,' it is one supported by the CAA's
own records. "I've never seen anything like it before and can't
explain what it was," said British Airways pilot Mike Dalton,
of his sighting of a large, silver disc-shaped object from his
Boeing 737 from Rome to Gatwick on the night of November 5,
1990. "My copilot and I called in two cabin crew to see it and
then it went out of sight. Ground radar couldn't pick it up, so
it must have been traveling at phenomenal speed." S! ubsequent
investigations determined the UFO had been seen by a second BA
pilot and the pilot of an RAF Tornado aircraft who was obliged
to take "violent evasive action" to avoid a collision with it.

On the night of 21 April 1991, the term 'close encounter' took
on an altogether more significant meaning for the crew and
passengers of a London-bound airliner. At 9.00 pm Captain
Achille Zaghetti, who was piloting a McDonnell MD-80 aircraft,
was amazed to see an unidentified flying object pass his
aircraft as it flew over the coast of Kent at a height of more
than 22,000 feet. As the UFO was no more than 1,000 feet above
the airliner, and the incident therefore classed as a
'near-miss', an official inquiry was launched by the CAA.
Approximately two weeks later the following brief statement was
issued: "The pilot said the object was light brown, round,
three meters long, and did not describe any means of
propulsion, " The aircraft was under the control of London air
traffic control center who had no other aircraft in the
vicinity, but consistent with the pilot report, a faint radar
trace was observed ten nautical miles behind the Alitalia
aircraft. "Extensive inquiries hav! e failed to provide any
indication of what the sighting may have been." But more was to
come. The next incident to occur took place on June 1, 1991,
when a yellow-orange cylindrical object, ten feet long, was
seen at close quarters by the crew of a Britannia Airways
Boeing 737 en route to London from Dublin.

Sixteen days later, yet another cylindrical-shaped UFO was
sighted, this time by one Walter Leiss, a German engineer
aboard Dan Air flight DA 4700 as it headed toward Hamburg. Nick
Redfern is the author of three best-selling books on UFOs. The
latest, Cosmic Crashes, is published by Simon and Schuster at
�6.99. Air traffic controller: 'was it an aircraft?' January 6,
1995, Captain Roger Wills and copilot Mark Stuart were
beginning their descent towards Manchester Airport in a Boeing
737 twin jet with 60 passengers on board. Seventeen minutes
before touchdown, a mysterious, triangular-shaped UFO flashed
past the right-hand side of the aircraft at a distance
described as being "very close" -- so close, in fact, that the
crew instinctively "ducked" in their seats. This is an extract
from the conversation between crew of the B737 and the radar
controller. B737: "We just had something go down the RHS just
above us very fast." MANCHESTER: "Well, there's nothing seen on
the r! adar. Was it an aircraft?"  B737: "Well, it had lights;
it went down the starboard side very quick [and] just slightly
above us, yeah." MANCHESTER: "Keep an eye out for something, I
can't see anything at all at the moment so, must have been very
fast or gone down very quickly after it passed you I think."
B737: "Okay. Well, there you go!" Thanks to Gerry Farshores,
http://100megsfree4.com/farshores/ Original headline:
Jetliners' 30 near misses with UFO's.

AUSTRALIA MYSTERY DISC SPOTTED IN SKY

MELBOURNE -- Many Melburnians thought they had become
characters in an episode of the US series, 'The X-Files,' at
the weekend after seeing what they believed was a UFO. More
than 20 people from Melbourne's southeastern suburbs reported a
dark, gray disc flying in the skies near Ringwood, Wantirna,
Knox and Lilydale about 9:30 on Saturday night, June 16, 2001.
The National Space Center, in central Victoria, registered 24
calls from people who all described similar details of a flying
object in the sky. Ross Dowe from the center said it was first
thought the object was the blimp, but upon analysis it appeared
to be too small. "The object appeared to be round or saucer
shape with silver sides," Mr. Dowe said. "It also appeared to
have a small dome underneath with half a dozen large lights on
the circumference on the main body of the disc." Dianne McCool
from Wantirna, who was in her back yard, said she saw the
object come up from behind gum trees in her garden about 9.50
P! M. Thanks to Cameron Smith The Melbourne Herald, Victoria,
6/18/01 and Farshores UFO Dimension -
www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/  --

GEORGE FILER SPOKE IN RHODE ISLAND

0n Friday night, June 15, 2001, I spoke at the Rhode Island
Chapter of the Mutual UFO Network. I wish to thank State
Director David Rubien and Janet Bucci for inviting me. I
certainly enjoyed discussing the forgotten alien at Fort Dix
McGuire Air Force Base and the Disclosure Project. Rhode Island
has had recent sighting of UFOs by police. Dave has an amazing
knowledge of alien encounters and I hope to bring some of his
exciting stories to our readers. Thanks for the great
hospitality.

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

PHOTOGRAPH BOOKLET of some of the best UFO photographs
available and data on their propulsion systems by US Navy
Commander Graham Bethune. $10.00. Send check or money order to
G. Filer 222 Jackson Road, Medford, New Jersey 08055. CD OF
FILER'S FILES for the last four years 1997 through 2000 is
available for $25.00. Both for $30.00.

DISCOUNT LONG DISTANCE -- OldeWorldProducts.com offers the
World Low Rate Discount Long Distance, Calling Cards, Toll Free
services that save you 60% on all of your Communications needs.
We also offer website hosting, promotion, High Speed DSL
service, $12.99 a month 56k ISP, Domain Names for $13.50 a
year, etc. We are also looking for agents who want to earn a
serious income from our affiliate program. Stop by for a visit.

NEW NASA SHUTTLE VIDEO OF UFOs IN SPACE

Jeff Challender has prepared a new tape of various UFOs that
were caught on recent Shuttle video footage. Jeff has over an
hour-long tape of UFOs shot in space. Jeff spends hundreds of
hours watching the shuttle broadcasts from space and is now an
expert on NASA missions and even those onboard the shuttle are
unlikely to see what Jeff does. Using Jeff's directions you
will be able to learn the difference between space junk, ice
crystals and real UFOs. One segment has 24 UFOs watching the
shuttle from space. I feel confident we could go into a court
of law and convince any jury, UFOs are moving around our 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 they credit the newsletter
and its editor by name and list the date of issue that the item
appeared. Caution: Most of these are initial reports and
require further investigation. These reports and comments are
not necessarily the official MUFON viewpoint. Send your letters
to Majorstar@Aol.com. Sending mail automatically grants
permission for us to publish and use your name. Please state if
you wish to keep your name, address, or story confidential.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                      Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 01:47:59 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:24:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:19:43 -0000

 >As of June 17 my monthly column for the MUFON UFO Journal was
 >vetoed (read: censored) by John F. Schuessler, the International
 >Director, because it included critical comments about the
 >line-up of speakers for the 2001 symposium in Orange County,
 >California. No dissension allowed. As a result, I have submitted
 >my resignation and will contribute no further columns to the
 >Journal.

I personally found the column very interesting and I agreed with it.
It should have been published even if JS disagreed with it.

 >I was informed that the Orange County MUFON chapter had selected
 >the speakers and considered them "appropriate for the theme of
 >the event as well as the location of the event." How true! But
 >how appropriate are they for the national MUFON organization
 >which claims to be scientific in orientation?

I have a couple of questions. Why is a local MUFON group allowed
to "select" speakers for the national organizations event?

On one hand you could make the case that national leadership
didn't want to be bothered so they fobbed it off locally to a
group who dovetailed it to fit their special interests.

On the other hand you could make the case that the speakers and
the subject matter didn't offend the national leadership.
Perhaps those views are even received in a favorable light at
the national level.

 >Following my own advice to others on this list, I did some
 >research and looked at the MUFON Orange County web site
 >(www.mufonoc.org), and discovered that the "New Age" is alive
 >and well in Southern California. Their stated goals include
 >"Actively promoted INTERACTION with intelligent life and URP."
 >(Shades of Steven Greer, the speaker that I protested most
 >strongly.)

I recall awhile back the conference at Laughlin Nevada where
some speaker or another was able to unload his tale or story
(Reed/Raith?) As I recall the speakers supplied credentials
didn't check out, nor did some/all of the references. None the
less they were apparently allowed to speak. When approached by
people, apparently the story was similar to radio talk show
hosts, i.e. 'well we just let them tell their story no matter
how outrageous or questionable it is and it is up to the people
attending the conference to decide..... It appears that the
national symposium is heading down this road.

Years ago one of the things that was hammered and stressed often
to field investigators and others (Walt Andrus also mentioned
this too me over the phone one day) is that we should stay away
from new ageisms and various other similar material. Obviously
that has changed.

 >URP (UFO-related Phenomena) is defined to include PSI Phenomenon

Its this URP, or BURP, or BARF?

 >[sic], astro-geology, paleo-archeology, and human and animal
 >mutilations, among other things. MUFON-OC public education
 >programs include presentations about hypnotic regression by a
 >woman associated with the Association for Past Life Research and
 >Therapies, and who has recently published a book titled "Crop
 >Circles Revealed: Language of the Light Symbols."

 >Other public education programs featured remote viewing,
 >underground bases, Area 51, etc. If this mish-mosh is where

Bottom line on remote viewing is that the alleged and so called
remote viewers seem to be able to "see" whatever event _after_
said event has been publicized in the media and press. Most of
the RV claims of events in the future thus far have not been
accurate. My favorite was one of the well known RV'ers claiming
that the martians had an underground colony in New Mexico, blah
blah blah.

 >MUFON is going, I'm not going with them. My advice to
 >scientifically oriented MUFON members is to instruct your
 >leadership to clean house and start behaving scientificially,
 >which includes peer review as a central element.

Actually who appears to be behaving far more scientifically
in UFO research is NIDS.

 >My offending column is attached.

Only offensive to those who are followers of the various
theories that are being promoted, now at the national level.

_____________

 >Perspective

 >On the Role of MUFON

 >By Richard H. Hall

 >I have been made aware of an undercurrent of "unrest" or
 >"concern" about MUFON policies and activities that I wish the
 >people concerned would address directly to International
 >Director John Schuessler rather than to me. Essentially, they
 >center around the apparent (and I stress "apparent") endorsement
 >by MUFON of some very extreme and questionable people and
 >viewpoints.

If leadership chooses to sit on its butt and allow it to happen
then they are endorsing the program and the speakers, whether
they like it or not. If they do, I can't wait for next years
speaker list!

They could have the dudes tell us how they had a dead ET body
and how the microbiologist certified it, then we could have
another speaker tell us about the mass ET landings that were
scheduled for April 24th of 1997 in the desert SW, we could have
another speaker tell us about how the ET radio waves _were_
going to bathe the earth on January 24th 1998; then we could
have researchers tell us the latest storys from their so called
top-notch, top-drawer, never-told-a-lie-in-their-life,
intel-community sources who unloaded the tale about the alleged
ET landing that was going to take place on a mountain top in
Arizona last December 10th. Then we could finish it up with some
new age speakers telling us why, even though the age of
acquarious has passed, why we should still be waiting on it,
then a couple of people with various interpreations of
Nostrodamaus, we could have so called biblical researchers tells
us how Armageddon is really scheduled to happen in 2001 or 2, 3,
or 4 and why all the numbers, and codes in the bible point to
that, then finally a speaker on why the end of the Myan calender
in 2012 signals the end of the world.........

Gee, I am just "breathlessly awaiting.. :)

 >It all comes down to leadership style, standard setting, "free
 >speech" and fairplay issues, and other sometimes subjective
 >judgments as well as honest evaluation of objective facts.
 >Primarily I am referring here to the 2001 MUFON symposium in
 >California, though it is merely putting a sharp focus on an
 >incipient issue. That issue concerns the credibility and,
 >indeed, honesty and integrity of some of the people in ufology
 >who have now been invited to be featured speakers at the
 >symposium.

 >Let me say up front that I have privately protested the
 >inclusion of Dr. Steven Greer as a speaker for reasons that I
 >won't reiterate here, but that are obvious to anyone who has
 >observed, or followed, or participated in his activities. To me,
 >it is a travesty that he is being allowed to speak at a MUFON
 >symposium. However, the leadership of MUFON - for reasons that
 >they have not expressed to me - disagree and are allowing him to
 >be on the program. So be it. We will see what the fallout is.

Greer is the red hot property of the moment so to speak.
He can tell us all about disclosure and about how all the ETs
are peace loving that really mean us no harm. Contrast
that to the storys abductee's tell and _if_ those storys are true,
I wouldn't want to be near these so called peace loving ET's

 >In addition to Greer, we find on the program a highly
 >controversial leftist lawyer, Daniel Sheehan, who supports Greer

I think Sheehan's tale is about how he walked into a section of
the national archives and saw all this highly classified UFO
stuff, or something like that.

 >but also drags Left vs. Right politics into the arena as an
 >unnecessary complicating factor. He and another highly
 >controversial character, Alfred L. Webre (who has made some
 >exceedingly strange political comments and dragged in the issue
 >of weapons in space) both were prominently involved in Greer's
 >press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.,
 >advocating Congressional hearings about UFOs.

I suspect that in Greers mind, the missile defense issue comes
back to the peace loving ET's. Others may have seen this as
another opportunity to peddle positions against missile defense.

<snip>

 >A symposium on UFOs obviously ought to explore a range of issues
 >with an open mind, but my suggestion is that perhaps more
 >attention should be paid to (a) vetting speakers, and (b)
 >providing background information and context to an ill-informed
 >public to help them understand what the speakers are saying.
 >This is even more important in regard to the impressions that
 >scientific and news media observers who may be observing will
 >obtain on how MUFON (and "ufology") go about their work.

Absolutely..... You have hit this nail right on the head.

What in fact will happen is the symposium will be pronounced a
success. People will ooh, and ah about the speakers and about
how wonderful it all was and so forth. If they fill the lecture
halls you can just about guarantee that those topics will be
discussed again...after all people are interested in them, blah
blah.

 >My final thought is that John Schuessler and MUFON need to give
 >strong consideration to what the purpose of the annual symposium
 >is and how to go about it. My bias is that the symposium should
 >have as a primary purpose informing the public about reliably
 >established UFO information, a secondary purpose of providing
 >background and contextual information to help the public
 >unerstand the information, and a tertiary purpose of encouraging
 >and promoting critical discussion of controversial issues.

Gee, why do a thing like that When you can get Remote Viewers,
and new agers.....

Actually what I suspect the bottom line is membership numbers.
Previously MUFON membership was around 5000 or so. As I
understand it that has declined, and dropped even more last
year. The last number suggested to me was in the range of 2-3000
members. It could be that somebody is attempting to drum up more
members by being more inclusive to all these other URP (or is it
BARF?) views.

If that is true we could probably look forward to articles and
such along those lines appearing in the MUFON journal.

I would suggest contacting the board of directors, but when I
spoke to some of them last year about another matter, I was told
that the board of directors is apparently not in the decision
making loop, nor are they told much of anything... i.e. they
hear it like all of us. Don't know if that is totally true, but
it came from members of the board.

Who knows.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 20

             CCCRN News: Circle Report #3 - Biggar, Saskatchewan

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:23:17 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:31:51 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News: Circle Report #3 - Biggar, Saskatchewan


CCCRN NEWS
The E-News Service of the Canadian Crop Circle Research Network

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

June 20, 2001

_____________________________


CIRCLE REPORT #3 - BIGGAR, SASKATCHEWAN

Preliminary Report - June 20, 2001

Biggar, Saskatchewan
Early June, 2001


Report received from CCCRN Saskatchewan field research assistant
Beata Van Berkom of many unusual circles first found by a local
farmer in a pasture field north of the town of Biggar, about 80
kilometers (43 miles) west of Saskatoon, approximately three
weeks ago (late May or Early June; specific date still to be
confirmed). As many as up to possibly thirty some odd circles
and ellipses (in the form of rings), ranging in size from about
4 feet - 34 feet diameter and 1 - 2 feet wide, covering an
estimated 250 - 300 square feet.

When first found, they were described as being very white in
colour, although this had faded somewhat (but still visible) by
the time they were reported. Possibly a form of fungus ring or
the result of roundup, although Beata and the farmer didn't
think so.

Initial pics a bit blurry due to wet weather at the time of the
initial ground investigation. Additional pics to be added to the
web site soon.

This is the third reported formation so far for 2001.

More information as it becomes available.


____________________________


The Canadian Crop Circle Research Network is a non-profit
organization which investigates the crop circle phenomenon and
possibly related phenomena in Canada, creating a liason between
researchers, farmers, the public, the media and scientists in
trying to solve this ongoing enigma


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 Branches:

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 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                  Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 03:45:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:36:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Velez


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:19:43 -0000

 >As of June 17 my monthly column for the MUFON UFO Journal was
 >vetoed (read: censored) by John F. Schuessler, the International
 >Director, because it included critical comments about the
 >line-up of speakers for the 2001 symposium in Orange County,
 >California. No dissension allowed. As a result, I have submitted
 >my resignation and will contribute no further columns to the
 >Journal.

 >I was informed that the Orange County MUFON chapter had selected
 >the speakers and considered them "appropriate for the theme of
 >the event as well as the location of the event." How true! But
 >how appropriate are they for the national MUFON organization
 >which claims to be scientific in orientation?

 >Following my own advice to others on this list, I did some
 >research and looked at the MUFON Orange County web site
 >(www.mufonoc.org), and discovered that the "New Age" is alive
 >and well in Southern California. Their stated goals include
 >"Actively promoted INTERACTION with intelligent life and URP."
 >(Shades of Steven Greer, the speaker that I protested most
 >strongly.)

 >URP (UFO-related Phenomena) is defined to include PSI Phenomenon
 >[sic], astro-geology, paleo-archeology, and human and animal
 >mutilations, among other things. MUFON-OC public education
 >programs include presentations about hypnotic regression by a
 >woman associated with the Association for Past Life Research and
 >Therapies, and who has recently published a book titled "Crop
 >Circles Revealed: Language of the Light Symbols."

 >Other public education programs featured remote viewing,
 >underground bases, Area 51, etc. If this mish-mosh is where
 >MUFON is going, I'm not going with them. My advice to
 >scientifically oriented MUFON members is to instruct your
 >leadership to clean house and start behaving scientificially,
 >which includes peer review as a central element.

 >My offending column is attached.

<snip>

 >Richard Hall

Hello Dick,

I too am disturbed at how often 'New Age' dogma seeks to insert
itself into things 'ufological.' It is why I submitted the
Brazil/MUFON post several weeks back. I was hoping to get some
info as to how true (or untrue) the allegations were concerning
New Age channelers participating in MUFON staff meetings.

MUFON was created with empirical scientific method at its core.
A sober, systematic approach to the UFO problem was one of its
more salient features and selling points.

It now appears that Mr. Schussler is heading MUFON in the same
direction that Gersten steered CAUS.

I'm not going to say any more about it.

I've been in Dutch with the New Agers for years because I refuse
to buy into or to endorse their particular brand of dogma.

It's funny. The 'New-Agers' accuse me of being a "skeptic" and
the skeptics have labelled me a "True believer". As an old horse
player I knew used to say, "I can't win for losing!" <LOL>

Takes a lot of cohones to speak your mind and then damn the
torpedoes. You are a thoughtful man of common sense, principle,
and character. You have my support.  ;)

You also have earned my respect.

"Give em Hell Harry!" Please continue to fight the good fight.
;)


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 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                           UFOs & Science Fiction

From: Raymond Perrez <r.perrez@libertysurf.fr>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:19:15 +0200
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:40:53 -0400
Subject: UFOs & Science Fiction

[Non-Subscriber Post --ebk]

Dear Errol,

I am doing research on possible links between science fiction
films and UFO beliefs in the States. My website features a
questionnaire for guests to fill in if they want:

www.chez.com/offworld

Could you possibly post this message so that contributors to
your List can have access to the questionnaire if they so wish?
It would be a great help as I am in France and don't know quite
how to get in touch with people interested in UFOs in America.

Thanks a lot for your help.

:-)


Raymond Perrez,

Toulouse, France








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:02:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:36:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:59:29 -0400

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark
 >>Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:37:19 -0500

 >>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:57:54 -0400


Serge,

 >>And I don't feel the least sorry for them. Since they face no
 >>potential legal threats (unlike my informants), they sound like
 >>a bunch of hypocrites who'd rather speak behind one's back than
 >>to one's face. As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat,
 >>stay out of the kitchen. They're staying out of the kitchen. If
 >>they ever decide that they're grown up enough to enter the
 >>kitchen and dine with the big kids, they need fear no legal
 >>retribution from me for anything they may choose to say. Ever.
 >Certain notions about human communication seem to escape you.

 >Verbal intimidation makes more free speech victims than
 >lawsuits. You see that on a day to day basis. All Constitutions
 >of all free countries use secret ballots to elect people. Should
 >we call all electors cowards?

Huh? This analogy is amazingly inapt and irrelevant. More to the
point:

Free speech can be, often is, a rough-and-tumble affair, and if
one's sensibilities are such that one can't handle the rough and
tumble and would rather crawl under a rock so as not to risk a
bruised feeling or two, well, that is one's own choice. To
switch metaphors: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the
kitchen.

I am surprised, however, to see your sudden concern about
"intimidation," which is exactly what Stan Friedman has engaged
in with Jenny (and, I might note, with others, in several
instances which have been brought recently to my attention).

 >Writing in a forum may be a piece of cake for you, but this is
 >not the case for the great majority.

Serge, may I - in all seriousness - urge you to do some reading
on the nature and history of free expression? You honestly seem
not terribly familiar with the concept and its definition. At
the very least, it is clear that you have not spent a lot of
time reflecting on it.

 >The way this thing goes, fear has many different faces, most
 >related to insecurity.

In other words, all expression should be tailored to those of
the most delicate feelings, ruling out all vigorous, forceful,
angry, or - let's be blunt about it - really interesting,
impassioned speech. I suppose it follows that those who speak
out too bluntly deserve what they get, including threats from
lawyers and libel judgments. Maybe you want to live in that
world, but I suspect that most of us wouldn't. And frankly, I
doubt that you would, either.

 >I do not think that calling people with opposite views
 >"Stalinists" helps free expression a bit. Quite to the contrary.
 >This kind of verbal intimidation can only smother the freedom of
 >expression you defend.

My word. If you had actually read, rather than scanned, my
words, you would know that I never called those who have views
different from mine Stalinists. Incredible. Evidently, your
quick scanning didn't allow you to grasp the context in which
the phrase "Stalinist show trial" - you do know what that is,
don't you? - entered the discussion. I was referring to the
humiliating, forced, dubiously sincere confessions/retractions
that characterized trials that occurred during Stalin's terror,
and that Jenny's humiliating, forced, dubiously sincere
confession/retraction brought to mind.

Anyway: From reading your other posts, I get the impression
that where UFOs are concerned, we agree more than we disagree.
On the current matter, let's agree to disagree and move on to
happier subjects.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 20

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:06:22 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 19:32:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:02:40 -0500

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:59:29 -0400

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark
 >>>Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:37:19 -0500

 >>>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:57:54 -0400

 >Serge,

 >>>And I don't feel the least sorry for them. Since they face no
 >>>potential legal threats (unlike my informants), they sound like
 >>>a bunch of hypocrites who'd rather speak behind one's back than
 >>>to one's face. As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat,
 >>>stay out of the kitchen. They're staying out of the kitchen. If
 >>>they ever decide that they're grown up enough to enter the
 >>>kitchen and dine with the big kids, they need fear no legal
 >>>retribution from me for anything they may choose to say. Ever.
 >>Certain notions about human communication seem to escape you.

 >>Verbal intimidation makes more free speech victims than
 >>lawsuits. You see that on a day to day basis. All Constitutions
 >>of all free countries use secret ballots to elect people. Should
 >>we call all electors cowards?

 >Huh? This analogy is amazingly inapt and irrelevant. More to the
 >point:

 >Free speech can be, often is, a rough-and-tumble affair, and if
 >one's sensibilities are such that one can't handle the rough and
 >tumble and would rather crawl under a rock so as not to risk a
 >bruised feeling or two, well, that is one's own choice. To
 >switch metaphors: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the
 >kitchen.

So why did not Jenny come to my lecture in Manchester? She
certainly knew about it. She was claiming that Harry's and my
ideas were all wet (to put it mildly). I hadn't intimidated her,
hadn't talked to her. I always have open question and answer
sessions. This would have been her opportunity to make her
points. She stayed out of the kitchen. In her apologetic letter
to me personally, she said the quotes in the article were
accurate... but she was speaking in a general way of the
differences between American and British ufology "as opposed to
attributing these things to yourself personally". Clearly this
wasn't true, if one looks at the letter to the MEN. She further
stated that she had "always considered you a fine and sincere
researcher". Again this is backed up by her comments about me
(and Harry) in her books, but is completely contradicted in her
letter to the MEN..... No wonder it was so difficult to obtain a
copy.

 >I am surprised, however, to see your sudden concern about
 >"intimidation," which is exactly what Stan Friedman has engaged
 >in with Jenny (and, I might note, with others, in several
 >instances which have been brought recently to my attention).

Just how did I intimidate Jenny? She wrote her letter to the
MEN. She spoke to their reporter. Legions of UK people rallied
to her support for the supposed wrong done her. Where was the
intimidation? Perhaps her lawyers and those from the Manchester
Evening News let her know that she should join in the apology
because they, unlike you, are aware of the laws of defamation..
Did I insist on a courtroom battle?

Just what were these other instances? You make me sound like the
350 pound gorilla who throws his weight around... which is
frankly absurd. You haven't heard me comment here about
attempted intimidation of me by Kevin Randle's lawyer or about
Bill Moore's attempted intimidation seeking a big chunk of
money. He settled for my saying that if anything I had done
caused him discomfort, I was sorry, since it wasn't intended.

 >>Writing in a forum may be a piece of cake for you, but this is
 >>not the case for the great majority.

 >Serge, may I - in all seriousness - urge you to do some reading
 >on the nature and history of free expression? You honestly seem
 >not terribly familiar with the concept and its definition. At
 >the very least, it is clear that you have not spent a lot of
 >time reflecting on it.

Jerry, may I - in all seriousness - urge you to do some reading
on the nature and history of defamation? Have you forgotten your
prediction to Jenny (you kindly sent me a copy) of December 5,
1989, "there is little chance Stan and Harry Harris will win the
suit" and a few paragraphs later "I am sending Stan a copy and
urging him to drop the suit... I don't care about the newspaper,
though no doubt Stan is wasting his money there". I would have
thought that being wrong on both predictions, you might have
questioned whether you knew all the facts or understood the
rules and practices of defamation. I would suggest you and the
other editors (John, Andy, and Dennis) do your homework.

An excellent text for journalists is 'The Journalist's Legal
Guide' by Michael G. Crawford, Carswell Thomson Professional
Publishing. There is a 51 page Chapter on Defamation. Perhaps
you might learn something about the difference between fair
comment and defamation. I have never objected to dealing with
differences of opinion. I have objected to defamation,
especially in a major newspaper.

Some one claimed that because I was well received on a UK tour 5
years later, I obviously wasn't damaged. I gather it hasn't
occured that perhaps the attendees had read the apology in both
the MEN and FSR?

Try the first line of the Encyclopedia Brittanica article on
libel:

    "The law recognizes in every man the right to have his
     reputation unassailed by false and defamatory imputations."


 >>The way this thing goes, fear has many different faces, most
 >>related to insecurity.

 >In other words, all expression should be tailored to those of
 >the most delicate feelings, ruling out all vigorous, forceful,
 >angry, or - let's be blunt about it - really interesting,
 >impassioned speech. I suppose it follows that those who speak
 >out too bluntly deserve what they get, including threats from
 >lawyers and libel judgments. Maybe you want to live in that
 >world, but I suspect that most of us wouldn't. And frankly, I
 >doubt that you would, either.

As I said earlier, Jerry, you seem to feel there should be no
laws about libel and defamation... I presume there should also
be no laws against hate literature, against threatening people
with violence via mob action, etc., ad nauseum? You want
license, not freedom. Freedom requires responsibility.

 >>I do not think that calling people with opposite views
 >>"Stalinists" helps free expression a bit. Quite to the contrary.
 >>This kind of verbal intimidation can only smother the freedom of
 >>expression you defend.

 >My word. If you had actually read, rather than scanned, my
 >words, you would know that I never called those who have views
 >different from mine Stalinists. Incredible. Evidently, your
 >quick scanning didn't allow you to grasp the context in which
 >the phrase "Stalinist show trial" - you do know what that is,
 >don't you? - entered the discussion. I was referring to the
 >humiliating, forced, dubiously sincere confessions/retractions
 >that characterized trials that occurred during Stalin's terror,
 >and that Jenny's humiliating, forced, dubiously sincere
 >confession/retraction brought to mind.

I suppose every apology is humiliating, perhaps because it means
the apologizer got caught.

 >Anyway: From reading your other posts, I get the impression
 >that where UFOs are concerned, we agree more than we disagree.
 >On the current matter, let's agree to disagree and move on to
 >happier subjects.

 >Jerry Clark

I suppose that I should be pleased that some people are imputing
to me an incredible power of intimidation. Harry and I and our
barrister were able to intimidate that tiny village weekly the
MEN and poor innocent Jenny. Anyone who believes that, I have a
bridge I would like to sell you....

Have you forgotten that Jenny also wrote a strong letter of
apology to Whitley Strieber, 14 May 1988, for creating the false
impression, in a radio broadcast, that 'Communion' was a
plagiarism of a book authored by Jenny and Peter Warrington?
People who often speed in their cars sometimes get fined for
speeding. People who defame others sometimes get caught as well.

Transgressions often have a price.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 21

             Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:10:15 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Tonnies


 >Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:58:09 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

<snip>

 >Hiya Mac,

 >It's not as simple as taking one incident or encounter in
 >isolation from what is (for many of us,) a _lifetime_ of strange
 >and unexplainable events. Many abductees can consciously recall
 >'bits and pieces' of abduction events. For instance, in my own
 >case; I recall the close-up sighting of the UFO, -vividly- then
 >running away from it, and then came the missing time and a trip
 >to the hospital. I was not only physically injured, I lost a
 >whole freakin' night.

Hi John,

Thanks for the post. I don't like the word "believe." Howevever,
I've always thought that the abduction phenemenon is 'real', in
that it operates independently of the experiencer's psyche. I
_don't_ think you're deluded or parroting mythology, and never
have.

The visual sighting of a UFO prior to your episode of missing
time is a big 'plus' for your case, from a materialistic
vantage. It implies causality (i.e. the beings came from the
UFO).

The only question I was left with after reading the chronology
of your experience is if whether an abduction seemed like a
plausible explanation for the missing time after it happened.

I know that if I had been chased by a UFO and experienced an
episode of lost time immediately thereafter, I would probably
jump to the conclusion that an abduction (or something similar)
was the cause of it.

Did you suspect aliens from the outset or did you think of the
UFO sighting as unrelated to your missing time experience?

There is no wrong answer! I'm just interested. Thanks again for
taking the time to describe your experiences.


Best,

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 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                        Re: Secrecy News -- 06/20/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:44:04 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:12:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Secrecy News -- 06/20/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
June 20, 2001

**CIA INSPECTOR GENERAL SPEAKS OUT
**INTELLIGENCE AND THE FRUS SERIES
**CHALLENGING THE SIOP


CIA INSPECTOR GENERAL SPEAKS OUT

In a final message penned before his retirement last January,
CIA Inspector General L. Britt Snider reviewed the
organizational health of the Central Intelligence Agency and
offered some notable insights and frank criticisms.

A fundamental problem at the CIA, he found, is "the relative
lack of centralized management and control over resources.... It
is often impossible to know where money is and how it is
actually being spent."  This not only impedes efficiency and
accountability, to put it mildly, but also makes it more
difficult to justify the need for additional resources, he
argued.

Another basic challenge is posed by the information revolution.
"Unless the Agency can continue to add value to what customers
are increasingly able to do for themselves, their reliance upon
the Agency's output is going to diminish...[and] our ability to
influence the decision-making process is apt to erode over
time."

CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said that Snider's January 2001
memo is somewhat out of date.  "There have been a number of
changes since that time to strengthen management structure and
bolster mission support," he said, particularly in the areas of
finance and information technology.

Mr. Snider wrote that the CIA will not be able to meet the
challenges of the information age "without involving
knowledgeable outsiders in its work."  The establishment of
In-Q-Tel, the CIA's information technology venture capital fund,
is "the first significant step" in this direction.  "I believe
In-Q-Tel simply has to succeed."

(Recently, however, some in Congress have targeted In-Q-Tel for
elimination.  Betsy Phillips, an influential intelligence
staffer on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, has
been a particular opponent of the program.)

In comments that run against the grain of most conventional
thinking about security policy, Mr. Snider proposed a selective
relaxation of Agency security requirements.

"The numerous requirements placed upon employees for security or
suitability reasons, e.g., recurring polygraph examinations,
psychological testing, annual financial disclosures,... ought to
be reconsidered," he wrote.  "While these requirements may still
make sense for the clandestine service or employees otherwise
posted overseas, continuing to apply them indiscriminately to
the Agency population as a whole (many of whom never leave the
Washington area) seems debatable to me."

The Snider memo was first reported by Bill Gertz in the
Washington Times on June 20.  A copy of the memo was obtained by
Secrecy News and is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/snider.html


INTELLIGENCE AND THE FRUS SERIES

Ongoing disputes over declassification of records for
publication in the official Foreign Relations of the United
States (FRUS) series were described in minutes of the State
Department Historical Advisory Committee's February 2001 meeting
that were released this week.

Persuading the CIA to provide an accurate accounting of
historical covert actions has been a recurring problem for the
FRUS series.  Robert Jervis, the distinguished political
scientist who advises the CIA as head of its Historical Review
Panel, said that disclosure of aggregate budget figures for
covert actions was "very important to the historical record to
show both the scope of the operation and its relative
importance."  But despite the recommendations of its own
advisers such as Jervis, CIA has refused to knowingly permit
publication of such historical data.

Meanwhile, publication of a long-awaited FRUS volume on
"Development of the Intelligence Community, 1956-1960" is said
to be "temporarily on hold due to a dispute with the President's
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) over the inclusion
of their documents."  The PFIAB believes that its records are
beyond the reach of the law that requires FRUS to be accurate,
reliable and complete.

The newly released State Department Historical Advisory
Committee minutes are posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/state/hac0201.html

The current and anticipated publication schedule for FRUS is
available here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/state/frusstat.html


CHALLENGING THE SIOP

In an important new initiative, the Natural Resources Defense
Council is working to strip away some of the mystique
surrounding nuclear war planning and to challenge its political
premises.

The U.S. military's plan for fighting a nuclear war, known as
the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan), is the biggest
and most consequential official secret of all.  It is beyond the
reach of almost all elected officials and is effectively outside
of any form of democratic control.  Because it creates a
inflexible "demand" for nuclear weapons to destroy thousands of
hypothetical targets, primarily in the former Soviet Union, the
SIOP presents a nearly insurmountable bureaucratic obstacle to
significant nuclear arms reductions.

"The current SIOP is an artifact of the Cold War that has held
arms reduction efforts hostage," according to a new NRDC study.
"It is time to replace it with something else."

See the NRDC study, entitled "The U.S. Nuclear War Plan," here:

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/warplan/index.asp

The NRDC project and related issues surrounding the SIOP are
discussed in the forthcoming July/August issue of the Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists here:

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2001/ja01/ja01lortie.html

******************************

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 21

             Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Johnson

From: James Bond Johnson JBONJO@aol.com
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:26:47 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:15:07 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Johnson


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:37:37 EDT
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created


 >I had the good fortune to know many vets from WW2, through
 >present. Of interest is that they do recall events, traumatic,
 >and otherwise that happened to them during the war. What I
 >always found interesting is they were able to "recall" the
 >events *without* the need of regressive hypnosis.

 >The same thing appears to be true with UFO reports, landings or
 >whatever. Take the Roswell crash. Everybody recalled in the
 >present state so to speak their story or event.


Permit me to expand on this report from (1) personal knowledge
as one of the WW2 vets and (2) Roswell Incident reporters as the
only known photographer of the Roswell wreckage and also (3) as
a practicing board certified clinical psychologist for more than
40 years:

I have stated previously that memory is preserved only in "sound
bites" or "snippets." Take any day in your own life. How many
events of that day can you recall with any certainty or
continuity, say, a week later? Other than Brazel's (curiously
his name was spelled in a variety of ways by various press
reports) joint interview at the Roswell Daily Record on July 8,
1947, how many primary witnesses are quoted on the record until
more than 40 years after the incident?

As is well covered in the various recent postings on the subject
of false memories none of us claim perfect memory as to recent
events, and certainly not to events of the distant past. I
tested myself on this point by spending some time in recent
months in the morgue at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram -- where I
was employed when I took the Roswell crash photos in General
Ramey's office in July of 1947 - reviewing files of editions of
the Star-Telegram of June-August of 1947.

In the summer of 1947 I was employed forty hours a week at the
Star-Telegram and the files show several bylines over stories
that I obviously wrote and some printed photos that I must have
taken. In some cases I have no recollection whatsoever as to
having written the stories or of taking the pictures attributed
to me. In other cases I had only dim memories even when
refreshed by reading again the articles.

As I also have stated previously, after I was "guided" as to my
recollections by various interviewers - especially Kevin Randle
some 42 and 43 years after the Roswell Incident (I call it being
"Randleized") - I know for a fact that it is easy to be misled
and to then to make innocent erroneous statements.

Finally, in other incidents I have had very vivid "memories" of
events that I experienced, only to learn later that my recall
was seriously flawed as to important details. So what can we
trust as to our memory?

Fortunately, while I admit to a fuzzy mind, we have the photos
that I took which have _not_ changed as to any of the important
details of that day!


James Bond Johnson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                  Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:38:31 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:09:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - McCoy


 >Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 03:45:56 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:19:43 -0000

 >>As of June 17 my monthly column for the MUFON UFO Journal was
 >>vetoed (read: censored) by John F. Schuessler, the International
 >>Director, because it included critical comments about the
 >>line-up of speakers for the 2001 symposium in Orange County,
 >>California. No dissension allowed. As a result, I have submitted
 >>my resignation and will contribute no further columns to the
 >>Journal.

 >>I was informed that the Orange County MUFON chapter had selected
 >>the speakers and considered them "appropriate for the theme of
 >>the event as well as the location of the event." How true! But
 >>how appropriate are they for the national MUFON organization
 >>which claims to be scientific in orientation?


Why Richard, you weren't being mellow about this. They were only
trying to protect you and the Body from bad vibes. I mean, take
some camomille tea, remember, breathe, breathe.

 >>Following my own advice to others on this list, I did some
 >>research and looked at the MUFON Orange County web site
 >>(www.mufonoc.org), and discovered that the "New Age" is alive
 >>and well in Southern California. Their stated goals include
 >>"Actively promoted INTERACTION with intelligent life and URP."

Why yes, the interaction of space bretheren, why, just the other
day I remote viewed my old friend River Hollowood, who was
removed to the Trafalmadorian Homeworld, when he used  his
flashlight (with non-mercury batteries of course,) to call down
a Trafalmadorian scout ship. When we woke, he was apparently
abucted from our group, I know he is in a state of eternal
bliss, but I  can't figure out what the images of a Tire swing,
Iron bars and Trafalmadorian fruit that is quite like a Bananna
is all about.

 >>(Shades of Steven Greer, the speaker that I protested most
 >>strongly.)

Why Richard, Dr. Greer is the herald of the New Age, look
what his methods gained dear old River. Peace, Happiness,
Bananas.

 >>URP (UFO-related Phenomena) is defined to include PSI Phenomenon
 >>[sic], astro-geology, paleo-archeology, and human and animal
 >>mutilations, among other things. MUFON-OC public education
 >>programs include presentations about hypnotic regression by a
 >>woman associated with the Association for Past Life Research and
 >>Therapies, and who has recently published a book titled "Crop
 >>Circles Revealed: Language of the Light Symbols."

Ah, my past lives... I was ruler of Atlantis, 20,0000 b.p.
personal Wizier to Imhotep ll. All in all, I am a powerful
soul. How I pity those who were plumbers in Atlantis - although
all I have known now and before seem to be rulers. Must be a
Karmic thing. You too, could be a former Altantian ruler!

 >>Other public education programs featured remote viewing,
 >>underground bases, Area 51, etc. If this mish-mosh is where
 >>MUFON is going, I'm not going with them. My advice to
 >>scientifically oriented MUFON members is to instruct your
 >>leadership to clean house and start behaving scientificially,
 >>which includes peer review as a central element.

 >>My offending column is attached.

 ><snip>

To "channel" John Wayne: "Ya stood tall Pilgrim!"

 >I too am disturbed at how often 'New Age' dogma seeks to insert
 >itself into things 'ufological.' It is why I submitted the
 >Brazil/MUFON post several weeks back. I was hoping to get some
 >info as to how true (or untrue) the allegations were concerning
 >New Age channelers participating in MUFON staff meetings.

 >MUFON was created with empirical scientific method at its core.
 >A sober, systematic approach to the UFO problem was one of its
 >more salient features and selling points.

 >It now appears that Mr. Schussler is heading MUFON in the same
 >direction that Gersten steered CAUS.

Reminds me of the old 'Far Side' cartoon in which an airliner
crew is amongt the clouds and the co-pilot cries out: "Look,
what is a mountian goat doing in these clouds?" That kind of
direction, apparently.

 >I'm not going to say any more about it.

 >I've been in Dutch with the New Agers for years because I refuse
 >to buy into or to endorse their particular brand of dogma.

 >It's funny. The 'New-Agers' accuse me of being a "skeptic" and
 >the skeptics have labelled me a "True believer". As an old horse
 >player I knew used to say, "I can't win for losing!" <LOL>

 >Takes a lot of cohones to speak your mind and then damn the
 >torpedoes. You are a thoughtful man of common sense, principle,
 >and character. You have my support.  ;)

 >You also have earned my respect.

 >"Give em Hell Harry!" Please continue to fight the good fight.
 >;)


John and Dick, I could be wrong but I may be on to something. My
tongue-in-cheek commmetary is just that. But something has me
intrigued.

One of  my favorite lines from the movie version of 'The Right
Stuff' was: "No Bucks no Buck Rodgers." Could it be that the
leadership of MUFON sees that there are big bucks in the New
Age? Why not attract a Hollywood airhead with multiple millons
and channel those millons into the coffers? No difference
between that and say a Benny Hinn-type 'Healer' who also has the
ablity to 'Channel' money.

Science and the principal of peer review? Why, we don't need no
stinkin' peer review. We have Greer and Bell and Streiber - oh,
my.


GT McCoy

"We must all hang togeather or we will hang separately."
attr. Benj. Franklin










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                     A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life'

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:00:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:13:47 -0400
Subject: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life'


My new book, 'Abduction In My Life', is now available from
Amazon.com and Arcturus Books and other places.

This is a novel that contains a fact book that is clearly
designated as such, complete with references. This mode or
writing makes it different from any UFO book written to date...
and perhaps any book written to date.

It is the story of a man who is a severe skeptic of UFOs who
discovers to his great dismay that the UFO phenomenon is much
"closer to home" than he ever would have imagined. There is a
brief excerpt at:

http://brumac.8k.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 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                     Re: UFOs & Science Fiction - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 06:51:02 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:15:46 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs & Science Fiction - Hatch


 >From: Raymond Perrez <r.perrez@libertysurf.fr>
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: UFOs & Science Fiction
 >Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:19:15 +0200

 >[Non-Subscriber Post --ebk]

 >Dear Errol,

 >I am doing research on possible links between science fiction
 >films and UFO beliefs in the States. My website features a
 >questionnaire for guests to fill in if they want:

 >http://www.chez.com/offworld

 >Could you possibly post this message so that contributors to
 >your List can have access to the questionnaire if they so wish?
 >It would be a great help as I am in France and don't know quite
 >how to get in touch with people interested in UFOs in America.

 >Thanks a lot for your help.

 >:-)

 >Raymond Perrez,

 >Toulouse, France


Hello Errol and all:


It looks like Raymond has yet to get those pages completed. I
found no questionnaire, just three virtually empty pages which
all call one another; plus some pop-up banner ad for something
or other in French.

I slightly edited the URL above so people can click on it, in
case they want the banner ad to pop up.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                 Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... -

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:43:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:05:16 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... -


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created
 >Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:28:46 -0400

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:37:37 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >>On the other hand it has always struck me that most of the UFO
 >>abductees can't seem to recall in the present state so to speak
 >>the "Grays", "medical tests" and so forth _unless_ they are
 >>regressively hypnosis by someone. I have no doubt that the
 >>abductees _believe_ what comes forward in the hypnosis sessions
 >>as an absolute true-to-life experience. Which reminds me. Didn't
 >>one of the UFO abduction researchers have some lady abductee
 >>that went under hypnosis, told tales and storys of abduction and
 >>medical testing while under regressive hypnosis, then later
 >>admitted it was a total stroke job?

 >>If someone on the list knows of case or cases of abduction that
 >>did not involve hypnosis I am sure many people would be
 >>interested.

 >Here's a little more data, quoted from Stewart Appelle's
 >important paper, "The Abudction Experience: A Critical
 >Evaluation of Theory and Evidence." Appelle is a psychology
 >professor at SUNY Brockport; his paper was originally published
 >in the Journal of UFO Studies in 1996. It's available online at
 >http://www.spacelab.net/~jvif/appelle1.htm. (Thanks, John Velez,
 >for posting it!)

 >"Influence of hypnosis and hypnotists.

 >"Abduction narratives can be compared to determine if they vary
 >according to the particular theoretical inclinations of the
 >investigator or therapist eliciting the account. Also, accounts
 >which emerge during hypnosis can be compared with those stemming
 >from conscious experience. Such analyses have been carried out
 >by Bullard (1989, 1994). On the basis of his findings, Bullard
 >(1989) concluded that "the form and content of abduction stories
 >seems independent of hypnosis" (p. 3). In a more recent
 >examination, Bullard (1994) concludes that hypnosis is a
 >significant factor in regard to the quantity of material
 >"recovered," but not in any direct way to the content."

<snip>

At:

http://www.spacelab.net/~jvif/appelle1.htm

It is also stated:

    "These considerations suggest a basis for the specific
    hypnotizability obtained for abduction experiences. This
    should not, however, be confused with an argument for the
    veridicality of abduction experiences. The factors discussed
    certainly apply to real events, but they could also apply to
    experiences originating in the imagination or unconscious.
    This possibility must remain at the status of conjecture,
    however, because there can be no direct evidence that a
    conscious experience had heretofore resided in the
    unconscious.

    Nevertheless, it may be useful to consider this possibility
    in regard to other anomalous experiences proposed to have
    imaginative or unconscious antecedents. Like abduction
    experiences, past-life identities (reincarnations) are also
    easily elicited through hypnosis from normal individuals
    (Kampman, 1976), are rich in detail, and are believed by the
    experiencer as veridical recall of actual past events
    (Spanos, Burgess, & Burgess, 1994). Spanos et al. argue that
    both hypnotic abduction experiences and past lives (as well
    as elicited memories of satanic ritual abuse and multiple
    personalities) are "social creations ... determined by the
    understandings that subjects develop about such experiences
    from the information to which they are exposed" (p. 436).
    Whether or not this interpretation is correct, the role of
    hypnosis may be elucidated through a consideration of
    abduction experiences in relationship to other anomalous
    experiences routinely accessible to the hypnotized subject."

Let's be careful not to pick the information but to assimilate
it.

Hypnosis is so controversial that it remains useless as a tool
to study the reality of a phenomenon. All considered, I propose
that all data ralative to hypnosis be discarded.

What does that leave us with?

One of the main problem of ufology is to recognise the validity
of the data. We see this all the time.

What apparently distinguishes alien abductions from ufology is
the consistancy and the similarity of the experiences. This
should facilitate the establishment of a protocole to study its
nature.

Question #1: How does one establish the reality of an
experience.

Hurry, hurry. This should be an easy one.

?


Serge Salvaille








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                 Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:57:30 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:09:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Kaeser

<snip>

 >One of my favorite lines from the movie version of 'The Right
 >Stuff' was: "No Bucks no Buck Rodgers." Could it be that the
 >leadership of MUFON sees that there are big bucks in the New
 >Age? Why not attract a Hollywood airhead with multiple millons
 >and channel those millons into the coffers? No difference
 >between that and say a Benny Hinn-type 'Healer' who also has the
 >ablity to 'Channel' money.

 >Science and the principal of peer review? Why, we don't need no
 >stinkin' peer review. We have Greer and Bell and Streiber - oh,
 >my.

 >GT McCoy

I kind of like the 'Wizard of OX' reference, as it would seem
that Ufology's most vocal proponents are acting like carnival
barkers. I think the problem is that many of us don't want to
join the circus..... <g>. However, with the Internet there are
many new to the field who apparently do.

I think you've hit the 'nail on the head' here, in that the line
up of speakers at the MUFON Symposium was selected to draw the
largest audiance possible from the area around Southern
California.

Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the local
sponsoring Chapter is given great latitude in selecting speakers
for the event, with final approval granted by the International
Director. The local group is told to select speakers that will
generate attendance, and in Southern California we now see how
that is defined by the local MUFON group. Unfortunately, some
(like Richard) have serious problems with that selection.

It's no secret that the 'membership' (if that's the right term)
of MUFON has been dropping during the past several years. I
think it's fair to say that the Internet has had a great impact
on the field in general, and organizations, like MUFON, are
feeling the effects. MUFON, in the future, may have a difficult
time holding itself together as a National (or International)
organization. Regional differences are beginning to tear the
organization apart and the top leaders apparently have no desire
to establish limits.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                  Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:59:47 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:13:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Velez


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 01:47:59 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:19:43 -0000

Hi Dick, Robert, All,

Gentlemen, please excuse me for snipping the relevant materials
contained in the original postings, but I wanted to address
something Robert brings up in his response to Dick Hall's
resignation from MUFON.

Also excuse me for going off on a tangent. It is not my
intention to divert attention away from Richard's important
public statement. (Dick's formal resignation from MUFON.)
I had that kind of thing done to me when I severed my ties
with Budd and the Intruders Foundation. I would never do it
to anybody else.

So with those 'scuse-me's in hand, I ask that you indulge
me. ;)

Robert wrote:

 >I suspect that in Greers mind, the missile defense issue comes
 >back to the peace loving ET's. Others may have seen this as
 >another opportunity to peddle positions against missile defense.

You touch on two very important issues here Robert.

1. Greer's inclusion/marriage of the "missile defense" issue
with the UFO disclosure issue. And,...

2. The "Missile defense" issue itself.

As for #1: One of the more serious errors that Dr.Greer made was
to tie the missile defense issue to UFO disclosure. It's almost
as if he's sabotaging any chance at success with UFO disclosure
by including a separate, unrelated, 'hot button' political
issue.

Not only that, but he drags a government conspiracy to,
"withhold Free Energy from the public" into the fray, which
basically seals the coffin lid shut on the UFO question being
taken seriously.

----------------------------------------------------------------
On the streets that I grew up on we learned not to lead with our
face in a fight. ;)
----------------------------------------------------------------

Where did he come off artificially grafting these other two
(completely unrelated) issues onto the UFO disclosure project?
And according to *Steve Bassett, "at the eleventh hour?" (*SDI
program with Steve Bassett, Richard Hall, and Royce Myers III
which aired two Saturdays ago.)

Again, according to Steve, even Greer's own people (advisors)
admonished him against the inclusion of the other two issues. It
was a "solo executive decision" on the part of disclosure
project 'jefe grande' (Big Boss Man) Greer I suppose. (Balls!)

 From what we were all given to understand, the press conference
was to be about "UFO disclosure." Not the latest military space
missile defense system, or... government withheld "free energy."

Unless Greer got a little special interest $ to include them, (?)
I don't see the relevance of either issue to the UFO question.
Nor am I able to grok how the addition of these unrelated (to
UFO disclosure) issues was supposed to help it. Doesn't make
any sense to include them (strategically/tactically) no matter
how you slice it.

There is so much ridicule attached to UFOs already that the raw
emotion that is generated by the military missile defense system
issue alone (without the "Free energy" gobbledy-gook) guarantees
that the 'UFO disclosure project' is D.O.A.

Regarding number 2.

Greer's own witnesses testified before members of the National
and International press corp. that; UFOs had made incursions
onto restricted and highly sensitive military installations and
(according to the guy that manned the missile silo) as long as
the UFO remained posted at the gate of the installation, a part
of our nations nuclear defense system was effectively
neutralized.

I was just telling Mike Woods last Saturday night on SDI what a
clear, and heavy duty message the 'ufonauts' sent to our
military and political leaders. (To _all_ of us!)

"Your missiles 'work' when _we_ say they work!"

That demonstration must be the "alien's" way of smacking us on
the tusch from behind while coyly inquiring.....

"Who's your Daddy?" <VBEG>

How "benevolent" of the aliens to remind us how flaccid our very
expensive phallic missile defense system really is. It raises
the question again of, "why bother to include 'missile defense'
with the UFO disclosure issue?"

Doesn't Dr. Greer think the aliens can 'neutralize' a few
unmanned Satellites as they have reportedly done to our missile
defense system on the ground?

This is a serious business we're in ain't it fellas? (Insert
nervous Elmer Fudd laugh here.) All food for thought.

Thanx for allowing the diversion gentlemen.  :)


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 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 21 Jun 2001 08:52:36 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:39:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Hamilton


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:57:30 -0400

 ><snip>

 >>One of my favorite lines from the movie version of 'The Right
 >>Stuff' was: "No Bucks no Buck Rodgers." Could it be that the
 >>leadership of MUFON sees that there are big bucks in the New
 >>Age? Why not attract a Hollywood airhead with multiple millons
 >>and channel those millons into the coffers? No difference
 >>between that and say a Benny Hinn-type 'Healer' who also has the
 >>ablity to 'Channel' money.

 >>Science and the principal of peer review? Why, we don't need no
 >>stinkin' peer review. We have Greer and Bell and Streiber - oh,
 >>my.


 >I kind of like the 'Wizard of OX' reference, as it would seem
 >that Ufology's most vocal proponents are acting like carnival
 >barkers. I think the problem is that many of us don't want to
 >join the circus..... <g>. However, with the Internet there are
 >many new to the field who apparently do.

 >I think you've hit the 'nail on the head' here, in that the line
 >up of speakers at the MUFON Symposium was selected to draw the
 >largest audiance possible from the area around Southern
 >California.

I once wrote:

    "Some say it is the California sun or the Santa Ana winds
    that created the weird culture of the west coast. The
    inhabitants think differently. Westerners are open to new
    ideas. Visitors from another planet are welcome in
    California."

So you see, this explains it all. We people of Southern
California live in a State of Mind.

As for MUFON, the leadership has a choice in how they would like
to conduct UFO business, who they allow in as a member, who they
acknowledge is a legit researcher or investigator, and they seem
to have chosen to defer to local autonomy.

I parted with MUFON in 1997 because of their "unscientific"
approach to the Phoenix Lights that I elected to investigate
because at the time it was literally in my own backyard. Even
though I wrote an initial report for the Journal, this was
undermined by one Richard Motzer who undermined all attempts at
objective investigation. He is now gone from MUFON, but left a
false trail on the Phoenix Lights issues.


-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 >
   Jun > Jun 21

               Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:25:08 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:43:25 -0400
Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Velez


 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:00:06 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life'
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >My new book, 'Abduction In My Life', is now available from
 >Amazon.com and Arcturus Books and other places.

<snip>

Hiya Bruce, hi All,

Bruce wrote:

 >It is the story of a man who is a severe skeptic of UFOs who
 >discovers to his great dismay that the UFO phenomenon is much
 >"closer to home" than he ever would have imagined. There is a
 >brief excerpt at:

 >http://brumac.8k.com

Hey man, I ought to 'sue you' for Plagiarizing the story of my
life! <LOL>(I'm only joking about 'suing' I don't want Jerry to
bite me on the ass for threatening it! :)

I read the excerpt Bruce, well written. I'll be ordering a copy
for myself asap. You have no idea how many of us abductees this
"skeptic to believer" scenario applies to. Some folks are fond
of thinking of us all as having been hard core UFO buffs or
'believers' all our lives. It just isn't so. It wasn't in my
case anyway.

I wish I could publish some of the mail I have received from
abductees over the years. They are the voices of our brothers
and sisters crying out for help and trying desperately to
understand this impossible thing that has befallen them.

I look forward to reading it in its entirety. Hope it does
well for you in the market place. ;)


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 >
   Jun > Jun 21

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:17:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:47:37 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez


 >Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:58:09 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 ><snip>

 >>Hiya Mac,

 >>It's not as simple as taking one incident or encounter in
 >>isolation from what is (for many of us,) a _lifetime_ of strange
 >>and unexplainable events. Many abductees can consciously recall
 >>'bits and pieces' of abduction events. For instance, in my own
 >>case; I recall the close-up sighting of the UFO, -vividly- then
 >>running away from it, and then came the missing time and a trip
 >>to the hospital. I was not only physically injured, I lost a
 >>whole freakin' night.

 >Hi John,

 >Thanks for the post. I don't like the word "believe." Howevever,
 >I've always thought that the abduction phenemenon is 'real', in
 >that it operates independently of the experiencer's psyche. I
 >_don't_ think you're deluded or parroting mythology, and never
 >have.

Hi Mac, hi All,

Mac writes:

 >The visual sighting of a UFO prior to your episode of missing
 >time is a big 'plus' for your case, from a materialistic
 >vantage. It implies causality (i.e. the beings came from the
 >UFO).

Although I didn't make the connection at the time, yes, I agree.
It's one of the things that has served to convince me that we
are dealing with a "real" (as opposed to imagined) phenomenon.

 >The only question I was left with after reading the chronology
 >of your experience is if whether an abduction seemed like a
 >plausible explanation for the missing time after it happened.

I didn't know much or anything at all about 'alien abduction'
(other than knowing about the well publicized Betty & Barney
Hill case) at the time. I wasn't even thinking along those
lines. Until the doctor told me that my eye was not swollen due
to trauma (injury) I was assuming that I had been assaulted by
thieves and that I couldn't recall the attack. I had no doubt I
was attacked, It just never would have occurred to me to suspect
"aliens" as the perps.

 >I know that if I had been chased by a UFO and experienced an
 >episode of lost time immediately thereafter, I would probably
 >jump to the conclusion that an abduction (or something similar)
 >was the cause of it.

I didn't Mac. I have no idea 'why' but for some reason (at the
time) I did not connect the UFO with the missing time! I simply
wasn't aware of the phenomenon. And even if I was, I wouldn't
have ever imagined that any of it had anything to do with me
personally.

 >Did you suspect aliens from the outset or did you think of the
 >UFO sighting as unrelated to your missing time experience?

See above. I hadn't made the connection between the sighting
and the missing time until I read Budd Hopkins' book, 'Missing
Time' in 1993. I hadn't made the connection between all of my
odd, unexplained life experiences, ie; UFO sightings, seeing
non-human beings, strange lights, etc. until I read the reports
of the abductees in Missing Time. That freakin' book was like
a cold shower for me. I couldn't figure out how the people in
the book could know the minute details of what I had convinced
myself were nothing more than my own weird dreams and
nightmares. It was _sobering_. In fact I was so upset (I was
pacing back and forth like a caged animal, emotionally swinging
between outrage and terror) that I wrote Budd a letter that
very night. (at 3:30 am.)

I couldn't sleep from all the emotion and recollections that the
reports in the book had triggered. That night, all at once, all
the loose ends, all the unexplained bits and pieces of my life
came together and made sense. Albeit within the context of what
I considered (at the time) to be an impossible scenario.

 >There is no wrong answer!

I'm not going for right or wrong, I'm just answering your
questions with what _happened_.

 >I'm just interested.

As well you should be. If this can happen to me, it can happen
to anyone.

 >Thanks again for taking the time to describe your experiences.

You're welcome Mac. I hope they serve to educate and awaken
folks to a reality that I myself never believed was possible.
Turns out that it is. It's why I'm here sharing it with you
guys.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 21

                 Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:37:32 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:50:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Kaeser


<snip>

 >How "benevolent" of the aliens to remind us how flaccid our very
 >expensive phallic missile defense system really is. It raises
 >the question again of, "why bother to include 'missile defense'
 >with the UFO disclosure issue?"

 >Doesn't Dr. Greer think the aliens can 'neutralize' a few
 >unmanned Satellites as they have reportedly done to our missile
 >defense system on the ground?

 >This is a serious business we're in ain't it fellas? (Insert
 >nervous Elmer Fudd laugh here.) All food for thought.

 >Thanx for allowing the diversion gentlemen. :)

 >Regards,

 >John Velez

John-

As the good Doctor has informed us, the aliens are here to help
us and not hurt us. He has explained that they won't make
themselves known to the world at large until we eliminate all
war and poverty, which is the reason he believes "Free Energy"
is a component of this process.

Dr. Greer has explained on several occasions that just as a dog
doesn't really understand that the veterinarian is really trying
to help him (as he (or she) is poked and prodded), abductees
need to accept the fact that their involvement is for their own
good. It is important for us to give credit where it is due,
since Greer is apparently able speak to their "intent", which by
implication means direct communication.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                          Etzikom UGM Site, Alberta

From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:34:36 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:14:13 -0400
Subject: Etzikom UGM Site, Alberta


Since this news will be breaking soon, anyway (and because it
has already been mentioned on SDI), I thought I would give a bit
of an update on the Etzikom "crater" found in southern Alberta
in April 2001.

The case has received fairly mimimal attention from the media,
but a few articles have been written about it so far. One of the
is online at:

http://www.prairie-post.com/news/052501-4.html

That page refers mostly to an earlier article not currently
archived and focuses on an old UFo sighting that is unrelated.
However, the Friday, June 22, 2001 issue of the same paper will
be carrying a feature article about the site, but will likely
not be archived right away. It will, however, probably generate
some more regional media attention.

The best source for info is Gord Kijek's AUFOSG site:

http://www.aufosg.org/kijek/page181.html

Gord has soil samples.

What is most interesting about this UGM is that it was
investigated quite thoroughly by a number of scientists _before_
the UFO community was aware of it. Soil scientists, physicists
and geologists from two different institutions have now examined
the site, and an official report has been issued this week. I
was called for my advice on the course of action early in the
investigations, and consulted with a number of people as to the
types of tests that might be useful.

The official report gives the test data and then theorizes that
the crater could not have been caused by aliens because the
"landing marks" within the crater are not symmetrically
arranged. (!)  The report concludes that the crater is the
result of a meteorite fall.

Gord Kijek, who examined the site in some detail, told me he has
no explanation for the UGM at this time, if it's not a real
meteor crater. It's not a sinkhole, a lightning strike or
(probably not) a natural gas explosion.

The trouble is that if it _is_ a meteor crater, it's still
extremely unique. Nothing in my astronomical or geophysical
training remotely resembles a _new_ meteor crater. Most
textbooks illustrate impact cratering with Crater Lake in
Oregon, the Ungava Peninsula in Quebec, or Barringer in Arizona.
This crater, albeit small compared with Barringer, is the first
significantly-sized meteor crater that I have heard of in recent
times. Even the fireball that generated a huge wave of sightings
across Eastern North America several years ago ony made a
bucket-sized crater in the soil. The Etzikom crater is about ten
feet wide.

The word today is that NIDS has learned of the site and is on
its way for an investigation. Lord knows what they'll do. At
least we already have a report on the scientific analysis.

Does anyone know of any other _contemporary_ meteor crater being
found recently (i.e. in historical times)? Tunguska doesn't
count.

Oh, and BTW, Canada's leading authority on impact craters, the
guy who proved the dinosaurs died off after an impact event,
does not think the Etzikom crater was made by a meteorite.

So, if it's not a meteor crater ....

--

Nobody in particular








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                                FOX News Item

From: Kenny Young <ufo@FUSE.NET>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:50:19 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:18:11 -0400
Subject: FOX News Item


Can anyone verify this appeared or know anything else about it?

Thanks,

KY

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

Subject: Re: FOX NEWS
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 13:12:15 -0400
From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
To: Rebecca <XXXXX>



Rebecca wrote:

 >Yesterday - June 20, 2001 I was watching the new all news channel on Fox.
 >Upcoming stories included reports of a lot of weird lights and UFO sighting
 >by numerous people in OHIO. They showed video footage. The story was going
 >to be broadcasted on it's 700pm show. Well no more mention of that story
 >the rest of the day (even though they mentioned all the other upcoming
 >stories). Sure enough it was never mentioned during the 7:00 pm show.

 >Have you heard anything about this?

 >Rebecca


Rebecca;

I wasn't near a TV all day long yesterday so I missed it. I
usually do track FOX News during the day when able, however. I
would be curious to learn about this so I'll pass the word
around.

KY
--
  U F O R e s e a r c h
  http://home.fuse.net/ufo/








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 22

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:12:14 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:21:35 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle


 >From: James Bond Johnson JBONJO@aol.com
 >Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:26:47 EDT
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:37:37 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created


 >>I had the good fortune to know many vets from WW2, through
 >>present. Of interest is that they do recall events, traumatic,
 >>and otherwise that happened to them during the war. What I
 >>always found interesting is they were able to "recall" the
 >>events *without* the need of regressive hypnosis.

 >>The same thing appears to be true with UFO reports, landings or
 >>whatever. Take the Roswell crash. Everybody recalled in the
 >>present state so to speak their story or event.


 >Permit me to expand on this report from (1) personal knowledge
 >as one of the WW2 vets

Like so many of my generation, I have become fascinated with the
reports of World War II conflict. In which battles did you
participate? Were you in the European, Pacific, China-Burma-
Indian, or the African theater (though I'm not sure that Africa
was rated as a theater) during the war?

 >and (2) Roswell Incident reporters as the
 >only known photographer of the Roswell wreckage

Except for that inconvenient picture of Irving Newton that was
taken by someone else. I suppose since we don't know, exactly,
who took that picture, your qualification is accurate.

<snip>

 >As I also have stated previously, after I was "guided" as to my
 >recollections by various interviewers - especially Kevin Randle
 >some 42 and 43 years after the Roswell Incident (I call it being
 >"Randleized") - I know for a fact that it is easy to be misled
 >and to then to make innocent erroneous statements.

Here, if we return to the original tapes of the interview, we
learn that this guidance is just a correction of unimportant
facts. For example, during our February 27, 1989 discussion, Dr.
Johnson said, "I took the picture with General Ramey and the
wreckage. General Ramey was the commander of the 20th Air Force
at that time. Or maybe not the 20th, maybe the 15th."

I said, "I think it was actually the 8th Air Force at that time.

Dr. Johnson said, "I think that's not right."

That seems to the extent of my leading Dr. Johnson. I was just
trying to correct the numbered Air Force which does not alter
the story at all.

On the other hand, Dr. Johnson has alleged, repeatedly, that I
had called him cold and provided him with neither the
photographs he had taken nor the article that appeared in the
Star-Telegram of the era. Yet, in that first interview, Dr.
Johnson said, "My interesting part of this, having taken the
picture and now going back and looking at the picture because I
didn't have a copy of it -  is that I don't know whether the Air
Force was pulling a hoax or not. It looks like a kite. There was
another thing that the gal from UTA gave me - there is a
negative they have of Ramey looking at this ray-wind [sic] kite
or something and it was printed in the paper a couple of days
earlier."

What this shows is that in my very first conversation with Dr.
Johnson, he is telling me that he has copies of the picture so
he was aware of the situation. I didn't need to supply anything
to him to "refresh" his memory.

Later in the interview, Dr. Johnson said, "Seven nine [July 9]
is my story on the front page that was in earlier in the day.
That's when they debunked it. Oh, object found at Roswell was
stripped of its glamour as flying disk by a Fort Worth Army Air
Field weather officer late Tuesday - Identified as a weather
balloon. Warrant Officer Irving Newton from Medford, Wisc.
weather forecaster at the base said the object was a ray-wind
[sic] target used to determine the direction of wind at high
altitude."

I asked a question and Dr. Johnson responded, "Okay, this is
quoting Brazel here."

Later in the interview, Dr. Johnson reads the clipping to me.

My point here is that Dr. Johnson has claimed, in other posts,
that I called him cold and supplied neither photographs nor
newspaper clippings to "refresh" his memory. Here, in the
context of the original interview, we here him describe the
photographs, describe working with the same woman at UTA that I
did, and we hear him read from the article that he said during
that interview he wrote, and later said that he did not. There
is nothing in the interview to suggest that I lead him into
places he did not want to go or that I fed him information,
other than correct factual errors, or had created some kind of
scenario that I attempted to force on him.

This is a sort of long-winded way of denying the allegation that
Dr. Johnson felt it necessary to include in a discussion about
false memories.

 >Finally, in other incidents I have had very vivid "memories" of
 >events that I experienced, only to learn later that my recall
 >was seriously flawed as to important details. So what can we
 >trust as to our memory?

Then why are you so convinced that my version of our
conversations are so in error, especially when the audio taped
record reveals that I am correct? Why do you insist that I
misquoted you when you can hear your own voice making the
comments you claim you didn't make?

 >Fortunately, while I admit to a fuzzy mind, we have the photos
 >that I took which have _not_ changed as to any of the important
 >details of that day!

Yes, we do have the photographs. They certainly provide us with
some interesting areas for discussion.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:17:33 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:24:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Randle


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:03:55 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:27:55 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:46:49 -0500
 >>>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:44:23 -0500

 >>>>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:22:58 -0500
 >>>>>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 ><snip>

Robert, List, all -

 >>Back in the olden days, say late 1988, CUFOS decided that the
 >>Roswell case deserved some further investigations. Good Ole Stan
 >>told them that there were additional witnesses to be interviewed
 >>and additional work to be done. They decided to launch their own

 >Kevin,

 >When he made the request, was it for investigative funding or what?

No, I think he was just stating a fact when the question about
additional witnesses was posed to him. I don't think Stan was
looking for anything from CUFOS at that point.

<snip>

 >>Stan had promised to share some material with us, but somehow
 >>that never quite materialized. He told Don Schmitt that he
 >>believed Lewis (Bill) Rickett to be dead when he was not, told
 >>Schmitt that Johnny McBoyle lived in Wyoming when he did not,
 >>promised to send copies of his interviews with Marcel, but did
 >>not, and promised to provide other information, but did not. On
 >>the other hand, I supplied Stan with a number of the interviews
 >>we had conducted, some of which he quoted in his Crash at Corona
 >>with neither credit nor attribution. The Bill Brazel interview
 >>that Schmitt and I had conducted in February, 1989 is used with
 >>the wording of one small section changed to corroborate the
 >>tales told by Glenn Dennis and later Gerald Anderson. There was
 >>no reason to make that change, but that, too, is another story.

 >Point of clarification. Am I correct in assuming that the Brazel
 >interview that "is used with the wording of one small section
 >changed to corroborate the tales..." referring to Crash at
 >Corona as opposed to your first book?

The Bill Brazel interview was conducted by Don Schmitt and me in
February, 1989. The altered quote appeared in Crash at Corona
and was the insertion of the word "black" in front of sergeant,
suggesting that Brazel had said the sergeant with the men who
had visited him at the ranch was a black man. Truth is, Bill
Brazel never said it and later confirmed that all the men who
visited were white.

Stan has claimed that Bill Brazel said it to Don Berliner when
Berliner met Brazel. The truth is, I was at the meeting and
didn't hear Brazel make the statement and, as I pointed out,
Brazel said that he remembered all of the men as white, so he
wouldn't have said it.

<snip>

 >>Then, on June 11, 1990, Stan wrote to my editor at Avon, Mr.
 >>John Douglas (not to be confused with the FBI profiler) and made
 >>a number of allegations. Remember, we had all been cooperating,
 >>but Stan wrote "... perhaps unfortunately have shared some of my
 >>recent research with Randle and Schmitt..." Of course, this was
 >>nothing other than information that we had already discovered
 >>from our interviews.

 >Point being that if Researcher A interviews a witness, then
 >along comes researcher B and C, the witness is likely to tell
 >the same story to all three researchers. If he doesn't, one can
 >question the reliability of the witness.

The point here is that Stan had not shared anything with us that
we had not already discovered. And, if a witness tells a
slightly different version of a story to different researchers,
then this is usually one of the foibles of memory. If it is
radically different, then the reliability of the witness must be
questioned.

 >>While this statement is certainly innocuous, Stan continued, "As
 >>you can tell from the enclosed paper, I was not happy with the
 >>Roswell Incident because of the inappropriate material that was
 >>included, the misquotation of myself, the absence of the
 >>contractually obligated acknowledgment of my major contribution.

 >One assumes that Stan was speaking about the Berlitz/Moore book
 >called The Roswell Incident that had come out 10 year earlier.
 >Has anybody other then Berlitz/Moore ever actually seen a copy
 >of the RI contract?

Yes, he is referring to the Roswell Incident, and it is Stan who
has always suggested that there was to be a contractually
obligated acknowledgment for him in it. This is a question that
should be addressed to Stan.

 >>I am certainly anxious to see the Randle Schmitt book to see if
 >>once again my contribution is undervalued and if there are many
 >>factual mistakes, flights of fancy, lifting of my research much
 >>of which remains unpublished. I think the story needs to be
 >>told, but with full credit for my and other investigations.
 >>After all, by the end of 1985, [Bill] Moore and I had located 92
 >>persons connected with the event. It is difficult indeed to
 >>believe that S and R didn't depend strongly on that base for
 >>their book. They have made trips to Roswell and have found
 >>people not previously located partly through government
 >>computers to which I did not have access... Please call if you
 >>have any questions. Anxiously awaiting a copy of the manuscript
 >>for review only..." From a publishing standpoint, these
 >>allegations could be deadly, thinly disguised as they were.
 >>Please do note the careful wording though the implications are
 >>evident.

 >The publisher (whom are always sensitive to law suits and such)
 >apparently yawned big time.

Not at all. The publisher was quite concerned about the
allegations that had been leveled. My editor and I were in
discussions about this for several days. Bill Moore even
commented that he had succeeded in getting the book put on hold.
(In reality, we lost our slot in the production schedule to a
very important book, an autobiography of rap singer, Vanilla
Ice. I always had to laugh that the Vanilla Ice book lasted
about six weeks and I still see copies of our book on the
shelves.)

 >>Stan was not the only one to write. Bill Moore, Charles Berlitz
 >>(who said he was going to sue me for talking about Roswell) and
 >>Whitley Strieber (yes, that Whitley Strieber) all wrote to the
 >>publisher demanding copies of the manuscript and claiming all
 >>sorts of nefarious actions on our part.

 >Apparently the publisher yawned again and never released a copy
 >of the manuscript.

Actually, the editor called and asked if I cared if a copy of
the manuscript would be given to Whitley Strieber. I said,
"Yes." I would provide a sanitized version which Strieber could
review at the publisher's offices but that he could not have a
copy. Given what was going on, I knew exactly where that copy
would go.

 >As I recall Bill Moore had a big deal going about a MJ-12
 >related book when the MJ-12 papers became public in 1987. I had
 >phoned Moore a few times and as I recall on this one
 >conversation he spoke of a book contract that was going to be
 >akin to the revelation of the century so to speak whose authors
 >were going to be Moore and Shandara only and no others. I was
 >somewhat surprised at the time. As I recall later Moore
 >suggested to Saucer Smear that he now believed the MJ-12 papers
 >were disinfo/bogus. I heard later that the book fell through
 >around the time of Moore's 1988 talk where he allegedly claimed
 >to be part of a government disinfo effort against UFO
 >researchers.

At this time both Stan Friedman and Bill Moore were claiming
that new books were in the works. He and Bill, according to a
letter he sent to us, were going to be asked to do a "quicky"
revision of The Roswell Incident... he did not offer us a piece
of the royalty or a space for our names on the cover.

<snip>

 >>I could point out that Stan's review of our book was less than
 >>glowing but given the above history, is anyone really surprised?
 >>Of that review, Jerry Clark noted, on July 27, 1991, "You [Stan]
 >>suggest that both Randle and Schmitt are government agents
 >>desperately trying to attract attention from the Plains where
 >>one of the aliens was 'alive'. True, in the next paragraph you
 >>provisionally (as in 'I think') retract this outrageous
 >>charge..."

 >As I recall the theory that ufology had two paid govt
 >disinformation agents was originally floated without names by
 >Bill Moore, long before Randle/Schmitt came along.

You know you have "arrived" in Ufology when you are accused of
being a government agent. Stan's suggestion was not the only one
offered at the time. One publication suggested that I had worked
with Hector Quintannilla on some kind of alien craft recovery
team. Bill Moore said that he had been supplying his military
contacts with information about APRO and that he noticed they
had (meaning the military) more information than he gave them.
He suggested that I was the other contact, which, of course was
not true. I thought it funny that he would admit to "spying" on
APRO while trying to tar me with the same brush.

 >The crash on the plains theory was allegedly supported by the
 >barney Barnett story. During this period of time somebody
 >(Kevin?) got ahold of all of Barneys diary and he wasn't in the
 >plains on the dates in question. Then the Gerald Anderson tale
 >came along, then died which is what has happened to the plains
 >story in general..unless you take into account the story
 >allegedly told by the Roswell Cameraman as passed on in
 >Mantle/Hessman book.

Yes, talking with Ruth Barnett's niece, Alice Knight, she told
me that she had discovered a diary kept by her aunt for 1947. I
picked it up, drove to Roswell where Stan and I copied it (with
her permission). I then returned it.

The diary gives no hint that Barnett was involved in anything
like the recovery of an alien craft, or seeing anything on the
Plains of San Agustin in 1947. The timing simply does not work
out.

 >When the Gerald Anderson story was a hot item so to speak,
 >I was speaking to Walt Andrus over the phone. When I ask him
 >what he thought...he was always very forth right and straight
 >forward... he said the story appeared to be phony. His wisdom
 >proved out much later.

On the other side of that coin, I got a strongly worded
handwritten note from Walt Andrus about the validity of the
Anderson tale. In fact, Walt wrote, "Who influenced your
response, the U.S.A.F." There's the government agent nonsense
again.

<snip>

 >>And, I think most will understand the purpose of this post. Cry
 >>havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

 >The post was well done and very interesting bit of ufological
 >"insider" research history.

 >Ah, famous quote used by a Klingon commander in "Star Trek,
 >Undiscovered County" which in fact was borrowed from William
 >Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene I.

I was actually quoting the Shakespeare and not the Klingon or even
Frederick Forsyth's Dogs of War. I was suggesting here that my
post might stir things up and I expected to be "flamed" for it.

 >Well, "To be or not to be, that is the question..."

This reminds me of a sight gag I would have liked to see in the
original Titanic movie. As the boat sinks, Cliffton Webb enters
a hatchway and on the bulkhead is a sign that says, "To B Deck."
I thought there should have been another that said, "Not to B
Deck."


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 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:19:12 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:26:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:06:22 -0300

 >Jerry, may I - in all seriousness - urge you to do some reading
 >on the nature and history of defamation? Have you forgotten your
 >prediction to Jenny (you kindly sent me a copy) of December 5,
 >1989, "there is little chance Stan and Harry Harris will win the
 >suit"

... which is quite right, for there was no suit, and the matter was
settled "out of court".

 >An excellent text for journalists is 'The Journalist's Legal
 >Guide' by Michael G. Crawford, Carswell Thomson Professional
 >Publishing. There is a 51 page Chapter on Defamation. Perhaps
 >you might learn something about the difference between fair
 >comment and defamation. I have never objected to dealing with
 >differences of opinion. I have objected to defamation,
 >especially in a major newspaper.

As a librarian I am grateful for your recommendation of an
authorative text on defamation law, and will considering adding
it to stock. However, as Jerry has pointed out previously, the
case never came to court and the matter was never settled one
way or the other, so there is no question of defamation. You may
not have liked the comments made about you, but they have never
been proven to be defamatory, nor, under English law, is it
likely they would have been.

This is only my opinion, of course, but then the claim that they
were defamatory is only your opinion.

 >Some one claimed that because I was well received on a UK tour 5
 >years later, I obviously wasn't damaged. I gather it hasn't
 >occured that perhaps the attendees had read the apology in both
 >the MEN and FSR?

No it hasn't occured to me, nor would it occur to any reasonable
person. In your original comment you said nothing about a
lecture tour five years later, you just said:

Quote - "I still seem to be the same stature as I was. Did a
bunch of lectures and media appearances after all that. Response
seemed to me to be excellent. But then I am biased."

Are you suggesting that every one of the people who attended
those lectures read not only the original piece in the
Manchester Evening News, but also the apology which followed? As
they say round here, if you believe that, you'll believe
anything.

 >Try the first line of the Encyclopedia Brittanica article on
 >libel:

 >    "The law recognizes in every man the right to have his
 >     reputation unassailed by false and defamatory imputations."

Maybe, but the law never got the opportunity to recognize
anything. the case was settled before it came to court. How many
times does this need to be pointed out?

 >I suppose every apology is humiliating, perhaps because it means
 >the apologizer got caught.

Caught by who?

 >I suppose that I should be pleased that some people are imputing
 >to me an incredible power of intimidation. Harry and I and our
 >barrister were able to intimidate that tiny village weekly the
 >MEN and poor innocent Jenny. Anyone who believes that, I have a
 >bridge I would like to sell you....

I doubt that the MEN was intimidated, they probably worked out
the cost of paying a quick settlement against the costs of
barristers' fees if they decided to take the matter further, and
decided the game wasn't worth the candle, so paid up out of
petty-cash.

--
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 >
   Jun > Jun 22

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:45:20 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:28:30 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:43:16 -0400


 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:28:46 -0400

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:37:37 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >>>On the other hand it has always struck me that most of the UFO
 >>>abductees can't seem to recall in the present state so to speak
 >>>the "Grays", "medical tests" and so forth _unless_ they are
 >>>regressively hypnosis by someone. I have no doubt that the
 >>>abductees _believe_ what comes forward in the hypnosis sessions
 >>>as an absolute true-to-life experience. Which reminds me. Didn't
 >>>one of the UFO abduction researchers have some lady abductee
 >>>that went under hypnosis, told tales and storys of abduction and
 >>>medical testing while under regressive hypnosis, then later
 >>>admitted it was a total stroke job?

 >>>If someone on the list knows of case or cases of abduction that
 >>>did not involve hypnosis I am sure many people would be
 >>>interested.

 >>Here's a little more data, quoted from Stewart Appelle's
 >>important paper, "The Abudction Experience: A Critical
 >>Evaluation of Theory and Evidence." Appelle is a psychology
 >>professor at SUNY Brockport; his paper was originally published
 >>in the Journal of UFO Studies in 1996. It's available online at
 >>http://www.spacelab.net/~jvif/appelle1.htm. (Thanks, John Velez,
 >>for posting it!)

 >>"Influence of hypnosis and hypnotists.

 >>"Abduction narratives can be compared to determine if they vary
 >>according to the particular theoretical inclinations of the
 >>investigator or therapist eliciting the account. Also, accounts
 >>which emerge during hypnosis can be compared with those stemming
 >>from conscious experience. Such analyses have been carried out
 >>by Bullard (1989, 1994). On the basis of his findings, Bullard
 >>(1989) concluded that "the form and content of abduction stories
 >>seems independent of hypnosis" (p. 3). In a more recent
 >>examination, Bullard (1994) concludes that hypnosis is a
 >>significant factor in regard to the quantity of material
 >>"recovered," but not in any direct way to the content."

<snip>

 >At:

 >http://www.spacelab.net/~jvif/appelle1.htm

 >It is also stated:

 >  "These considerations suggest a basis for the specific
 >  hypnotizability obtained for abduction experiences. This
 >  should not, however, be confused with an argument for the
 >  veridicality of abduction experiences. The factors discussed
 >  certainly apply to real events, but they could also apply to
 >  experiences originating in the imagination or unconscious.
 >  This possibility must remain at the status of conjecture,
 >  however, because there can be no direct evidence that a
 >  conscious experience had heretofore resided in the
 >  unconscious.

 >  Nevertheless, it may be useful to consider this possibility
 >  in regard to other anomalous experiences proposed to have
 >  imaginative or unconscious antecedents. Like abduction
 >  experiences, past-life identities (reincarnations) are also
 >  easily elicited through hypnosis from normal individuals
 >  (Kampman, 1976), are rich in detail, and are believed by the
 >  experiencer as veridical recall of actual past events
 >  (Spanos, Burgess, & Burgess, 1994). Spanos et al. argue that
 >  both hypnotic abduction experiences and past lives (as well
 >  as elicited memories of satanic ritual abuse and multiple
 >  personalities) are "social creations ... determined by the
 >  understandings that subjects develop about such experiences
 >  from the information to which they are exposed" (p. 436).
 >  Whether or not this interpretation is correct, the role of
 >  hypnosis may be elucidated through a consideration of
 >  abduction experiences in relationship to other anomalous
 >  experiences routinely accessible to the hypnotized subject."

 >Let's be careful not to pick the information but to assimilate
 >it.

 >Hypnosis is so controversial that it remains useless as a tool
 >to study the reality of a phenomenon. All considered, I propose
 >that all data ralative to hypnosis be discarded.

What does that leave us with?

 >One of the main problem of ufology is to recognise the validity
 >of the data. We see this all the time.

 >What apparently distinguishes alien abductions from ufology is
 >the consistancy and the similarity of the experiences. This
 >should facilitate the establishment of a protocole to study its
 >nature.

 >Question #1: How does one establish the reality of an
 >experience.

Serge, Greg, all -

And question #2: How do tales of past lives and Satanic ritual
abuse differ from tales of alien abduction?

I have been meaning to post this question in the past, but just
haven't done it. This seems to be the forum in which to ask it.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                          UFO*BC Updates - 06-21-01

From: David Pengilly <david_pengilly@dccnet.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:48:38 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:31:51 -0400
Subject: UFO*BC Updates - 06-21-01



UFOBC has not sent out been sending out Update information on a
regular basis. Sorry for the long delay! We have been going
through many changes, so please browse around and let us know
what you think. Repeat visitors may want to bookmark our "What's
New" page: http://www.ufobc.ca/New/index.html

Here are links to some of our most recent postings:

1) "2001 Sightings"
  - All the reports from this year
  - http://www.ufobc.ca/Sightings/2001.htm

2) "Unidentified Swimming Objects"
  - Another strange one from Graham's files
  - http://www.ufobc.ca/Experiencer/uso.htm

3) "Pre-1995 Sightings"
  - Our organization started collecting sightings in 1995 and we
  have maintained a separate web page for each year since. If
  people reported an older sighting with a lot of detail we put
  it in out History section, but shorter sightings went
  unreported. Until now! Please report your sighting no matter
  how old!
  - http://www.ufobc.ca/Sightings/pre95.htm

4) "Part Two - Strange Strangers...Again"
  - More "Men In Black" stories from Roy Wiks
  - http://www.ufobc.ca/Experiencer/strangers.htm
  - If you haven't read Part One - visit the following:
  - http://www.ufobc.ca/Experiencer/strange.htm

5) "Dorothy Izatt Lecture"
  - Dorothy states that this is the last time she will give a
    presentation of her photos and videos, so don't miss it!!!
  - Vancouver Planetarium - Saturday, June 23, 2001 at 7 PM.
  - http://www.ufobc.ca/Events/index.html

6) "Trail Ends for Rene Dahinden"
  - A sad day for Sasquatch research
  - http://www.ufobc.ca/Tmp/index.html



Dave Pengilly
dave@ufobc.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 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 21 Jun 2001 19:12:47 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:35:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Hamilton


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:37:32 -0400

 ><snip>

 >>How "benevolent" of the aliens to remind us how flaccid our very
 >>expensive phallic missile defense system really is. It raises
 >>the question again of, "why bother to include 'missile defense'
 >>with the UFO disclosure issue?"

 >>Doesn't Dr. Greer think the aliens can 'neutralize' a few
 >>unmanned Satellites as they have reportedly done to our missile
 >>defense system on the ground?

 >>This is a serious business we're in ain't it fellas? (Insert
 >>nervous Elmer Fudd laugh here.) All food for thought.

 >>Thanx for allowing the diversion gentlemen. :)

 >As the good Doctor has informed us, the aliens are here to help
 >us and not hurt us. He has explained that they won't make
 >themselves known to the world at large until we eliminate all
 >war and poverty, which is the reason he believes "Free Energy"
 >is a component of this process.

 >Dr. Greer has explained on several occasions that just as a dog
 >doesn't really understand that the veterinarian is really trying
 >to help him (as he (or she) is poked and prodded), abductees
 >need to accept the fact that their involvement is for their own
 >good. It is important for us to give credit where it is due,
 >since Greer is apparently able speak to their "intent", which by
 >implication means direct communication.

In the past Greer told his story of having contact and taking
rides to other planets. From this one can easily imply that he
has had direct communication. I am waiting to hear about it.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 22

               Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:25:14 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:39:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Mortellaro


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 21 Jun 2001 08:52:36 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest


 >>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:57:30 -0400

 >><snip>

 >>>One of my favorite lines from the movie version of 'The Right
 >>>Stuff' was: "No Bucks no Buck Rodgers." Could it be that the
 >>>leadership of MUFON sees that there are big bucks in the New
 >>>Age? Why not attract a Hollywood airhead with multiple millons
 >>>and channel those millons into the coffers? No difference
 >>>between that and say a Benny Hinn-type 'Healer' who also has the
 >>>ablity to 'Channel' money.

 >>>Science and the principal of peer review? Why, we don't need no
 >>>stinkin' peer review. We have Greer and Bell and Streiber - oh,
 >>>my.

 >>I kind of like the 'Wizard of OX' reference, as it would seem
 >>that Ufology's most vocal proponents are acting like carnival
 >>barkers. I think the problem is that many of us don't want to
 >>join the circus... .. <g>. However, with the Internet there are
 >>many new to the field who apparently do.

 >>I think you've hit the 'nail on the head' here, in that the line
 >>up of speakers at the MUFON Symposium was selected to draw the
 >>largest audiance possible from the area around Southern
 >>California.

 >I once wrote:

 > "Some say it is the California sun or the Santa Ana winds
 > that created the weird culture of the west coast. The
 > inhabitants think differently. Westerners are open to new
 > ideas. Visitors from another planet are welcome in
 > California."

 >So you see, this explains it all. We people of Southern
 >California live in a State of Mind.

 >As for MUFON, the leadership has a choice in how they would like
 >to conduct UFO business, who they allow in as a member, who they
 >acknowledge is a legit researcher or investigator, and they seem
 >to have chosen to defer to local autonomy.

 >I parted with MUFON in 1997 because of their "unscientific"
 >approach to the Phoenix Lights that I elected to investigate
 >because at the time it was literally in my own backyard. Even
 >though I wrote an initial report for the Journal, this was
 >undermined by one Richard Motzer who undermined all attempts at
 >objective investigation. He is now gone from MUFON, but left a
 >false trail on the Phoenix Lights issues.

 >-Bill Hamilton

Hiya Bill, Errol, bListers and all the ships at sea (dit dit dit dah),

Uh, say, I really do not mean to be subservient to the dimbulbs on
this here list, but in truth, we used to call California the "Land of
the fruits and nuts!" I believe this to be an insult. But you must
admit, it is somewhat amusing.

I digress.

Today, this moniker belongs to Parhum... uh, I meant that other
town... the one in Arizona. (You know the one). Anyways, I would
like very much to heave an opinion. That was not a typo. See,
this New Age stuff is highly underrated. And over done by those
who like to stick it to the "fruitcake" crowd. The ones who
channel sans TV. Not to mention them what think that Aliens are
(here fill in the blank, and please, don't even begin to mention
beings from Mongo... rather, spirits from the Play with it
please... or is is Play a Dease... whatever).

That crowd.

But in truth, there may be much to say for NAT (New Age
Thinking). NAT may very well contain a kernel of truth. Why the
hell are those UFO buffs as afraid of NAT as Skeptibunkers are
afraid of UFO's in the buff?  Huh?

It seems to me that MUFON has done something interesting. They
have catered to a market which exists and may provide some level
of interest in UFO's and the abduction phenom. Hell, do we not
share a section of the bookstore bookshelf together? Huh? And
are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? And the debtors'
prisons, are they not in operation? Huh?

So, to those who refuse to acknowledge that which is not in
their paradigm, may I suggest looking at your (dare I say,
"our") emenies? Enemas. Enemies?

I rest my bookcase.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 22

               Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:32:43 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:45:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Mortellaro


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:37:32 -0400

 ><snip>

 >John-

 >As the good Doctor has informed us, the aliens are here to help
 >us and not hurt us. He has explained that they won't make
 >themselves known to the world at large until we eliminate all
 >war and poverty, which is the reason he believes "Free Energy"
 >is a component of this process.

 >Dr. Greer has explained on several occasions that just as a dog
 >doesn't really understand that the veterinarian is really trying
 >to help him (as he (or she) is poked and prodded), abductees
 >need to accept the fact that their involvement is for their own
 >good. It is important for us to give credit where it is due,
 >since Greer is apparently able speak to their "intent", which by
 >implication means direct communication.

 >Steve

Dear Steve,

Thank you so much for clarifying my butter. Actually, I meant my
anger, frustration, terror, post traumatic stress disorder and
possible insanity over thinking that these sunamonbetchies meant
me no good whatever.

Cripes, I been thinking all along that they were after my sanity
as well as my body fluids and stuff..... but now that I
understand better, I feel lots better. And I have you to thank.

It's a big relief you know? Like the time I thought I had only
one unclogged artery left and was considering not taking that 8
oz glass of melted butter I usually drink for breakfast... then
only to find out that I actually have two unclogged arteries
left. And one on the right.

Whew. What a relief.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 22

             Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:14:34 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:47:44 -0400
Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Maccabee


 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:25:08 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life'


 >>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:00:06 -0400
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life'
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>My new book, 'Abduction In My Life', is now available from
 >>Amazon.com and Arcturus Books and other places.

<snip>

 >I wish I could publish some of the mail I have received from
 >abductees over the years. They are the voices of our brothers
 >and sisters crying out for help and trying desperately to
 >understand this impossible thing that has befallen them.

 >I look forward to reading it in its entirety. Hope it does
 >well for you in the market place. ;)

Thanks for mentioning my book.

I hope you won't be disappointed by my portrayal of what I see
as the truth... in ways that go beyond ufology!








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 22

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 07:07:06 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:53:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Bourdais


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:06:22 -0300


<snip>

 >Have you forgotten that Jenny also wrote a strong letter of
 >apology to Whitley Strieber, 14 May 1988, for creating the false
 >impression, in a radio broadcast, that 'Communion' was a
 >plagiarism of a book authored by Jenny and Peter Warrington?
 >People who often speed in their cars sometimes get fined for
 >speeding. People who defame others sometimes get caught as well.


To Stan and the List

I also recall that, not long ago, Jenny Randles had to apologise
to Budd Hopkins for having wrongly accused him of practicing
hypnotic regression on children.

And, by the way, I hope that she will soon release her recorded
testimonies of pilots who "saw nothing" at
Bentwaters-Lakenheath.

Talking of testimonies, may I mention the one of Jennie Zeidman,
former asistant of Allen Hynek, to a French TV team last year.

On April 24 of this year, there was a private screening in Paris
of a documentary on UFOs shot last year, produced for the French
national network 'France 2', called 'Le secret amricain'
(author Vincent Gielly, producer Antoine Disle, of Spad
productions). I was among the invited, having been interviewed
for it.

At the end of the film, there was startling revelation made by
Jennie Zeidman, the former assistant of Allen Hynek. She recalls
that, during a meeting (I don't remember the date), she passed a
little paper to Hynek with two written questions on it. He wrote
short answers on it, and Jennie showed that paper to the camera.

Here are the questions and answers, from memory:

First question:

Is is true that there was a contact with Aliens?

Where and When?

Answer: Yes, at Holloman AFB, in 1962.


Second question:

What is the source of your information?

Answer: AF

There is an interesting point that I notice here. The date is
not the same as in previous 'revelations' on that alleged event.

According to Linda Howe, in her book 'An Alien Harvest' (pages
141-146), Bob Emenegeger told her in 1983 that he had been given
the date of May 1971. But when she mentioned that to Richard
Doty three weeks later in April 1983, he told her that the real
date was April 25, 1964. The day after the landing of Socorro,
which had been a mistake !

Any comment from the readers of this List ?


Regards to all,

Gildas Bourdais








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                     Re: UFOs & Science Fiction - Perrez

From: Raymond Perrez <r.perrez@libertysurf.fr>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:06:26 +0200
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:36:40 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs & Science Fiction - Perrez


[Non-Subscriber Post --ebk]

 >Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 06:51:02 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: UFOs & Science Fiction

 >>From: Raymond Perrez <r.perrez@libertysurf.fr>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: UFOs & Science Fiction
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:19:15 +0200

 >>[Non-Subscriber Post --ebk]

 >>Dear Errol,

 >>I am doing research on possible links between science fiction
 >>films and UFO beliefs in the States. My website features a
 >>questionnaire for guests to fill in if they want:

 >>http://www.chez.com/offworld

<snip>


 >Hello Errol and all:

 >It looks like Raymond has yet to get those pages completed. I
 >found no questionnaire, just three virtually empty pages which
 >all call one another; plus some pop-up banner ad for something
 >or other in French.

 >I slightly edited the URL above so people can click on it, in
 >case they want the banner ad to pop up.


Dear Larry Hatch,

I have just checked my website and found all the pages,
including the questionnaire, to be fully functional. I have also
accessed it from the URL below, and it is working perfectly
fine. In fact I have started receiving some answers. Great
stuff.

Thanks a lot for your help.

Raymond Perrez







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                        Beyond Contact - Winners List

From: Joe McGonagle <joem_cgonagle@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:59:28 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:38:52 -0400
Subject: Beyond Contact - Winners List


The Faster than Light/ufologyinuk competition winners list has
now been posted at:

www.ufology.org.uk

More competitions are in the pipeline, so keep an eye on the
site for more details, as well as news about UK Ufology.

Thanks to those who took part, and to those who helped to manage
the competition.


Joe









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                 Twilight Photos Of Low-Flying Disc Over Oz?

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:45:54 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:45:54 -0400
Subject: Twilight Photos Of Low-Flying Disc Over Oz?




From: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>


Source: Rense.com

http://www.rense.com

Twilight Photos Of Low-Flying Disc Over Oz?
 From Ross Dowe
nsc@post.com

6-20-1

The Sun Herald newspaper (Australia) sent the following
information and photos to Ross Dowe:

G'day

While reading todays (Monday, 6-18-01) edtion of your fine
paper, I noticed a small article about a mystery sighting in the
eastern suburbs, and thought...that sounds familiar.

I have decided to send you some shots taken from my back
porch in Kilsyth, Victoria, a few weeks ago. At the time my
televison showed static and all the dogs in the area combined in
a wonderful chorus . Hope you find these snaps useful as a
follow-up story.

Keep up the good work.

Yours sincerely,
Rev. B.Chatham
___

Report received by UFO Hotline -
Ross Dowe nsc@post.com

Australia Victoria Melbourne -
Wantirna 9.55 PM
6-16-01

Respondents report sighting a dark grey disc or saucer shaped
aerial object flying over the Knox area of Melbourne.

The object "appeared to be round or saucer shaped with silver
sides and also appeared to have a small dome underneath it with
a half of dozen large lights on the circumference of the main
body of the disc."

At first it was thought to be a Blimp but upon analysis "it was
only a 1/4 of the size a the blimp and far too big for a garbage
bag hoax"'.

The unidentified flying object travelled about 20 kms to the
north before turning right to the east towards Ringwood, it was
seen for about 5-8 minutes and there was not sound, the air was
still and very cold (snow), everyone inside by winter fires.
___

UFO Hotline
Ross Dowe nsc@post.com

Dear Rev,

The Sun Herald sent me a copy of some pictures. I wish to ask
you some questions about the nature of these images. Firstly
would you be so kind to answer these questions!

1.  What sort of camera did you use?
2.  Is it a digital camera?
3.  What time and day was it?
3a. Did you make contact with the NSC (UFO and Meteorite
     Reporting Hotline) if so when?
4.  Do you have the negatives?
5.  What do you do and who do you work for?
6.  How old are you?
7.  What is your phone number?

Ross Dowe - nsc@post.com


Images enlarged from supplied BMPs


Good evening, Mr Dowe,

In relation to your questions:

1.  The camara used was a cheap generic 35mm (Hanamex, i think)
     and has since been misplaced,along with some lovely shots of
     St Paul's in London.

2.  As far as I know, no.
3.  late evening around the end of May, 25th or 26th.
3a. No, I honestly thought it was some fool with a toy of some
     sort.
4.  Yes, I'm sure they are at a colleague's home in Hobart.
5.  I am a minister of the Church.
6.  I don't see how that is relevant but, 32.
7.  I am sorry but I prefer not to disclose my home number for
     these sort of matters.

I hope I have been some help, email me if you would like any
more information but I think that is all I can recall.


Yours sincerely,

Reverend B. Chatham



[Images are at rense.com --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 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                  Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:43:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:49:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Velez


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:38:31 -0700

 >>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 03:45:56 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >>>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:19:43 -0000

 >>>As of June 17 my monthly column for the MUFON UFO Journal was
 >>>vetoed (read: censored) by John F. Schuessler, the International
 >>>Director, because it included critical comments about the
 >>>line-up of speakers for the 2001 symposium in Orange County,
 >>>California. No dissension allowed. As a result, I have submitted
 >>>my resignation and will contribute no further columns to the
 >>>Journal.

 >>>I was informed that the Orange County MUFON chapter had selected
 >>>the speakers and considered them "appropriate for the theme of
 >>>the event as well as the location of the event." How true! But
 >>>how appropriate are they for the national MUFON organization
 >>>which claims to be scientific in orientation?

 >Why Richard, you weren't being mellow about this. They were only
 >trying to protect you and the Body from bad vibes. I mean, take
 >some camomille tea, remember, breathe, breathe.

 >>>Following my own advice to others on this list, I did some
 >>>research and looked at the MUFON Orange County web site
 >>>(www.mufonoc.org), and discovered that the "New Age" is alive
 >>>and well in Southern California. Their stated goals include
 >>>"Actively promoted INTERACTION with intelligent life and URP."

 >Why yes, the interaction of space bretheren, why, just the other
 >day I remote viewed my old friend River Hollowood, who was
 >removed to the Trafalmadorian Homeworld, when he used  his
 >flashlight (with non-mercury batteries of course,) to call down
 >a Trafalmadorian scout ship. When we woke, he was apparently
 >abucted from our group, I know he is in a state of eternal
 >bliss, but I  can't figure out what the images of a Tire swing,
 >Iron bars and Trafalmadorian fruit that is quite like a Bananna
 >is all about.

 >>>(Shades of Steven Greer, the speaker that I protested most
 >>>strongly.)

 >Why Richard, Dr. Greer is the herald of the New Age, look
 >what his methods gained dear old River. Peace, Happiness,
 >Bananas.

 >>>URP (UFO-related Phenomena) is defined to include PSI Phenomenon
 >>>[sic], astro-geology, paleo-archeology, and human and animal
 >>>mutilations, among other things. MUFON-OC public education
 >>>programs include presentations about hypnotic regression by a
 >>>woman associated with the Association for Past Life Research and
 >>>Therapies, and who has recently published a book titled "Crop
 >>>Circles Revealed: Language of the Light Symbols."

 >Ah, my past lives... I was ruler of Atlantis, 20,0000 b.p.
 >personal Wizier to Imhotep ll. All in all, I am a powerful
 >soul. How I pity those who were plumbers in Atlantis - although
 >all I have known now and before seem to be rulers. Must be a
 >Karmic thing. You too, could be a former Altantian ruler!

 >>>Other public education programs featured remote viewing,
 >>>underground bases, Area 51, etc. If this mish-mosh is where
 >>>MUFON is going, I'm not going with them. My advice to
 >>>scientifically oriented MUFON members is to instruct your
 >>>leadership to clean house and start behaving scientificially,
 >>>which includes peer review as a central element.

 >>>My offending column is attached.

 >><snip>

 >To "channel" John Wayne: "Ya stood tall Pilgrim!"

 >>I too am disturbed at how often 'New Age' dogma seeks to insert
 >>itself into things 'ufological.' It is why I submitted the
 >>Brazil/MUFON post several weeks back. I was hoping to get some
 >>info as to how true (or untrue) the allegations were concerning
 >>New Age channelers participating in MUFON staff meetings.

 >>MUFON was created with empirical scientific method at its core.
 >>A sober, systematic approach to the UFO problem was one of its
 >>more salient features and selling points.

 >>It now appears that Mr. Schussler is heading MUFON in the same
 >>direction that Gersten steered CAUS.

 >Reminds me of the old 'Far Side' cartoon in which an airliner
 >crew is amongt the clouds and the co-pilot cries out: "Look,
 >what is a mountian goat doing in these clouds?" That kind of
 >direction, apparently.

 >>I'm not going to say any more about it.

 >>I've been in Dutch with the New Agers for years because I refuse
 >>to buy into or to endorse their particular brand of dogma.

 >>It's funny. The 'New-Agers' accuse me of being a "skeptic" and
 >>the skeptics have labelled me a "True believer". As an old horse
 >>player I knew used to say, "I can't win for losing!" <LOL>

 >>Takes a lot of cohones to speak your mind and then damn the
 >>torpedoes. You are a thoughtful man of common sense, principle,
 >>and character. You have my support.  ;)

 >>You also have earned my respect.

 >>"Give em Hell Harry!" Please continue to fight the good fight.
 >>;)


 >John and Dick, I could be wrong but I may be on to something. My
 >tongue-in-cheek commmetary is just that. But something has me
 >intrigued.

 >One of  my favorite lines from the movie version of 'The Right
 >Stuff' was: "No Bucks no Buck Rodgers." Could it be that the
 >leadership of MUFON sees that there are big bucks in the New
 >Age? Why not attract a Hollywood airhead with multiple millons
 >and channel those millons into the coffers? No difference
 >between that and say a Benny Hinn-type 'Healer' who also has the
 >ablity to 'Channel' money.

 >Science and the principal of peer review? Why, we don't need no
 >stinkin' peer review. We have Greer and Bell and Streiber - oh,
 >my.


Hi GT,

(*Good to see you back buddy!)

Twenty years or so ago there was 'talk' of government
infiltration into the larger UFO groups and organizations. That
one way the gov't had of both controlling these groups and
controlling the kind of information that came out of them, was
to work their own people into leadership positions.

The fact that we don't hear much talk anymore about government
interest or involvement in UFO groups and organizations doesn't
negate the 'possibility' that they might in fact be doing so. It
is right to ask questions and to entertain possible scenarios
when groups like CAUS and MUFON start to mix the religion of the
New Age with the science of investigating UFOs.. When the heads
of organizations like these start to sound more like preachers
than teachers,... "Houston, we have a problem!"

It could all be as mundane as old fashioned $ greed and the
local MUFON heads seeking to acquire the $ needed to stay alive
from the expendable income of the New Agers. But don't
completely discount that there 'may be' planning and intention
behind these kind of dramatic changes in focus and policy. My
take on it is that MUFONs membership has dwindled down to
numbers so low that the existence of both the International as
well as the US organization is in jeopardy. I think they're
trying to broaden their base by recruiting the New Agers for the
"numbers" and the "bucks" they will provide. Either way you look
at it, conspiracy or desperation, it sux, and -we all- lose!

The Score so far?

Government and forces of suppression - 367

Ufology - 3

Nice to see a post from you again GT.  Welcome back.   ;)

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 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                  Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:32:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:58:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Velez


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:37:32 -0400

 ><snip>

 >>How "benevolent" of the aliens to remind us how flaccid our very
 >>expensive phallic missile defense system really is. It raises
 >>the question again of, "why bother to include 'missile defense'
 >>with the UFO disclosure issue?"

 >>Doesn't Dr. Greer think the aliens can 'neutralize' a few
 >>unmanned Satellites as they have reportedly done to our missile
 >>defense system on the ground?

 >>This is a serious business we're in ain't it fellas? (Insert
 >>nervous Elmer Fudd laugh here.) All food for thought.

 >>Thanx for allowing the diversion gentlemen. :)

 >John-

 >As the good Doctor has informed us, the aliens are here to help
 >us and not hurt us. He has explained that they won't make
 >themselves known to the world at large until we eliminate all
 >war and poverty, which is the reason he believes "Free Energy"
 >is a component of this process.

 >Dr. Greer has explained on several occasions that just as a dog
 >doesn't really understand that the veterinarian is really trying
 >to help him (as he (or she) is poked and prodded), abductees
 >need to accept the fact that their involvement is for their own
 >good. It is important for us to give credit where it is due,
 >since Greer is apparently able speak to their "intent", which by
 >implication means direct communication.


Hiya Steve, hi All,

Dr. Greer says that the abductees need to learn blah, blah,
blah,...

What Dr. Greer needs to learn is that; unwanted and forced
medical and psychological intrusion on the person of another
went out with Dr.Mengele and the Nazi medical experiment
horrors.

If he means that; we need to learn to accept this repeated
kidnapping from our own homes and forced physical intrusions
because the "aliens" are "enlightening us," then I'd like to
remind him that my Soul and my Mind are my own. And not the
property or domain of another to do what they will with me. At
one time in my life I meditated daily (consistently) for
seventeen years. I came to realize that I need no
'intermediaries' (priests or aliens) to play middle man between
my 'Self' (creation) and my 'Maker'. (Creator) I'll take care of
enlightening myself thank you very much. If all of this is
'benevolent' and 'innocent' and "for our benefit" then why the
hell is it so 'clandestine' in execution? Why use the 'cover of
night' to 'hide' your activities? Why selectively erase memory?
Why don't they simply come out and _ask_ us!?

If this "enlightening the masses" whether they like it or not
crapolla is so then, how dare they?

How does Dr.Greer dare/presume to advise people to "go along and
get along" with the single most violating set of acts
(kidnapping, physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse,
the list goes on and on) anyone has ever heard of?

_Nobody_ knows what these 'beings' are up to. That includes Dr.
Greer. Our collective need to know is the reason why I work so
hard at raising public awareness of the phenomenon. I think
Dr. Greer should stick to medicine and leave the mental health
care and psychological counselling of the abductees to trained
counsellors, psychologists, and mental health care specialists.


Regards,

John Velez, Abductee


                      "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 >
   Jun > Jun 23

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Wilson

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:07:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:02:10 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... -  Wilson


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:45:20 EDT
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:43:16 -0400


 >>>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created
 >>>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:28:46 -0400

 >>>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:37:37 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 ><snip>

 From Serge:

 >>Let's be careful not to pick the information but to assimilate
 >>it.

 >>Hypnosis is so controversial that it remains useless as a tool
 >>to study the reality of a phenomenon. All considered, I propose
 >>that all data ralative to hypnosis be discarded.

 >What does that leave us with?

 >>One of the main problem of ufology is to recognise the validity
 >>of the data. We see this all the time.

 >>What apparently distinguishes alien abductions from ufology is
 >>the consistancy and the similarity of the experiences. This
 >>should facilitate the establishment of a protocole to study its
 >>nature.

 >>Question #1: How does one establish the reality of an
 >>experience.


 >Serge, Greg, all -

 >And question #2: How do tales of past lives and Satanic ritual
 >abuse differ from tales of alien abduction?

 >I have been meaning to post this question in the past, but just
 >haven't done it. This seems to be the forum in which to ask it.


 >KRandle

Question #1: I am personally left with telling you guys that "I
guess you would have had to have _been_ there!"

After this many years and with all of the information abductees
have shared with the public, it is true that some people will
never believe. If you don't believe us, then don't believe us -
but, please, just get on with it. We have managed to move on
with our lives - maybe the non-believers and the debunkers can
too?

Question #2: Are you serious? The three have absolutely
_nothing_ to do with one another - and, abductees do not tell
"tales".

Why ask such a question? Are you _really_ interested in whether
or not there is a relationship, or are you just trying to muddy
up the truth about abductions? Abductions and Satanic Ritual
abuse?! Abductions and past lives?!

Give me a break! What next? Do authors of UFO books suffer from
split personality disorder? Are UFO investigators suffering from
Satanic ritual abuse?

Let's see - Do UFO investigators have anything to do with the
cult of Satan?

There are many in the religious community who would answer "yes"
to the last question.

See how ridiculous it all sounds? For the sake of abductees
everywhere, please don't try to tie in every New Age belief or
every cult you become interested in - or past lives, with 'our'
lives.


Katharina








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 23

               Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:24:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:03:49 -0400
Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Velez


 >Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:14:34 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life'
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:25:08 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life'

 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:00:06 -0400
 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Subject: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life'
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>My new book, 'Abduction In My Life', is now available from
 >>>Amazon.com and Arcturus Books and other places.

 ><snip>

 >>I wish I could publish some of the mail I have received from
 >>abductees over the years. They are the voices of our brothers
 >>and sisters crying out for help and trying desperately to
 >>understand this impossible thing that has befallen them.

 >>I look forward to reading it in its entirety. Hope it does
 >>well for you in the market place. ;)

 >Thanks for mentioning my book.

 >I hope you won't be disappointed by my portrayal of what I see
 >as the truth... in ways that go beyond ufology!

Hi Bruce,

You have _already_ informed us it is "fiction" bro!  <VBG>

Regards,

John 'takes more than a yarn to yank my chain' 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 >
   Jun > Jun 23

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:36:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:08:15 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:45:20 EDT
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:43:16 -0400

 >>>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created
 >>>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:28:46 -0400

 >>>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:37:37 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 ><snip>

 >>>>On the other hand it has always struck me that most of the UFO
 >>>>abductees can't seem to recall in the present state so to speak
 >>>>the "Grays", "medical tests" and so forth _unless_ they are
 >>>>regressively hypnosis by someone. I have no doubt that the
 >>>>abductees _believe_ what comes forward in the hypnosis sessions
 >>>>as an absolute true-to-life experience. Which reminds me. Didn't
 >>>>one of the UFO abduction researchers have some lady abductee
 >>>>that went under hypnosis, told tales and storys of abduction and
 >>>>medical testing while under regressive hypnosis, then later
 >>>>admitted it was a total stroke job?

 >>>>If someone on the list knows of case or cases of abduction that
 >>>>did not involve hypnosis I am sure many people would be
 >>>>interested.

 >>>Here's a little more data, quoted from Stewart Appelle's
 >>>important paper, "The Abudction Experience: A Critical
 >>>Evaluation of Theory and Evidence." Appelle is a psychology
 >>>professor at SUNY Brockport; his paper was originally published
 >>>in the Journal of UFO Studies in 1996. It's available online at
 >>>http://www.spacelab.net/~jvif/appelle1.htm. (Thanks, John Velez,
 >>>for posting it!)

 >>>"Influence of hypnosis and hypnotists.

 >>>"Abduction narratives can be compared to determine if they vary
 >>>according to the particular theoretical inclinations of the
 >>>investigator or therapist eliciting the account. Also, accounts
 >>>which emerge during hypnosis can be compared with those stemming
 >>>from conscious experience. Such analyses have been carried out
 >>>by Bullard (1989, 1994). On the basis of his findings, Bullard
 >>>(1989) concluded that "the form and content of abduction stories
 >>>seems independent of hypnosis" (p. 3). In a more recent
 >>>examination, Bullard (1994) concludes that hypnosis is a
 >>>significant factor in regard to the quantity of material
 >>>"recovered," but not in any direct way to the content."

 ><snip>

 >>At:

 >>http://www.spacelab.net/~jvif/appelle1.htm

 >>It is also stated:

 >>"These considerations suggest a basis for the specific
 >>hypnotizability obtained for abduction experiences. This
 >>should not, however, be confused with an argument for the
 >>veridicality of abduction experiences. The factors discussed
 >>certainly apply to real events, but they could also apply to
 >>experiences originating in the imagination or unconscious.
 >>This possibility must remain at the status of conjecture,
 >>however, because there can be no direct evidence that a
 >>conscious experience had heretofore resided in the
 >>unconscious.

 >>Nevertheless, it may be useful to consider this possibility
 >>in regard to other anomalous experiences proposed to have
 >>imaginative or unconscious antecedents. Like abduction
 >>experiences, past-life identities (reincarnations) are also
 >>easily elicited through hypnosis from normal individuals
 >>(Kampman, 1976), are rich in detail, and are believed by the
 >>experiencer as veridical recall of actual past events
 >>(Spanos, Burgess, & Burgess, 1994). Spanos et al. argue that
 >>both hypnotic abduction experiences and past lives (as well
 >>as elicited memories of satanic ritual abuse and multiple
 >>personalities) are "social creations ... determined by the
 >>understandings that subjects develop about such experiences
 >>from the information to which they are exposed" (p. 436).
 >>Whether or not this interpretation is correct, the role of
 >>hypnosis may be elucidated through a consideration of
 >>abduction experiences in relationship to other anomalous
 >>experiences routinely accessible to the hypnotized subject."

 >>Let's be careful not to pick the information but to assimilate
 >>it.

Hello Kevin, hi All,

the dialog goes like so:


 >>Hypnosis is so controversial that it remains useless as a tool
 >>to study the reality of a phenomenon. All considered, I propose
 >>that all data ralative to hypnosis be discarded.

Kevin responds:

 >What does that leave us with?

What it leaves us with are the thousands of reports many from
perfectly credible people that recount "consciously experienced"
encounters with UFOs and their occupants. All the way from Lonnie
Zamora to the Allagash four and the Travis Walton five. I could
go on with the list but you get the point I'm sure.


 >Serge, Greg, all -

 >And question #2: How do tales of past lives and Satanic ritual
 >abuse differ from tales of alien abduction?

I know you asked Greg and Serge, so please excuse my intrusion
into your conversation but I'd like to comment on your question.

First, you choose to use phrases like, "tales of abduction" as if
it is a _given_ that all abductees are merely 'telling stories'
out of school. That's a prejudgement on your part and indicates
a strong bias. How can you claim to be an objective research
person if you have your mind made up _before_ hand?

In answer to your question: I didn't report seeing Beelzebub or
the minions of Satan. I didn't report being involved in any kind
of 'rituals' Satanic or otherwise. What I _have_ reported is;
while on my way home one night I saw a large UFO close-up. I ran
away from it and experienced a whole night of missing time. In
the morning there were signs that something _very_physical_  had
happened to me. (I had been bleeding from my nose, and my eye
was swollen out like a tennis ball. The ER physician told me
that the eye swelling was not caused by "trauma" - I was not
'hit,' - nor were there any signs of 'infection.' When an ENT
specialist looked up my nasal cavity he confirmed what the ER
physician had called, "signs of a 'surgical' procedure. I've
never had a "surgical procedure performed in my head. So, in
addition to frightening encounter with that silent, glowing,
flying "thing," and the night of missing time, there was some
physical components to the _event._

That, Mr. Randle is the _difference_ between an abduction
account and one of "Satanic or ritual abuse". No 'Devils' or
'Demons' in my "tale" just UFOs and aliens. If you can't see
the difference then you need to be in another business.  ;)

 >I have been meaning to post this question in the past, but just
 >haven't done it.

Sometimes our first instincts are our best ones.  :)

I return the helm to Greg and Serge. He's all yours gentlemen.


Regards,

John Velez, Abductee


                      "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 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                  Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:39:47 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 17:43:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Hall


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 21 Jun 2001 19:12:47 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:37:32 -0400

 >>>How "benevolent" of the aliens to remind us how flaccid our very
 >>>expensive phallic missile defense system really is. It raises
 >>>the question again of, "why bother to include 'missile defense'
 >>>with the UFO disclosure issue?"

 >>>Doesn't Dr. Greer think the aliens can 'neutralize' a few
 >>>unmanned Satellites as they have reportedly done to our missile
 >>>defense system on the ground?

 >>As the good Doctor has informed us, the aliens are here to help
 >>us and not hurt us. He has explained that they won't make
 >>themselves known to the world at large until we eliminate all
 >>war and poverty, which is the reason he believes "Free Energy"
 >>is a component of this process.

 >>Dr. Greer has explained on several occasions that just as a dog
 >>doesn't really understand that the veterinarian is really trying
 >>to help him (as he (or she) is poked and prodded), abductees
 >>need to accept the fact that their involvement is for their own
 >>good. It is important for us to give credit where it is due,
 >>since Greer is apparently able speak to their "intent", which by
 >>implication means direct communication.

 >In the past Greer told his story of having contact and taking
 >rides to other planets. From this one can easily imply that he
 >has had direct communication. I am waiting to hear about it.


Yes, which makes him the very model of a modern "contactee,"
with all the deservedly negative baggage that entails. Only the
most ga-ga "believers" can possibly take him seriously.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                  Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:02:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 17:47:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Stacy


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:32:43 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

List,

I'm somewhat surprised that what should be a topic of serious
interest and import has turned into a venue for New Age jokes
and bad puns.

In case anyone's forgotten the original subject matter (and it
seems everyone has) it was this: Dick Hall was enlisted to write
a monthly column for the MUFON UFO Journal.

It was called "Perspective", and originally addressed the
previous issue's contents. Lately, it began addressing UFO
issues at large.

When Hall wrote a column criticial of some MUFON symposium
speakers, the powers that be at MUFON declined to publish it. As
a consequence, Hall resigned as a matter of principle.

The issue remains: is MUFON an organization devoted to serious
inquiry and open to internal criticism and debate - hallmarks
(no pun intended) of scientific methodology - or is it a flying
saucer club, with a slowly dwindling base of supporters and
subscribers?

We know you can lean to the left in the Journal, viz a book
review in the last issue touting some channeled material as one
of the most important books ever written about the UFO subject,
followed by a largely favorable review in the current (June)
issue of a book by the name of The UFO - Jesus Connection.

The question is: can you lean any degree to the right (or merely
toward the middle), and expect to have your voice heard in the
Journal? The evidence to date would indicate that you cannot.

Whether this is merely a joking matter remains to be seen.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                          UFOs And Aircraft Safety

From: Chris Rolfe <astratech@supanet.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:13:35 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 17:52:48 -0400
Subject: UFOs And Aircraft Safety


UFOs and aircraft near misses:- No Defence significance(?),
definately a safety issue!

This week I recieved a telephone call from a witness who
observed 60 to 80 bright lighted objects crossing the sky slowly
in a North easterly direction, on Tuesday, 19 June (2001), at
approximately 18:00 hours (BST).

Some of the objects were flying in clusters, others were in
groups of three or five, and some were even on there own. One
looked like it was pulsating red in colour, as if it was getting
bigger then shrinking in size.

Another of the objects seemed to suddenly go up verticaly,
whilst another appeared to take on the shape of a jellyfish
(this kind of object has been seen on more than one occassion
here in Kent, UK).

And where did this event occur? Right over the city of London!
Amongst aircarft coming in and taking off from Heathrow airport
etc...

For god sake how many more times is this going to happen before
someone gets OFF their bloody backsides and do something!

More and more we are hearing of civilian passenger planes
having near misses with UFOs not just in this country but
worldwide.

I know of at least two incidents here in the County of Kent.
The most well known one occured on 21 April, 1991, when Alitalia
Flight AZ 284 was flying from Milan to London Heathrow. At
approximately 20:00 hrs, whilst over the Lydd Army Ranges, they
had a near miss with what they described as a brown colured
missile looking object. London ATC even monitored the object on
radar.

Within days our local MP (former Home Secretary), Michael
Howard, the C.A.A. and the Ministry of Defence all stated that
the object was a UFO! Now there's a a first.

The MOD stating a UFO was in UK airspace.

Bull! It was not a UFO as they would like to have us believe,
but possibly a Target drone of UAV. People here in Kent now it,
and we believe we know who was responsible. How ever as we do
not have concrete proof we can't name them due to the fact we
could get sued.

The other incident occured on 16 September, 1996, when Jerry
Anderson (former coordinator of UFOMEK), sighted and videod a
white sphere like object over Wingham, Kent.

The object was at the same height as passenger jets flying over,
and was even filmed going through an aircraft vapour trail.

Vapour trails are normally formed at a height of at least 22,500
feet. One part of the sighting he didn't manage to capture on
video was when the mystery object flew straight in front on a
passenger plane, causing the crew to take avioding action.

Also I recieved another telephone call this week from a witness
who was videoing aircraft where he lives at Stoke on Trent. When
suddenly a white object comes into view, and ascends up to the
height of one of the aircraft, and seems to just miss the
aircraft. This incident occured back in April, and the reason
he has only just approached anyone regarding the footage, is
because he didn't who to report it to, and who he could trust
with the footage.

I hope to be viewing this footage shortly, and if it does indeed
show a UFO in a near miss with an aircarft, then this could be
an important piece of footage.

So what is the official line on all this? Well when objects
were sighted and filmed over London last year, and reported to
the C.A.A. they responded with a deafening quiteness!

And if you report any sightings to the Ministry of Defence, they
respond with "No Defence Significance!" Well maybe not, but it
is, I maintain, a bloody _safety_ issue!

So when are the authorities going to get off their backsides and
look into it, and stop pissing around in the wind. For Christ
sakes lives could be at risk here!

Even if the latest sighting over London on the 19 June, was
balloons, they were flying near aircraft, and could have caused
an accident.

According to a recent report the C.A.A. state that there at
least 30 reports that they no of involving aircraft and UFO
sightings. But how many of them were near misses. Even one os
to many in my book.

So I urge everyone reading this, to contact you local MP, and
demand answers. I believe that if enough of us put pressure on
our MPs, bombard the MOD with telephone calls and letters, as
well as newspapers, etc. Just perhaps someone may start
listening.

If you feel the same way I do, please do let me know. Maybe you
don't agree with my comments, again let me know. And if any
pilots or any other aircrew should be reading this who know of
any incidents, don't you think it's time you spoke out, for the
safety of your passengers. Please contact me if you wish.

Finally please accept my sincere apologies, for the strong tone
of this article. If I have offended anyone with my outspoken
comments, then I apoligise.


Chris Rolfe

UFO Monitors East Kent

astratech@supanet.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 >
   Jun > Jun 23

                          UFOs And Aircraft Safety

From: Chris Rolfe <astratech@supanet.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:13:35 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 19:07:59 -0400
Subject: UFOs And Aircraft Safety


UFOs and aircraft near misses:- No Defence significance(?),
definately a safety issue!

This week I recieved a telephone call from a witness who
observed 60 to 80 bright lighted objects crossing the sky slowly
in a North easterly direction, on Tuesday, 19 June (2001), at
approximately 18:00 hours (BST).

Some of the objects were flying in clusters, others were in
groups of three or five, and some were even on there own. One
looked like it was pulsating red in colour, as if it was getting
bigger then shrinking in size.

Another of the objects seemed to suddenly go up verticaly,
whilst another appeared to take on the shape of a jellyfish
(this kind of object has been seen on more than one occassion
here in Kent, UK).

And where did this event occur? Right over the city of London!
Amongst aircarft coming in and taking off from Heathrow airport
etc...

For god sake how many more times is this going to happen before
someone gets OFF their bloody backsides and do something!

More and more we are hearing of civilian passenger planes having
near misses with UFOs not just in this country but worldwide.

I know of at least two incidents here in the County of Kent. The
most well known one occured on 21 April, 1991, when Alitalia
Flight AZ 284 was flying from Milan to London Heathrow. At
approximately 20:00 hrs, whilst over the Lydd Army Ranges, they
had a near miss with what they described as a brown colured
missile looking object. London ATC even monitored the object on
radar.

Within days our local MP (former Home Secretary), Michael
Howard, the C.A.A. and the Ministry of Defence all stated that
the object was a UFO! Now there's a a first.

The MOD stating a UFO was in UK airspace.

Bull! It was not a UFO as they would like to have us believe,
but possibly a Target drone of UAV. People here in Kent now it,
and we believe we know who was responsible. How ever as we do
not have concrete proof we can't name them due to the fact we
could get sued.

The other incident occured on 16 September, 1996, when Jerry
Anderson (former coordinator of UFOMEK), sighted and videod a
white sphere like object over Wingham, Kent.

The object was at the same height as passenger jets flying over,
and was even filmed going through an aircraft vapour trail.

Vapour trails are normally formed at a height of at least 22,500
feet. One part of the sighting he didn't manage to capture on
video was when the mystery object flew straight in front on a
passenger plane, causing the crew to take avioding action.

Also I recieved another telephone call this wek from a witness
whowas videoing aircarft where he lives at Stoke on Trent. When
suddenly a white object comes into view, and ascends upto the
height of one of the aircraft, and seems to just miss the
aircraft. This incident occured back in April, and the reason he
has only just approached anyone regarding the footage, is
because he didn't who to report it to, and who he could trust
with the footage.

I hope to be viewing this footage shortly, and if it does indeed
show a UFO in a near miss with an aircarft, then this could be
an important piece of footage.

So what is the official line on all this? Well when objects were
sighted and filmed over London last year, and reported to the
C.A.A. they responded with a deafening quiteness!

And if you report any sightings to the Ministry of Defence, they
respond with "NO DEFENCE SIGNIFICANCE!" Well maybe not, but it
is I maintain a BLOODY SAFETY ISSUE!

So when are the authorities going to get off their backsides and
look into it, and stop pissing around in the wind. For Christ
sakes lives could be at risk here!

Even if the latest sighting over London on the 19 June, was
balloons, they were flying near aircraft, and could have caused
an accident.

According to a recent report the C.A.A. state that there at
least 30 reports that they no of involving aircraft and UFO
sightings. But how many of them were near misses. Even one os to
many in my book.

So I urge everyone reading this, to contact you local MP, and
demand answers. I believe that if enough of us put pressure on
our MPs, bombard the MOD with telephone calls and letters, as
well as newspapers, etc. Just perhaps someone may start
listening.

If you feel the same way I do, please do let me know. Maybe you
don't agree with my comments, again let me know. And if any
pilots or any other aircrew should be reading this who know of
any incidents, don't you think it's time you spoke out, for the
safety of your passengers. Please contact me if you wish.

Finally please accept my sincere apologies, for the strong tone
of this article. If I have offended anyone with my outspoken
comments, then I apoligise.

Chris Rolfe
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 >
   Jun > Jun 23

              NIDS 'Official Organization' For FAA UFO Reports

From: Colm Kelleher <nids@earthlink.net>
Date: 23 Jun 2001 15:48:04 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 19:11:12 -0400
Subject: NIDS 'Official Organization' For FAA UFO Reports


National Institute for Discovery Science Becomes Only Official
Organization to Receive UFO Reports from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA)

NIDS is pleased to announce that the newly printed Federation
Aviation Administration (FAA) manuals indicate the National
Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) as the sole contact point
in the United States to which the FAA reports UFOs.

The following four FAA Manuals contain the changes:
FAA Order 7110.65, Air Traffic Control
FAA Order 7210.3, Facility Operation and Administration
Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM)
Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP)

The FAA wording of the order mandating the changes is as
follows:

"In calendar year 1999, representatives from the National
Institute for Discovery Sciences (NIDS) contacted the FAA
Administrator to offer their research institution as the single
point of contact recognized by the FAA in regard to UFO
information. On April 14, 2000, after being referred by the FAA
Administrator, NIDS representatives met with ATP-200 to finalize
a course of action. This document change proposal is a result of
that meeting and is official FAA recognition that NIDS is the
single point of contact for UFO research."

The official date for all FAA offices to receive the new manuals
is July 12, 2001, but NIDS has confirmed that many FAA offices
have already received the manuals.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                          Secrecy News -- 06/22/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:45:46 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:10:21 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 06/22/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
June 22, 2001

**CYBER THREAT ASSESSED, DISPUTED
**FBI PERFORMANCE FAULTED
**A NEW MOSSAD AD


CYBER THREAT ASSESSED, DISPUTED

The nature of the information warfare threat to U.S. economic
and national security was addressed at a hearing of the
congressional Joint Economic Committee yesterday.

Few other major policy topics are as rife with official
exaggeration and shoddy thinking.  Because the term "information
warfare" is carelessly used to refer to everything from email
viruses and web site defacement to credit card theft to the
hypothetical destruction of an entire national infrastructure,
it has been impossible to achieve any working consensus on the
urgency of the problem or to advance sensible solutions.

If anything, apocalyptic threat claims have probably undermined
security by diminishing the credibility of the issue.  Senior
government officials have warned on over 50 occasions in recent
years that cyber-terrorists could cause power outages in U.S.
cities, notes independent critic George C. Smith, author of The
Virus Creation Labs.  But while there have been a number of
blackouts -- it got awfully sweaty in Georgetown last weekend --
none of them are attributable to infowarriors or "hackers."

Lawrence Gershwin of the National Intelligence Council,
testifying before the Joint Economic Committee, presented a
relatively restrained and caveated survey of the threat, noting
that "uncertainty remains whether computer network operations
will evolve into a decisive military weapon for US adversaries."
You would not know that there was any uncertainty at all from
reading breathless stories like the one in USA Today last Monday
("Cyberspace is the Next Battlefield").

Duane Andrews of SAIC wondered why, after a decade of warnings
about the cyber-threat, so little has been done to combat it.
His proposed answers to this question do not include an
acknowledgment that the "electronic Pearl Harbor" scenario has
been substantially discredited.

Several witnesses endorsed a dubious proposal for new
limitations on the Freedom of Information Act as a means of
encouraging industry to share threat data with the government.
Only someone who has never filed a FOIA request could be
persuaded that this achingly slow process, with its abundance of
exemptions, could be effectively used to uncover proprietary
business information.

The prepared testimony from Thursday's Joint Economic Committee
hearing is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2001_hr/index.html#cyber

For an alternate perspective, see George C. Smith's monthly
Crypt Newsletter, which delights in puncturing the pretenses of
the info-warriors:

http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~crypt/

A free email copy of the new Crypt Newsletter 63 on Infowar
Threat-mongering may be requested from
<70743.1711@compuserve.com>.


FBI PERFORMANCE FAULTED

The Federal Bureau of Investigation provided a rare opportunity
for bipartisanship on Wednesday when members of both parties
agreed at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the
Bureau's performance in recent years has been severely
deficient.

Among the various criticisms leveled at the FBI was the
complaint that it resisted legitimate oversight and failed to
provide appropriate access to its own records.

At the same time, said former Senator John C. Danforth: "It is
important for all of us--Congress, the media, the public--to
acknowledge our own responsibilities for the lack of openness we
lament in government. When public officials fear that the
disclosure of their mistakes would lead to personal humiliation
and professional ruin, it is understandable if they prefer
concealment to candor."

But it appears that the FBI resists accountability even when
embarrassment is not at issue.  In the course of its routine
activities, the General Accounting Office found that "FBI access
issues have been the most sustained and intractable" of any law
enforcement-related agency.  In some cases, the FBI has simply
refused to provide GAO with information even though, "for the
most part, the information requested has been no more sensitive
than information we routinely receive from other agencies during
our work."

Former Justice Department inspector general Michael Bromwich
noted that in terms of inspector general investigations, the FBI
"is currently subject to less oversight than any other agency."

See the prepared testimony from the Judiciary Committee hearing
here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2001_hr/index.html#fbi


A NEW MOSSAD AD

"Without trickery, the nation would fall."  That suggestive
passage from the Book of Proverbs (11:14) serves as the caption
for a new recruiting poster published today by the Mossad,
Israel's foreign intelligence service.

The Mossad is looking for at least a few good intelligence
collection officers.  Applicants must be Israeli citizens over
27 years old, possess extraordinary interpersonal skills,
curiosity and creative talents, as well as an ability to work
independently and as part of a team under conditions of
uncertainty, according to the new ad campaign.  A similar
campaign last year was reported to be very successful.

Candidates must also be willing to travel, and be fluent in
foreign languages.  "I don't think they mean Yiddish," remarked
Israeli attorney and security specialist Boaz Guttman.  The new
Mossad recruiting poster may be viewed here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/israel/mossad/mossad_ad.html

******************************
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                     Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:23:39 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:14:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers' - Young


 >From: Ron EagleBoy <eagle100@prodigy.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers'
 >Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:59:52 -0400

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:09:19 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Cash-Lundrum 'Choppers'
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >Are you saying that since the logistics of such an operation
 >can't be explained, at least to your satisfaction, then the
 >helicopters can not (did not) exist,

Ron:

No, since the kind of helicopters reported did not exist in
those numbers, anywhere near the alleged sighting location, the
logistics would have been impossible, too.

 >therefore the witnesses were lying or hallucinating?

Your limiting of possible stimuli for the accounts to either
lying or hallucinations is naive. Can you explain how each of
the three people could have (supposedly) identical
hallucinations? While hallucinations do occur in a surprisingly
large percentage of the population at some time during their
lifetimes, the chance that three people, not under the influence
of drugs, would have similar hallunications at the same time has
got to be very small.

On the other hand, witnesses can be mistaken. You, like most
saucer believers, refuse to acknowledge that people claiming to
be eyewitnesses could be wrong. To admit that is to enter a
slippery slope when all you have is eyewitness testimony to the
existance of flying saucers, unsupported by any other evidence.

Do you have any theories as to why they would lie?

Betty unsuccessfully sued the U.S. Government in an
attempt to get it to pay for her cancer treatment. Have her
medical records _before_ the incident ever been made public?

 >Using your logic, we'd have to conclude that the damaged
 >(irradiated) area of the highway

There is not one shred of evidence, nor was there ever, that the
highway was damaged by "irradiation", as you claim. This is pure
fantasy by those trying to cobble together a fantastic flying
saucer tale. It doesn't cut scrub.

 >where the encounter took place wasn't really removed and
 >replaced (twice) because the equipment and trucks that
 >were used were unmarked and unidentifiable, and therefore
 >didn't exist!

Was the highway department contacted about this marvelous claim?
Over what period of time were these supposed repairs made? Has
it been established who, exactly does highway repairs in the
area? Contractors, who may use unmarked or leased equipment, or
exactly who?

 >So the bottom line is, "ignore the evidence and the witness'
 >testimony simply because we don't know the who, where, and why
 >of it!

No, but one must demand proof, before a wild saucer tale such as
this one is accepted as proof of ET spaceships zipping around
Texas.

 >egardless of the fact that we don't know where all those
 >choppers came from on such short notice, I believe that once
 >it's been reasonably established (and I think it's fair to say
 >that it has) that the radioactive emitting object was there,

Again, what specific evidence has ever been presented that
a radioactive emitting object was present? Radiation and
radioactivity are not necessarily the same thing. Or aren't
your sure about this?

 >BTW, John Schuessler investigated this case extensively.

Sure, and the only possible thing he can think of to explain
these squadrons of aircraft over a holiday is a mysterious fleet
of helicopter carriers off the coast. The location of each of
the existing U.S. helicopters carriers in the world is not a
hard thing to extablish. In fact, there are only a few of this
type of ship in existance in all of the navies of the world. Do
you think a foreign fleet of this size could operate off the
Texas coast without its presence being known. Instead, John
Schuessler might as well postulate a mysterious fleet of Romulan
Battle Cruisers off the Texas coast, it makes about as much
sense. (Oops, I didn't say that.)

 >trucks/equipment (multiple witnesses) which removed
 >the roadway.

When did this occur?

 >Oh, one more thing. Mr. Walker stated that he and his wife drove
 >onto a section of road where they saw multiple helicopters, all
 >with their search lights on. They choppers all very close to the
 >ground. One of the them flew over his car, shining the search
 >light directly at him and he was forced to pull off the road.

The airport was about ten miles away. A formation of dozens of
helicopters takes up a lot of space. It supposedly flew toward
the airport. Why did no one at the airport see the huge
formation of helicopters?

 >Mr. Walker didn't go into detail but said, as the choppers
 >passed over him they were heading in the direction of where
 >Betty and Vickie were.

The Walkers _did not report a huge force of 23 twin engined
helicopters at the time of the sighting.

 >So Mr. and Mrs. Walker's encounter with the helicopters took
 >place just "before" Vickie and Betty's encounter, not 3 hours
 >later. And, while it's true that the Walkers didn't see the
 >UFO,

How can they be used to corraborate a UFO incident, when
they didn't see the UFO?

 >there were 10 other witnesses who did.

But, they didn't see the 23 helicopters, either! This is Ufology
at its most fabulous. Witnesses who were at the same place as
the witnesses who say a UFO, but didn't see a UFO; other
witnesses who said they saw a UFO but no helicopters. The head
of the largest flying saucer club in America creates a
mysterious fleet of aircraft carriers because nothing else could
explain the fabulous tale, and this is considered an example of
some of the best evidence for the visits of ET spaceships to the
Earth?

At most it is evidence for a couple of helicopters flying around.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

   -------------------------------------------------------------------
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the
testimony be of such a kind that its falseness would be more
miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.

  - - David Hume
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Haley

From: Tim Haley <TimHaley@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:57:59 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:16:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Haley


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:19:12 +0100
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:26:43 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:06:22 -0300


Stan made the following comments to Jerome Clark:

 >>An excellent text for journalists is 'The Journalist's Legal
 >>Guide' by Michael G. Crawford, Carswell Thomson Professional
 >>Publishing. There is a 51 page Chapter on Defamation. Perhaps
 >>you might learn something about the difference between fair
 >>comment and defamation. I have never objected to dealing with
 >>differences of opinion. I have objected to defamation,
 >>especially in a major newspaper.

To which John Rimmer responded:

 >As a librarian I am grateful for your recommendation of an
 >authoritative text on defamation law, and will considering adding
 >it to stock. However, as Jerry has pointed out previously, the
 >case never came to court and the matter was never settled one
 >way or the other, so there is no question of defamation. You may
 >not have liked the comments made about you, but they have never
 >been proven to be defamatory, nor, under English law, is it
 >likely they would have been.

 >This is only my opinion, of course, but then the claim that they
 >were defamatory is only your opinion.

John, didn't you read the MEN apology letter? If not, you can
see it at: http://www.jilain.com/ufo/friedman/apology_j.jpg

The letter clearly states "The Evening News now with regret
recognizes that those articles were defamatory of both Mr.
Friedman and Mr. Harris ... "

So obviously it was MEN's opinion that the articles were
defamatory as well.

 >I doubt that the MEN was intimidated, they probably worked out
 >the cost of paying a quick settlement against the costs of
 >barristers' fees if they decided to take the matter further, and
 >decided the game wasn't worth the candle, so paid up out of
 >petty-cash.

So MEN recognized that the article was defamatory and you
recognize that MEN's position on this was not due to
intimidation.

Sounds to me like Stan Freidman is not the only one who
recognized the Randles letter and the corresponding article as
truly defamatory.

 >--
 >John Rimmer
 >Magonia Magazine
 >www.magonia.demon.co.uk


Tim Haley








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                   Ira Einhorn On Radio Mysterioso Sunday

From: SMiles Lewis <smiles@elfis.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:03:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:20:01 -0400
Subject: Ira Einhorn On Radio Mysterioso Sunday


Ira Einhorn to be interviewed live on internet radio program

Sunday, June 24. 3:30 to 5:00 PM PST
Radio Mysterioso - host Greg Bishop
www.killradio.org
(Requires Realplayer software)

International fugitive will talk openly for the first time in
months after refusing interviews with major American and
European news media.

Ira Einhorn, aka "The Unicorn" was one of the anchors of the
American counterculture in the 1960s and '70s. That was before
the Philadelphia cops, armed with a search warrant and
information from a dogged private investigator knocked on the
door of his small apartment on April 28, 1979. Stuffed in a
trunk in a locked closet were the remains of Helen "Holly"
Maddux, Einhorn's former girlfriend, missing for over a year.

"You found what you found" said a strangely calm Einhorn.

After his lawyer Arlen "single bullet theory" Specter got him
out on bail, he went about his business, networking with
forward-thinkers in science, industry, and politics. As the
trial date approached, Einhorn became apprehensive about his
chances in the justice system, maintaining that the rogue
underbelly of certain goverment agencies wanted him put away
because of the information he was openly sharing.

Psychotronics, parapsychology, mind control, and UFO coverups
were all part of the weird mix that was passed along through his
underground information network, a network that knew no
borders or cared about political affiliations. That, maintains
Einhorn, is what sealed his fate, made him skip bail and choose the
life of an international fugitive.

Are his protests of innocence built on anything other than his
seemingly tenuous version of  behind-the-scenes intrigue, or is
there something to all this, maybe even something that the
Unicorn cannot admit to anyone but himself?

Or is he simply guilty as charged and attempting to push for his
own defense?

His fugitive life ended and Einhorn was found living in Southern
France in 1997, almost twenty years after slipping out of the
U.S. For the last four years, he has fought extradition
procedings, assisted by friendly elements within the French
government, and their position against the death penalty. Since
US authorities have promised life imprisonment for Einhorn's two
in absentia convictions, and he may be bound over soon, this
interview comes at a cruicial point in his story.

These and other issues will be discussed with Einhorn on the
webcast program Radio Mysterioso, on Sunday, June 24 from 3:30
to 5:00 PM PST at www.killradio.org.

Queries may be addressed to Greg Bishop at
exclmid@primenet.com

Greg Bishop
http://www.ExlcudedMiddle.com

Folds upon folds until...
Nothing is seen of the original plane
Except you
An ornament made of turnings

--Dr. Mario Pazzaglini








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:32:26 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:27:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Roberts


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 07:07:06 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

Pilgrims,

Gildas wrote:

 >To Stan and the List

 >I also recall that, not long ago, Jenny Randles had to apologise
 >to Budd Hopkins for having wrongly accused him of practicing
 >hypnotic regression on children.

I don't recall this but I do recall when Budd spoke at the IUN
conference in Sheffield in the early 90s he was waltzing round
Sheffield city centre with a bunch of cards on which were
printed witches, aliens, clowns etc. The intention was to show
them to children and see what they recognised.

Dodgy eh?

Mothers and children were, rightly (I know 'cos I was there),
looking _very_ sucpiciously at this kindly looking avuncular
figure who wanted to show their children strange pictures.

 >And, by the way, I hope that she will soon release her recorded
 >testimonies of pilots who "saw nothing" at Bentwaters-Lakenheath.

Ok Gildas, let's get some _facts_ straight.

The pilot and aircrew testimonies are several in number. They
have been recorded not just by Jenny but by Dave Clarke and myself.
In several hours of video and tape interviews _not_once_ does
any member of the Venom aircrew say they saw _anything_ visually.

The _full_ interviews transcripts will be published in the final
report - which will be issued when we have finished our
investigations.

If Gildas:

a) Still thinks the pilots visually saw something then I suggest
he gives the first hand account from which that supposition is
taken.

b) Can't wait for the report - I suggest he tears himself away
from the plastic piano and does some real investigation instead
of wittering.

Happy Trails

Andy









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 07:34:17 -0300
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:34:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman


 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:19:12 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:06:22 -0300

 >>Jerry, may I - in all seriousness - urge you to do some reading
 >>on the nature and history of defamation? Have you forgotten
 >>your prediction to Jenny (you kindly sent me a copy) of
 >>December 5, 1989, "there is little chance Stan and Harry
 >>Harris will win the suit"

Afraid to leave in that Jerry also predicted nothing would come
of the action against the MEN? The 2 together strongly suggest
that Jerry was ill informed about the facts of the matter and/or
about defamation.

 >... which is quite right, for there was no suit, and the matter was
 >settled "out of court".

With admissions of guilt and apologies.

 >>An excellent text for journalists is 'The Journalist's Legal
 >>Guide' by Michael G. Crawford, Carswell Thomson Professional
 >>Publishing. There is a 51 page Chapter on Defamation. Perhaps
 >>you might learn something about the difference between fair
 >>comment and defamation. I have never objected to dealing with
 >>differences of opinion. I have objected to defamation,
 >>especially in a major newspaper.

 >As a librarian I am grateful for your recommendation of an
 >authorative text on defamation law, and will considering adding
 >it to stock. However, as Jerry has pointed out previously, the
 >case never came to court and the matter was never settled one
 >way or the other, so there is no question of defamation. You may
 >not have liked the comments made about you, but they have never
 >been proven to be defamatory, nor, under English law, is it
 >likely they would have been.
 >This is only my opinion, of course, but then the claim that they
 >were defamatory is only your opinion.

Really, John? I suggest you read the apology published (in FSR)
and the MEN. I quote:

   "Ms. Randles has accepted that her letter was defamatory of
   Mr. Friedman and Mr. Harris... accordingly she apologises
   unreservedly to Mr. Friedman and Mr. Harris for the distress
   and embarrassment caused by her statements....."

and

   "The Evening News now with regret recognizes that those
   articles were defamatory of both Mr. Friedman and Mr. Harris
   and wishes to apologize to both....."

I think right thinking people will accept that the "confessions"
indicate the articles were defamatory. Read the apology.It is
available as has been noted.

 >>Some one claimed that because I was well received on a UK tour 5
 >>years later, I obviously wasn't damaged. I gather it hasn't
 >>occured that perhaps the attendees had read the apology in both
 >>the MEN and FSR?

 >No it hasn't occured to me, nor would it occur to any reasonable
 >person. In your original comment you said nothing about a
 >lecture tour five years later, you just said:

 >Quote - "I still seem to be the same stature as I was. Did a
 >bunch of lectures and media appearances after all that.
 >Response seemed to me to be excellent. But then I am biased."

 >Are you suggesting that every one of the people who attended
 >those lectures read not only the original piece in the
 >Manchester Evening News, but also the apology which
 >followed? As they say round here, if you believe that, you'll
 >believe anything.

I am suggesting no such thing. Obviously the attendance was only
a tiny portion of the MEN circulation. Civil defamation, does
_not_ require financial loss.

 >>Try the first line of the Encyclopedia Brittanica article on
 >>libel:

 >>  "The law recognizes in every man the right to have his
 >>  reputation unassailed by false and defamatory imputations."

 >Maybe, but the law never got the opportunity to recognize
 >anything. the case was settled before it came to court. How many
 >times does this need to be pointed out?

John: The MEN and JR admitted defamation and apologised. How
many times does this need to be repeated?

 >>I suppose every apology is humiliating, perhaps because it
 >>means the apologizer got caught.

 >Caught by who?

The person defamed.

 >>I suppose that I should be pleased that some people are imputing
 >>to me an incredible power of intimidation. Harry and I and our
 >>barrister were able to intimidate that tiny village weekly the
 >>MEN and poor innocent Jenny. Anyone who believes that, I
 >>have a bridge I would like to sell you....

 >I doubt that the MEN was intimidated, they probably worked out
 >the cost of paying a quick settlement against the costs of
 >barristers' fees if they decided to take the matter further, and
 >decided the game wasn't worth the candle, so paid up out of
 >petty-cash.

Glad to hear you are psychic. Easier to believe that they
recognized they had done me wrong and made amends and
apologized.

 >John Rimmer
 >Magonia Magazine
 >www.magonia.demon.co.uk


Stanton Friedman

www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.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 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 07:52:45 -0300
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:03:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:17:33 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:03:55 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:27:55 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:46:49 -0500
 >>>>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

<snip>

 >Robert, List, all -

 >>>Back in the olden days, say late 1988, CUFOS decided that the
 >>>Roswell case deserved some further investigations. Good Ole Stan
 >>>told them that there were additional witnesses to be interviewed
 >>>and additional work to be done. They decided to launch their own

 >>Kevin,

 >>When he made the request, was it for investigative funding or what?

 >No, I think he was just stating a fact when the question about
 >additional witnesses was posed to him. I don't think Stan was
 >looking for anything from CUFOS at that point.

The simple fact of the matter is that Don Schmitt attended a
college lecture I gave to an overflow crowd in Northern Illinois
not far from Wisconsin. He asked me if I thought that more could
be done about Roswell. I told him I thought a lot more could be
done, but that I couldn't afford the costs of the telephoning
and travelling. I certainly wasn't asking CUFOS for anything.

 ><snip>

 >>>Stan had promised to share some material with us, but somehow
 >>>that never quite materialized. He told Don Schmitt that he
 >>>believed Lewis (Bill) Rickett to be dead when he was not,

This is simply fiction. I was the first to locate Rickett,
Dubose, and a witness near Dayton (Besides many others). I
interviewed each of these with Don and gave him a tape of a
conversation with Rickett. I provided information from the
Reunions of the 509th that I attended and they didn't. Provided
the name of a photographer from the base who lived in Wisconsin,
etc....

 >>>told
 >>>Schmitt that Johnny McBoyle lived in Wyoming when he did not,
 >>>promised to send copies of his interviews with Marcel, but did
 >>>not, and promised to provide other information, but did not. On
 >>>the other hand, I supplied Stan with a number of the interviews
 >>>we had conducted, some of which he quoted in his Crash at Corona
 >>>with neither credit nor attribution. The Bill Brazel interview
 >>>that Schmitt and I had conducted in February, 1989 is used with
 >>>the wording of one small section changed to corroborate the
 >>>tales told by Glenn Dennis and later Gerald Anderson. There was
 >>>no reason to make that change, but that, too, is another story.

 >>Point of clarification. Am I correct in assuming that the Brazel
 >>interview that "is used with the wording of one small section
 >>changed to corroborate the tales..." referring to Crash at
 >>Corona as opposed to your first book?

 >The Bill Brazel interview was conducted by Don Schmitt and me in
 >February, 1989. The altered quote appeared in Crash at Corona
 >and was the insertion of the word "black" in front of sergeant,
 >suggesting that Brazel had said the sergeant with the men who
 >had visited him at the ranch was a black man. Truth is, Bill
 >Brazel never said it and later confirmed that all the men who
 >visited were white.

 >Stan has claimed that Bill Brazel said it to Don Berliner when
 >Berliner met Brazel. The truth is, I was at the meeting and
 >didn't hear Brazel make the statement and, as I pointed out,
 >Brazel said that he remembered all of the men as white, so he
 >wouldn't have said it.

<snip>

 >>As I recall the theory that ufology had two paid govt
 >>disinformation agents was originally floated without names by
 >>Bill Moore, long before Randle/Schmitt came along.

 >You know you have "arrived" in Ufology when you are accused of
 >being a government agent. Stan's suggestion was not the only one
 >offered at the time. One publication suggested that I had worked
 >with Hector Quintannilla on some kind of alien craft recovery
 >team. Bill Moore said that he had been supplying his military
 >contacts with information about APRO and that he noticed they
 >had (meaning the military) more information than he gave them.
 >He suggested that I was the other contact, which, of course was
 >not true. I thought it funny that he would admit to "spying" on
 >APRO while trying to tar me with the same brush.

 >>The crash on the plains theory was allegedly supported by the
 >>barney Barnett story. During this period of time somebody
 >>(Kevin?) got ahold of all of Barneys diary and he wasn't in the
 >>plains on the dates in question. Then the Gerald Anderson tale
 >>came along, then died which is what has happened to the plains
 >>story in general..unless you take into account the story
 >>allegedly told by the Roswell Cameraman as passed on in
 >>Mantle/Hessman book.

 >Yes, talking with Ruth Barnett's niece, Alice Knight, she told
 >me that she had discovered a diary kept by her aunt for 1947. I
 >picked it up, drove to Roswell where Stan and I copied it (with
 >her permission). I then returned it.

 >The diary gives no hint that Barnett was involved in anything
 >like the recovery of an alien craft, or seeing anything on the
 >Plains of San Agustin in 1947. The timing simply does not work
 >out.

The diary was copied in Albuquerque and proves that Barnett was
in the Plains at the right time and many other times. Of course
it doesn't say anything about a crash. It also proves that he
was not at the Corona site as Kevin had claimed.

 >>When the Gerald Anderson story was a hot item so to speak,
 >>I was speaking to Walt Andrus over the phone. When I ask him
 >>what he thought...he was always very forth right and straight
 >>forward... he said the story appeared to be phony. His wisdom
 >>proved out much later.

 >On the other side of that coin, I got a strongly worded
 >handwritten note from Walt Andrus about the validity of the
 >Anderson tale. In fact, Walt wrote, "Who influenced your
 >response, the U.S.A.F." There's the government agent nonsense
 >again.

 ><snip>

 >>>And, I think most will understand the purpose of this post. Cry
 >>>havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

 >>The post was well done and very interesting bit of ufological
 >>"insider" research history.

<snip>

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 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                        Beckley, West Virginia Oddity

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 08:55:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:10:21 -0400
Subject: Beckley, West Virginia Oddity



Enclosed is an unusual account from a witness that I trust. Due
to a specific request his name will not be listed, but I'm
buying it as I regard this person as a quality witness. -- KY

-----------

Hi Ken,

Please consider this a private email. Although you may do what
you like with the info, please keep me out of it,

I was camping in WV near Berkley Springs last Saturday night,
sitting back, watching the beautiful starry sky, and saw
something. It was about midnight. I have decided that what I saw
was a UFO. Moving from south to north, a streak appeared. I at
first thought this was the longest shooting star I had ever
seen. It was about the color of a star, kind of a bluish white.
The streak stretched well across the sky, covering about 90
degrees of the available 180, about 45 degrees each side of
vertical.

But what changed my mind about it was the speed, it moved very
fast, covering the arc in about a few seconds, and , most
importantly, an instant turn of about 30 degrees from the
original path toward the west.

This was an exact angular turn with no roundness or arc at all.
Just changed directions like nothing I'd ever seen. Now Ken, you
know I do a lot of reading about UFO's. This seemed to be a
classic angular turn, as described in so many things I've read
on UFO's. After the turn, the object continues on its path, and
the light went out. Keep in mind the streak was illuminated, and
no object was discernible. Of course, my eyes were following the
path of movement, but I couldn't see it anymore. Then, within
about another 2 seconds, there was a brilliant flash from the
direction of where the object would have been had it not gone
out.

I was looking just about straight up. There was no sound, but I
didn't expect a sound as the object appeared to be very high up.
It seemed to be larger than a typical shooting star, but smaller
and dimmer than a bright planet.

Of course there's no way for me to judge a size or distance,
just the impression that what I saw was far away. If you have
any more questions, I'll do my best to answer. Although I was
with 3 other people, no one else saw it, we were all talking.


--

      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 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                     Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 18:29:50 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:37:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Young


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:18:38 EDT
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:21:19 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Young

 >>Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 17:26:49 +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: Thu, 17 May 2001 00:33:37 EDT
 >>>Fwd Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 09:02:33 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Have Sceptics Seen One? - Young

 >>>The 1973 Gallup Poll: 11 % of Adult Americans questioned said
 >>>that they had seen a UFO, themselves.

 >>Now let me see, 1973 ay, that's what 28 years ago, are you still
 >>basing your eyes wide shut policy on out of date data?

 >These Gallup Polls have a margin of error of 3 points. By the
 >early 90's the number had gotten up to 14 percent, but has since
 >dropped.

 >Do you have a recent Gallup Poll question on UFO witnesses which
 >is significantly different?

Roy,

I have just come across information about Roper/NIDS polls done
in 1991 and in 1998, on the National Institute for Discovery
Science website at:

http://www.nidsci.org/news/roper_surveys.html

The responses by the 5,947 (1991) and 5,955 (1998) adults had a
margin of error of + 1.4% and the relevant ones are as follows:

UFO sightings         1991   vs    1998

Seeing a UFO         431 (7%)     401 (7%)

More than twice       65           69

Once or twice        366          332

Never               5447         5479

Don't know            69           76

So, despite your suggestion that I must be the only person in
the world who has never seen a UFO, I seem to be in a lot of
company.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

         -----------------------------------------------------------
Denial, as they say in Alcoholics Anonymous, is not just
                     a river in Egypt.
         -----------------------------------------------------------






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                    Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 18:56:38 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:39:25 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Young


 >From: Chris Rolfe <astratech@supanet.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: UFOs And Aircraft Safety
 >Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:13:35 +0100

<snip>

 >This week I recieved a telephone call from a witness who
 >observed 60 to 80 bright lighted objects crossing the sky slowly
 >in a North easterly direction, on Tuesday, 19 June (2001), at
 >approximately 18:00 hours (BST).

 >Some of the objects were flying in clusters, others were in
 >groups of three or five, and some were even on there own. One
 >looked like it was pulsating red in colour, as if it was getting
 >bigger then shrinking in size.

 >Another of the objects seemed to suddenly go up verticaly,
 >whilst another appeared to take on the shape of a jellyfish
 >(this kind of object has been seen on more than one occassion
 >here in Kent, UK).

 >And where did this event occur? Right over the city of London!
 >Amongst aircarft coming in and taking off from Heathrow airport
 >etc...

 >For god sake how many more times is this going to happen before
 >someone gets OFF their bloody backsides and do something

Chris, List:

Guess #1: Spider webs.

Guess #2: An appearance of the late Betty Cash's mass helicopter
squadron carrying a half battalion of MIBs, launched from John
Schussler's Mystery Fleet of helo carriers off the Frisian
Isles.

Guess #3: Romulans, with their cloaking shut off. Yiikes.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 24

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Wilson

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 19:18:36 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:43:48 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Wilson


 >Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:36:43 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:45:20 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

 >Hello Kevin, hi All,

 >the dialog goes like so:

Serge:

 >>>Hypnosis is so controversial that it remains useless as a tool
 >>>to study the reality of a phenomenon. All considered, I propose
 >>>that all data ralative to hypnosis be discarded.

 >Kevin responds:

 >>What does that leave us with?

 >What it leaves us with are the thousands of reports many from
 >perfectly credible people that recount "consciously experienced"
 >encounters with UFOs and their occupants. All the way from Lonnie
 >Zamora to the Allagash four and the Travis Walton five. I could
 >go on with the list but you get the point I'm sure.

 >>Serge, Greg, all -

 >>And question #2: How do tales of past lives and Satanic ritual
 >>abuse differ from tales of alien abduction?

 >I know you asked Greg and Serge, so please excuse my intrusion
 >into your conversation but I'd like to comment on your question.

 >First, you choose to use phrases like, "tales of abduction" as if
 >it is a _given_ that all abductees are merely 'telling stories'
 >out of school. That's a prejudgement on your part and indicates
 >a strong bias. How can you claim to be an objective research
 >person if you have your mind made up _before_ hand?

 >In answer to your question: I didn't report seeing Beelzebub or
 >the minions of Satan. I didn't report being involved in any kind
 >of 'rituals' Satanic or otherwise. What I _have_ reported is;
 >while on my way home one night I saw a large UFO close-up. I ran
 >away from it and experienced a whole night of missing time. In
 >the morning there were signs that something _very_physical_  had

 >happened to me. (I had been bleeding from my nose, and my eye
 >was swollen out like a tennis ball. The ER physician told me
 >that the eye swelling was not caused by "trauma" - I was not
 >'hit,' - nor were there any signs of 'infection.' When an ENT
 >specialist looked up my nasal cavity he confirmed what the ER
 >physician had called, "signs of a 'surgical' procedure. I've
 >never had a "surgical procedure performed in my head. So, in
 >addition to frightening encounter with that silent, glowing,
 >flying "thing," and the night of missing time, there was some
 >physical components to the _event._

 >That, Mr. Randle is the _difference_ between an abduction
 >account and one of "Satanic or ritual abuse". No 'Devils' or
 >'Demons' in my "tale" just UFOs and aliens. If you can't see
 >the difference then you need to be in another business.  ;)

 >>I have been meaning to post this question in the past, but just
 >>haven't done it.

 >Sometimes our first instincts are our best ones.  :)

 >I return the helm to Greg and Serge. He's all yours gentlemen.


John:

Thank you!! and that not only comes from me, but from several
other abductees/experiencers as well. Well said!

Everyone who reads these types of "questions" and "statements"
like the ones we've responded to above, know what the writer's
true intentions are behind posting them to a public List. It's
just that most people don't have the time to constantly re-state
the obvious.


Katharina









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 24

               Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 20:22:21 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:49:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Mortellaro


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:02:20 -0500

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:32:43 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 ><snip>

 >List,

 >I'm somewhat surprised that what should be a topic of serious
 >interest and import has turned into a venue for New Age jokes
 >and bad puns.

Dear Dennis, bListers and Errol;

It seems to me that what should be a topic of serious import and
has turned into a venue for New Age malignity and malicious
puns. Will wonders never cease? I actually agree with you. Which
is why I decided to make light (not a type) of some of the
posts.

There is a serious deficiency among (make that between, as there
were only two dissenting people, Dennis... you and...

 >In case anyone's forgotten the original subject matter (and it
 >seems everyone has) it was this: Dick Hall was enlisted to write
 >a monthly column for the MUFON UFO Journal.

 >It was called "Perspective", and originally addressed the
 >previous issue's contents. Lately, it began addressing UFO
 >issues at large.

 >When Hall wrote a column criticial of some MUFON symposium
 >speakers, the powers that be at MUFON declined to publish it. As
 >a consequence, Hall resigned as a matter of principle.

 >The issue remains: is MUFON an organization devoted to serious
 >inquiry and open to internal criticism and debate - hallmarks
 >(no pun intended) of scientific methodology - or is it a flying
 >saucer club, with a slowly dwindling base of supporters and
 >subscribers?

Does not the serious inquiry include subjects other than UFOs,
subjects which also create as much debate and concern as the UFO
conundrum? And to add insult to the injury inflicted by some on
this List to New Age, does the subject matter of the UFO
conundrum have as much (or as little) proof as does the subject
of New Age thinking? NAT?

 >We know you can lean to the left in the Journal, viz a book
 >review in the last issue touting some channeled material as one
 >of the most important books ever written about the UFO subject,
 >followed by a largely favorable review in the current (June)
 >issue of a book by the name of The UFO - Jesus Connection.

 >The question is: can you lean any degree to the right (or merely
 >toward the middle), and expect to have your voice heard in the
 >Journal? The evidence to date would indicate that you cannot.

 >Whether this is merely a joking matter remains to be seen.

Hmmmm..... to be really honest, Mr. Stacey, my personal opinion
is that it is a joking matter. If you think about it, just about
anything is fodder for satire. But most especially, is a subject
as fraught with culpable ignorance, blind stupidity and paucity
of intellect, as is oft found on this List. No offence Errol, it
is a constant of the business and is not oft found as elsewhere,
much to your and your listers credit.

Anything, Sir, which Errol Bruce-Knapp decides to publish
demonstrates either the fact that it is valid, or so stupid as
to make the writer appear on his own demerits, a complete idiot.

Which I am is a matter of opinion. But humor and satire is
applicable wherever Gripple is sold.


I remain, as always,

Dr. Morty, President










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 24

                Cydonian Imperative - 06-24-01 Enigma Of The

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 18:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:51:17 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative - 06-24-01 Enigma Of The

The Cydonian Imperative
6-24-01

The Enigma of the Western "Eye"
by Mac Tonnies

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

The west-facing side of the Face on Mars features a disturbingly
lifelike "eye" surrounded by an apparent grid of small,
radiating cells. If artificial, then the geometric appearance
may be due to a durable structural mesh laid bare eastward by
Martian wind. The "cornea" feature itself appears to have
resisted erosion quite well, retaining a conical base that is
consistent with terrestrial facial sculpture.

[image]

The Face's western "eye" as seen in January, 2001. The
impression of a pyramidal "cornea" is lessened by detail
available in the new image.

[image]

In the image above, an unidentified artist has traced the
essential eye-like features, based on the partial overhead image
returned to Earth early this year. Note the curved edge of the
"cornea," now confirmed. Heavy contrasting tends to lessen the
impression of curvature.

[image]

Above the "eye" is a degraded-looking "disk" with at least one
clearly discernable semicircular curve. Could this be an aspect
of the theorized "headdress"? Since no such disks appear on
simian or human faces, the "disk" suggests decorative, as
opposed to forensic, function (assuming the validity of the
Artificiality Hypothesis). Careful analysis of previous Face
photos reveal that the disk is slanted upward, helping to form
the cavernous eye-socket that produced the brooding appearance
of Viking frame 35A72 (below). Also note the placement of this
unusual feature on the shape-from-shading derived image by Chris
Joseph in the previous installment.

[image]

The deep shadow seen in frame 35A72 is produced with the help of
a canted discoid feature that may be surviving detail from the
Face's hypothetical "headdress."

The graphic below, seen on Planetary Anomalies, shows the "eye"
feature colorized and contrasted. The humanoid resemblance of
this single feature is slightly unnerving in its realism, up to
and including the raised rim of the properly almond-shaped
perimeter.

[image]

So far, no plausible geological explanation has been provided
that accounts for the strange morphology of the Face's western
"eye," let alone the structural-looking "grid" surrounding it.

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

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 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                      Info On Recent Missouri Activity?

From: Chris Burns <Thurstonoreggae@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:05:49 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:55:29 -0400
Subject: Info On Recent Missouri Activity?


Hello all,

I am looking for help in locating any sources of information on
the Missouri activity of the past five years in two specific
areas.

The first area has been investigated by Ted Phillips and is
referred to by the name Letten Hollow (I have not found a town
by that name).

The second area is in Southern Missouri and has been
investigated by JoAnne Scapellini and Gary Hart.

Outside of two articles in the MUFON Journal (sore topic, I
know) and Mr. Phillips' web site, I have come up empty in my
search for information.

My interest in the Missouri activity comes from the similarity
it has with the activity in Pine Bush, NY, which I have
witnessed a handful of times.

I am particularly interested in the type of phenomena in both
Pine Bush and Missouri that are more associated with hauntings
or poltergeist events.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!


Chris Burns









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                    Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:23:23 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:59:40 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Velez


 >From: Chris Rolfe <astratech@supanet.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: UFOs And Aircraft Safety
 >Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:13:35 +0100

 >UFOs and aircraft near misses:- No Defence significance(?),
 >definately a safety issue!

 >This week I recieved a telephone call from a witness who
 >observed 60 to 80 bright lighted objects crossing the sky slowly
 >in a North easterly direction, on Tuesday, 19 June (2001), at
 >approximately 18:00 hours (BST).

 >Some of the objects were flying in clusters, others were in
 >groups of three or five, and some were even on there own. One
 >looked like it was pulsating red in colour, as if it was getting
 >bigger then shrinking in size.

 >Another of the objects seemed to suddenly go up verticaly,
 >whilst another appeared to take on the shape of a jellyfish
 >(this kind of object has been seen on more than one occassion
 >here in Kent, UK).

 >And where did this event occur? Right over the city of London!
 >Amongst aircarft coming in and taking off from Heathrow airport
 >etc...

 >For god sake how many more times is this going to happen before
 >someone gets OFF their bloody backsides and do something!

 >More and more we are hearing of civilian passenger planes having
 >near misses with UFOs not just in this country but worldwide.

 >I know of at least two incidents here in the County of Kent. The
 >most well known one occured on 21 April, 1991, when Alitalia
 >Flight AZ 284 was flying from Milan to London Heathrow. At
 >approximately 20:00 hrs, whilst over the Lydd Army Ranges, they
 >had a near miss with what they described as a brown colured
 >missile looking object. London ATC even monitored the object on
 >radar.

 >Within days our local MP (former Home Secretary), Michael
 >Howard, the C.A.A. and the Ministry of Defence all stated that
 >the object was a UFO! Now there's a a first.

 >The MOD stating a UFO was in UK airspace.

 >Bull! It was not a UFO as they would like to have us believe,
 >but possibly a Target drone of UAV. People here in Kent now it,
 >and we believe we know who was responsible. How ever as we do
 >not have concrete proof we can't name them due to the fact we
 >could get sued.

 >The other incident occured on 16 September, 1996, when Jerry
 >Anderson (former coordinator of UFOMEK), sighted and videod a
 >white sphere like object over Wingham, Kent.

 >The object was at the same height as passenger jets flying over,
 >and was even filmed going through an aircraft vapour trail.

<snip>

 >If you feel the same way I do, please do let me know. Maybe you
 >don't agree with my comments, again let me know. And if any
 >pilots or any other aircrew should be reading this who know of
 >any incidents, don't you think it's time you spoke out, for the
 >safety of your passengers. Please contact me if you wish.

 >Finally please accept my sincere apologies, for the strong tone
 >of this article. If I have offended anyone with my outspoken
 >comments, then I apoligise.


Hi Chris,

You're not alone in your concern. I have been observing and
recording the same kind of objects you describe above for many
years. I live in New York City. (The borough of Queens) More to
the point, I live near Jamaica Bay and well within walking
distance to JFK International airport. Because I am an amateur
astronomer and long time sky watcher I am very familiar with the
airports' landing and take-off patterns. Many of the sightings I
have had have occurred within the same airspace that commercial
flights use for take-offs and landings. I can't tell you how
many posts I have written expressing my concern over that fact.

There was a collision in the skies over Mexico City between a
commercial flight and an "unknown/UFO" a few years ago which
only dented the aircraft. It _could_ have been a horrendous air
disaster. The airport in Mexico City is situated in the very
center of the city. Any accidents in the air would prove doubly
disastrous when compounded by the loss of life and property that
would take place on the ground as well.

But hey, we're all just a bunch of 'crackpots' telling 'tales.'
I guess we'll just have to wait for the first major accident or
loss of life before people start paying attention.


Regards,

John Velez, USA


                      "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 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                  Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 22:27:28 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:22:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - McCoy


Hello,

 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:39:47 -0000

 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>Date: 21 Jun 2001 19:12:47 -0700
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest

 >>>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest
 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:37:32 -0400

 >>>>How "benevolent" of the aliens to remind us how flaccid our very
 >>>>expensive phallic missile defense system really is. It raises
 >>>>the question again of, "why bother to include 'missile defense'
 >>>>with the UFO disclosure issue?"

Because Greer is saying: "We are going to shoot down our 'space
bros.' so we can't have, say free energy." or some such twaddle.

 >>>>Doesn't Dr. Greer think the aliens can 'neutralize' a few
 >>>>unmanned Satellites as they have reportedly done to our missile
 >>>>defense system on the ground?

I think the Aliens, whomever or whatever they are, can do
whatever they please with us Earthings, Mortals, etc.

 >>>As the good Doctor has informed us, the aliens are here to help
 >>>us and not hurt us. He has explained that they won't make
 >>>themselves known to the world at large until we eliminate all
 >>>war and poverty, which is the reason he believes "Free Energy"
 >>>is a component of this process.

What is this, "Free Energy"? crap, there is no "Free Energy"
unless the Aliens have figured out a way around the laws of
Thermodynamics. Even the Sun's going to croak one day.

 >>>Dr. Greer has explained on several occasions that just as a dog
 >>>doesn't really understand that the veterinarian is really trying
 >>>to help him (as he (or she) is poked and prodded), abductees
 >>>need to accept the fact that their involvement is for their own
 >>>good. It is important for us to give credit where it is due,
 >>>since Greer is apparently able speak to their "intent", which by
 >>>implication means direct communication.

Having not, thank God, been an abuctee, merely an experiencer,
Greer's saying that abuctees, are not understanding of the Anal
probe, or the scoop marks, or whatever else is happening to them
is merely a trip to the "Vet". I have had many pets over the
years. For the most part, they seemed to understand that the Vet
was there for their own good, I don't think that's universally
shared amongst Abuctees, also, is he implying that was, we are
merely Gerbils in the the great cosmic plan?

I don't like getting reamed by the Periodontist, but I _know_
it's for my own good, and I will likely not have to put my
choppers to bed next to me for the forseeable future.

 >>In the past Greer told his story of having contact and taking
 >>rides to other planets. From this one can easily imply that he
 >>has had direct communication. I am waiting to hear about it.

To which planets? Not one trinket saying I've been to oh, the
Royal Trafalmadorian Botanic Gardens. Do they not allow
photography? No pictures of Greer with the say, Pleidian Bikini
Team? or Skiing down the icy slopes of Europa courtesy of the
Draconian Base Ski Club?

 >Yes, which makes him the very model of a modern "contactee,"
 >with all the deservedly negative baggage that entails. Only the
 >most ga-ga "believers" can possibly take him seriously.


You speak truth, Dick,

GT McCoy


"Ask not for whom the Pet carrier comes it comes
for thee." - the best way of clearing a room of Cats,
with apologies to E. Hemingway, 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 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                                   Zyziggy

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 02:54:10 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:28:57 -0400
Subject: Zyziggy


Folks:

Have you noticed?

A 7.9 magnitude quake in Peru and a big volcanic eruption on the
Pacific Rim in the Phillipines, both near a Zyziggy, the perfect
lineup of Earth-Sun-and Moon near the Solstic and a Solar
Eclipse. Strains are greatest with the perfect lineup.

On the other hand, it could be a coincidence.


Clear skies,

Bob Young


         ----------------------------------------------------------
"Keep your eyes a little wide and blank" - Dr Miles Bennell's
instructions on how to look like a pod person, Invasion of the
Body Snatchers (1956)
         ----------------------------------------------------------








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                  Re: Beckley, West Virginia Oddity - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 03:49:46 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:01:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Beckley, West Virginia Oddity - Hatch


 >Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 08:55:20 -0400
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Beckley, West Virginia Oddity

 >Enclosed is an unusual account from a witness that I trust. Due
 >to a specific request his name will not be listed, but I'm
 >buying it as I regard this person as a quality witness. -- KY

 >-----------

 >Hi Ken,

 >Please consider this a private email. Although you may do what
 >you like with the info, please keep me out of it,

 >I was camping in WV near Berkley Springs last Saturday night,
 >sitting back, watching the beautiful starry sky, and saw
 >something. It was about midnight. I have decided that what I saw
 >was a UFO. Moving from south to north, a streak appeared. I at
 >first thought this was the longest shooting star I had ever
 >seen. It was about the color of a star, kind of a bluish white.
 >The streak stretched well across the sky, covering about 90
 >degrees of the available 180, about 45 degrees each side of
 >vertical.

 >But what changed my mind about it was the speed, it moved very
 >fast, covering the arc in about a few seconds, and , most
 >importantly, an instant turn of about 30 degrees from the
 >original path toward the west.

 >This was an exact angular turn with no roundness or arc at all.
 >Just changed directions like nothing I'd ever seen. Now Ken, you
 >know I do a lot of reading about UFO's. This seemed to be a
 >classic angular turn, as described in so many things I've read
 >on UFO's. After the turn, the object continues on its path, and
 >the light went out. Keep in mind the streak was illuminated, and
 >no object was discernible. Of course, my eyes were following the
 >path of movement, but I couldn't see it anymore. Then, within
 >about another 2 seconds, there was a brilliant flash from the
 >direction of where the object would have been had it not gone
 >out.

 >I was looking just about straight up. There was no sound, but I
 >didn't expect a sound as the object appeared to be very high up.
 >It seemed to be larger than a typical shooting star, but smaller
 >and dimmer than a bright planet.

 >Of course there's no way for me to judge a size or distance,
 >just the impression that what I saw was far away. If you have
 >any more questions, I'll do my best to answer. Although I was
 >with 3 other people, no one else saw it, we were all talking.

 >--

 >  U F O R e s e a r c h
 > http://home.fuse.net/ufo/


Hello Kenny:


That sounds like a perfect description of a meteor _except_ for
the instant 30-degree turn. Even the flashout at the end says
"meteor".

Oh, I suppose it could be the final re-entry of some space junk,
but the sharp non-ballistic turn remains unexplained.

Anybody have any ideas? How about a spy satellite with some
self-destruct mechanism which misfired, but still having enough
oomph to deflect the main body?

Wouldn't that make a flash at the turning point also?


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 >
   Jun > Jun 25

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 08:29:46 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:08:30 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle


 >Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:36:43 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...


 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:45:20 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:43:16 -0400


<snip>


Hello John, List, all,


 >>>Hypnosis is so controversial that it remains useless as a tool
 >>>to study the reality of a phenomenon. All considered, I propose
 >>>that all data ralative to hypnosis be discarded.

 >Kevin responds:

 >>What does that leave us with?

Actually, that was Serge's comment and not mine.

 >What it leaves us with are the thousands of reports many from
 >perfectly credible people that recount "consciously experienced"
 >encounters with UFOs and their occupants. All the way from Lonnie
 >Zamora to the Allagash four and the Travis Walton five. I could
 >go on with the list but you get the point I'm sure.


 >>Serge, Greg, all -

 >>And question #2: How do tales of past lives and Satanic ritual
 >>abuse differ from tales of alien abduction?

 >I know you asked Greg and Serge, so please excuse my intrusion
 >into your conversation but I'd like to comment on your question.

John, your intrusions are always welcome.

 >First, you choose to use phrases like, "tales of abduction" as if
 >it is a _given_ that all abductees are merely 'telling stories'
 >out of school. That's a prejudgement on your part and indicates
 >a strong bias. How can you claim to be an objective research
 >person if you have your mind made up _before_ hand?

Sorry, that probably should have said report instead of tales. I
meant nothing pejorative with the question. I was, and am,
soliciting information and if I phrase my question improperly,
then I certainly won't get the information I want.

 >In answer to your question: I didn't report seeing Beelzebub or
 >the minions of Satan. I didn't report being involved in any kind
 >of 'rituals' Satanic or otherwise.

No, and I haven't suggested that you have. What I see here is a
parallel between reports of alien abduction and reports of
Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA). That means that we have these
reports in which people have little or no conscious recall of
the horrific acts perpetrated against them, they have few or no
corroborating witnesses, they tell their stories (reports, if
you will) with a great deal of emotion and it is clear that they
believe they are telling the truth. It is the parallel between
reports of alien abduction and tales of SRA that I find
interesting, and was wondering how those who have experienced
abduction react to the reports of those who claim SRA.

 >What I _have_ reported is;
 >while on my way home one night I saw a large UFO close-up. I ran
 >away from it and experienced a whole night of missing time. In
 >the morning there were signs that something _very_physical_  had
 >happened to me. (I had been bleeding from my nose, and my eye
 >was swollen out like a tennis ball. The ER physician told me
 >that the eye swelling was not caused by "trauma" - I was not
 >'hit,' - nor were there any signs of 'infection.' When an ENT
 >specialist looked up my nasal cavity he confirmed what the ER
 >physician had called, "signs of a 'surgical' procedure. I've
 >never had a "surgical procedure performed in my head. So, in
 >addition to frightening encounter with that silent, glowing,
 >flying "thing," and the night of missing time, there was some
 >physical components to the _event._

Yes, I understand that, but I have seen and read accounts, some
in the professional psychological journals in which similar types
of evidence have been explored. There are reports of scars, and
pregnancy (though I know, John, that you have not been, nor
have ever claimed to be pregnant), periods of missing time,
and surgical procedures (well, not exactly surgery, but a careful
incision) that suggest physical evidence.

I am not suggesting here that your report is inaccurate or in
any way modified, but am suggesting that there is a parallel of
the evidence that is interesting.

 >That, Mr. Randle is the _difference_ between an abduction
 >account and one of "Satanic or ritual abuse". No 'Devils' or
 >'Demons' in my "tale" just UFOs and aliens. If you can't see
 >the difference then you need to be in another business.  ;)

But, John, seriously, you haven't really answered the question.
You have explained your experiences, but if I search the SRA
literature, I will find an account that incorporates the same
sorts of elements you list here. I am not suggesting there were
demons or devils in your experience, only that many of the
elements you describe are elements found in tales of Satanic
abuse.


 >>I have been meaning to post this question in the past, but just
 >>haven't done it.

 >Sometimes our first instincts are our best ones.  :)

Yet, if we don't ask questions, even the hard ones, even the
ones that some might find offensive, we don't advance our
knowledge.

 >I return the helm to Greg and Serge. He's all yours gentlemen.

Actually, I welcome all thoughts on the matter.

 >Regards,

 >John Velez, Abductee

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 >
   Jun > Jun 25

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 08:57:36 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:10:47 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle


 >Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:07:26 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:45:20 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:43:16 -0400

<snip>

 >From Serge:

 >>>Let's be careful not to pick the information but to assimilate
 >>>it.

 >>>Hypnosis is so controversial that it remains useless as a tool
 >>>to study the reality of a phenomenon. All considered, I propose
 >>>that all data ralative to hypnosis be discarded.

 >>What does that leave us with?

 >>>One of the main problem of ufology is to recognise the validity
 >>>of the data. We see this all the time.

 >>>What apparently distinguishes alien abductions from ufology is
 >>>the consistancy and the similarity of the experiences. This
 >>>should facilitate the establishment of a protocole to study its
 >>>nature.

 >>>Question #1: How does one establish the reality of an
 >>>experience.


 >>Serge, Greg, all -

 >>And question #2: How do tales of past lives and Satanic ritual
 >>abuse differ from tales of alien abduction?

 >>I have been meaning to post this question in the past, but just
 >>haven't done it. This seems to be the forum in which to ask it.


 >>KRandle

 >Question #1: I am personally left with telling you guys that "I
 >guess you would have had to have _been_ there!"

 >After this many years and with all of the information abductees
 >have shared with the public, it is true that some people will
 >never believe. If you don't believe us, then don't believe us -
 >but, please, just get on with it. We have managed to move on
 >with our lives - maybe the non-believers and the debunkers can
 >too?

This was Serge's question and I'll let him take it.

 >Question #2: Are you serious? The three have absolutely
 >_nothing_ to do with one another - and, abductees do not tell
 >"tales".

First, as I said to John Velez, that was a poor choice of a
word. Reports would have been much better and less pejorative. I
apologize for its use.

 >Why ask such a question? Are you _really_ interested in whether
 >or not there is a relationship, or are you just trying to muddy
 >up the truth about abductions? Abductions and Satanic Ritual
 >abuse?! Abductions and past lives?!

I ask the question, not to suggest anything, but to note a
parallel between these tales of Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) and
reports of alien abduction. And, I might point out that both
John Mack and Edith Fiore have, at the very least, reported on
past life regressions in their work on alien abduction.

 >Give me a break! What next? Do authors of UFO books suffer from
 >split personality disorder? Are UFO investigators suffering from
 >Satanic ritual abuse?

No one has made either of these suggestions.

 >Let's see - Do UFO investigators have anything to do with the
 >cult of Satan?

 >There are many in the religious community who would answer "yes"
 >to the last question.

 >See how ridiculous it all sounds? For the sake of abductees
 >everywhere, please don't try to tie in every New Age belief or
 >every cult you become interested in - or past lives, with 'our'
 >lives.

 >Katharina

Actually, what I had noticed were the parallels among all these
types of reports. There are few conscious memories (though a few
have long involved memories of these events), much of the
information is recovered through hypnotic regression (which is
not to say that all of it is), there is limited physical
evidence, and limited corroborative evidence, though there is
some. With both SRA and alien abduction there are unexplained
scars and there are reports of pregnancy that were terminated
prematurely. There are periods of missing time, and all the
reports are made with emotion.

I was attempting to ask a benign question and have obviously
failed to do so. Maybe a better question would be: Do you find
the parallels between tales of SRA, and past lives and reports
of alien abduction to be worrisome?

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 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:15:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:12:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Clark


 >From: Tim Haley <TimHaley@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:57:59 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >To: UFOUpdates@home.com

 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:19:12 +0100
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:26:43 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer

 >>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:06:22 -0300

 >Stan made the following comments to Jerome Clark:

 >>>An excellent text for journalists is 'The Journalist's Legal
 >>>Guide' by Michael G. Crawford, Carswell Thomson Professional
 >>>Publishing. There is a 51 page Chapter on Defamation. Perhaps
 >>>you might learn something about the difference between fair
 >>>comment and defamation. I have never objected to dealing with
 >>>differences of opinion. I have objected to defamation,
 >>>especially in a major newspaper.

Actually, these last two sentences are something of a whopper.
Jenny Randles was hardly the last person Stan has threatened
with legal retribution. In at least one case I am aware of, a
prominent, respected UFO researcher was threatened after writing
an article that expressed a point of view with which Stan
disagrees; Stan was not even mentioned in the piece. Other
individuals have informed me of their own unfortunate
experiences with Stan.

 >The letter clearly states "The Evening News now with regret
 >recognizes that those articles were defamatory of both Mr.
 >Friedman and Mr. Harris ... "

The wording of the letter is irrelevant. Only a court can make
a determination of whether defamation has occurred.

 >So obviously it was MEN's opinion that the articles were
 >defamatory as well.

MEN's lawyers drafted a letter saying whatever needed to be
said, whether it was strictly accurate or not, to get Friedman
and Harris off their backs. Big deal.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 25

             Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:54:30 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:15:15 -0400
Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Maccabee


 >Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:24:12 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life'

 >>Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:14:34 -0400
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life'
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>Thanks for mentioning my book.

 >>I hope you won't be disappointed by my portrayal of what I see
 >>as the truth... in ways that go beyond ufology!

 >Hi Bruce,

 >You have _already_ informed us it is "fiction" bro!  <VBG>

 >Regards,

 >John 'takes more than a yarn to yank my chain' Velez ;)

There is a fiction story "wrapped around" a fact book... but...
a lot of people are going to identify with what I have written.
Some will recognize things they may never have connected with
UFO phenomena. Others will see 'their stories told' in this
fiction... which is based on what abductees have said.

Perhaps of more importance is the discussion which could be
characteriozed as "Now that you know about it, what are you
going to do about 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 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 14:22:39 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:19:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Bourdais


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:32:26 +0100

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 07:07:06 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >Pilgrims,

 >Gildas wrote:

 >>To Stan and the List

 >>I also recall that, not long ago, Jenny Randles had to apologise
 >>to Budd Hopkins for having wrongly accused him of practicing
 >>hypnotic regression on children.

 >I don't recall this but I do recall when Budd spoke at the IUN
 >conference in Sheffield in the early 90s he was waltzing round
 >Sheffield city centre with a bunch of cards on which were
 >printed witches, aliens, clowns etc. The intention was to show
 >them to children and see what they recognised.

 >Dodgy eh?

This has nothing to do with J Randles' accusation of using
hypnosis.

<snip>

 >>And, by the way, I hope that she will soon release her recorded
 >>testimonies of pilots who "saw nothing" at Bentwaters-Lakenheath.

 >Ok Gildas, let's get some _facts_ straight.

<snip>

 >If Gildas:

 >a) Still thinks the pilots visually saw something then I suggest
 >he gives the first hand account from which that supposition is
 >taken.

 >b) Can't wait for the report - I suggest he tears himself away
 >from the plastic piano and does some real investigation instead
 >of wittering.

I am not particularly impatient about your 'revelations' to come,
but the longer it takes, the funnier I find the story.

It's almost two years now since Jenny Randles accused the COMETA of
not knowing these new testimonies, a week after the release of the
COMETA Report in France.

But don't worry - I am not going to break or eat my plastic
piano.

BTW, I note that nobody on this List, at this hour, seems to
react to the interesting testimony of Jennie Zeidman.


Foggy skies,

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 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:31:21 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:23:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Randle


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 07:52:45 -0300

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:17:33 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:03:55 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:27:55 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:46:49 -0500
 >>>>>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit

<snip>

Stan, List, all -

 >>Robert, List, all -

 >>>>Back in the olden days, say late 1988, CUFOS decided that the
 >>>>Roswell case deserved some further investigations. Good Ole Stan
 >>>>told them that there were additional witnesses to be interviewed
 >>>>and additional work to be done. They decided to launch their own

 >>>Kevin,

 >>>When he made the request, was it for investigative funding or what?

 >>No, I think he was just stating a fact when the question about
 >>additional witnesses was posed to him. I don't think Stan was
 >>looking for anything from CUFOS at that point.

 >The simple fact of the matter is that Don Schmitt attended a
 >college lecture I gave to an overflow crowd in Northern Illinois
 >not far from Wisconsin. He asked me if I thought that more could
 >be done about Roswell. I told him I thought a lot more could be
 >done, but that I couldn't afford the costs of the telephoning
 >and travelling. I certainly wasn't asking CUFOS for anything.

So, I guess we agree on this point. CUFOS, in the guise of Don
Schmitt asked Stan a question and Stan answered it. CUFOS then
initiated their investigation.

 ><snip>

 >>>>Stan had promised to share some material with us, but somehow
 >>>>that never quite materialized. He told Don Schmitt that he
 >>>>believed Lewis (Bill) Rickett to be dead when he was not,

 >This is simply fiction. I was the first to locate Rickett,
 >Dubose, and a witness near Dayton (Besides many others). I
 >interviewed each of these with Don and gave him a tape of a
 >conversation with Rickett. I provided information from the
 >Reunions of the 509th that I attended and they didn't. Provided
 >the name of a photographer from the base who lived in Wisconsin,
 >etc....

No one disputes that Stan was the first to locate many
witnesses, but then, so have I. This task became much easier
with the advent of CD-ROM telephone directories and then posting
of the white pages to the Internet.

The first time that Don attempted to call the Ricketts, he
believed that Bill had died. He was talking to Mary Rickett,
asking her the questions he would have put to Bill had he
thought that Bill was alive... She finally said, "Do you want to
talk to Bill, he's sitting right here." Don called me very
excited because he had talked to Rickett.

I say again, we already had that information, gained through
other sources. In fact, I had asked Walter Haut to make me a
copy of the 509th Yearbook and George Eberhart made an index
based on the page numbers that I had assigned to it. We were
looking for people and finding them ourselves.

 >>>>told Schmitt that Johnny McBoyle lived in Wyoming when he did not,
 >>>>promised to send copies of his interviews with Marcel, but did
 >>>>not, and promised to provide other information, but did not. On
 >>>>the other hand, I supplied Stan with a number of the interviews
 >>>>we had conducted, some of which he quoted in his Crash at Corona
 >>>>with neither credit nor attribution. The Bill Brazel interview
 >>>>that Schmitt and I had conducted in February, 1989 is used with
 >>>>the wording of one small section changed to corroborate the
 >>>>tales told by Glenn Dennis and later Gerald Anderson. There was
 >>>>no reason to make that change, but that, too, is another story.

 >>>Point of clarification. Am I correct in assuming that the Brazel
 >>>interview that "is used with the wording of one small section
 >>>changed to corroborate the tales..." referring to Crash at
 >>>Corona as opposed to your first book?

 >>The Bill Brazel interview was conducted by Don Schmitt and me in
 >>February, 1989. The altered quote appeared in Crash at Corona
 >>and was the insertion of the word "black" in front of sergeant,
 >>suggesting that Brazel had said the sergeant with the men who
 >>had visited him at the ranch was a black man. Truth is, Bill
 >>Brazel never said it and later confirmed that all the men who
 >>visited were white.

 >>Stan has claimed that Bill Brazel said it to Don Berliner when
 >>Berliner met Brazel. The truth is, I was at the meeting and
 >>didn't hear Brazel make the statement and, as I pointed out,
 >>Brazel said that he remembered all of the men as white, so he
 >>wouldn't have said it.

 ><snip>

 >>>The crash on the plains theory was allegedly supported by the
 >>>barney Barnett story. During this period of time somebody
 >>>(Kevin?) got ahold of all of Barneys diary and he wasn't in the
 >>>plains on the dates in question. Then the Gerald Anderson tale
 >>>came along, then died which is what has happened to the plains
 >>>story in general..unless you take into account the story
 >>>allegedly told by the Roswell Cameraman as passed on in
 >>>Mantle/Hessman book.

 >>Yes, talking with Ruth Barnett's niece, Alice Knight, she told
 >>me that she had discovered a diary kept by her aunt for 1947. I
 >>picked it up, drove to Roswell where Stan and I copied it (with
 >>her permission). I then returned it.

 >>The diary gives no hint that Barnett was involved in anything
 >>like the recovery of an alien craft, or seeing anything on the
 >>Plains of San Agustin in 1947. The timing simply does not work
 >>out.

 >The diary was copied in Albuquerque and proves that Barnett was
 >in the Plains at the right time and many other times. Of course
 >it doesn't say anything about a crash. It also proves that he
 >was not at the Corona site as Kevin had claimed.

If I remember correctly, Stan stood at the machine copying the
diary while Don Schmitt, Don Berliner and I stood around
watching.

Not only does it say nothing about a crash, but it gives no hint
of any extraordinary event. There is nothing in the diary but
the mundane, including the weather each day. I find it
extraordinary that Barney could have been involved in something
as exciting as this but give NO hint of it, even if that hint
was disguised in some fashion.

Given the diary and the dates, we were trying to figure out how
Barnett could have been involved. We learned, through various
interviews that Barnett did get as far south as Carrizozo and as
far east as Roswell. Mainly this was for meetings and the like,
but again, there is nothing in the diary to confirm this.

And, if we look at the diary closely, we find that the diary
says, on July 2, 1947, "Barney went to the high country near
Datil." This means, unfortunately, the crash would have had to
take place on July 1, not July 2.

For July 3, it says, "Barney in office most of the day..."

On July 4, "Barney wasn't feeling very well but worked at
home..."

On July 5, "Barney and Lopez are busy on house..."

On July 6, "Barney worked on [and I can't make out the word] Got
the soil [?] pipes layed also the cold water pipes..."

On July 7, "Barney went to Polvadera [north of Socorro] in AM -
Home for lunch..."

On July 8, "Barney went to Pie Town..."

Which puts him on the Plains, actually the far side of the
Plains, but then again, the date doesn't work... unless he was
somewhere else, which gave rise to the idea he might have been
over towards Corona rather than Pie Town. Of course, this was
all speculation, which I told Stan at the time we advanced the
theory. We were trying to figure out how Barnett was involved,
given the written record that had just been given to us.

 ><snip>

 >>>And, I think most will understand the purpose of this post. Cry
 >>>havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

 >>The post was well done and very interesting bit of ufological
 >>"insider" research history.

<snip>

 >Stan Friedman

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 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                              E-Mail Addresses?

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:26:23 -0400
Subject: E-Mail Addresses?


Hello,

I need you help, does anyone have the e-mail address of those
people bellow:

Nicholas Redfern
Michael Lindeman
Sun-Shi Li
Maurizio Baiata
Roberto Pinoti
Mark Carloto
Jaime Maussan
James Hurtak
Timoth Good
Nick Pope
Roger Leir


Thank you so much,

Thiago Luiz Ticchetti

Vice-Presidente da Entidade Brasileira de Estudos
Extraterrestres(Braslia/Brasil)
(EBE-ET VICE PRESIDENT)

www.ebe-et.com.br
ICQ 35119615

****** NO  NOSSA CULPA, MAS VAMOS ECONOMIZAR ENERGIA *****









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                 Re: Ira Einhorn On Radio Mysterioso Sunday

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 07:43:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:28:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Ira Einhorn On Radio Mysterioso Sunday


 >Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:03:00 -0500
 >Subject: Ira Einhorn On Radio Mysterioso Sunday
 >From: SMiles Lewis <smiles@elfis.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >Ira Einhorn to be interviewed live on internet radio program


UFOs and a guy who murdered his girlfriend and stuffed her in a
trunk. Next he'll be selling a book explaining why the aliens
made him do it and how they transported him on their beamship to
France. When will it all end....?


Regards,

Royce J. Myers III

UFOWATCHDOG.COM "Don't Trip On Your Open Mind... or that murder
charge you're running from...









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                       Re: E-Mail Addresses? - Wilson

From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:38:58 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:05:06 -0400
Subject: Re: E-Mail Addresses? - Wilson


 >From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: E-Mail Addresses?
 >Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:55:05 -0700 (PDT)

 >I need you help, does anyone have the e-mail address of those
 >people bellow:

 >Nicholas Redfern
 >Michael Lindeman
 >Sun-Shi Li
 >Maurizio Baiata
 >Roberto Pinoti
 >Mark Carloto
 >Jaime Maussan
 >James Hurtak
 >Timoth Good
 >Nick Pope
 >Roger Leir


I forwarded your request to several on your list above.

Your friend,

Steven L. Wilson, Sr








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                  Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:42:03 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:09:01 -0400
Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' -


 >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:54:30 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life'
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:24:12 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life'

 >>>Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:14:34 -0400
 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life'
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>>Thanks for mentioning my book.

 >>>I hope you won't be disappointed by my portrayal of what I see
 >>>as the truth... in ways that go beyond ufology!

 >>Hi Bruce,

 >>You have _already_ informed us it is "fiction" bro!  <VBG>

 >>Regards,

 >>John 'takes more than a yarn to yank my chain' Velez ;)

 >There is a fiction story "wrapped around" a fact book... but...
 >a lot of people are going to identify with what I have written.
 >Some will recognize things they may never have connected with
 >UFO phenomena. Others will see 'their stories told' in this
 >fiction... which is based on what abductees have said.

 >Perhaps of more importance is the discussion which could be
 >characteriozed as "Now that you know about it, what are you
 >going to do about it?

Dear Bruce et al...

I have the utmost respect for your integrity as well as your
opines as demonstrated on this list as well as in your
research... which is real research...

But I am reminded of another book title - which memory stems
from my own personal physician when I was a young'n - many yarns
ago.  Literally.

Anyway, the doctor's name was Sal Cutolo. He was not only a
first rate doc, he was also an administrator at one of New
York's major and much maligned hospitals, Bellvue.

In the 50's and 60's Bellvue was commonly known as New York's
"nuthouse." It was the place where all the criminally as well as
otherly - insane people were brought by New York's finast.

So it's rep was a rap for the cops.

Anyway, Doctor Cutolo wrote a book. It's title left much to be
desired. It was called... are you ready for this..? 'Bellvue Is
My Home'!

All you hadda do was name yours, 'Abduction Is My Life'" and
you'd have had one leg up on Docca "C."

Respectfully (as much as a follower of Gesundt may be),


Jim Mortellaro,

Piled High and Deep







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                  Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:54:48 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:28:33 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Mortellaro


 >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:23:23 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety


 >>From: Chris Rolfe <astratech@supanet.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: UFOs And Aircraft Safety
 >>Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:13:35 +0100

 >>UFOs and aircraft near misses:- No Defence significance(?),
 >>definately a safety issue!

 >>This week I recieved a telephone call from a witness who
 >>observed 60 to 80 bright lighted objects crossing the sky slowly
 >>in a North easterly direction, on Tuesday, 19 June (2001), at
 >>approximately 18:00 hours (BST).

 >>Some of the objects were flying in clusters, others were in
 >>groups of three or five, and some were even on there own. One
 >>looked like it was pulsating red in colour, as if it was getting
 >>bigger then shrinking in size.

 >>Another of the objects seemed to suddenly go up verticaly,
 >>whilst another appeared to take on the shape of a jellyfish
 >>(this kind of object has been seen on more than one occassion
 >>here in Kent, UK).

 >>And where did this event occur? Right over the city of London!
 >>Amongst aircarft coming in and taking off from Heathrow airport
 >>etc...

 >>For god sake how many more times is this going to happen before
 >>someone gets OFF their bloody backsides and do something!

 >>More and more we are hearing of civilian passenger planes having
 >>near misses with UFOs not just in this country but worldwide.

 >>I know of at least two incidents here in the County of Kent. The
 >>most well known one occured on 21 April, 1991, when Alitalia
 >>Flight AZ 284 was flying from Milan to London Heathrow. At
 >>approximately 20:00 hrs, whilst over the Lydd Army Ranges, they
 >>had a near miss with what they described as a brown colured
 >>missile looking object. London ATC even monitored the object on
 >>radar.

 >>Within days our local MP (former Home Secretary), Michael
 >>Howard, the C.A.A. and the Ministry of Defence all stated that
 >>the object was a UFO! Now there's a a first.

 >>The MOD stating a UFO was in UK airspace.

 >>Bull! It was not a UFO as they would like to have us believe,
 >>but possibly a Target drone of UAV. People here in Kent now it,
 >>and we believe we know who was responsible. How ever as we do
 >>not have concrete proof we can't name them due to the fact we
 >>could get sued.

 >>The other incident occured on 16 September, 1996, when Jerry
 >>Anderson (former coordinator of UFOMEK), sighted and videod a
 >>white sphere like object over Wingham, Kent.

 >>The object was at the same height as passenger jets flying over,
 >>and was even filmed going through an aircraft vapour trail.

 ><snip>

 >>If you feel the same way I do, please do let me know. Maybe you
 >>don't agree with my comments, again let me know. And if any
 >>pilots or any other aircrew should be reading this who know of
 >>any incidents, don't you think it's time you spoke out, for the
 >>safety of your passengers. Please contact me if you wish.

 >>Finally please accept my sincere apologies, for the strong tone
 >>of this article. If I have offended anyone with my outspoken
 >>comments, then I apoligise.


 >Hi Chris,

 >You're not alone in your concern. I have been observing and
 >recording the same kind of objects you describe above for many
 >years. I live in New York City. (The borough of Queens) More to
 >the point, I live near Jamaica Bay and well within walking
 >distance to JFK International airport. Because I am an amateur
 >astronomer and long time sky watcher I am very familiar with the
 >airports' landing and take-off patterns. Many of the sightings I
 >have had have occurred within the same airspace that commercial
 >flights use for take-offs and landings. I can't tell you how
 >many posts I have written expressing my concern over that fact.

 >There was a collision in the skies over Mexico City between a
 >commercial flight and an "unknown/UFO" a few years ago which
 >only dented the aircraft. It _could_ have been a horrendous air
 >disaster. The airport in Mexico City is situated in the very
 >center of the city. Any accidents in the air would prove doubly
 >disastrous when compounded by the loss of life and property that
 >would take place on the ground as well.

 >But hey, we're all just a bunch of 'crackpots' telling 'tales.'
 >I guess we'll just have to wait for the first major accident or
 >loss of life before people start paying attention.


Dear all,

I refer you to a cheap and dirty way to both enhance as well as
demonstrate proof of such encounters. All it takes is a cheap
receiver, scanner actually, available at Radio Shack for less
than a hundred bucks (far less if you live near an airport, far
more if you live far from the airport).

Such scanner must cover the portion of the VHF spectrum from
about 135 thru about 146 MHz. After some weeks or days of
observing and listening, you will be able to hear the planes com
with tower as well as flight controllers nearby the airport.
Some of the conversations are revealing. And you will be able to
lock on to the most used frequencies.

I used to live near Westchester County Airport but now will live
far upstate. As a result, I need directional antennas to get
results. But results are fascinating as pilots indicate bogies
and unknowns. If you can _see_ what is going on, video _tape_ it
as well as _record_ the communications, you've got it knocked.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                 TUVPO Announcement On 'Disclosure Project'

From: Ali Erdogan <admin@tuvpo.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:15:14 +0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:34:24 -0400
Subject: TUVPO Announcement On 'Disclosure Project'


TUVPO ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE "DISCLOSURE PROJECT"

We have been following the project and notifications which are
started and carried out by Dr. Steven GREER, from the UFO
organizations and media, nowadays. Some press organizations
broadcast news about this subject.TUVPO is a great UFO related
organization in TURKIYE. For this reason, we have to express our
opinions about this subject. TUVPO represents a new trend, and
pays extreme attention when using the "UFO" term. As TUVPO, we
care about using scientific methods, and not to digress from
logical mechanisms surrounding our social life. Under the light
of these realities, as being an organization that makes
researches about this subject for several years, we claim that
up today no official extraterrestrial encounter has been
occured, but according to some coincident reports and clues,
there are some signs which may confirms such contacts.

We think that, no matter presented by popular names, single
witness statements, or copy video records which can not be
considered as the first degree original sources, are not
reliable proof. According to us, imaginary drawings of space
craft affect people negatively, who are interested in this
subject. We have desired that, while carrying out the project,
at least one proof that fits the significancy of the subject,
would have been shown in front of press, and the project would
have been started after solving the financial problems by a pre
work study. For us, the financial information written at the
pages of the project makes an impression that the project leads
a commercial aim. Same people have made similar explanations
periodically.It has to be considered that with the continiously
developing communications sytems the world is getting smaller
and therefore every action of worldwide UFO groups carry
responsibilities against the public and influence one another.
TUVPO feel free to reject such project considering the region
and people it represents and has the right to publish its ideas
and opinion. TUVPO believes that we are not alone in the
Universe, however because of the reasons explained above, we do
not agree with this declaration.

TUVPO

http://www.tuvpo.com/manifest.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 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                       Re: E-Mail Addresses? - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:13:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:36:00 -0400
Subject: Re: E-Mail Addresses? - Sandow


 >From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: E-Mail Addresses?
 >Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:55:05 -0700 (PDT)

 >I need you help, does anyone have the e-mail address of those
 >people bellow:

 >Nicholas Redfern
 >Michael Lindeman
 >Sun-Shi Li
 >Maurizio Baiata
 >Roberto Pinoti
 >Mark Carloto
 >Jaime Maussan
 >James Hurtak
 >Timoth Good
 >Nick Pope
 >Roger Leir


Thiago,

Tim Good doesn't have e-mail, unfortunately.

Best,

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 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                       Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:28:46 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:32:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Balaskas


 >Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:39:16 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Dust Bunny Hunt?

<snip>

 >I need to know how many samples (in total) were submitted to you
 >for the dust bunny experiment. How many were from Abductees and
 >how many from the control group.

Greeting John and 'Dust Bunny' participants!

A total of 53 different dust samples on Q-tips from 17 different
individuals have already been examined. The dust samples in two
very small plastic zip-lock bags you sent to me a few months ago
have yet to be examined through a microscope.

Each of the 53 dust samples were placed in covered petrie dishes
to prevent contamination from other dust samples and each dish
had a code on it to identify the individual who sent it. Even
though I could match the dust samples to the individuals who
sent them to me, I have no way of knowing for sure which dust
samples came from abductees and which from the control group.

 >Could you please return all samples and documentation to me
 >asap? If you have written up any results of your own
 >investigation please submit it to me along with the other
 >materials as I would like to publish it (as I originally
 >promised) to this list, and on the Web.

<snip>

Additional microscope time may reveal unusual or unexplainable
artificial looking objects that are present in two or more of
these dust sample but the results I obtained so far have not
shown this. It has been well over a year since the 'Dust Bunny'
project started. Although the bulk of the work was done
sporadicly by myself during my free time and most of the dust
particles were never examined or imaged (partly because of the
huge number of dust particles but largely because of the way the
dust was collected in very compact clumps and buried within the
Q-tip swabs), I guess our 'Dust Bunny' project must end
sometime.

As you requested, I will ship all 53 dust samples in their
original transparent plastic covered petri dishes I placed them
in along with my notes and all the microscope images I have
taken so far. The dust samples in these dishes can be
re-examined by anyone anytime. Maybe you or others will find
something of significance that I missed when re-examining the
same dust samples or when viewing the few high magnification
images I took of them.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 25

                   NIDS - The Case Of The Flying Varistor

From: Colm Kelleher <nids@earthlink.net>
Date: 25 Jun 2001 18:42:38 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:35:59 -0400
Subject: NIDS - The Case Of The Flying Varistor


National Institute for Discovery Science - http://www.nidsci.org


A family from Utah contacted NIDS with the following testimony:


A man was working in his yard about five miles west of Duchesne,
Utah during the last week of July 2000 at about 4:00 PM.
Unexpectedly, an object flew past his head traveling at high
speed, and embedded itself several inches in the soft sandy
soil. According to his testimony, the object flew past him
vertically with a rushing sound and missed him by two or three
feet. He immediately scanned all sections of the sky to search
for an airplane from which the object might have dropped. None
were visible in the sky at the time. The witness called his wife
and together they decided to dig the "meteor" out of the ground.

NIDS was informed by the family that the object was anomalous
and possibly extraterrestrial since it had fallen from the sky.
NIDS received the object on February 24, 2001.

A report on the NIDS investigation that unfolded can be found on
the NIDS website at www.nidsci.org in the 'Whats New' section.

Comments should be sent to: nids@anv.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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:34:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:16:40 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez


 >Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 19:18:36 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:36:43 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:45:20 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 ><snip>

 >>Hello Kevin, hi All,

 >>the dialog goes like so:

 >Serge:

 >>>>Hypnosis is so controversial that it remains useless as a tool
 >>>>to study the reality of a phenomenon. All considered, I propose
 >>>>that all data ralative to hypnosis be discarded.

 >>Kevin responds:

 >>>What does that leave us with?

 >>What it leaves us with are the thousands of reports many from
 >>perfectly credible people that recount "consciously experienced"
 >>encounters with UFOs and their occupants. All the way from Lonnie
 >>Zamora to the Allagash four and the Travis Walton five. I could
 >>go on with the list but you get the point I'm sure.

 >>>Serge, Greg, all -

 >>>And question #2: How do tales of past lives and Satanic ritual
 >>>abuse differ from tales of alien abduction?

 >>I know you asked Greg and Serge, so please excuse my intrusion
 >>into your conversation but I'd like to comment on your question.

 >>First, you choose to use phrases like, "tales of abduction" as if
 >>it is a _given_ that all abductees are merely 'telling stories'
 >>out of school. That's a prejudgement on your part and indicates
 >>a strong bias. How can you claim to be an objective research
 >>person if you have your mind made up _before_ hand?

 >>In answer to your question: I didn't report seeing Beelzebub or
 >>the minions of Satan. I didn't report being involved in any kind
 >>of 'rituals' Satanic or otherwise. What I _have_ reported is;
 >>while on my way home one night I saw a large UFO close-up. I ran
 >>away from it and experienced a whole night of missing time. In
 >>the morning there were signs that something _very_physical_  had

 >>happened to me. (I had been bleeding from my nose, and my eye
 >>was swollen out like a tennis ball. The ER physician told me
 >>that the eye swelling was not caused by "trauma" - I was not
 >>'hit,' - nor were there any signs of 'infection.' When an ENT
 >>specialist looked up my nasal cavity he confirmed what the ER
 >>physician had called, "signs of a 'surgical' procedure. I've
 >>never had a "surgical procedure performed in my head. So, in
 >>addition to frightening encounter with that silent, glowing,
 >>flying "thing," and the night of missing time, there was some
 >>physical components to the _event._

 >>That, Mr. Randle is the _difference_ between an abduction
 >>account and one of "Satanic or ritual abuse". No 'Devils' or
 >>'Demons' in my "tale" just UFOs and aliens. If you can't see
 >>the difference then you need to be in another business.  ;)

 >>>I have been meaning to post this question in the past, but just
 >>>haven't done it.

 >>Sometimes our first instincts are our best ones.  :)

 >>I return the helm to Greg and Serge. He's all yours gentlemen.

Hiya Kat, hi All,

Katarina writes:

 >John:

 >Thank you!! and that not only comes from me, but from several
 >other abductees/experiencers as well. Well said!

Kat, that's the biggest and the best compliment that any of us
could ever get. When other abductees tell us that we represented
ourselves and each other well, it helps us _all_ to 'heal' a
little more.

We speak with the same voice Kat. There is a reason for that I
believe. When I read one of your posts I always feel like you
took the words right out of my mouth. I hope you feel the same
about mine. That happens because of our _common_ focus. We are
both out here trying to raise public awareness and to inform.
Not to gratify any personal 'needs' or to promote ourselves.

Like yourself, I am always _very_ mindful of the fact that every
time I open my mouth in public (as an abductee) that those words
reflect on us all. Not just myself. It gives the communications
a certain perspective, point of view that would not be there if
they were 'egocentric' in origin. It's why I don't joke around,
or act like a fool on this List or anywhere in public. I have no
patience for people who are like the mean-spirited child at the
beach that destroys the sand castle that another child worked
hard on, the public contributions from some "abductees" are
counterproductive to the _work_ we are trying to do.

It takes forethought and consideration to participate in a
public dialog. I only wish that 'others' would follow the
example rather than 'going it alone' and always 'playing the
fool'. Sadly, there are abductees out here (in the public arena)
who consistently joke and confuse matters rather than inform the
public and clarify the issues. Folks who think and speak in
terms of "Me" instead of "We" when they post something to the
public net.

I wish I could recruit more of our peers to participate on this
List and other public venues. People like Debbie Jordan-Kauble,
or Lynne B. or Rusty Hudson. In addition to you and me, they
would raise the number (and the volume) of the responsible,
intelligent and 'sane' voices just enough to drown out all the
'static noise' being generated by a few. This is why I get angry
and I feel so disappointed when I encounter a person who
publicly proclaims him/ herself to be an "abductee" who then
proceeds to play the fool in public. They are the mindless acts
of individuals who have no concept that "many others" are
judging us -all- by what comes from them.

Thank you for all of your contributions as well Kat. Again, I'm
always so glad that you're here. I sleep better knowing that
you'll catch many of the ones that I miss, and I'll always try
to catch the ones that you miss. :) Between us not much is
likely to make it past the goalie! <LOL>

Like I said, I only wish there more of us. Sometimes I feel like
a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Not enough hours in
a day.<LOL>

 >Everyone who reads these types of "questions" and "statements"
 >like the ones we've responded to above, know what the writer's
 >true intentions are behind posting them to a public List. It's
 >just that most people don't have the time to constantly re-state
 >the obvious.

To tell you the truth neither do I Kat. It's just one of those
situations where you 'pick up the slack' without the need of any
one having to ask you to do it. What you say is true. Some folks
think that their poo-doo doesn't stink and that nobody can see
where they are coming from. It nice to know that as long as
folks like you (and me and others) are 'guarding the Gate',
those Noodniks won't be able to slip any 'wooden horses' past us
without a serious fight. <LOL>


Warmest regards,

your brother in arms, (in harm's way)


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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                    Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:48:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:20:53 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Velez


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:54:48 EDT
 >Subject: Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:23:23 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety

 >>>From: Chris Rolfe <astratech@supanet.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: UFOs And Aircraft Safety
 >>>Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:13:35 +0100

 >>>UFOs and aircraft near misses:- No Defence significance(?),
 >>>definately a safety issue!

<snip>

 >>>I know of at least two incidents here in the County of Kent. The
 >>>most well known one occured on 21 April, 1991, when Alitalia
 >>>Flight AZ 284 was flying from Milan to London Heathrow. At
 >>>approximately 20:00 hrs, whilst over the Lydd Army Ranges, they
 >>>had a near miss with what they described as a brown colured
 >>>missile looking object. London ATC even monitored the object on
 >>>radar.

 >>>Within days our local MP (former Home Secretary), Michael
 >>>Howard, the C.A.A. and the Ministry of Defence all stated that
 >>>the object was a UFO! Now there's a a first.

 >>>The MOD stating a UFO was in UK airspace.

 >>>Bull! It was not a UFO as they would like to have us believe,
 >>>but possibly a Target drone of UAV. People here in Kent now it,
 >>>and we believe we know who was responsible. How ever as we do
 >>>not have concrete proof we can't name them due to the fact we
 >>>could get sued.

 >>>The other incident occured on 16 September, 1996, when Jerry
 >>>Anderson (former coordinator of UFOMEK), sighted and videod a
 >>>white sphere like object over Wingham, Kent.

 >>>The object was at the same height as passenger jets flying over,
 >>>and was even filmed going through an aircraft vapour trail.

 >><snip>

 >>>If you feel the same way I do, please do let me know. Maybe you
 >>>don't agree with my comments, again let me know. And if any
 >>>pilots or any other aircrew should be reading this who know of
 >>>any incidents, don't you think it's time you spoke out, for the
 >>>safety of your passengers. Please contact me if you wish.

 >>>Finally please accept my sincere apologies, for the strong tone
 >>>of this article. If I have offended anyone with my outspoken
 >>>comments, then I apoligise.

 >>Hi Chris,

 >>You're not alone in your concern. I have been observing and
 >>recording the same kind of objects you describe above for many
 >>years. I live in New York City. (The borough of Queens) More to
 >>the point, I live near Jamaica Bay and well within walking
 >>distance to JFK International airport. Because I am an amateur
 >>astronomer and long time sky watcher I am very familiar with the
 >>airports' landing and take-off patterns. Many of the sightings I
 >>have had have occurred within the same airspace that commercial
 >>flights use for take-offs and landings. I can't tell you how
 >>many posts I have written expressing my concern over that fact.

<snip>

 >I refer you to a cheap and dirty way to both enhance as well as
 >demonstrate proof of such encounters. All it takes is a cheap
 >receiver, scanner actually, available at Radio Shack for less
 >than a hundred bucks (far less if you live near an airport, far
 >more if you live far from the airport).

 >Such scanner must cover the portion of the VHF spectrum from
 >about 135 thru about 146 MHz. After some weeks or days of
 >observing and listening, you will be able to hear the planes com
 >with tower as well as flight controllers nearby the airport.
 >Some of the conversations are revealing. And you will be able to
 >lock on to the most used frequencies.

<snip>

Hello Jim, hi All,

You're the radio ham. Can you send me a private e-mail and
recommend a couple of affordable scanners I can check out (brand
names would be helpful, I know nothing about radios.) And could
you please send me some simple instructions (written for a rank
beginner) as to how I will go about executing the signal
searches.

If I ever pick anything up of a 'ufological' nature I'll be sure
to share it with the List. ;)


Thank you in advance,

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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                  Re: UFO UpDate: E-Mail Addresses? - Hayes

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:03:33 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:23:03 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: E-Mail Addresses? - Hayes


 >From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: E-Mail Addresses?
 >Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:55:05 -0700 (PDT)

 >Hello,

 >I need you help, does anyone have the e-mail address of those
 >people bellow:

 >Nicholas Redfern

Hello Thiago,

Nicholas is giving a lecture at The International UFO Museum
and Research Center on 11th August and they give
<FRDL24973@cableinet.co.uk> as the contact address for
him on their events page.

(See http://www.iufomrc.com  or http://ufoinfo.com/conf/ for
details of lecture)

 >Timoth Good

As Greg Sandow has already pointed out Timothy is not on the
net, not publicly anyway.

I have looked at the website of his Random House, his
publisher and found the folowing at:
http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/faq.htm

Q. How do I get in contact with a Random House author/copyright
holder?

A. If they do not have a web site at Random House Authors, write
to the author

c/o The Random House Group,
20 Vauxhall Bridge
Road, London,
SW1V 2SA, UK.

To protect authors' privacy we cannot give out their contact
details in any circumstances. If the book is now out of print we
are unlikely even to still have the authors' details. To contact
an author in these circumstances is as difficult as it is to
contact any private individual. Perhaps an experienced
genealogist or detective agency could help!

Note that Timothy does not have a web site at Random House


Georgina Bruni might be able to put you in touch with Nick Pope.


Hope the above is of some help.

John Hayes

webmaster@ufoinfo.com

UFOINFO:- http://ufoinfo.com

Official Archives for UFO Roundup, 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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                  Re: Beckley, West Virginia Oddity - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:13:29 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:25:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Beckley, West Virginia Oddity - Hall


 >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 03:49:46 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Beckley, West Virginia Oddity

 >>Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 08:55:20 -0400
 >>From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Beckley, West Virginia Oddity

 >>Enclosed is an unusual account from a witness that I trust. Due
 >>to a specific request his name will not be listed, but I'm
 >>buying it as I regard this person as a quality witness. -- KY

 >>Hi Ken,

 >>Please consider this a private email. Although you may do what
 >>you like with the info, please keep me out of it,

 >>I was camping in WV near Berkley Springs last Saturday night,
 >>sitting back, watching the beautiful starry sky, and saw
 >>something. It was about midnight. I have decided that what I saw
 >>was a UFO. Moving from south to north, a streak appeared. I at
 >>first thought this was the longest shooting star I had ever
 >>seen. It was about the color of a star, kind of a bluish white.
 >>The streak stretched well across the sky, covering about 90
 >>degrees of the available 180, about 45 degrees each side of
 >>vertical.

 >>But what changed my mind about it was the speed, it moved very
 >>fast, covering the arc in about a few seconds, and , most
 >>importantly, an instant turn of about 30 degrees from the
 >>original path toward the west.

 >>This was an exact angular turn with no roundness or arc at all.
 >>Just changed directions like nothing I'd ever seen. Now Ken, you
 >>know I do a lot of reading about UFO's. This seemed to be a
 >>classic angular turn, as described in so many things I've read
 >>on UFO's. After the turn, the object continues on its path, and
 >>the light went out. Keep in mind the streak was illuminated, and
 >>no object was discernible. Of course, my eyes were following the
 >>path of movement, but I couldn't see it anymore. Then, within
 >>about another 2 seconds, there was a brilliant flash from the
 >>direction of where the object would have been had it not gone
 >>out.

 >>I was looking just about straight up. There was no sound, but I
 >>didn't expect a sound as the object appeared to be very high up.
 >>It seemed to be larger than a typical shooting star, but smaller
 >>and dimmer than a bright planet.

 >>Of course there's no way for me to judge a size or distance,
 >>just the impression that what I saw was far away. If you have
 >>any more questions, I'll do my best to answer. Although I was
 >>with 3 other people, no one else saw it, we were all talking.


 >Hello Kenny:

 >That sounds like a perfect description of a meteor _except_ for
 >the instant 30-degree turn. Even the flashout at the end says
 >"meteor".

 >Oh, I suppose it could be the final re-entry of some space junk,
 >but the sharp non-ballistic turn remains unexplained.

 >Anybody have any ideas? How about a spy satellite with some
 >self-destruct mechanism which misfired, but still having enough
 >oomph to deflect the main body?

 >Wouldn't that make a flash at the turning point also?


Larry et al.

I would like to know how far and for how long the glowing object
"continues on its path and the light went" out, which is not
clear from the description. Did he in fact see a still glowing
object continue moving laterally for some seconds or minutes of
arc after the 30 degree turn? Otherwise, sounds suspiciously
like a fairly standard illusion as a fireball breaks up and its
luminosity dimishes at the terminal point of its trajectory. A
final break-up could easily send a fragment off on a tangent, or
spiralling away.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                       Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:45:34 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:27:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Friedman


 >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:28:46 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:39:16 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 ><snip>

 >>I need to know how many samples (in total) were submitted to you
 >>for the dust bunny experiment. How many were from Abductees and
 >>how many from the control group.

 >Greetings John and 'Dust Bunny' participants!

 >A total of 53 different dust samples on Q-tips from 17 different
 >individuals have already been examined. The dust samples in two
 >very small plastic zip-lock bags you sent to me a few months ago
 >have yet to be examined through a microscope.

 >Each of the 53 dust samples were placed in covered petrie dishes
 >to prevent contamination from other dust samples and each dish
 >had a code on it to identify the individual who sent it. Even
 >though I could match the dust samples to the individuals who
 >sent them to me, I have no way of knowing for sure which dust
 >samples came from abductees and which from the control group.

 >>Could you please return all samples and documentation to me
 >>asap? If you have written up any results of your own
 >>investigation please submit it to me along with the other
 >>materials as I would like to publish it (as I originally
 >>promised) to this list, and on the Web.

<snip>

 >As you requested, I will ship all 53 dust samples in their
 >original transparent plastic covered petri dishes I placed them
 >in along with my notes and all the microscope images I have
 >taken so far. The dust samples in these dishes can be
 >re-examined by anyone anytime. Maybe you or others will find
 >something of significance that I missed when re-examining the
 >same dust samples or when viewing the few high magnification
 >images I took of them.


Just a word of thanks to Nick for all his hard work in this
experiment, and to John for getting it rolling.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                 Chilean Senator: "Chupacabras Must Be Taken

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:01:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:47:25 -0400
Subject: Chilean Senator: "Chupacabras Must Be Taken


SOURCE: Diario Las Ultimas Noticias (Chile)
DATE: Sunday, June 24, 2001

Carabineros and Investigations Dept. state "There is no new
information"

Carlos Cantero: "The Chupacabras must be taken seriously"

by

Mara Isabel Besnier


The Parliamentarian recalls that the infamous 'Chupacabras'" had
its moment of glory about a year ago.

North Region parlamentarian laments that a very definite reality
is concealted behind the mythic figure - the fact that peasants
were deprived of their livelihoods.

Between upset and agressive, Senator Carlos Cantero acknowledges
that many newspapers and radio shows have not taken him
seriously in regards to his claim about the Chupacabras, a
mythic beast which has supposedly paraded itself throughout
Chile, sucking blood and killing animals belonging to many local
residents.

These persons, says the Parliamentarian, were left without their
main source of income from one day to the next, and the
authorities have not made them privy to the results of their
investigations, into which public man hours and monies were
invested.

"Some tell me, hey, you sure are worried about the Chupacabras,"
says Cantero, for whom the real problem is that Carabineros,
the Investigations Dept. and the Legal Medical Service have
spent resources in studying what has happened to the dead
animals and in spite of this, no one, not even the Senator
requesting the reports, knows their outcome.

Perhaps the Chupacabras went out of fashion, because until the
middle of last year, everyone blamed it for the animal deaths,
but nothing else was ever heard about it.

Being fashionable is not the issue. What happens is that the
authorities are not aware that these humble locals lost animals
that are their livelihood and no explanations have been
forthcoming. Just the other day, more than 80 geese belonging to
a lady who lived off them died [under unexplained conditions].
She then asks me, "Now what am I supposed to do, since I'm even
ashamed to complain to the police about it?" What happened to
this woman with the geese happened to many others who owned
sheep, cattle, lambs...


M: So what's with the men from SAG who go to the sites, take
    samples and look serious when the TV cameras are focused on
    them?

C: I'd like to know the very same, because every time I ask,
    Carabineros and the Investigations Dept. tell me that
    "there's nothing new to report." And the fact that more
    animals have died, is that not new, then?


M: You requested a report from the government of El Loa. What
    did they tell you?

C: Yes. They sent me a report that says "no new developments."


M: What do you think is behind the "no new developments"?

C: I don't know. I don't mean to say that the Chupacabras is
    some strange creature, but it must be taken seriously,
    whatever it is. Maybe stray dogs are to blame, what do I
    know? But since everyone is afraid of rdicule in this
    country, they would rather go off on a tangent, not realizing
    that a family that lives off farming starves for a whole year
    if its animals die.


M: You're a geographer by training. Is there any scientific
    explanation for the existence of a Chupacabras?

C: Common sense tells me that this has to do with an animal that
    is migrating, probably from the Argentinean side, and in its
    desperation for food begins to kill animals. There's an
    objective side to it all - the fact that people find their
    animals dead, and there is no plausible explanation. If the
    Police Investigations Dept. and Carabineros performed an
    analysis, I would like to know what results were yielded by
    these inquiries. The entire country was treated to the sight
    of experts, in their various uniforms, covered in weapons and
    utensils, taking samples for further study. And when we ask
    for the results, they all squirm and say "there are no new
    developments".


M: Some said that the Chupacabras was nothing more than a ruse
    by some authorities to relegate the subject of unemployment
    or mismanagement of the subject of pollution to the back
    burner.

C: I don't know. All I know is that people were bereft of their
    source of income, their animals. I would like the director of
    Carabineros (Miguel Ugarte) to ask his lab exports what it
    was that they found in the hair samples taken, what have they
    found in the carcasses of the animals that turned up dead and
    were taken away to be autopsied. I'm not after any
    sensationalist figure. I'm after something rather solid and
    has to do with humble families that were left without their
    main source of income. Rather than helping them, it turns out
    that everyone is laughing to death about them, no one has
    given them a helping hand and no one has told them why their
    animals died.


M: What's your explanation for the silence?

C: Maybe its fear of ridicule, but maybe it's something more
    complex and there's a pact of silence between the agencies


M: Have you had any paranormal experiences? Maybe that's the
    explanation for the Chupacabras.

C: It could perhaps be an explanation, but to avoid speculation,
    I need scientists to give me an answer by breaking the
    silence and telling me what they found.


M: Ever had a paranormal experience?

C: No. I was educated in the scientific method as a geographer.
    I studied to analyze nature and that's why when I see a dead
    animal, and know that it has been examined, I want to see the
    results.


Between History And Legend

Although it lacks the bawdiness of the Trauco (who leaves women
pregnant) or the solemnity of the British monster that appears
in Loch Ness, the Chupacabras has been catalogued as the most
important "unexplained creature" of this century.

Its origin is recent, going back to March 1995 when the
residents of two towns in central Puerto Rico (Orocovis y
Morovis) discovered that their farm animals were being attacked
in a manner different from the one customarily employed by wild
beasts.

Goats, rabbits, chickens, cows and sheep turned up exanguinated,
and their carcasses presented a simple, small puncture mark on
their throats.

The Chupacabras subsequently "jumped" to Mexico, Brazil, the
United States and Peru, among other countries. In all locations
it appears with a different shape, but with a common element: it
draws its victims' blood cleanly and soundlessly.

The high point of Chupacabras activity in Chile was as of the
20th of April last year, when Calama delivered the first clues
to the beasts attacks. In six days, 215 animals died in a
similar manner. Almost everyone believed having seen it and the
peasants reported the deaths of their farm animals on a weekly
basis

The phenomenon was extinguished by mid-September, at least in
the media, when the last reported attack - a farmer in Buin
whose hens were killed - appeared in the press.


##############################################

Translation (C) 2001. Scott Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special Thanks to Rodrigo Cuadra, T.O.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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                    Argentina: Giant UFO Videoed In Cachi

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 16:24:17 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:53:52 -0400
Subject: Argentina: Giant UFO Videoed In Cachi


SOURCE: Diario 'El Tribuno' (Salta, Argentina)
DATE: June 25, 2001

"It was the size of a football stadium," claims witness.

Massive UFO Videoed in Cachi

"This is the most incredible document that has ever been seen
and I achieved it with my own camera," said journalist Antonio
Zuleta, who recorded a giant UFO.

Journalist, mountaineer and marathon runner Antonio Zuleta
nervously contacted the newsroom of El Tribuno, and with good
reason. "Listen to me, brother," he said. "I've achieved the
most amazing document. Last night (Saturday 23rd) I shot some
fantastic footage. I captured a giant Unidentified Flying Object
(UFO) on tape. It was moving slowly over a ridge located some
800 meters from town. It was immense - perhaps the size of a
football stadium. And the recording I have in my hands is so
good that I think it will become a document of unquestionable
value to researchers," he emphasized.

Antonio Zuleta, 59, is a well known character: he works for the
FM San Jose radio station and his adventurous spirit has made
him famous. He holds the world record of eight ascents of the
mythic Nevado de Cachi, one of the mountains which forms,
together with Aconcagua, one of the eternal challenges of Andean
mountaineers has starred in a number of sports achievements.
Among them, linking his hometown with the capital of Salta on
bicycle and by jogging.

Known as "El flaco Zuleta" (Skinny Zuleta), this tall, rangy,
angular faced, mustachioed athlete has one further obsession:
UFOs. "Its just that their presence here isn't a recent thing,"
he explained." There are hundreds of accounts regarding strange
apparitions and even landings by these craft. I'm almost 60 and
have heard stories since I was a kid. This is the reason why the
subject interests me so, and I never go anywhere without my
camcorder. I have a late model Sony which has become my new
travelling companion," Zuleta expanded.


The Sighting

During his phone conversation with El Tribuno, Zuleta furnished
the details of his "close encoutner of the second time" as
ufologists define these documented sightings.

"It was nearly 21:00 hours on Saturday. Cachi was still ablaze
with the St.John's Night bonfires. I was home with my wife
Silvia and my four year old daughter, who was burning with a
fever. "We've got to go to the hospital," said my wife after
pointing out to me that the girl wasn't doing so well. We
covered her with a poncho, put her in the backseat of the car
and took off. As always, I brought my camera along.On the way
out of town, we noticed a flash over a hill at a distance of 800
meters and ehaded westwards. The object was enormous and moved
slowly at asome 15,000 meters , which leads me to believe it
must have been the size of a football stadium. It gave off
lights like streamers of red and green. It was incredible. I
filmed it for over 20 minutes and even had to climb onto a mound
to do it, since as it moved, it vanished from my angle of
vision. It suddenly accelerated to a fantastic speed and was
lost in space," said the witness.


##############################
Translation (C) 2001. Scott 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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                           Re: Zyziggy - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:56:19 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:56:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Zyziggy - Friedman


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 02:54:10 EDT
 >Subject: Zyziggy
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >Folks:

 >Have you noticed?

 >A 7.9 magnitude quake in Peru and a big volcanic eruption on the
 >Pacific Rim in the Phillipines, both near a Zyziggy, the perfect
 >lineup of Earth-Sun-and Moon near the Solstic and a Solar
 >Eclipse. Strains are greatest with the perfect lineup.

 >On the other hand, it could be a coincidence.


My good friend James O. Berkland, a retired Geologist in
California, has for 12 years been publishing 'SYZYGY' a monthly
earthquake newsletter and been very successful at predicting
earthquakes based on  when things line up.

The current issue noted June 20-27 as a prime earthquake
window.

Try http://syzygyjob.com

Subscriptions available.

He almost got fired for predicting the world series quake.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

             Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:20:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:59:13 -0400
Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life' - Maccabee


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:42:03 EDT
 >Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life'
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:54:30 -0400
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: A New Book - 'Abduction In My Life'
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>>

<snip>

 >Anyway, Doctor Cutolo wrote a book. It's title left much to be
 >desired. It was called... are you ready for this..? 'Bellvue Is
 >My Home'!

 >All you hadda do was name yours, 'Abduction Is My Life'" and
 >you'd have had one leg up on Docca "C."



I suppose, but I don't consider abduction to be comparable to
the 'funny farm'.

Nor do I want to break my leg, in the theatrical or real 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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                     Re: UFOs & Science Fiction - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:03:11 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:31:53 -0400
Subject: Re:  UFOs & Science Fiction - Hatch


 >From: Raymond Perrez <r.perrez@libertysurf.fr>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: UFOs & Science Fiction
 >Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:06:26 +0200

 >[Non-Subscriber Post --ebk]

 >>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 06:51:02 -0700
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: UFOs & Science Fiction

<snip>

 >>Hello Errol and all:

 >>It looks like Raymond has yet to get those pages completed. I
 >>found no questionnaire, just three virtually empty pages which
 >>all call one another; plus some pop-up banner ad for something
 >>or other in French.

 >I have just checked my website and found all the pages,
 >including the questionnaire, to be fully functional. I have also
 >accessed it from the URL below, and it is working perfectly
 >fine. In fact I have started receiving some answers. Great
 >stuff.

 >Thanks a lot for your help.


Hello Raymond:

I just tried the questionnaire pages, and they are working fine
now.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                        Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:31:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:02:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Felder


 >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:28:46 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

<snip>

 >Although the bulk of the work was done sporadicly by myself
 >during my free time and most of the dust particles were never
 >examined or imaged (partly because of the huge number of
 >dust particles but largely because of the way the dust was
 >collected in very compact clumps and buried within the
 >Q-tip swabs), I guess our 'Dust Bunny' project must end
 >sometime.


Hi Nick.

Forgive me if I am not up to snuff on the details of this 'Dust
Bunny' project, but I do have to ask one question. You mention
Q-tips being used to collect the dust samples. Were these
individually packaged sterile Q-tips?

Bobbie

==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

               Re: Beckley, West Virginia Oddity - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:20:28 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:59:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Beckley, West Virginia Oddity - Mortellaro


 >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 03:49:46 -0700
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Beckley, West Virginia Oddity


 >>Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 08:55:20 -0400
 >>From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Beckley, West Virginia Oddity

 >>Enclosed is an unusual account from a witness that I trust. Due
 >>to a specific request his name will not be listed, but I'm
 >>buying it as I regard this person as a quality witness. -- KY

 >>-----------

 >>Hi Ken,

 >>Please consider this a private email. Although you may do what
 >>you like with the info, please keep me out of it,

 >>I was camping in WV near Berkley Springs last Saturday night,
 >>sitting back, watching the beautiful starry sky, and saw
 >>something. It was about midnight. I have decided that what I saw
 >>was a UFO. Moving from south to north, a streak appeared. I at
 >>first thought this was the longest shooting star I had ever
 >>seen. It was about the color of a star, kind of a bluish white.
 >>The streak stretched well across the sky, covering about 90
 >>degrees of the available 180, about 45 degrees each side of
 >>vertical.

 >>But what changed my mind about it was the speed, it moved very
 >>fast, covering the arc in about a few seconds, and , most
 >>importantly, an instant turn of about 30 degrees from the
 >>original path toward the west.

 >>This was an exact angular turn with no roundness or arc at all.
 >>Just changed directions like nothing I'd ever seen. Now Ken, you
 >>know I do a lot of reading about UFO's. This seemed to be a
 >>classic angular turn, as described in so many things I've read
 >>on UFO's. After the turn, the object continues on its path, and
 >>the light went out. Keep in mind the streak was illuminated, and
 >>no object was discernible. Of course, my eyes were following the
 >>path of movement, but I couldn't see it anymore. Then, within
 >>about another 2 seconds, there was a brilliant flash from the
 >>direction of where the object would have been had it not gone
 >>out.

 >>I was looking just about straight up. There was no sound, but I
 >>didn't expect a sound as the object appeared to be very high up.
 >>It seemed to be larger than a typical shooting star, but smaller
 >>and dimmer than a bright planet.

 >>Of course there's no way for me to judge a size or distance,
 >>just the impression that what I saw was far away. If you have
 >>any more questions, I'll do my best to answer. Although I was
 >>with 3 other people, no one else saw it, we were all talking.

 >>--

 >>U F O R e s e a r c h
 >>http://home.fuse.net/ufo/


 >Hello Kenny:


 >That sounds like a perfect description of a meteor _except_ for
 >the instant 30-degree turn. Even the flashout at the end says
 >"meteor".

 >Oh, I suppose it could be the final re-entry of some space junk,
 >but the sharp non-ballistic turn remains unexplained.

 >Anybody have any ideas? How about a spy satellite with some
 >self-destruct mechanism which misfired, but still having enough
 >oomph to deflect the main body?

 >Wouldn't that make a flash at the turning point also?


Dear Larry, Kenny, bListers and Errol;

Larry, you wrote....

 >Wouldn't that make a flash at the turning point also?

I admire you Larry. I think you are the cat's meow, the capo
di tutti capi. And when you cook Eye Tralian, you make me
proud... in spite of your serious aversion to carrots. Or as
Gramma used to call 'em... Carrotza... taking care to roll
the "r's" an all.

But this one time, you've completely disillusioned me. I am
fraught with a most perplexing and strange inkling that you've
been Grippling in lieu of Grolshing. Bad, bad Larry.

The answer to your queery... querry, is of course as simple as
the word, "Klass!" As in "You ain't got no class, Klass."

Like that.

Here it is. As obvious as the nose on your face, Lawrence.

It is simply, swamp gas circling the planet Venial.

Sheesh! Am I surprised at you!

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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Gates

From: Robert Gates < RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 02:43:49 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:00:47 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Gates


 >From: James Bond Johnson JBONJO@aol.com
 >Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:26:47 EDT
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Johnson
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:37:37 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories Can Be Created

 >>I had the good fortune to know many vets from WW2, through
 >>present. Of interest is that they do recall events, traumatic,
 >>and otherwise that happened to them during the war. What I
 >>always found interesting is they were able to "recall" the
 >>events *without* the need of regressive hypnosis.

 >>The same thing appears to be true with UFO reports, landings or
 >>whatever. Take the Roswell crash. Everybody recalled in the
 >>present state so to speak their story or event.

<snip>


 >As I also have stated previously, after I was "guided" as to my
 >recollections by various interviewers - especially Kevin Randle
 >some 42 and 43 years after the Roswell Incident (I call it being
 >"Randleized") - I know for a fact that it is easy to be misled
 >and to then to make innocent erroneous statements.

I am curious What do you mean by being "guided" to your
recollections?  If you were guided to details, was that
information correct (i.e. the info from the various interviewers
who "guided" you) or incorrect?


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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                  Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 02:50:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:03:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest - Gates


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 21 Jun 2001 08:52:36 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Hall Resigns MUFON In Protest

<snip>

Bill wrote:

 >I parted with MUFON in 1997 because of their "unscientific"
 >approach to the Phoenix Lights that I elected to investigate
 >because at the time it was literally in my own backyard. Even
 >though I wrote an initial report for the Journal, this was
 >undermined by one Richard Motzer who undermined all attempts at
 >objective investigation. He is now gone from MUFON, but left a
 >false trail on the Phoenix Lights issues.


Hi Bill,

Whatever happened to Richard these days?

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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                    Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 03:00:17 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:05:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Gates


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:17:33 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

<snip>

Robert Wrote:

 >>When the Gerald Anderson story was a hot item so to speak,
 >>I was speaking to Walt Andrus over the phone. When I ask him
 >>what he thought...he was always very forth right and straight
 >>forward... he said the story appeared to be phony. His wisdom
 >>proved out much later.

Kevin Responded:

 >On the other side of that coin, I got a strongly worded
 >handwritten note from Walt Andrus about the validity of the
 >Anderson tale. In fact, Walt wrote, "Who influenced your
 >response, the U.S.A.F." There's the government agent nonsense
 >again.

Don't know about any of that. When I spoke to Walt he said he
thought it was phony


 >This reminds me of a sight gag I would have liked to see in the
 >original Titanic movie. As the boat sinks, Cliffton Webb enters
 >a hatchway and on the bulkhead is a sign that says, "To B Deck."
 >I thought there should have been another that said, "Not to B
 >Deck."

Perhaps the "Afterworld" Promonade?

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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                  Cydonian Imperative: 06-26-01 Kurt Jonach

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 01:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:07:15 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 06-26-01 Kurt Jonach


6-26-01

Kurt Jonach Addresses the "Eye"

See:

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

Kurt Jonach, brains behind the the ever-vigilant Electric
Warrior website, suggests that there may be more to the "disk"
(see installment above) than meets the eye:

[image]

"I'd like to suggest that this feature may not be purely
decorative. Even artistically speaking, form often follows
function.

"Understand I'm just 'brainstorming,' but I get a very strong
impression of a larger circular area, which runs along the
bottom lip of the 'almond' feature, and also encompasses your
'discoid' feature.

"So, I'm wondering if this might be intended to represent an
eyeball? I think we all understand how a spherical eye is
enclosed inside a protective socket, and covered by an eyelid.

"I've drawn a few ellipses on the last two MOC Mars Face images
so you can see what I mean. I don't think either of these two
images were taken directly overhead, and that may be why the
'circular' areas are distended in these views."

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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                   Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:09:07 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:15:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Friedman


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:15:02 -0500

 >>From: Tim Haley <TimHaley@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:57:59 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>To: UFOUpdates@home.com

 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:19:12 +0100
 >>>Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:26:43 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit - Rimmer

 >>>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:06:22 -0300

 >>Stan made the following comments to Jerome Clark:

 >>>>An excellent text for journalists is 'The Journalist's Legal
 >>>>Guide' by Michael G. Crawford, Carswell Thomson Professional
 >>>>Publishing. There is a 51 page Chapter on Defamation. Perhaps
 >>>>you might learn something about the difference between fair
 >>>>comment and defamation. I have never objected to dealing
 >>>>withdifferences of opinion. I have objected to defamation,
 >>>>especially in a major newspaper.

 >Actually, these last two sentences are something of a whopper.
 >Jenny Randles was hardly the last person Stan has threatened
 >with legal retribution. In at least one case I am aware of, a
 >prominent, respected UFO researcher was threatened after writing
 >an article that expressed a point of view with which Stan
 >disagrees; Stan was not even mentioned in the piece. Other
 >individuals have informed me of their own unfortunate
 >experiences with Stan.

Jerry, here is an unamed person making unsubstantiated
allegations and I am a liar! I thought whoppers were for
hamburger lovers. Is your source any more reliable than that for
your question about my "still" getting monthly payments from
Jenny? Again are we talkiing about defamation or a difference of
opinion? I trust you are aware (Though perhaps not) that there
can be defamation by innuuendo? Afraid to say what the article
was?

Surely you are aware that Kevin and I have had much
correspondence and articles about our differences of opinion?
His attorney threatened me with a libel action. I didn't
threaten him. Surely you are aware of much correspondence
between myself and Phil Klass? I published some in my "Final
Report on Operation Majestic 12". "TOP SECRET/ MAJIC" notes
other conflicts. There is a difference between defamation and a
difference of opinion, even if you can't see it that way.

When will you be asking why I was involved with the
assassination of JFK and the sinking of the Titanic?

 >>The letter clearly states "The Evening News now with regret
 >>recognizes that those articles were defamatory of both Mr.
 >>Friedman and Mr. Harris ... "

 >The wording of the letter is irrelevant. Only a court can make
 >a determination of whether defamation has occurred.

Confessions don't count????

 >>So obviously it was MEN's opinion that the articles were
 >>defamatory as well.

 >MEN's lawyers drafted a letter saying whatever needed to be
 >said, whether it was strictly accurate or not, to get Friedman
 >and Harris off their backs. Big deal.

 >Jerry Clark

I guess now you are psychic and you believe that both the MEN
and Jenny were dishonest in their statements admitting
defamation and apologizing? So why did it take so long? I Guess
they were telling whoppers..

If you know so much about defamation law, why were you so wrong as to what
would happen to the actions against Jenny and the MEN?

The list may be interested in a recent blistering opinion by the
Ontario Court of Appeals against the CBC in a libel case about a
TV program. It could have been settled years ago for $60,000.
Now it will cost the CBC (actually the taxpayers) $2.8Million.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                             Re: Zyziggy - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:21:57 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:16:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Zyziggy - Young


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Zyziggy
 >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:56:19 -0300

 >My good friend James O. Berkland, a retired Geologist in
 >California, has for 12 years been publishing 'SYZYGY' a monthly
 >earthquake newsletter and been very successful at predicting
 >earthquakes based on  when things line up.

 >The current issue noted June 20-27 as a prime earthquake
 >window.

 >Try http://syzygyjob.com


Stan:

Thanks for this site.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

               Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories - Wilson

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:31:23 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:19:41 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories - Wilson


 >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:34:49 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 19:18:36 -0400
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...


 >Hiya Kat, hi All,

 >Katarina writes:

 >>John:

 >>Thank you!! and that not only comes from me, but from several
 >>other abductees/experiencers as well. Well said!

 >Kat, that's the biggest and the best compliment that any of us
 >could ever get. When other abductees tell us that we represented
 >ourselves and each other well, it helps us _all_ to 'heal' a
 >little more.

 >We speak with the same voice Kat. There is a reason for that I
 >believe. When I read one of your posts I always feel like you
 >took the words right out of my mouth. I hope you feel the same
 >about mine. That happens because of our _common_ focus. We are
 >both out here trying to raise public awareness and to inform.
 >Not to gratify any personal 'needs' or to promote ourselves.

 >Like yourself, I am always _very_ mindful of the fact that every
 >time I open my mouth in public (as an abductee) that those words
 >reflect on us all. Not just myself. It gives the communications
 >a certain perspective, point of view that would not be there if
 >they were 'egocentric' in origin. It's why I don't joke around,
 >or act like a fool on this List or anywhere in public. I have no
 >patience for people who are like the mean-spirited child at the
 >beach that destroys the sand castle that another child worked
 >hard on, the public contributions from some "abductees" are
 >counterproductive to the _work_ we are trying to do.

 >It takes forethought and consideration to participate in a
 >public dialog. I only wish that 'others' would follow the
 >example rather than 'going it alone' and always 'playing the
 >fool'. Sadly, there are abductees out here (in the public arena)
 >who consistently joke and confuse matters rather than inform the
 >public and clarify the issues. Folks who think and speak in
 >terms of "Me" instead of "We" when they post something to the
 >public net.

 >I wish I could recruit more of our peers to participate on this
 >List and other public venues. People like Debbie Jordan-Kauble,
 >or Lynne B. or Rusty Hudson. In addition to you and me, they
 >would raise the number (and the volume) of the responsible,
 >intelligent and 'sane' voices just enough to drown out all the
 >'static noise' being generated by a few. This is why I get angry
 >and I feel so disappointed when I encounter a person who
 >publicly proclaims him/ herself to be an "abductee" who then
 >proceeds to play the fool in public. They are the mindless acts
 >of individuals who have no concept that "many others" are
 >judging us -all- by what comes from them.

 >Thank you for all of your contributions as well Kat. Again, I'm
 >always so glad that you're here. I sleep better knowing that
 >you'll catch many of the ones that I miss, and I'll always try
 >to catch the ones that you miss. :) Between us not much is

 >likely to make it past the goalie! <LOL>

 >Like I said, I only wish there more of us. Sometimes I feel like
 >a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Not enough hours in
 >a day.<LOL>

 >>Everyone who reads these types of "questions" and "statements"
 >>like the ones we've responded to above, know what the writer's
 >>true intentions are behind posting them to a public List. It's
 >>just that most people don't have the time to constantly re-state
 >>the obvious.

 >To tell you the truth neither do I Kat. It's just one of those
 >situations where you 'pick up the slack' without the need of any
 >one having to ask you to do it. What you say is true. Some folks
 >think that their poo-doo doesn't stink and that nobody can see
 >where they are coming from. It nice to know that as long as
 >folks like you (and me and others) are 'guarding the Gate',
 >those Noodniks won't be able to slip any 'wooden horses' past us
 >without a serious fight. <LOL>

 >Warmest regards,

 >your brother in arms, (in harm's way)

 >John

Dear John:

I must tell you thank you again for your well-stated comments
about speaking out regarding abductions and the phenomenon in
general, as well as your compliment to me.

It is difficult for abductees to come out and post on a public
list, but you have an excellent point. We should recruit others
like us. Why not ask them? I think I will and I think it will be
good for others on this list to hear from them.  We will see
what we can get accomplished in that area.

Keep up the good work!


Sincerely,

Katharina








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                 Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... -

From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:03:46 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:22:38 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... -


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 08:29:46 EDT
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:36:43 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:45:20 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>>>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:43:16 -0400

Dear Serge, John, Kevin, Listers:

<snip>


 >>>>Hypnosis is so controversial that it remains useless as a tool
 >>>>to study the reality of a phenomenon. All considered, I propose
 >>>>that all data ralative to hypnosis be discarded.  What does that
 >>>>leave us with?

Serge, I find your blanket statement more than a little
disturbing. In the past, your intelligence, your ability to
logically deduce has been demonstrated many times on this list.
So, why are you so adamantly advocating investigating the
probability of a 4th or 5th dimension using only methods that
address our 3 dimensions?  You are either not thinking clearly
(which, I hope is _not_ the case), or you are afraid.

I can understand terror. If you have children or grandchildren,
and you think about the possibility that _they_ are being
"visited," and you have no (nada, zip, zero) control over what
happens to them _while_ they are being visited (screaming for
you to come rescue them from their terror and pain) then you may
_begin_ to feel the terror that "we believers" have to deal with
from the time we are 5 or 6 years old.

It would be _very_ nice to have a few UFO skeptics and
researchers lined up on "our" side of the playing field. (No
phony-baloney "new age" Greer/Leir side-show, carpet-baggers
allowed. They'd turn-tail and run the minute they were
approached with an anal probe.)

So, to summarize, "we believers" don't give a *hit what form or
method is used to determine the "reality" of our experiences. If
you had an anal probe rammed up your butt, how important do you
think it would be if the experience took place in the 4th or 5th
dimension?  My guess is, you'd feel all 3 dimensions, and wish
like hell it was all happening in another dimension. When you
wake up and realize it all happened and you are bleeding, tell
me what difference it makes then. Same with laser burns, whether
they were inflicted "accidentally" or not. They hurt in this
dimension.

Now, Serge, Kevin, John, listers... what difference does it make
if the experiences are occuring in the 4th, 5th, or 6th
dimension, OR are perpetrated by Satan's minions or fairies or
angels?  Does your butt still hurt?  I hope so.


Sincerely,

Sue









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 26

             Barney Barnett [was: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit]

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:46:16 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:25:29 -0400
Subject: Barney Barnett [was: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit]


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:31:21 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >Not only does it say nothing about a crash, but it gives no hint
 >of any extraordinary event. There is nothing in the diary but
 >the mundane, including the weather each day. I find it
 >extraordinary that Barney could have been involved in something
 >as exciting as this but give NO hint of it, even if that hint
 >was disguised in some fashion.

 >Given the diary and the dates, we were trying to figure out how
 >Barnett could have been involved. We learned, through various
 >interviews that Barnett did get as far south as Carrizozo and as
 >far east as Roswell. Mainly this was for meetings and the like,
 >but again, there is nothing in the diary to confirm this.

 >And, if we look at the diary closely, we find that the diary
 >says, on July 2, 1947, "Barney went to the high country near
 >Datil." This means, unfortunately, the crash would have had to
 >take place on July 1, not July 2.

Kevin,

Not necessarily. He may have camped over night and encountered
the crashed craft on his way back to the office on the 3rd.
Datil is near the Plains of San Augustin. There isn't enough
detail here to tell much of anything but it is certainly
possible that he was near the Plains on the 3rd. Do you have
Barney's location on the 29th and 30th of May and June 1st and
2nd.?

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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                        Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 14:05:29 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:29:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Velez


on 6/25/01 9:06 PM, Todd Lemire at tlemire@home.com wrote:

 >>Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:28:46 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >>>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:39:16 -0400
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >><snip>

 >>>I need to know how many samples (in total) were submitted to you
 >>>for the dust bunny experiment. How many were from Abductees and
 >>>how many from the control group.

 >>Greeting John and 'Dust Bunny' participants!

 >>A total of 53 different dust samples on Q-tips from 17 different
 >>individuals have already been examined. The dust samples in two
 >>very small plastic zip-lock bags you sent to me a few months ago
 >>have yet to be examined through a microscope.

 >>Each of the 53 dust samples were placed in covered petrie dishes
 >>to prevent contamination from other dust samples and each dish
 >>had a code on it to identify the individual who sent it. Even
 >>though I could match the dust samples to the individuals who
 >>sent them to me, I have no way of knowing for sure which dust
 >>samples came from abductees and which from the control group.

 >>>Could you please return all samples and documentation to me
 >>>asap? If you have written up any results of your own
 >>>investigation please submit it to me along with the other
 >>>materials as I would like to publish it (as I originally
 >>>promised) to this list, and on the Web.

 >><snip>

 >>Additional microscope time may reveal unusual or unexplainable
 >>artificial looking objects that are present in two or more of
 >>these dust sample but the results I obtained so far have not
 >>shown this. It has been well over a year since the 'Dust Bunny'
 >>project started. Although the bulk of the work was done
 >>sporadicly by myself during my free time and most of the dust
 >>particles were never examined or imaged (partly because of the
 >>huge number of dust particles but largely because of the way the
 >>dust was collected in very compact clumps and buried within the
 >>Q-tip swabs), I guess our 'Dust Bunny' project must end
 >>sometime.

 >>As you requested, I will ship all 53 dust samples in their
 >>original transparent plastic covered petri dishes I placed them
 >>in along with my notes and all the microscope images I have
 >>taken so far. The dust samples in these dishes can be
 >>re-examined by anyone anytime. Maybe you or others will find
 >>something of significance that I missed when re-examining the
 >>same dust samples or when viewing the few high magnification
 >>images I took of them.

 >>Nick Balaskas

Hiya Todd, Nick, All,

Todd asks:

 >John and Nick,

 >How does the 17 break down in abductees vs. control?

That was (my) first question to Nick. Nick is correct when he
says it wasn't important for (him) to know which samples were
from which group, but _I_ need to know. According to Nick I will
be able to cross reference the samples with the senders
(participants) when I get them back. I hope Nick has all the
material organized for me in a way that will make it easy for me
to make the match-ups on my end. I know who the abductees are.
Once I have the materials and figure what sample belongs to who,
I'll let you know how many abductees participated.

 >I hope we had more than 2 abductees participate!?

There were at least 5 that I know of. (Including me)

 >There seems to be a bit of a contradiction from an
 >earlier message (UFO Updates, Wed., 21 Mar 2001 from Velez) that
 >either of you may be able to clear up for me. I first quote from
 >Nick in the above message:

 >"Additional microscope time may reveal unusual or unexplainable
 >artificial looking objects that are present in two or more of
 >these dust sample but the results I obtained so far have not
 >shown this."

 >Then from John within the 21 Mar 2000 Updates posting:
 >
 >"Nick mentioned above (within the 21 Mar 2000 posting T.L.) that
 >he found that "such objects" as were found in the original study
 >were "common" in the dust bunny samples that were submitted."

 >Could you please clear this up for me Nick?  Were the 'particles'
 >common in _all_ the 'dust bunny' samples, _two or more_, or
 >_none_? Or were you speaking about Nancy Turner's 'original'
 >study which would be an entirely different matter altogether?

Her name is Nancy _Talbot_. In the comment above I was quoting
something that Nick had said to me privately that I felt was
important/significant enough to share in public. (I thought
everybody should know.)

 >Nick, I also noted that within the 21 Mar 2000 Updates posting
 >that you never responded to John's questions which were posed
 >within that same posting.  Were these answered in a private
 >e-mail to John?

I still have many questions that have not been addressed. But, I
have tried not to "pressure" Nick too much because he has been
conducting this analysis on his own time. He is involved in many
other projects and I have tried to be as patient as I can be in
terms of not nudging him for the results.

What changed for me was;

1. I'm getting tired of telling folks (that inquire regularly)
that I haven't heard anything definitive from Nick and that I
won't know anything until Nick submits some kind of 'report' to
me.

2. I haven't received any 'report' from Nick. (It's been a year)

3. I had promised the participants that we would perform this
experiment in as timely a fashion as possible.

So, knowing how busy Nick is, and not wanting to be a
pain-in-the-ass to him, I posted my last request for the samples
and a report on any results publicly to the UpDates List. It's
my way of letting everybody know what's happening in one 'swell
foop.' ;) What "prompted" the post is in the response that
follows.

 >John or Nick, will Nancy Turner's 'original' procedures and
 >results be posted alongside the dust bunny results as well, for
 >comparison purposes or is there already an online reference for
 >Nancy Turner's 'original' work on dust samples?  I'm aware of
 >Levengood's and Rueben's but not of Turner's and I'd like to
read >more about her results.

About two weeks ago I called Nancy Talbot and asked her if there
was 'anything new' in terms of findings regarding Dr.Levengood's
study, and then I asked if she'd be willing to conduct an
identical analysis on the samples that we had gathered for our
"Dust Bunny Hunt." She told me that she would contact the
electron microscopist that was conducting the analytical work
for them if he could squeeze us into his schedule. It's been two
weeks and I haven't heard back from her. I'll do a 'follow-up'
shortly.

That, is why I asked Nick to send me back all the materials
along with a brief report on his own studies so that: 1. I could
get the report out to the participants (who have exhibited the
patience of Saints) and to the list. (As I promised)

The second I have those materials and NIck's report in my hands
I will post it here and on the Web. I will also submit the
material to Nancy Talbot (if she is able to do it) for further
analysis using the same methods and hardware that were employed
in the original study.

I "hope" so anyway. Keep your fingers crossed.

 >It sounds as if the tests by Nick weren't yet completed....is
 >this true?

Like I said Todd, Nick is a busy guy with a lot on his plate.
But I too was growing concerned and for that reason (and those I
expressed above,) I requested the materials and a report.

 >If so, why the exchange of hands now?

Hopefully so I can get the material into Nancy Talbot's hands.

 >My reason for asking is, are we to expect only a
 >partial and incomplete report on the sample testing written by
 >Nick, sent to the list via John or has Nick written up his
 >results in report form which will be posted by John, or will John
 >be generating a report from Nick's notes or what?

I'm not a trained scientist Todd. I plan to post whatever
results Nick submits to me in the form of a report to this List
and on the Web. I will not be commenting on the technical
aspects of Nicks study or his report because I am not really
qualified to do so. I 'organized/coordinated' the experiment and
I will be the conduit for the public for any reports that may
stem from the study, but I am not planning on submitting a
"report" of my own. "WENGMIWYG!" (Whatever Nick Gives Me Is What
You'll Get!)

 >I know this is an e-mail full of questions but I pose them in a
 >friendly and curious manner, yet I feel they need answering and
 >are relevant to the study and it's final results.  I don't mean
 >this to be an interrogation, but rather an honest appeal for an
 >answer to my questions.  Any insight either of you could provide
 >would be greatly appreciated.

I gave it my best shot Todd. Hope this cleared up some stuff for
you. If you have anymore questions just post em to the List.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                        Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 14:08:42 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:31:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Velez


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?
 >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:45:34 -0300

 >>Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:28:46 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >>>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:39:16 -0400
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >><snip>

 >>>I need to know how many samples (in total) were submitted to you
 >>>for the dust bunny experiment. How many were from Abductees and
 >>>how many from the control group.

 >>Greetings John and 'Dust Bunny' participants!

 >>A total of 53 different dust samples on Q-tips from 17 different
 >>individuals have already been examined. The dust samples in two
 >>very small plastic zip-lock bags you sent to me a few months ago
 >>have yet to be examined through a microscope.

 >>Each of the 53 dust samples were placed in covered petrie dishes
 >>to prevent contamination from other dust samples and each dish
 >>had a code on it to identify the individual who sent it. Even
 >>though I could match the dust samples to the individuals who
 >>sent them to me, I have no way of knowing for sure which dust
 >>samples came from abductees and which from the control group.

 >>>Could you please return all samples and documentation to me
 >>>asap? If you have written up any results of your own
 >>>investigation please submit it to me along with the other
 >>>materials as I would like to publish it (as I originally
 >>>promised) to this list, and on the Web.

 ><snip>

 >>As you requested, I will ship all 53 dust samples in their
 >>original transparent plastic covered petri dishes I placed them
 >>in along with my notes and all the microscope images I have
 >>taken so far. The dust samples in these dishes can be
 >>re-examined by anyone anytime. Maybe you or others will find
 >>something of significance that I missed when re-examining the
 >>same dust samples or when viewing the few high magnification
 >>images I took of them.

 >Just a word of thanks to Nick for all his hard work in this
 >experiment, and to John for getting it rolling.

 >Stan Friedman

Hi Stan,

Thanx. ;) Nick is a terrific guy for taking this on and doing
all the real labor involved! I'm simply trying to do my 'best'
as always.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                        Re: Secrecy News -- 06/26/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:17:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:35:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Secrecy News -- 06/26/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
June 26, 2001

**      DOE CLASSIFIES PRIVATELY HELD INFO
**      DOE WITHHOLDS HEU STUDY


DOE CLASSIFIES PRIVATELY HELD INFO

The Department of Energy (DOE) announced today that it has
classified as Restricted Data "certain privately generated
information concerning an innovative isotope separation process
for enriching uranium."

This is the first time in over twenty years that the government
has invoked the Atomic Energy Act to classify privately held
information that originated outside of government.  It is a
highly unusual infringement on freedom of speech that has been
criticized in the past as unconstitutional.

Under the executive order on national security classification,
information cannot be classified unless it is "owned by,
produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States
Government."

But under the Atomic Energy Act, Restricted Data is defined as
"all" information concerning nuclear weapons design and related
topics that has not been declassified -- regardless of who owns
or possesses it.  So if a private citizen were to conceive of a
nuclear weapon design and scribble it down on a napkin, the
government could hypothetically claim a lawful right to seize
control of the napkin.

The Atomic Energy Act and  the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 are
the only instances in which national security controls on
private information are asserted by the government.  The
constitutionality of such laws has not been tested in court.
However, in 1979 the government did win a preliminary injunction
to block publication of freelance writer Howard Morland's
article on "The H Bomb Secret" in The Progressive magazine,
claiming that it contained Restricted Data.  An appeal of that
decision was mooted when the information was published
elsewhere.

In the case announced today, the government classified certain
aspects of the Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation
(SILEX) process, developed by SILEX Systems, Ltd. of Australia
and acquired by USEC, Inc.  The SILEX process represents a new
and reputedly cheaper alternative to current uranium enrichment
methods such as gaseous diffusion or gas centrifuge technology.

Since SILEX could facilitate uranium enrichment for nuclear
weapons as well as for nuclear power plants, officials explain
that there is a national security interest in protecting details
of the technology.

Classification of the SILEX technology was achieved through a
"non-adversarial" process, a DOE official said, and will not be
contested by the owners.

In response to criticism by public interest groups of the whole
concept of "privately generated Restricted Data," DOE adopted a
regulation in 1998 dictating that only the Secretary or Deputy
Secretary of Energy could classify privately generated
information, that he or she must do so in writing, and that
public notice must be given in the Federal Register whenever
such authority was exercised.

The classification of the SILEX technology provided the occasion
for the first such Federal Register notice, which was published
today.  See the text of the notice here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/silex.html

Related background concerning the SILEX process and nuclear
cooperation between the US and Australia is available in this
1999 letter to Congress from President Bill Clinton:

http://www.fas.org/news/australia/991103-australia-wh1.htm


DOE WITHHOLDS HEU STUDY

In 1996, the Department of Energy pledged to publish a
comprehensive report entitled "Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU):
The First 50 Years."  The report was in fact completed in 1997
and formally declassified earlier this year, but it is still
being withheld by DOE.

The HEU report, originally requested by the Secretary of Energy
in February 1996, describes the history of US production,
disposition, and inventories of highly enriched uranium.

"This report will provide assistance to worldwide
nonproliferation efforts," according to a 1997 DOE statement, by
promoting increased transparency and accountability. "It will
also assist regulators in environmental, health, and safety
matters at domestic sites where this material is stored or
buried."

Yet for no valid reason, and despite its legal obligations under
the Freedom of Information Act, DOE has still failed to disclose
the 1997 report, which by now is four years out of date.  No
explanation for the continued withholding of the document could
be elicited from a DOE spokesman.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has surpassed the United States in
transparency on this front.  In 1998, the UK disclosed its total
stockpiles of uranium and plutonium in an unclassified
memorandum to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"The United Kingdom is the first State among Nuclear Weapon
States ... to take this step," the memo stated.  See the text of
the memo in IAEA Information Circular (INFCIRC) 570, dated 21
September 1998, here:

http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Documents/Infcircs/1998/infcirc570
.shtml

******************************
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                Re: Info On Recent Missouri Activity? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 01:05:10 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:37:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Info On Recent Missouri Activity? - Hatch


 >From: Chris Burns <Thurstonoreggae@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:05:49 EDT
 >Subject: Info On Recent Missouri Activity?
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >Hello all,

 >I am looking for help in locating any sources of information on
 >the Missouri activity of the past five years in two specific
 >areas.

 >The first area has been investigated by Ted Phillips and is
 >referred to by the name Letten Hollow (I have not found a town
 >by that name).

 >The second area is in Southern Missouri and has been
 >investigated by JoAnne Scapellini and Gary Hart.

 >Outside of two articles in the MUFON Journal (sore topic, I
 >know) and Mr. Phillips' web site, I have come up empty in my
 >search for information.

 >My interest in the Missouri activity comes from the similarity
 >it has with the activity in Pine Bush, NY, which I have
 >witnessed a handful of times.

 >I am particularly interested in the type of phenomena in both
 >Pine Bush and Missouri that are more associated with hauntings
 >or poltergeist events.

 >Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

 >Chris Burns


Chris:

As for Letten Hollow, I find nothing in the usual gazetteers
etc.  The name could be a convenient invention, or maybe a
purely local name that is not officially registered anywhere.

I used names like that as a child, Dead Man's Cave... Motorcycle
Hill...

There is ONE website I browsed up with something about odd
events there, one which you probably already know about:

  http://www.angelfire.com/mo/cptr/video.html

...and where I read the following:

Our camera is now monitoring the site of numerous anomalous
events taking place since december 15, 1998. The witnesses wish
no publicity & have asked that the location not be indicated.
The area is located in a rural & quite remote section of the
state.

Searching for Letten alone turned up lots of genealogy sites of
no use at all.


Sorry

- 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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                       Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:37:55 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:53:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Balaskas


 >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:31:40 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Felder

 >>Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:28:46 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 ><snip>

 >>Although the bulk of the work was done sporadicly by myself
 >>during my free time and most of the dust particles were never
 >>examined or imaged (partly because of the huge number of
 >>dust particles but largely because of the way the dust was
 >>collected in very compact clumps and buried within the
 >>Q-tip swabs), I guess our 'Dust Bunny' project must end
 >>sometime.

 >Hi Nick.

 >Forgive me if I am not up to snuff on the details of this 'Dust
 >Bunny' project, but I do have to ask one question. You mention
 >Q-tips being used to collect the dust samples. Were these
 >individually packaged sterile Q-tips?

Hi Bobbie!

A search of the UFO UpDates archived files starting from around
early 2000 will provide you with the detailed background for the
'Dust Bunny' project which was initiated amd organized by John
Velez. I first heard about this project when John mentioned my
name in connection to this project on Errol's 'Strange Days...
Indeed' UFO radio show. Around that time I had already examined
many other suspected UFO or E.T. artifacts, including what at
first seemed to be an obvious alien implant in certain x-rays
that John sent to me earlier (unfortunately, it was proven
otherwise).

In order to have an easy and identical way for all participants
of this project to collect dust samples, Q-tips were used. The
dust covered Q-tips containing samples taken from three
different locations within the home of the participants were
then placed in small zip-lock plastic bags and mailed to me.

Since the initial phase of this project was essentially a visual
examine of the dust particles and to make comparisons with the
dust from other samples, sterile Q-tips was not an absolute
necessity. To prevent the individual dust samples from becoming
contaminated by local dust, the dust covered Q-tips were
transferred directly from the zip-locked bags to small covered
petrie dishes which could readily be examined by microscope
without further disturbing the specimens.

This type of study could have gone on indefinitely considering
that even the smallest of the 51 dust samples sent to me
contained literally thousands of potentially important particles
to examine. Since high magnification video images of all 51 of
these dust samples taken through the microscope will be made
available to others to examine, maybe they will notice some
particle(s) worthy of checking into further or possibly prove to
be actual physical evidence for the alien abduction phenomena.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                            Humanoid Contact 1993

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:34:40 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:54:48 -0400
Subject: Humanoid Contact 1993


Dear Colleagues,

I have just put the Humanoid Contact Cases of 1993 on my web
site. You can find these at the following:

http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/1993Cont.html

These have been  put together by Albert Rosales, to whom I am
indebted for his research on these cases.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                    UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:37:21 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:57:10 -0400
Subject: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday


Does anyone have additional info on the alleged UFO video shown
on Fox News Channel yesterday (Monday, June 26)? This video was
taken from a helicopter and shows a flying saucer, possibly in
New York City, partially behind a skyscraper. The cameraman in
the helicopter follows the flying saucer as it darts to another
location, then -with a bang- the object suddenly bolts at the
helicopter and veers off abruptly into the sky, leaving a vapor
or smoke trail in its wake. This video on Fox News Channel also
featured Jeff Sainio.

 From my perspective I couldn't catch any audio for the news
piece, but was left with the impression that FOX NEWS felt the
video somewhat important, as it was played several times in the
presentation. But what I saw looked fakey in places, and I could
see a few obvious things that were questionable, such as the
camera operators ability to so readily and accurately follow the
object that shot away at such incredible speed, and also saw
that there were seemingly 'defined edges' in the object as it
approached the helicopter when, in fact, a video camera would
more accurately have picked up a simple blur of something moving
that fast. This made me suspect it to be some sort of
professionally-produced special effect.

This looked like some pretty interesting footage and I'm
surprised at not having heard anything about it anywhere on
either CURRENT ENCOUNTERS or UFO UpDates. Is there more on this
anywhere?


Thanks,

KENNY YOUNG
--
      U F O   R e s e a r c h
     http://home.fuse.net/ufo/









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 26

                  Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:08:21 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:59:52 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety - Mortellaro


 >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:48:18 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety


 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:54:48 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:23:23 -0400
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: UFOs And Aircraft Safety

 >>>>From: Chris Rolfe <astratech@supanet.com>
 >>>>To: <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: UFOs And Aircraft Safety
 >>>>Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:13:35 +0100

 >>>>UFOs and aircraft near misses:- No Defence significance(?),
 >>>>definately a safety issue!

 ><snip>

 >>><snip>

 >>I refer you to a cheap and dirty way to both enhance as well as
 >>demonstrate proof of such encounters. All it takes is a cheap
 >>receiver, scanner actually, available at Radio Shack for less
 >>than a hundred bucks (far less if you live near an airport, far
 >>more if you live far from the airport).

 >>Such scanner must cover the portion of the VHF spectrum from
 >>about 135 thru about 146 MHz. After some weeks or days of
 >>observing and listening, you will be able to hear the planes com
 >>with tower as well as flight controllers nearby the airport.
 >>Some of the conversations are revealing. And you will be able to
 >>lock on to the most used frequencies.

 ><snip>

 >Hello Jim, hi All,

 >You're the radio ham. Can you send me a private e-mail and
 >recommend a couple of affordable scanners I can check out (brand
 >names would be helpful, I know nothing about radios.) And could
 >you please send me some simple instructions (written for a rank
 >beginner) as to how I will go about executing the signal
 >searches.

 >If I ever pick anything up of a 'ufological' nature I'll be sure
 >to share it with the List. ;)

 >Thank you in advance,

By the weekend... perhaps others of the List would be
interested, so I shall address the mail to UpDates. The
interesting transmissions are nearby the larger airports...JFK
and LaGuardia in NYC, Atlanta, O'Hare, etc. in terms of the
sheer volume of traffic (communications). And of course, you are
close to JFK.

Smaller regional airports are now entertaining more
"professional" pilots, as opposed to the Commuter type pilots,
who are certainly not Boeing 737 and heavier pilots ...

Considering that most regional airports are picking up the slack
from larger international and national airports due to
convenient location (White Plains, Myrtle Beach, Newburg et al
...) they are now landing not heavy, but 737's and there
equivelants. Piloted by jockeys from the major airlines, and not
the major airlines' commuter equipment (STOL turboprops).
Traffic in these airports are also getting heavy, for those of
you who do not live near major airports... the listening is
still available to you. Narrow band FM is in use for the most
part.

The point being, these pilots are professional, more experienced
and tell it like it is... The traffic on UHF from White Plains
alone is fascinating.

Using directional antennas (simple vertical beams made from old
TV antennas - with up to six elements) - makes long range
communications easy to pick up. Traffic already in the air has
the advantage of line of sight, which is the modus operandi of
UHF signals as many of you know. Being on the ground is
therefore, a distinct dissadvantage, as you are usually below
the curvature of the earth. Just like not being able to see a
ship at sea which is just a few miles away. Directional antennas
pick up more RF energy and make it easier to ignore signals from
nearby aircraft by the expediency of pointing the antenna away
from the offending overloading signals....

More in a later post.... if Errol permits. With attachments for
simple instructions for a beam antenna, brand names or models
from Radidio Shack.

Just point and listen while filming and looking. Neat huh?

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 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                    UFO - GROUP 3 - New Telephone Number

From: Chris Rolfe  <northkent@ic24.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:08:11 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:02:52 -0400
Subject: UFO - GROUP 3 - New Telephone Number



UFO SIGHTINGS

UFOTREK: UFO sightings recorded information line.

TEL: 0870 046 2270 (24 hours) normal national B.T rates apply.

TEL: + 44 870 046 2270 (If calling from overseas)

Email: astratech@supanet.com

Promote your own UFO group on our info line, FREE!

Do you want to publicise a forthcoming meeting or event?

Do you have any news that would interest our listeners?

Just leave a message after this week s news.

Produced by UFO MONITORS East Kent (UFOMEK), England


Best regards,

Chris Rolfe

- Keep watching the skies









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                Filer's Files #26 -- 2001 FAA UFO Disclosure

From: George A. Filer <WeeklyFiles@filersfiles.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:50:24 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:06:02 -0400
Subject: Filer's Files #26 -- 2001 FAA UFO Disclosure


Filer's Files #26 -- 2001, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
June 25, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts, Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com.

UFO REPORTS come in from Georgia, South Carolina, Ohio,
Missouri, Minnesota, Texas, Oregon, Washington, Canada, Mexico,
Chili and England.

BOOTID METEOR SHOWER: On June 26 and 27, Earth will pass
through the dusty debris trail of comet 7P/Pons-Winnecke.

DISCLOSURE PROJECT CAMPAIGN STARTS NATIONWIDE

BOULDER, COLORADO -- The Disclosure campaign got off to a great
start on June 23, 2001, at the large auditorium at the
University of Colorado. A capacity crowd was on hand to listen
to Dr. Stephen Greer and watch the video testimony of twenty
government witnesses concerning UFO and extraterrestrial
events. He said he thinks people from outer space are
monitoring Earth, in part to monitor nuclear weapons. We in the
Disclosure Project are asking that everyone help by writing or
faxing letters to your senators and representatives asking for
congressional hearings. Not everyone agrees with Greer's
approach that assumes the Aliens are friendly. Maureen Murphy
of the Allies of Humanity said, "We don't disagree with Dr.
Greer on the disclosure agenda, because the aliens are taking
women against their will, they're taking the eggs, they're
creating a race that will have an allegiance to the visitors."

Editor's Note: My point of view is that very little real
research is being done to determine what the Aliens are
planning. They may be friendly and they may have ulterior
motives. First we have to acknowledge they are here and then we
have to determine their motives. Dr. David Jacobs of Temple
University in his book, "The Threat" indicates the abduction
phenomenon is far more ominous than he had thought.

EXTRATERRESTRIAL PRESENCE IN OUR WORLD -- Its apparent the
Disclosure Project testimonies are breaking new ground. The UFO
community owes a debt of gratitude to the Disclosure Project
staff for bringing together some of the most knowledgeable
people in the UFO community. As a group they are the most well
informed personnel I, personally, have met concerning UFOs and
alien visitation. Most are firsthand witnesses who either saw
UFOs or government documents while on active duty proving the
alien existence. The testimony of over twenty government
employees for the first time provides real evidence of the
reality and existence of the phenomenon. I have attended dozens
of conferences and most of the speakers had no real evidence,
and often they had wild stories that made me wonder if they
were part of counter intelligence plot to confuse. If you want
to understand what is going on, I suggest
www.disclosureproject.org. These persons have indicated they
are willing to swear un! der oath in front of Congress that they
are telling the truth. If they perjure themselves they can go
to jail and forfeit all retirement pay and allowances. I wonder
if most speakers at conferences are prepared to do likewise?

In almost every field of endeavor speakers are required to have
credentials but the field of Ufology often takes the wildest
claims as a reason to give the speaker top billing. I would
think the minimum requirement would be to have passed a test as
a field investigator or to have worked in a sensitive
government position. I found the testimonies of the Disclosure
Project witnesses to mesh and fit smoothly together giving a
much clearer picture of the entire UFO puzzle. The witnesses
had a few minutes to talk at the National Press Conference but
all could talk for hours about various cases. The witnesses and
Dr. Greer have already come under attack and you can expect to
see various criticism of the witnesses.

Remember in our nation one or two witnesses can convict and
send a man to prison or death. Now twenty witnesses can go into
a court of law, or to the court of public opinion and testify.
These twenty government personnel are backed up by another 400
witnesses waiting to testify, if given immunity. The witnesses
include high-ranking personnel ready to appear in Congressional
Hearings under oath to prove the existence of UFOs and their
intelligent occupants.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION -- In the US the FAA controls
the skies in peacetime. It seems reasonable to learn the truth
about UFOs from representatives of the FAA such as John
Callahan the former head of Accidents and Investigations. He is
one of the key witnesses of the Disclosure Project with stacks
of government documents, computer printouts, and video proving
the existence of a UFO over Alaska in 1986. Several civilian
and military radar's tracked the object while multiple pilots
saw the giant craft. It would be very difficult for anyone to
dispute his testimony, which is backed by numerous witnesses.
He testified that he provided this information to key
government personnel at a briefing at the Reagan White House.
The CIA issued instructions that the meeting never happened and
no information should be released to the public. John admits
the FAA generally will not release information about UFOs to
anyone including the pilots. John Callahan provided more real
e! vidence in five minutes of testimony than I have heard in
years of UFO conferences. I encourage all in the field of
Ufology to help uncover witnesses of similar stature. There are
points of disagreement between Dr. Greer and myself, but he has
reached the witnesses that can make a difference. It is time to
publicize the testimony of witnesses of the caliber of John
Callahan and the other speakers at the Disclosure Project.

SOUTH CAROLINA TEARDROP UFO

FOLLY BEACH -- My wife and I were sitting on a porch
overlooking the Atlantic Ocean on June 18, 2001. It was about
10:30 PM when we saw a lime green, teardrop shape ball of light
fly across the lower quarter of the sky soaring down, toward
the water. It was only visible for about a second or two. The
thing gave off enough light so that while it traveled under the
clouds, it lit up a dime-sized area behind it as it dropped. I
have no idea whether or not this was a meteor. It made no
significant turns -- no change in speed, and was dropping in an
arc. After exclaiming surprise, my wife and I compared notes,
and decided we'd seen essentially the same thing. E-mail
report.

GEORGIA SIGHTINGS

NORCROSS -- New MUFONGA member Tony Richard's of Atlanta
reports that on June 17, 2001, at about 7:35 PM, he, his wife,
and mother, were driving down Highway 141 north at Medlock
Bridge Rd. just north of Norcross proper (Gwinnett County).
They observed an object that appeared to be hovering over the
tree tops off toward the horizon. The object appeared to be
silver or gray in color, round to acorn shaped and about
thumbnail size at arm's length. Estimated distance was about 3
miles. Tony stated that due to the terrain, they were able to
observe the object for about 35 seconds until trees obscured
their view. Shortly thereafter, their view of that area
returned through a break in the trees and it was gone. Tony
indicated that he was sure it was not an airplane or
helicopter, but considered that it might be some sort of hot
air balloon, but it disappeared much too quickly for that type
of slow moving craft. Jim Clifford, Deputy Director for Georgia
Investigations, will be! conducting a preliminary assessment of
this event.

LAWERENCEVILLE -- MUFONGA received a WUFOD report regarding a
fast moving blue object/light over Lawrenceville on Sunday
night, June 17. 2001, at about 10:30 PM. By luck, DDI Jim
Clifford and his wife, who also live in Lawrenceville, were out
at that time and observed this event. Jim indicated that it was
definitely a large meteor. I exchanged notes with Peter
Davenport at NUFORC about this and he stated that NUFORC had
received some similar reports of a blue light for that time.
Interestingly enough, John Thompson, our retired SD, also
noticed an unusual light in La Grange at about 10:30 PM, a
reddish light with white around it, appearing to bounce a wee
bit. John was thinking it might be an aircraft light, but it
disappeared before he could get a good fix on it.

LA GRANGE -- John Thompson also reported a hoaxed event on June
11th. Troup County authorities received reports of a possible
aircraft going down. A search located a large piece of flimsy
plastic with a light wooden frame at the bottom and signs of a
heat source for lift. This was 40 feet up in a tree. A local
witness reported a "long tube shaped object with smoke and
flames going down behind some trees." This is an easily made
device, usually consisting of a dry cleaner's plastic clothes
bag (cover), balsa wood at the bottom, scotch tape, and small
candles along the balsa wood frame. The bags that are tinted
light blue can look pretty colorful when sent aloft. Since the
invention of chemical light sticks, some 'navigation' lights
can now be added to these things! Beware! Thanks to Tom Sheets
GA State Director MUFONGA@webtv.net

OHIO DISC SIGHTING IN 1933

GIBSONBURG -- John Schuessler reports he received the following
report from a 78 year old. The witness states, in 1933, I was
ten years old and returning from school in one block from my
home at 424 W. Stevenson Street. I heard a whining sound and
looked up, passing from south to north I saw two discs
connected by a thin shaft moving slowly through the air. I
could not guess the height or size of the discs. At the time I
was deeply in the hobby of building model airplanes, the balsam
and tissue paper variety with rubber band motors. I ran home
and told my mother I had seen a different model airplane. She
dismissed my story as imagination. I have searched through
libraries to see if I could see a picture in books like the
discs I had seen to no avail. I am now almost 78 years old and
have never forgotten this. I am a retired FBI agent and was not
dreaming when I saw what I saw. Thanks to John Schuessler MUFON
HQ Shoot1066

SOUTHINGTON --  I am writing to you to report a UFO sighting for
a friend of mine. His name is Bud Andres and he lives on Route
422. As a hobby he skydived in his younger years and has
aviation knowledge. On Father's Day, June 17, 2001, he was
outside his place at between 10:15 and 10:30 PM watching the
sky. He saw two bright objects going down very fast and at one
point they crossed, then suddenly one went up in the air
following the path of the other bright object. At the point
lowest to the ground they formed a V. He said that when the two
objects came together their speed slowed. Mr. Andres said that
at first he thought he was seeing two meteorites and then they
both shot up in the air. Thanks to Donna Bahor ludvik@juno.com

MINNESOTA VIDEO AND DIGITAL IMAGES OF UFOs

MINNEAPOLIS -- MUFON Field Investigator Casey W. Holt writes,
there was another May 18, 2001, sighting of a glowing object
emitting from a second Object. This is the third UFO report for
this date (see previous Filer's Files). A man near the
intersection of Highway 10 and Interstate 35W videotaped a
glowing object at 9:38 PM from the yard of his home. This
object was in view for at least three minutes and proceeded
west-northwest against the surface wind direction. At one
point, a glowing object appeared to fall from the main object,
and then faded out. This appearance and behavior is similar to
that of a hoax hot air balloon powered by candles. The object
may have been too bright to be a dry-cleaning bag balloon. The
video shows the object after it had past so you are looking at
the end view and the brightness will overexpose the CCD image
some creating the rounded effect. Both witnesses described the
object as like a large orange glowing brick shape with
pulsating st! reams of orange light flowing through the main
rectangular section like liquid metal. In the front were two
round whiter areas similar to intake tubes. The orange areas
were set against a dark background structure and there was a
large whitish almost transparent dome something like a
jellyfish. They interpreted the size to be as big as a large
airplane and perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 feet high. About 5 to 8
whitish lights came shooting out after it had passed, and are
seen on the video. The estimated distance was 1.5 to 3 miles
and 4000 feet up when it was last seen on video going behind
tree branches and in a WNW compass direction of 298 degrees.
Thanks to Casey Holt, and Bill McNeff State Director
mcneff@worldnet.att.net

CHISHOLM -- ISUR reports the witness was out in her yard at
7:00 PM on June 23, 2001, while her 15 year old son was testing
our new digital camera. He was shooting the sky, the river, our
40 acres of land, etc. When we went to download the images to
the computer today, two UFO's showed up! He did NOT see them
while testing camera. My husband was near him, he did NOT see
or hear anything.

The photo's show a disk shaped, metal object. One is going
toward the ground, as though crashing to the ground with FIRE
out the back end. It is about 80 feet above our yard. The next
picture is another UFO, two minutes earlier, hovering above our
swamp, a foot above the ground. They are identical objects,
with metal. They were NOT airplanes; they were very small,
about the size of a small car. We went to the location, we
looked at the tree line in the photos, but cannot get to the
spot, since it is in the swamp. Thanks to Tom Sheets and ISUR

Jeff Challender reports his friend Les Wille, had a UFO
sighting on Wednesday, June 13, 2001. He told Jeff, I went to
the farm this morning to check things over because of the bad
storms all night. I took my Sony Cybershot still camera along
to take pictures of any storm damage. I went to the north field
and saw a gray thing flying real fast back and forth up high
over the distant field. I decided to use high resolution and
zoom in on it. I got a real UFO on this shot Jeff. Wille is in
shock. I felt as if it knew I was there. As soon as I took the
picture, it sped off at an incredible speed. This is a first
for me and it is no bird or plane. I'm still shaking.  It's too
bad it wasn't closer.

Jeff says, he has been taping International Space Station (ISS)
passes over Sacramento for over a month now, as part of my
activities in Project P.R.O.V.E. Last Sunday, June 17, 2001, he
recorded an ISS pass at 62 degrees altitude, and caught three
reddish strobing objects buzzing past the station in
succession. There were also several white flashes. At one
point, the ISS passed so close to Polaris, the North Star, that
for just a second they almost merged. It's all on 8 mm tape
taken from Sacramento, California.

Editor's Note: I encourage people to watch the passage of the
Shuttle and ISS overhead. Frequently UFOs can be seen following
them. Jeff is trying to get a collection of these photos and
you can help. Also, Jeff is having back surgery so lets send
him our prayers and some video to enjoy.

MISSOURI FLYING TRIANGLE

COLUMBIA -- Jim Hickman reports that a Flying Triangle was
sighted while heading home on June 7, 2001. The witness reports
he noticed lights in the northwest sky that initially looked
like a plane. It didn't look "quite right." It had two lights
in front where normally a plane on approach would have one.
There were no flashing lights. It circled and flew off to the
southwest. The next night at 10:39 PM, he saw the plane again.
I stopped the truck and saw three whitish lights on three tips
and a red light in the center. THEN it hit me, It's a triangle!
I also saw a few additional lights on the body of the craft,
which seem to be recessed and bit yellowish. It took the same
path as Thursday. I am sure other people saw this craft but, as
I did at first. Later I realized that I had seen the same
"headlights" as described by the witnesses I interviewed in
1999 who reported seeing a triangular craft. Thanks to Jim
Hickman and The Hickman Report.

MISSOURI SIGHTING THROUGH TELESCOPE

ST. PETERS -- Marc Spess reports, "I just wanted to tell about
the sighting I had on June 22, 2001, looking through my
telescope at 3:31 PM." I had a hunch I might find a UFO because
I had seen footage of a UFO that went in and out of a cloud. I
decided to put my telescope up and watch the rim of clouds to
see if maybe there was something to see. After about ten
minutes, I saw for about three seconds a ball or sphere shaped
object move between two clouds rather slowly. It reflected the
sun which was opposite to it in the sky. I am going to try and
get a camera mounted on the telescope to see if I can catch one
again and snap one in action. Also I was able to see about ten
to fifteen swift moving translucent "things" that one after the
other shot past the view of my telescope all in the same
direction. I was able to track one briefly, which was slow
enough to follow. I have seen them in my binoculars, but they
were probably insects. The telescope was pointed east and f!
ocused at the altitude of the clouds. I have also witnessed
these spheres in the past low to the ground. I would like to
mention that at very high altitudes I have also observed birds.
The telescope I use is a Mead 1000 mm f/11 Mirror-Lens D=90 mm.
I recently found a picture that looks very similar to what I
saw "the translucent things" Some looked exactly like this
picture: http://www.manari.com/gal2pic2.htm. Thanks to Marc
Spess animateclay@home.com

TEXAS MUTILATION OF CATTLE LEAVES RANCHERS PUZZLED

BRYAN, Texas (AP) Ranchers in Burleson County aren't quite sure
who or what is responsible for a string of mysterious cattle
deaths over much of the last decade, but they suspect it's some
sort of cult. In most of the cases, which happen about once or
twice a year, the bulls' abdomens have been sliced open and
their genitals are missing. Sometimes, the tongues and internal
organs have been removed. Adding to the ranchers' frustration,
the valuable beef is always left to rot. Burleson County
authorities say they've been unable to link any of the deaths
in this rural county about 100 miles northeast of Houston." If
we could find any indication humans are involved, we would do
more," Burleson County Sheriff Gene Barber told the
Bryan-College Station Eagle. "It is a mystery to me." Barber
said his investigators haven't found any of the telltale signs
of human involvement - tire tracks, shoe prints, shell casings,
or cigarette butts. So they list natural causes as the reaso! n
for the deaths. However, rancher Johnny Lyon is convinced a
cult mutilated his prized Charolais bull just to take its blood
and organs. Ranchers are growing impatient and scared. "What if
I had come out to my ranch at the time people were there?" he
said. "What would they do to me? That tells me I need to carry
a gun everywhere I go, shoot first and ask questions later."
Sunday Edition of Bryan-College Station Eagle.

OREGON STROBE LIGHT SIGHTING

PORTLAND -- Brad Hoover and his wife have been watching the
skies as they travel around the area and have seen a lot of
aircraft taking off and landing at the Portland International
Airport. Brad says, "On the night of June 15, 2001, at 2200
hours, we were returning home when we saw a strange light in
the clear night sky." It was traveling southeast, heading over
the air space of the Portland Airport. It was strange because
it was strobing a bright white light (not a normally seen
flashing light as on other aircraft.) The strobe was
intermittent. It was kind of like an inch worm, but of course
very much faster. It appeared to be higher than an aircraft in
the normal approach landing pattern, as it was a fly over. The
entire sighting lasted about 45 seconds. I was in the 82nd
Airborne and can recognize aircraft. I also took private pilots
training and have done some flying in this area. Thanks to Brad
Hoover of Vancouver.

WASHINGTON COUPLE SEE BLACK UFO

SEATTLE - Peter Davenport writes that a former U. S. Navy
officer and his wife saw a UFO at approximately 1115 hours on
Sunday, June 10, 2001, above the University of Washington
campus. The officer stated, "My wife and I had just left the
Hub where we had attended a graduation ceremony and I happened
to look up to watch a craft coming from the northeast on their
approach toward Seatac. Planes have always fascinated me since
I was a Private Pilot for a number of years. I noticed a
stationary, apparently rectangular, black object in the sky
directly over the northeast end of campus, which was at an
altitude considerably above the approaching aircraft. I called
to my wife, who immediately looked up and observed the same
object. At first we thought it might be a large bird. We
dismissed that idea since it wasn't moving, didn't have the
shape of a bird, and appeared to be way too large for its
apparent distance from us. After 15 to 20 seconds the object
began to move very sm! oothly at a very high rate of speed in a
northeast direction directly opposite the path of the
approaching aircraft. The sighting lasted for thirty seconds
when it flew behind some trees. We discussed the sighting all
the way home and have concluded it did not fall into any of the
usual bird/aircraft sightings in our experience. Peter
Davenport indicates the former military officer is insistent
that the object they witnessed was not any kind of aircraft
that he is familiar with. Thanks to NUFORC www.ufocenter.com

CANADA FLYING TRIANGLE

WEST VANCOUVER -- On June 21, 2001, a dark red flying
triangular shaped with a bright white rectangular shape in the
middle of underbelly was observed through a skylight. The
witness stated, "I saw a triangular shaped object fly overhead
at 12:30 AM." I could see the full outline of the object, which
made no sound whatsoever. The object appeared to be illumines
of a dark red color. In the center of the triangle there was a
rectangular shaped object with rounded corners, which shone a
bright white. My skylight is four feet by two feet wide facing
east/west. The object flew in an east to west direction not far
above the skylight. The object flew very slowly; approximately
5 seconds went by before it flew out of my sight. There were no
flashing lights (like an airplane). The size of the object was
rather large and it was flying lower than a jet airplane, but a
little higher than say a Cessna. With an outstretched arm,
thumb and index finger touching each other, it would! have
filled that space. Thanks to Peter Davenport NUFORC

MEXICO UFOs NEAR VOLCANO

Troy Allen called on June 25, 2001, to report he is regularly
observing UFOs over Popocatptl near Mexico City from the
volcano's observation camera. He noticed that from 1:00 to 3:30
PM Eastern time there are numerous UFOs sighted. Over sixty
UFOs have been seen in recent weeks. The volcano is active and
often has cloud cover. The UFOs are comparatively dark and can
often be seen through clouds. They appear as dark specs but
move like a powered craft. Photos are available at:
http://looknowings.homestead.com/camview.html and
http://www.communities.msn.com/spyman2002_whatsnew.msn or
http://www.filersfiles.com. Thanks to Troy Allen
exe1moving@hotmail.com.

CHILI UFO VISITS CHILEAN SUPERMARKET

PUENTE ALTO -- When security guard Victor Montero did his
rounds on May 27, 2001, at the Lider Supermarket he saw a
strange luminous object which sped toward him and then moved
away, only to remain static in the sky. Seized by fear, Montero
ran toward the office where the rest of the guards were
stationed to warn them about the unusual apparition. His
colleague Lorena Castro shifted the store's safety cameras to
record what was going on in the heavens. "Without thinking if
it was allowed or not, I decided to record the object with the
supermarket's security cameras using the city's lights as a
point of reference. At times it jumps out of the recording,
since it was very fast and moved suddenly," stated a shocked
Lorena.

"The first time we saw it was 5:00 AM, it was round and had red
and green lights. "It changed position and spectacularly so.
First it looked like a single sphere, a black circle appears in
its middle, and then it hangs like a jellyfish in the air,"
reported Gatica, the object has appeared on a daily basis and
remains for hours, even after daybreak. "Even the executives
who opened the supermarket got a chance to see it." The
employees have gotten used to this strange visitor, since they
haven't even bothered to tape it again. "A security guard
almost killed himself, when the luminous sphere headed for him
at full speed. When the man stepped back, thinking the object
was about to pounce on him, he fell," related the security
chief. Thanks to: Las Ultimas Noticias Newspaper, June 17,
2001, Translation (C) 2001. Scott Corrales, Institute of
Hispanic Ufology (IHU) and Rodrigo Cuadra,

BRITAIN VIDEOTAPES GIANT UFO OUTSIDE HER HOME

BONSALL -- The June 2, 2001, 'Straits Times' article by Alfred
Lee claims a British housewife captured amazing footage on her
camcorder of a gigantic UFO which hovered near her home for six
minutes. Mrs. Sharon Rowlands, 41, estimates that the UFO was
an astonishing 4.8 km wide. The giant disc was pink and white
in color, with yellow, orange and blue lights. It had a dark
center and beamed pulses of intense light. It hovered about 3.2
km from her home in the tiny village of Bonsall, Derbyshire,
224 km from London for two minutes, before blasting away into
the night sky at fantastic speed. Britain's Metereorological
Office has confirmed that there were no freak weather
conditions in the area at the time. Experts at NASA, the
American space agency, have asked to see the video footage as a
matter of urgency. They will use top-secret imaging equipment
and computers to try to figure out what the UFO is. They
believe it is the same sort of image captured on one of their
own c! ameras during a space shuttle mission.

Mrs. Rowlands said: "I was a complete and utter disbeliever in
flying saucers and UFOs, but what I saw has made me think
again. I looked outside and saw this huge disc hovering in the
sky. I rushed outside -- and started filming. 'Through the
camera lens, it looked like it was going to hit me. It looked
like nothing I have ever seen before." The video footage was
purchased for 20,000 pounds from Mrs. Rowlands. Mr. Paul
Hannan, 37, who lives in the nearby village of Bakewell saw a
dome-shaped craft 'dancing in the sky'. Two weeks later, a man
living in Wirksworth, a 10-minute drive away, saw a similar
object in the sky. Thanks to Hans Bruin hbruin@euronet.nl

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

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 $13.9! 5 (US) to: David Twichell, P.O. Box 511,
Trenton MI. 48183-0511

BEFORE YOU BUY OR SELL A HOME SEE MY FREE REPORT

All real estate agents are not the same? Some real estate
agents are part timers and inexperienced. Others are experts
with an excellent experience and capabilities. When you are
selling or buying your home, you need to make sure you have the
best real estate agent working for you before you make any
important financial decisions on one your biggest investments!
Remember, the majority of people do not know the right
questions to ask, and what pit falls can cause major problems.
Picking the right real estate agent can be a wonderful
experience, and picking the wrong one can be a big mistake that
can waste your time and cost you thousands! Find out, " What
you need to understand before hiring any real estate agent!"
Learn how you can obtain the best real estate agent for your
needs. To get a free copy of this report, just call (609)
654-0020 or e-mail us at Majorstar@aol.com.

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.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                 Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:25:36 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 07:46:21 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... -


 >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:34:49 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...


 >>Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 19:18:36 -0400
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>>Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:36:43 -0400
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:45:20 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >><snip>

 >>>Hello Kevin, hi All,

 >>>the dialog goes like so:

 >>Serge:

 >>>>>Snip

 >>Thank you!! and that not only comes from me, but from several
 >>other abductees/experiencers as well. Well said!

 >Kat, that's the biggest and the best compliment that any of us
 >could ever get. When other abductees tell us that we represented
 >ourselves and each other well, it helps us _all_ to 'heal' a
 >little more.

 >We speak with the same voice Kat. There is a reason for that I
 >believe. When I read one of your posts I always feel like you
 >took the words right out of my mouth. I hope you feel the same
 >about mine. That happens because of our _common_ focus. We are
 >both out here trying to raise public awareness and to inform.
 >Not to gratify any personal 'needs' or to promote ourselves.

 >Like yourself, I am always _very_ mindful of the fact that every
 >time I open my mouth in public (as an abductee) that those words
 >reflect on us all. Not just myself. It gives the communications
 >a certain perspective, point of view that would not be there if
 >they were 'egocentric' in origin. It's why I don't joke around,
 >or act like a fool on this List or anywhere in public. I have no
 >patience for people who are like the mean-spirited child at the
 >beach that destroys the sand castle that another child worked
 >hard on, the public contributions from some "abductees" are
 >counterproductive to the _work_ we are trying to do.

Dear John, bListers, Katerina and Errol;

Of course mean spiritedness demonstrates a lack of empathy, and
by my definition, is wrong. But humor, joking around and satire is
not counterproductive. It is often revealing. And neither does it
detract from the work. Nothing may do that. Satire is a tool used
since long before Brobdignag, to point to the side of us which oft
requires a respit from the "work" and which oft precludes a level of
silliness which is often funnier than the satire.

We should, as humans, be able to laugh at ourselves. We should
realise that there is much, much more to life than the "work." A
long time ago I wrote to Errol and asked him if humor would be
appropriate in his list. He's been publishing it ever since.
Even on his show, there is a funny side to Strange Days. And to
my personal delight, to Errol. For when humor is lacking,
humanity lacks even more.

 >It takes forethought and consideration to participate in a
 >public dialog. I only wish that 'others' would follow the
 >example rather than 'going it alone' and always 'playing the
 >fool'. Sadly, there are abductees out here (in the public
arena) >who consistently joke and confuse matters rather than
inform the >public and clarify the issues. Folks who think and
speak in >terms of "Me" instead of "We" when they post something
to the >public net.

If one looks over the archives which UpDates maintains, one
would find that those who use humor also use pathos and have a
serious side which brings emotion to a new level. Suffering,
which is what many experiencers do, is a load lightened
significantly by laughing. Readers Digest has a column which
reads, "Laughter is the best medicine." It is truth. And one
must use humor or lose focus on what is important and what is
not important.

For example, it is important to engage the dialog. It is useful
as well, to engage the humor when the dialog gets too heavy. On
this venue, I stand accused of taking some issues too seriously
_and_ using humor too vigorously.

Being humorous is not playing the fool. The fool is one who
cannot laugh at him (or her) self. It eases the pain. Lighten up
dude. It'll make you feel better to laugh once in a while. Even
at this serious subject.

 >I wish I could recruit more of our peers to participate on this
 >List and other public venues. People like Debbie Jordan-Kauble,
 >or Lynne B. or Rusty Hudson. In addition to you and me, they
 >would raise the number (and the volume) of the responsible,
 >intelligent and 'sane' voices just enough to drown out all the
 >'static noise' being generated by a few. This is why I get angry
 >and I feel so disappointed when I encounter a person who
 >publicly proclaims him/ herself to be an "abductee" who then
 >proceeds to play the fool in public. They are the mindless acts
 >of individuals who have no concept that "many others" are
 >judging us -all- by what comes from them.

Personally I would love to see those mentioned participating.
But I would rather see more fools - serious ones - the ones who
claim to have the "truth" finally revealed. Just so I can claim
to revile the reveale truth. How many times have you seen
several of us change horses in mid stream. One day they are
writing books on the subject of UFO's and the Abduction Phenom,
and the next day it's all a lot of bunk. Watching and reading
the new paradigm and the defense of the BS is more fun than I've
had with my clothes on, ever.

Now that's funny. And so are the fools who make the satire
available to we who abhor culpable stupidity. We do abhor that
don't we?

 >Thank you for all of your contributions as well Kat. Again, I'm
 >always so glad that you're here. I sleep better knowing that
 >you'll catch many of the ones that I miss, and I'll always try
 >to catch the ones that you miss. :) Between us not much is
 >likely to make it past the goalie! <LOL>

 >Like I said, I only wish there more of us. Sometimes I feel
like >a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Not enough
hours in >a day.<LOL>

 >>Everyone who reads these types of "questions" and "statements"
 >>like the ones we've responded to above, know what the writer's
 >>true intentions are behind posting them to a public List. It's
 >>just that most people don't have the time to constantly
 >>re-state the obvious.

 >To tell you the truth neither do I Kat. It's just one of those
 >situations where you 'pick up the slack' without the need of
 >any one having to ask you to do it. What you say is true. Some
 >folks think that their poo-doo doesn't stink and that nobody
 >can see where they are coming from. It nice to know that as
 >long as folks like you (and me and others) are 'guarding the
 >Gate', those Noodniks won't be able to slip any 'wooden horses'
 >past us without a serious fight. <LOL>


 >Warmest regards,

 >your brother in arms, (in harm's way)


 >John


 >           "Nothing is at last sacred but the
 >             integrity of your own mind."

John, this List needs only one guardian, only one goalie, only
one guardian at the gate. In my opinion at least. And that
person is none other than Errol Bruce-Knapp himself. As for
those who think that their poopoo doesn't stink... well, they
never notice their own... odors. Which one of the Beatles said
that "My own sweat smells the best!" I forgot.

And your closing line... it's true. But integrity bears a level of
responsibility to the integrity of others, not just one's own - mind.

With nothing but love and respect for integrity and humor.


Jim Mortellaro,

President


           Nothing is at last sacred as the
                integrity of our minds

My version








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                        Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Lemire

From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 04:49:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 07:50:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Lemire


 >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 14:05:29 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

<snip>

 >>>Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:28:46 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >>>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >>>>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:39:16 -0400
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >>>As you requested, I will ship all 53 dust samples in their
 >>>original transparent plastic covered petri dishes I placed them
 >>>in along with my notes and all the microscope images I have
 >>>taken so far. The dust samples in these dishes can be
 >>>re-examined by anyone anytime. Maybe you or others will find
 >>>something of significance that I missed when re-examining the
 >>>same dust samples or when viewing the few high magnification
 >>>images I took of them.

 >>>Nick Balaskas


 >>It sounds as if the tests by Nick weren't yet completed....is
 >>this true?

 >Like I said Todd, Nick is a busy guy with a lot on his plate.
 >But I too was growing concerned and for that reason (and those I
 >expressed above,) I requested the materials and a report.

 >>If so, why the exchange of hands now?

 >Hopefully so I can get the material into Nancy Talbot's hands.

 >>My reason for asking is, are we to expect only a
 >>partial and incomplete report on the sample testing written by
 >>Nick, sent to the list via John or has Nick written up his
 >>results in report form which will be posted by John, or will John
 >>be generating a report from Nick's notes or what?

 >I'm not a trained scientist Todd. I plan to post whatever
 >results Nick submits to me in the form of a report to this List
 >and on the Web. I will not be commenting on the technical
 >aspects of Nicks study or his report because I am not really
 >qualified to do so. I 'organized/coordinated' the experiment and
 >I will be the conduit for the public for any reports that may
 >stem from the study, but I am not planning on submitting a
 >"report" of my own. "WENGMIWYG!" (Whatever Nick Gives Me Is What
 >You'll Get!)

 >>I know this is an e-mail full of questions but I pose them in a
 >>friendly and curious manner, yet I feel they need answering and
 >>are relevant to the study and it's final results.  I don't mean
 >>this to be an interrogation, but rather an honest appeal for an
 >>answer to my questions.  Any insight either of you could provide
 >>would be greatly appreciated.

 >I gave it my best shot Todd. Hope this cleared up some stuff for
 >you. If you have anymore questions just post em to the List.


John and Nick,

Thanks for the very adequate answers and both of you should be
commended for a fine job. I'm glad either of you didn't let this
fall by the wayside.


Sincerely,

Todd








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                    Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 07:32:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 07:54:35 -0400
Subject: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate


SOURCE: Diario "El Tribuno" de Salta (Argentina)
DATE: June 27, 2001

Specialist who analyzed video for 3 hours
Considers Cachi UFO Video to be legitimate

A specialist in the UFO phenomenon from Salta analyzed the video
made in Cachi and considers it to be legitimate. It shall be
showin at a world UFO conference.

Saltan ufologist Daniel Quiroga Nunez, a member of the Red
Argentina de Ovniloga (RAO), considered yesterday that the video
of an unidentified flying object obtained on Saturday the 23rd
by mountaineer Antonio Zuleta of Cachi is "a document of
undeniable scientific value" and added that "I shall request
authorization to show it in the First World Conference on the
subject to be held on the 17th and 18th of August in Mar del
Plata."

Quiroga studied the videotape for three hours and reached the
conclusion that "it is one of the best recordings I've seen,"
noting "I have no doubt that it is a mothership, in other words,
an extraterrestrial device of gigantic proportions, capable of
transporting lesser units and which have been repeatedly seen in
different parts of the planet for years."

The researcher, a student in the School of Social Communications
of the University of Salta, is 26 years old and has considered
himself a researcher since 1988, when he was only 13. "My
interest for the subject was handed down by my grandfather Oscar
Nez, a Chilean from La Serena who moved to Salta at a young
age. His interest was a result of his working in construction,
which involved work in the northern deserts of the trans-andean
country, where he had several sightings. From that point onward,
he devoted himself to research, assembling a large library and
imbuing his interests in me," noted the young ufologist, the
only specialist on the subject that lives in this province.

"After analyzing the videoed material, I'm able to state that it
is an unconventional phenomenon. The object makes intelligent
movements which are impossible for known human technology. It
accelerates and decelerates at prodigious speeds, is surrounded
by a green outline, has a white core and produces red and blue
flashes while projecting violet and sky-blue beams. It is oval
in shape, although in the video, its movements give it the
appearance of changing shape constantly," he noted.

"It is possible that we are dealing with a mothership," he
added.

"This recorded sighting strongly parallels two historic cases
which took place in the province of Salta. One of then, a visual
sighting made by a former magistrate during the '60s and another
one videoed by a local soccer player some years ago," Quiroga
stated. "The video is legitimate and it is well-suited for
analysis. There is no trickery."

According to the Saltan ufologist, there are some curious
details about the Cachi case, such as the fact that the sighting
occured only a few hours away from the 54th anniversary of the
first official UFO report of the modern era on June 24th
1947 - the Kenneth Arnold sighting.



##############################

Translation (C) 2001. Scott 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 >
   Jun > Jun 27

              Re: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:03:15 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 10:38:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate - Hall


 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 07:32:43 -0400
 >Subject: Argentina: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate

 >SOURCE: Diario "El Tribuno" de Salta (Argentina)
 >DATE: June 27, 2001

 >Specialist who analyzed video for 3 hours
 >Considers Cachi UFO Video to be legitimate

 >A specialist in the UFO phenomenon from Salta analyzed the video
 >made in Cachi and considers it to be legitimate. It shall be
 >showin at a world UFO conference.

 >Saltan ufologist Daniel Quiroga Nunez, a member of the Red
 >Argentina de Ovniloga (RAO), considered yesterday that the video
 >of an unidentified flying object obtained on Saturday the 23rd
 >by mountaineer Antonio Zuleta of Cachi is "a document of
 >undeniable scientific value" and added that "I shall request
 >authorization to show it in the First World Conference on the
 >subject to be held on the 17th and 18th of August in Mar del
 >Plata."

 >Quiroga studied the videotape for three hours and reached the
 >conclusion that "it is one of the best recordings I've seen,"
 >noting "I have no doubt that it is a mothership, in other words,
 >an extraterrestrial device of gigantic proportions, capable of
 >transporting lesser units and which have been repeatedly seen in
 >different parts of the planet for years."

 >The researcher, a student in the School of Social Communications
 >of the University of Salta, is 26 years old and has considered
 >himself a researcher since 1988, when he was only 13. "My
 >interest for the subject was handed down by my grandfather Oscar
 >Nez, a Chilean from La Serena who moved to Salta at a young
 >age. His interest was a result of his working in construction,
 >which involved work in the northern deserts of the trans-andean
 >country, where he had several sightings. From that point onward,
 >he devoted himself to research, assembling a large library and
 >imbuing his interests in me," noted the young ufologist, the
 >only specialist on the subject that lives in this province.

 >"After analyzing the videoed material, I'm able to state that it
 >is an unconventional phenomenon. The object makes intelligent
 >movements which are impossible for known human technology. It
 >accelerates and decelerates at prodigious speeds, is surrounded
 >by a green outline, has a white core and produces red and blue
 >flashes while projecting violet and sky-blue beams. It is oval
 >in shape, although in the video, its movements give it the
 >appearance of changing shape constantly," he noted.

 >"It is possible that we are dealing with a mothership," he
 >added.

 >"This recorded sighting strongly parallels two historic cases
 >which took place in the province of Salta. One of then, a visual
 >sighting made by a former magistrate during the '60s and another
 >one videoed by a local soccer player some years ago," Quiroga
 >stated. "The video is legitimate and it is well-suited for
 >analysis. There is no trickery."

 >According to the Saltan ufologist, there are some curious
 >details about the Cachi case, such as the fact that the sighting
 >occured only a few hours away from the 54th anniversary of the
 >first official UFO report of the modern era on June 24th
 >1947 - the Kenneth Arnold sighting.

Scott and list,

I realize you are only passing on a translation, but... Bruce
Maccabee probably will have a good laugh when he reads that
someone (whose photo analysis expertise is not mentioned and his
analysis techniques are not reported) decided after
_three_hours_ this video is not only legitimate, but shows a
"mother ship"(real scientific term, that).

Now he's ready to broadcast this "finding" to the world. Sounds
like pseudoscience to me.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 27

              Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 07:28:08 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 17:21:17 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Myers


 >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:37:21 -0400
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

 >Does anyone have additional info on the alleged UFO video shown
 >on Fox News Channel yesterday (Monday, June 26)?

Kenny,

This sounds like the same video that was on the Sci-Fi Channel's
website. Yo might check there:

http://www.scifi.com

It was apparently sent in by a viewer when the Sci-Fi channel
ran an ad wanting unusual video.  Hope this helps.


Regards,

Royce J. Myers III
UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind"









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 27

             Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Blanton

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:02:23 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 17:25:18 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Blanton


 >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:37:21 -0400
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

 >Does anyone have additional info on the alleged UFO video shown
 >on Fox News Channel yesterday (Monday, June 26)?

Sounds like the vid that was shown on SciFi channel last year:

http://www.scifi.com/happens/ufoletter.html

Note how the cameraman seems to anticipate the motion of the
"UFO".


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 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:47:14 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 17:29:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Barney Barnett [was: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit]
 >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:46:16 -0700

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:31:21 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Not only does it say nothing about a crash, but it gives no hint
 >>of any extraordinary event. There is nothing in the diary but
 >>the mundane, including the weather each day. I find it
 >>extraordinary that Barney could have been involved in something
 >>as exciting as this but give NO hint of it, even if that hint
 >>was disguised in some fashion.

 >>Given the diary and the dates, we were trying to figure out how
 >>Barnett could have been involved. We learned, through various
 >>interviews that Barnett did get as far south as Carrizozo and as
 >>far east as Roswell. Mainly this was for meetings and the like,
 >>but again, there is nothing in the diary to confirm this.

 >>And, if we look at the diary closely, we find that the diary
 >>says, on July 2, 1947, "Barney went to the high country near
 >>Datil." This means, unfortunately, the crash would have had to
 >>take place on July 1, not July 2.

 >Kevin,

 >Not necessarily. He may have camped over night and encountered
 >the crashed craft on his way back to the office on the 3rd.
 >Datil is near the Plains of San Augustin. There isn't enough
 >detail here to tell much of anything but it is certainly
 >possible that he was near the Plains on the 3rd. Do you have
 >Barney's location on the 29th and 30th of May and June 1st and
 >2nd.?

 >Ed

Ed, List, -

Let's not invent scenarios without the benefit of evidence.
There is absolutely no evidence that Barnett ever camped out on
his trips, that he slipped out of town without telling his wife
(which, of course, eliminates the theory that he might have seen
the craft and bodies over toward Corona), that he stayed in
motels, or that he was gone overnight very often (September
17... "Barney went to L.B. Moore's ranch at Horse Springs...
didn't make it home.) All of these things can be suggested as a
way of keeping Barnett over in Datil (where I have been several
times, and even ate lunch there once). But finally, the diary
answers the question (which wouldn't have been asked had I
provided all the information for the July 2 date...) "...came
home from Datil at six o'clock."

There is nothing in the diary to suggest he was involved in any
extraordinary events in 1947. Although, if I remember correctly,
in the latest version of the cameraman's story, or in the
Hessemann version of it, the Alien Autopsy footage came from an
event at the end of May and took place close to Socorro so
Barnett wouldn't have had to go very far. (Ed, I'm writing from
memory here and really don't have the energy to go look this
stuff up, because without some better information and without
some independent corroboration, it just isn't worth the effort.
Call me closed mined, call me lazy, but without some better
evidence that can be verified, call me unimpressed.)


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 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                        Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:39:52 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 17:33:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Sandow


 >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:37:55 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >Since the initial phase of this project was essentially a visual
 >examine of the dust particles and to make comparisons with the
 >dust from other samples, sterile Q-tips was not an absolute
 >necessity. To prevent the individual dust samples from becoming
 >contaminated by local dust, the dust covered Q-tips were
 >transferred directly from the zip-locked bags to small covered
 >petrie dishes which could readily be examined by microscope
 >without further disturbing the specimens.

 >This type of study could have gone on indefinitely considering
 >that even the smallest of the 51 dust samples sent to me
 >contained literally thousands of potentially important particles
 >to examine. Since high magnification video images of all 51 of
 >these dust samples taken through the microscope will be made
 >available to others to examine, maybe they will notice some
 >particle(s) worthy of checking into further or possibly prove to
 >be actual physical evidence for the alien abduction phenomena.

I'd suggest that any further study be done in truly blind
fashion. That is, there should be a numbered series of dust
bunny samples, and a numbered list of people who supplied them.
The people conducting the study, however, shouldn't know the
names of the people, which of them are abductees, or which
sample belongs to which person. Obviously, someone has to know
this, but the experimenter who examines the samples should _not_
have any of the information.

The experimenter (or experimenters - there really should be more
than one) should divide the samples into groups, making the
groupings only on the basis of whatever shows up in the
examination. Only then should the samples be matched with their
donors' names, and divided into samples from abductees, and
samples from non-abductees.

If the groups coincide with the abductee/non-abductee division,
then we've learned something. We know that a purely physical
examination of the material shows a difference between samples
that come from abductees, and samples that don't. I don't mean
to disrespect what John and Nick have done so far -- this was
pioneering work! -- but to make the study truly scientific, I do
think these extra steps are needed.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 27

             Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Ledger

From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:26:01 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:30:43 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Ledger


 >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:37:21 -0400
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday


 >Does anyone have additional info on the alleged UFO video shown
 >on Fox News Channel yesterday (Monday, June 26)? This video was
 >taken from a helicopter and shows a flying saucer, possibly in
 >New York City, partially behind a skyscraper. >Thanks,

 >KENNY YOUNG
 >--
 >      U F O   R e s e a r c h
 >     http://home.fuse.net/ufo/


Hi Kenny, Errol and list,

I think you may find a copy of the clip you are referring to on
the UFO Scotland website.

Please find clip on top of this page:

http://www.ufoscotland.co.uk/video.htm

 From what I have managed to find out about this clip, although
nothing should be taken as confirmed to date, It was allegedly
submitted to the SCI-Fi.com channel by a couple who were
overflying NY in a helicopter trip. According to the dialogue,
the women who recorded the footage wants to be anonymous as it
was not her boyfriend she was with on this trip. Suspicious
already right? <G>

It has to be said that this clip is very interesting indeed and
when taken at face value, does look very real indeed. However
there does seem to be a few obvious problems with this clip
which I am sure you will pick up on after viewing it a few
times.

Please note that the footage cannot be streamed from the site
but can be downloaded and viewed via windows media player. Size
approx 5 megabytes.

Hope this helps Kenny,

 From your friend,


Dave Ledger (UFO Scotland)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                 Re: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate -

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 16:31:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:15:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate -


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate
 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:03:15 -0000


 >>From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 07:32:43 -0400
 >>Subject: Argentina: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate

 >>SOURCE: Diario "El Tribuno" de Salta (Argentina)
 >>DATE: June 27, 2001

 >>Specialist who analyzed video for 3 hours
 >>Considers Cachi UFO Video to be legitimate

 >>A specialist in the UFO phenomenon from Salta analyzed the video
 >>made in Cachi and considers it to be legitimate. It shall be
 >>showin at a world UFO conference.

<snip>

 >>According to the Saltan ufologist, there are some curious
 >>details about the Cachi case, such as the fact that the sighting
 >>occured only a few hours away from the 54th anniversary of the
 >>first official UFO report of the modern era on June 24th
 >>1947 - the Kenneth Arnold sighting.

 >Scott and list,

 >I realize you are only passing on a translation, but... Bruce
 >Maccabee probably will have a good laugh when he reads that
 >someone (whose photo analysis expertise is not mentioned and his
 >analysis techniques are not reported) decided after
 >_three_hours_ this video is not only legitimate, but shows a
 >"mother ship"(real scientific term, that).>

 >Now he's ready to broadcast this "finding" to the world. Sounds
 >like pseudoscience to me.


It does sound a bit premature!









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 27

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:41:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:27:18 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Velez


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:25:36 EDT
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:34:49 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>>Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 19:18:36 -0400
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>>>Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:36:43 -0400
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>>>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:45:20 EDT
 >>>>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>><snip>

 >>>>Hello Kevin, hi All,

 >>>>the dialog goes like so:

 >>>Serge:

<snip>

 >>>Thank you!! and that not only comes from me, but from several
 >>>other abductees/experiencers as well. Well said!

 >>Kat, that's the biggest and the best compliment that any of us
 >>could ever get. When other abductees tell us that we represented
 >>ourselves and each other well, it helps us _all_ to 'heal' a
 >>little more.

 >>We speak with the same voice Kat. There is a reason for that I
 >>believe. When I read one of your posts I always feel like you
 >>took the words right out of my mouth. I hope you feel the same
 >>about mine. That happens because of our _common_ focus. We are
 >>both out here trying to raise public awareness and to inform.
 >>Not to gratify any personal 'needs' or to promote ourselves.

 >>Like yourself, I am always _very_ mindful of the fact that every
 >>time I open my mouth in public (as an abductee) that those words
 >>reflect on us all. Not just myself. It gives the communications
 >>a certain perspective, point of view that would not be there if
 >>they were 'egocentric' in origin. It's why I don't joke around,
 >>or act like a fool on this List or anywhere in public. I have no
 >>patience for people who are like the mean-spirited child at the
 >>beach that destroys the sand castle that another child worked
 >>hard on, the public contributions from some "abductees" are
 >>counterproductive to the _work_ we are trying to do.

 >Dear John, bListers, Katerina and Errol;

 >Of course mean spiritedness demonstrates a lack of empathy, and
 >by my definition, is wrong. But humor, joking around and satire is
 >not counterproductive. It is often revealing. And neither does it
 >detract from the work. Nothing may do that. Satire is a tool used
 >since long before Brobdignag, to point to the side of us which oft
 >requires a respit from the "work" and which oft precludes a level of
 >silliness which is often funnier than the satire.

 >We should, as humans, be able to laugh at ourselves. We should
 >realise that there is much, much more to life than the "work." A
 >long time ago I wrote to Errol and asked him if humor would be
 >appropriate in his list. He's been publishing it ever since.
 >Even on his show, there is a funny side to Strange Days. And to
 >my personal delight, to Errol. For when humor is lacking,
 >humanity lacks even more.

 >>It takes forethought and consideration to participate in a
 >>public dialog. I only wish that 'others' would follow the
 >>example rather than 'going it alone' and always 'playing the
 >>fool'. Sadly, there are abductees out here (in the public
 >arena) >who consistently joke and confuse matters rather than
 >inform the >public and clarify the issues. Folks who think and
 >speak in >terms of "Me" instead of "We" when they post something
 >to the >public net.

 >If one looks over the archives which UpDates maintains, one
 >would find that those who use humor also use pathos and have a
 >serious side which brings emotion to a new level. Suffering,
 >which is what many experiencers do, is a load lightened
 >significantly by laughing. Readers Digest has a column which
 >reads, "Laughter is the best medicine." It is truth. And one
 >must use humor or lose focus on what is important and what is
 >not important.

 >For example, it is important to engage the dialog. It is useful
 >as well, to engage the humor when the dialog gets too heavy. On
 >this venue, I stand accused of taking some issues too seriously
 >_and_ using humor too vigorously.
 >
 >Being humorous is not playing the fool. The fool is one who
 >cannot laugh at him (or her) self. It eases the pain. Lighten up
 >dude. It'll make you feel better to laugh once in a while. Even
 >at this serious subject.


Hello Jim,

"Humor" is one thing, "Bufoonery" and confusing, incoherent
blather is something else. I'm not surprised that you, (out of
all the people on the List) have reacted to this post. My lack
of surprise stems from the fact that _you_ are one of the
individuals I had in mind when I composed it. Not surprised it
"hit you in the gut."  ;)

Shoot, I'll even go one step further and say that I consider you
to be one of the 'best examples' of what I'm talking about in my
post to Katarina.

Hey man, this is an "open to the public" List. You can post all
the nonsense and crapolla that EBK will publish for you. It is
your right as a List participant to speak your own mind in your
own way. I was only talking to Katharina about assembling enough
intelligent and sober voices (abductees) to 'counterbalance' the
'static noise' that some folks introduce into the ongoing dialog.
Again, I'm not surprised to see you "explaining yourself" here
in response to my comments as if I had mentioned you by name.  ;)

For the record:

I didn't say you "couldn't" post your 'thoughts' or, that I want to
prevent or censor you from doing it. Quite the contrary. As I said
up above, I only wish to 'counterbalance it' with some voices that
will allow anybody who ends up reading these posts to see that
we're not _all_ hard to understand. Capiche?

 >>"Nothing is at last sacred but the
 >>integrity of your own mind."

 >John, this List needs only one guardian, only one goalie, only
 >one guardian at the gate. In my opinion at least. And that
 >person is none other than Errol Bruce-Knapp himself.

I was referring to the 'kind' of comments that (for instance)
Kevin Randle made recently in a posting. ("the _tales_ that
abductees tell" etc.) I don't know what you're talking about,
but I was talking to Katharina about being here to respond to
unfair or wrongful comments/statements about witnesses who
report UFO abduction. Where you got the 'spin' that you put on
it I have no idea.

 >As for
 >those who think that their poopoo doesn't stink... well, they
 >never notice their own... odors. Which one of the Beatles said
 >that "My own sweat smells the best!" I forgot.

You ought to know.

 >Nothing is at last sacred as the
 >integrity of our minds

 >My version

When it comes to 'state of Mind' I can only speak for myself.

Jim, I won't be responding to any more of your posts to this
List. Honest, I've _tried_ and _tried_ with you. I just don't
have the time to waste on these kinds of exchanges. If you want
to have a pissing contest you'll have to find someone else.


Happy Trails Buckeroo!

John 'just me in here' 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 >
   Jun > Jun 27

                 Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday -

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 16:31:07 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:29:20 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday -


 >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:37:21 -0400
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday


 >Does anyone have additional info on the alleged UFO video shown
 >on Fox News Channel yesterday (Monday, June 26)? This video was
 >taken from a helicopter and shows a flying saucer, possibly in
 >New York City, partially behind a skyscraper. The cameraman in
 >the helicopter follows the flying saucer as it darts to another
l>ocation, then -with a bang- the object suddenly bolts at the
 >helicopter and veers off abruptly into the sky, leaving a vapor
 >or smoke trail in its wake. This video on Fox News Channel also
 >featured Jeff Sainio.

 >> From my perspective I couldn't catch any audio for the news
 >piece, but was left with the impression that FOX NEWS felt the
 >video somewhat important, as it was played several times in the
 >presentation. But what I saw looked fakey in places, and I could
 >see a few obvious things that were questionable, such as the
 >camera operators ability to so readily and accurately follow the
 >>hat there were seemingly 'defined edges' in the object as it
a>pproached the helicopter when, in fact, a video camera would
 >more accurately have picked up a simple blur of something moving
t>hat fast. This made me suspect it to be some sort of
 >professionally-produced special effect.>

 >This looked like some pretty interesting footage and I'm
 >surprised at not having heard anything about it anywhere on
 >either CURRENT ENCOUNTERS or UFO UpDates. Is there more on this
 >anywhere?>

This is the video first shown on SciFi in Nov 1999 I think.
Ostensibly taken by a friend of the girl shown in the video
while they were sightseeing in a helicopter over Manhattan Is.
Th girl refused identification and SciFi has been no help. On
the other hand, one of my sources says he was told it was a fake
for advertising purposes... "SciFi Happens"

Jeff Sainio has been analyzing it anyway and found it quite
interesting.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                      Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:03:11 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:18:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Mortellaro


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?
 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:39:52 -0400

 >>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:37:55 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >>Since the initial phase of this project was essentially a visual
 >>examine of the dust particles and to make comparisons with the
 >>dust from other samples, sterile Q-tips was not an absolute
 >>necessity. To prevent the individual dust samples from becoming
 >>contaminated by local dust, the dust covered Q-tips were
 >>transferred directly from the zip-locked bags to small covered
 >>petrie dishes which could readily be examined by microscope
 >>without further disturbing the specimens.

 >>This type of study could have gone on indefinitely considering
 >>that even the smallest of the 51 dust samples sent to me
 >>contained literally thousands of potentially important particles
 >>to examine. Since high magnification video images of all 51 of
 >>these dust samples taken through the microscope will be made
 >>available to others to examine, maybe they will notice some
 >>particle(s) worthy of checking into further or possibly prove to
 >>be actual physical evidence for the alien abduction phenomena.

 >I'd suggest that any further study be done in truly blind
 >fashion. That is, there should be a numbered series of dust
 >bunny samples, and a numbered list of people who supplied them.
 >The people conducting the study, however, shouldn't know the
 >names of the people, which of them are abductees, or which
 >sample belongs to which person. Obviously, someone has to know
 >this, but the experimenter who examines the samples should _not_
 >have any of the information.

 >The experimenter (or experimenters - there really should be more
 >than one) should divide the samples into groups, making the
 >groupings only on the basis of whatever shows up in the
 >examination. Only then should the samples be matched with their
 >donors' names, and divided into samples from abductees, and
 >samples from non-abductees.

 >If the groups coincide with the abductee/non-abductee division,
 >then we've learned something. We know that a purely physical
 >examination of the material shows a difference between samples
 >that come from abductees, and samples that don't. I don't mean
 >to disrespect what John and Nick have done so far -- this was
 >pioneering work! -- but to make the study truly scientific, I do
 >think these extra steps are needed.


 >Greg Sandow

Hiya Greg, bListers and EBK,

As I recall, when all this was going down, Nick was the only
"volunteer" willing to or having the opportunity of doing, the
work. Although I could be wrong about this, and even if I was,
I would doubt the availability of sufficient people willing to
do the work, able to do it, or even willing to think about doing
it.

Such has been the dilemma which is in part, a constituent of the
overall conundrum revolving around UFOs and the Abduction
Experience.

And brother, once you've seen one a them dilemma's circling the
conundrum (which is big enough to impress one all by itself)
like a vulture circles his lunch, then you've seen sumpin
really, really big. I can see it now in my mind's ear, "Right
here, on our stage, the really, really big, Topo Dilemma ladies
and gentlemen... "

_That_BIG_


Respectfully,

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 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                        Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:04:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:19:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Felder


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?
 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:39:52 -0400

 >>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:37:55 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

Nick stated:

 >>Since the initial phase of this project was essentially a visual
 >>examine of the dust particles and to make comparisons with the
 >>dust from other samples, sterile Q-tips was not an absolute
 >>necessity. To prevent the individual dust samples from becoming
 >>contaminated by local dust, the dust covered Q-tips were
 >>transferred directly from the zip-locked bags to small covered
 >>petrie dishes which could readily be examined by microscope
 >>without further disturbing the specimens.

 >>This type of study could have gone on indefinitely considering
 >>that even the smallest of the 51 dust samples sent to me
 >>contained literally thousands of potentially important particles
 >>to examine. Since high magnification video images of all 51 of
 >>these dust samples taken through the microscope will be made
 >>available to others to examine, maybe they will notice some
 >>particle(s) worthy of checking into further or possibly prove to
 >>be actual physical evidence for the alien abduction phenomena.

To which Greg replied:

 >I'd suggest that any further study be done in truly blind
 >fashion. That is, there should be a numbered series of dust
 >bunny samples, and a numbered list of people who supplied them.
 >The people conducting the study, however, shouldn't know the
 >names of the people, which of them are abductees, or which
 >sample belongs to which person. Obviously, someone has to know
 >this, but the experimenter who examines the samples should _not_
 >have any of the information.

Hi Greg, Nick, all:

I understand what you are saying, Nick, about the use of sterile
Q-tips not being an absolute necessity. However, playing Devil's
Advocate for a moment, I can already hear the skeptibunkers
tossing out the entire study based on the fact that the initial
samples were not taken with sterile Q-tips. A minor point, but
that's all it takes for some.

I have to agree with Greg. I think the experiment needs to
proceed with the utmost attention paid to truly scientific
methodology.  The UFO field has to take extra-special care to
dot its "I's" and cross its "T's". That may not exactly be fair,
but that's the way it is.

I would just hate to see all the work done on this thrown out
over a technicality like a sterile Q-tips or any tiny deviation
from accepted scientific methods for blind studies.

My two cents

Bobbie


==========
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
---> backwoods of Mississippi
---> USA
---> planet Earth
---> somewhere in the Cosmos
www.jilain.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 >
   Jun > Jun 28

               Cydonian Imperative: 06-27-01 'Eye' Designed to

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 17:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:22:20 -0400
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 06-27-01 'Eye' Designed to


The Cydonian Imperative
6-27-01

Was the "Eye" Designed to Reflect Sunlight?
by Mac Tonnies

See:

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

The presence of a discernable humanoid "eye" on the Face on Mars
invites comparison to terrestrial sculpture. The inclusion of a
structured "eyeball" in a piece of megascale sculpture (or
"earthworks") is not a trivial artistic element. I propose that
the Face is no exception, and that close study just might reveal
significance dulled by millennia of erosion.

The anomalous rectangular cells surrounding the western "eye"
may be more than an exposed structural mesh or tresswork. Their
orientation--surrounding the lower half of the "eye"--suggest a
decorative intent. [See The Enterprise Mission's "widescreen"
view of the "eye" for additional detail.] If the Face has been
sand-blasted from the west for a long period of time, as
geologist Ron Nicks has posited, then one might expect to see
similar "celled" features elsewhere on the Face's western
("hominid") side. The cells' isolated placement suggests that
their placement may trancend mere architecture and may be part
of a sophisticated design used to emphasize the western side's
"simian" motif.

Previously, I've described the "eye's" "iris" feature as a
"faceted cone," an observation seemingly confimed by Chris
Joseph's shape-from-shading perspective view (below).

[image]

Correpondingly, colleague Kurt Jonach has illustrated the
concept with the following illustration. While not a strict
forensic description of the "eye," the illustration features an
almond-shaped perimeter with a pyramidal object emerging from
the center, which is precisely what we see on the western side
of the Face.


[image]

The renderings by Joseph and Jonach reveal the "iris"/"pupil" as
an elevated feature, significantly taller than its ellipsoidal
basin. Interestingly, the curved array of conspicuous cells
lining the "eye's" underside (on the area perhaps corresponding
to a "cheekbone") seem centered on the protruding faceted cone,
as if united in some long-lost aesthetic function.

[image]

The radial array of empty cells surrounding the "eye"
can be seen in this image from Jan., 2001.

Could the empty cells forming the curved grid below the "eye"
have once housed mirrors designed to capture sunlight and cast
it on the elevated "iris"? This notion is consistent with an
archeological interpretation of the Face, and offers a visually
pleasing solution to the cells' conspicuous placement on the
Face mesa. Moreover, it might even be testable, given correct
elevation data and a willingness to "reconstruct" the proposed
mirror-system (either through the medium of analog sculpture or
digitally). If this interpretation is confirmed, then the Face
may have once literally "glowered" at the Martian night,
implying not only Martian technological savvy, but the purpose
of the Face sculpture to be viewed from above--either by
"Cydonians" or "us"...or both.

It should be noted that modern solar energy plants use the same
distinct radial method of "harvesting" and focusing sunlight as
proposed above--albeit for industrial purposes. Then again,
could the Martian "eye" have served both as a brilliant
"ornament" as well as a power generating station of some kind?
If the Face was once an arcology housing remnants of a
civilization beneath a faltering ecosphere, a solar generator of
this sort would be useful in supplying cheap, plentiful energy.

At the same time, the illuminated "eye" would be fulfilling a
metaphoric function, chanelling light into the Face just as a
real eye allows light to pass through the pupil to be decoded
into images by the brain.

The Enterprise Mission's Mike Bara writes, in part: "Around the
eye socket are a set of very regular, geometric shapes that can
only be described as a sort of honeycomb cellular structure on
the Face itself. Now it just so happens that this very anomalous
and decidedly artificial pattern is exactly what Enterprise
principal investigator Richard C. Hoagland predicted (in The
Monuments of Mars) we would find on the Face when we eventually
got a good enough look: that the face was NOT just a 'Mt.
Rushmore-type' recarving of an ancient Martian mesa, but a
three-dimensional architectural, 'high-tech' construct. That,
with high enough resolution, it would begin to reveal precisely
those necessary (though now badly eroded) architectural details
of which it truly is composed."

Maybe the light-reflecting theory provides the raison d'etre for
Bara and Hoagland's "high-tech" interpretation of the radial
cells.

Extremely high-resolution images of the anomalous cells could
help in deciding if they are in fact artificial enclosures of a
sort necessary to support a network of mirrors analogous to a
terrestrial "solar farm." The ridged feature dubbed the
"teardrop" also awaits an archaeological explanation. I suspect
its placement directly below the "iris" (exactly halfway between
the "eye" and "mouth") may not be coincidental.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                 Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:09:57 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:27:18 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... -


 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:41:48 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...


 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:25:36 EDT
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

<snip>

 >>Dear John, bListers, Katerina and Errol;

 >>Of course mean spiritedness demonstrates a lack of empathy, and
 >>by my definition, is wrong. But humor, joking around and satire is
 >>not counterproductive. It is often revealing. And neither does it
 >>detract from the work. Nothing may do that. Satire is a tool used
 >>since long before Brobdignag, to point to the side of us which oft
 >>requires a respit from the "work" and which oft precludes a level of
 >>silliness which is often funnier than the satire.

 >>We should, as humans, be able to laugh at ourselves. We should
 >>realise that there is much, much more to life than the "work." A
 >>long time ago I wrote to Errol and asked him if humor would be
 >>appropriate in his list. He's been publishing it ever since.
 >>Even on his show, there is a funny side to Strange Days. And to
 >>my personal delight, to Errol. For when humor is lacking,
 >>humanity lacks even more.

<snip>

 >>If one looks over the archives which UpDates maintains, one
 >>would find that those who use humor also use pathos and have a
 >>serious side which brings emotion to a new level. Suffering,
 >>which is what many experiencers do, is a load lightened
 >>significantly by laughing. Readers Digest has a column which
 >>reads, "Laughter is the best medicine." It is truth. And one
 >>must use humor or lose focus on what is important and what is
 >>not important.

 >>For example, it is important to engage the dialog. It is useful
 >>as well, to engage the humor when the dialog gets too heavy. On
 >>this venue, I stand accused of taking some issues too seriously
 >>_and_ using humor too vigorously.

 >>Being humorous is not playing the fool. The fool is one who
 >>cannot laugh at him (or her) self. It eases the pain. Lighten up
 >>dude. It'll make you feel better to laugh once in a while. Even
 >>at this serious subject.

 >Hello Jim,

 >"Humor" is one thing, "Bufoonery" and confusing, incoherent
 >blather is something else. I'm not surprised that you, (out of
 >all the people on the List) have reacted to this post. My lack
 >of surprise stems from the fact that _you_ are one of the
 >individuals I had in mind when I composed it. Not surprised it
 >"hit you in the gut." ;)

Dear bListers, EBK, and of course, John;

This dialog is not about buffoonery or any of the above. Not in
my opine. It is about satire and the ability of each one of us
to laugh at ourselves. It is also about satirizing some of the
really important stuff on this list which cannot be criticized.
I can appreciate that some of the listers do not understand some
of (or more of) what I write. This is not a deficiency on the
part of the reader, it is merely a failure to recognize that
some of this nonsense really is nonsense and should be accorded
the proper treatments due culpable stupidity.

Whether directed at me or not, truth is such that it really
_must_ be revealed. And the truth of the UFO conundrum is that
it harbors some really silly opinions and sillier still people
who comport themselves in such a manner as to be the real
buffoons, those whose confusing and meaningless (incoherent)
blather deserves the mockery it sometimes receives.

Lehmberg does it best in my opinion. I defer to the master's
touch at using words in such as way as to point directly to the
person or persons who've lost their sensibility. I merely do it
differently.

 >Shoot, I'll even go one step further and say that I consider you
 >to be one of the 'best examples' of what I'm talking about in my
 >post to Katarina.

I would not care to personalize the above, but wish to reveal a
truth. This truth is an amazing one. One does not have to be
a Ph.D. or even self educated as you are to understand the point.
Here it is: Striving to betray that which is manifest is obviously
a struggle to overplay the third act.

 >Hey man, this is an "open to the public" List. You can post all
 >the nonsense and crapolla that EBK will publish for you. It is
 >your right as a List participant to speak your own mind in your
 >own way. I was only talking to Katharina about assembling enough
 >intelligent and sober voices (abductees) to 'counterbalance' the
 >'static noise' that some folks introduce into the ongoing dialog.
 >Again, I'm not surprised to see you "explaining yourself" here
 >in response to my comments as if I had mentioned you by name. ;)

 >For the record:

 >I didn't say you "couldn't" post your 'thoughts' or, that I want to
 >prevent or censor you from doing it. Quite the contrary. As I said
 >up above, I only wish to 'counterbalance it' with some voices that
 >will allow anybody who ends up reading these posts to see that
 >we're not _all_ hard to understand. Capiche?

<snip>

I have been told that some of that which I write as humor or
satire is hard to understand. But there is a good reason for
this. My most cherished degree, the one I worked very hard to
pay to get without having to actually attend class, I might add,
the one which cost me the most amount of money to buy, was the
one which Dr. J. Jaime conferred upon me last year. I think that
was when you started not understanding me. It is the degree
which Gesundt calls, "Doctor of Silly Fossify" (SF.D.) and is
awarded to very few. In fact, very few have the money with which
to purchase such a degree.

Unlike many degrees which are bought, this one comes with a
guarantee. The good doctor promises that anyone who is overly
criticized for that which he writes after the conferring of this
honorarium shall have the countenance of the Bambini Crime
family of Brooklyn. Brooklyn is fairly close to Queens. Be of
good cheer. These goons are very kind and apologetic whenever
they whack anyone. God, I've heard them actually apologize to
their kneecap victims and when they kissa you face, they really
get into it.

The UFO conundrum is fraught with sufficient buffoonery. In
fact, like the Beatles line, "My own sweat smells the best"
implies, one fails to recognize the silliness when confronted by
it. God man, if you stand in poop long enough, after a while you
just lose the ability to be offended buy the stench. Now does
that make more sense?

I am the Guardian at that Gate. I stand by it and seek to point
and laugh. Out loud. But with great respect for the one I whack.


Hell, John, I even apologize sometimes.


With love and respect,

Jim Mortellaro







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                       Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:27:41 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:05:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Balaskas


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?
 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:39:52 -0400

<snip>

 >I'd suggest that any further study be done in truly blind
 >fashion. That is, there should be a numbered series of dust
 >bunny samples, and a numbered list of people who supplied them.
 >The people conducting the study, however, shouldn't know the
 >names of the people, which of them are abductees, or which
 >sample belongs to which person. Obviously, someone has to know
 >this, but the experimenter who examines the samples should _not_
 >have any of the information.

 >The experimenter (or experimenters - there really should be more
 >than one) should divide the samples into groups, making the
 >groupings only on the basis of whatever shows up in the
 >examination. Only then should the samples be matched with their
 >donors' names, and divided into samples from abductees, and
 >samples from non-abductees.

<snip>

Thanks Greg for your very important comments.

Closely examining the different dust samples for particles in
common was only one objective of the 'Dust Bunny' project.
Another important one was to search for particles one would not
expect to see in household dust. For example, any particle that
exhibited a high level of symmetry and had smooth surfaces (or a
rough surface that repeated in a uniform way, such as the
threads on a machine screw) would be considered as a potential
object of artificial (and possibily E.T. alien?) origin.

All the dust samples had codes to match them to the individuals
that sent them to me. Even if my memory was perfect and I could
associate the names of the 17 dust bunny project participants to
the 51 dust samples, it wouldn't affect the scientific integrity
of my findings since I had no way of knowing for sure who were
in the final lists. As things actually turned out, many of the
participants in both original lists never sent me anything while
a few others not on any list I had (including a couple with no
names but known to John) did send me their dust samples.

Also, this study will not end when John gets my findings. A
video cassette with microimages of all 51 dust samples, without
the names of the participants (to protect the identity of those
with the dustiest homes?), will be made available to anyone to
examine and come to their own conclusions.

My plan was to use the help of two other individuals with much
previous work experience using microscopes on the 'Dust Bunny'
project. Unfortunately, since dust samples continued to arrive
months after the intended start of the project and because of a
very lengthy strike at York University followed by the hectic
rush to catch up afterwards, these two other researchers,
Michael Smith and Karen Rethoret, never got to participate
directly.

I see no reason why the findings from this study, mine or those
of others who independently examined these dust samples, would
not be accepted as scientifically valid. Although the 'Dust
Bunny' project is indeed a pioneering effort, it is a major step
towards finding correct answers to questions regarding the
physical reality of the alien abduction phenomena.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                        Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Lemire

From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:49:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:08:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Lemire


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?
 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:39:52 -0400

 >>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:37:55 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >>Since the initial phase of this project was essentially a visual
 >>examine of the dust particles and to make comparisons with the
 >>dust from other samples, sterile Q-tips was not an absolute
 >>necessity. To prevent the individual dust samples from becoming
 >>contaminated by local dust, the dust covered Q-tips were
 >>transferred directly from the zip-locked bags to small covered
 >>petrie dishes which could readily be examined by microscope
 >>without further disturbing the specimens.

 >>This type of study could have gone on indefinitely considering
 >>that even the smallest of the 51 dust samples sent to me
 >>contained literally thousands of potentially important particles
 >>to examine. Since high magnification video images of all 51 of
 >>these dust samples taken through the microscope will be made
 >>available to others to examine, maybe they will notice some
 >>particle(s) worthy of checking into further or possibly prove to
 >>be actual physical evidence for the alien abduction phenomena.

 >I'd suggest that any further study be done in truly blind
 >fashion. That is, there should be a numbered series of dust
 >bunny samples, and a numbered list of people who supplied them.
 >The people conducting the study, however, shouldn't know the
 >names of the people, which of them are abductees, or which
 >sample belongs to which person. Obviously, someone has to know
 >this, but the experimenter who examines the samples should _not_
 >have any of the information.

 >The experimenter (or experimenters - there really should be more
 >than one) should divide the samples into groups, making the
 >groupings only on the basis of whatever shows up in the
 >examination. Only then should the samples be matched with their
 >donors' names, and divided into samples from abductees, and
 >samples from non-abductees.

 >If the groups coincide with the abductee/non-abductee division,
 >then we've learned something. We know that a purely physical
 >examination of the material shows a difference between samples
 >that come from abductees, and samples that don't. I don't mean
 >to disrespect what John and Nick have done so far -- this was
 >pioneering work! -- but to make the study truly scientific, I do
 >think these extra steps are needed.

 >Greg Sandow

Greg,

I truly don't understand why you even bothered responding to the
dust bunny e-mail at all Greg. Although you state that you don't
mean to disrespect the work of John and Nick, what exactly do
you mean? Did you bother providing your input when this
experiment first started? I haven't seen any previous input from
you concerning this research, but if I missed it, please correct
me with references.

Why do you begin your e-mail with the statement "any further
study", when this one isn't even finished yet!? That's the
problem with many people on this List, to many chiefs and not
enough Indians!

Anyone can sit and pick a project apart from the sidelines but
you're absolutely right, John and Nick actually did something
more than 'type their opinions and suggestions', they were the
pioneers that actually _took_ action on an idea. This is by all
means no perfect world and we don't seem to have scientists with
the necessary equipment banging on our doors begging us for
sample 'dust bunny' material. I'm sure all of us here could
think of ways to improve the study, but until any of us are
ready to take the initial steps that John and Nick have, why
bring those 'could haves' up?

Now in no way do I mean for this e-mail to be disparaging, but I
think more positive comments are needed.


Todd Lemire







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:11:56 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:10:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Stacy


List,

Anyone on this List still wondering how (or why) Corso could
have lied, given who he was, would do well to follow the ongoing
story concerning history professor Joseph Ellis. A good summary
of same can be found on p. 52 of the current issue of Time
magazine (July 2, 2001).

Ellis won the National Book Award in 1997 for his biography of
Thomas Jefferson, along with a Pulitzer Prize for another book
about the founding fathers of our country.

At the same time, he was telling his Mount Holyoke students that
he had served active duty in Vietnam as a platoon leader and
paratrooper, that his unit was nearby when the My Lai massacre
occurred, and that he served on Gen. William Westmoreland's
staff.

None of the latter was true. In fact, Ellis was doing graduate
work at Yale and teaching history at West Point during the time
he was supposed to have been in Vietnam.

Moral? People in high places sometimes lie. Get used to it.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                  Re: Activist-Enthusiast Or Misanthropist?

From: Robert H. Williams <rhw007@twcny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 21:22:54 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:15:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Activist-Enthusiast Or Misanthropist?


Activist-Enthusiast Or Misanthropist

A call for a 'webmarch' on Washington DC, State Capitals, Mayor
offices and local radio, TV and newspapers and educational
institutions across the country, if not the entire planet,
calling for SERIOUS and OPEN and HONEST scientific
investigations and hearings and meetings raised by the new
Cydonia Mensae Face image and Project Disclosure.

I know many people concentrate on specific space things, but the
subject of WHO built these things, WHERE are they now, and WHY
haven't they landed on the White House lawn invariably come up
with true n sincere skeptics as well as being brought up by the
outright blind dismissers. In other words, for some people to
come around and finally agree the Cydonia Mensae Face alone IS
artificial (much less anything else being artificial), we who
purport it to be that then MUST, according to them, have the
answers for all those other questions which then spring forth.
Who built them? What did they use to build them? When did they
build them? Where did they go? Why were they built? and How does
it affect my life?

Remember that most people go through their lives with their
vision narrowed to the path of their lives between their toes
and it takes a lot of carnage in the outside world to even get
them interested beyond the TV news to wonder what�s going on
around them in the wider world; much less to have the curiosity
or inclination to look up at the stars themselves and notice and
wonder about �out there� when there is so so much to worry about
between their toes down here. We NEED to find a way to
patiently, persistently, politely, but also so ever pointedly to
aim a message into the collective psyche.

In order to garner public support for PUBLIC pressure upon the
bureaucrats we need to address this preconception that it is
necessary for us to come up with final answers to those
questions, but it must at least be acknowledged that the general
public really has these concerns and questions in their minds
when this subject matter comes up. They can't help it, its
human to do so, we ourselves are wondering the same things after
all.

A phone, letter, AND email campaign to ALL of our political
representatives and news outlets from the local level to the
national level is necessary and is urgently needed to maintain
the momentum of the Project Disclosure news conference and the
new Cydonia Mensae Face image. YOU, the citizens are the ONLY
ones who can bring the politicians and media around to putting
pressure on those who withhold the information to release it.
If you�ve ever protested anything before, this should be a
breeze for you, a nostalgic trip back to the 60s and 70s; for
others who have never written on complained before, it�s past
time you started letting the government, OF the PEOPLE and FOR
the PEOPLE know what YOU the PEOPLE really and truly want. It
is the ONLY way we will get what we want.

For media listings:

http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/


For information on the Cydonia Mensae Face visit:

http://vgl.org/vglmars.htm

http://www.infosourceresearch.com/

http://www.psrw.com/~markc/marshome.html


For national political leaders visit:

http://www.disclosureproject.org/

where information about who your representatives are and sample
letters are provided. You can add a sentence or two about
Cydonia on Mars.

Your own local politicians can be asked to write the national
politicians on your behest to inquire into these matters. This
includes non-United States people too! If you DO nothing about
this, then you must then be satisfied with the nothing we�re
getting from the governments. If you don�t ACT, then you have
no basis for honest complaint it�s taking too long to get
average humans anywhere in space and astronauts and cosmonauts
anywhere beyond Low Earth Orbit.

Let's taunt a Billionaire to Mars!

Think out there ACT down here... NOW!

Give a High School kid a reason to care... a spacewalk.


Bob... ;-{)


http://members.tripod.com/rhw007/


PS: Spread this message as far and wide as possible for greatest
impact.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                    Activist-Enthusiast Or Misanthropist?

From: Robert H. Williams <rhw007@twcny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 21:22:54 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:20:41 -0400
Subject: Activist-Enthusiast Or Misanthropist?


Activist-Enthusiast Or Misanthropist

A call for a 'webmarch' on Washington DC, State Capitals, Mayor
offices and local radio, TV and newspapers and educational
institutions across the country, if not the entire planet,
calling for SERIOUS and OPEN and HONEST scientific
investigations and hearings and meetings raised by the new
Cydonia Mensae Face image and Project Disclosure.

I know many people concentrate on specific space things, but the
subject of WHO built these things, WHERE are they now, and WHY
haven't they landed on the White House lawn invariably come up
with true n sincere skeptics as well as being brought up by the
outright blind dismissers. In other words, for some people to
come around and finally agree the Cydonia Mensae Face alone IS
artificial (much less anything else being artificial), we who
purport it to be that then MUST, according to them, have the
answers for all those other questions which then spring forth.
Who built them? What did they use to build them? When did they
build them? Where did they go? Why were they built? and How does
it affect my life?

Remember that most people go through their lives with their
vision narrowed to the path of their lives between their toes
and it takes a lot of carnage in the outside world to even get
them interested beyond the TV news to wonder what�s going on
around them in the wider world; much less to have the curiosity
or inclination to look up at the stars themselves and notice and
wonder about �out there� when there is so so much to worry about
between their toes down here. We NEED to find a way to
patiently, persistently, politely, but also so ever pointedly to
aim a message into the collective psyche.

In order to garner public support for PUBLIC pressure upon the
bureaucrats we need to address this preconception that it is
necessary for us to come up with final answers to those
questions, but it must at least be acknowledged that the general
public really has these concerns and questions in their minds
when this subject matter comes up. They can't help it, its
human to do so, we ourselves are wondering the same things after
all.

A phone, letter, AND email campaign to ALL of our political
representatives and news outlets from the local level to the
national level is necessary and is urgently needed to maintain
the momentum of the Project Disclosure news conference and the
new Cydonia Mensae Face image. YOU, the citizens are the ONLY
ones who can bring the politicians and media around to putting
pressure on those who withhold the information to release it.
If you�ve ever protested anything before, this should be a
breeze for you, a nostalgic trip back to the 60s and 70s; for
others who have never written on complained before, it�s past
time you started letting the government, OF the PEOPLE and FOR
the PEOPLE know what YOU the PEOPLE really and truly want. It
is the ONLY way we will get what we want.

For media listings:

http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/


For information on the Cydonia Mensae Face visit:

http://vgl.org/vglmars.htm

http://www.infosourceresearch.com/

http://www.psrw.com/~markc/marshome.html


For national political leaders visit:

http://www.disclosureproject.org/

where information about who your representatives are and sample
letters are provided. You can add a sentence or two about
Cydonia on Mars.

Your own local politicians can be asked to write the national
politicians on your behest to inquire into these matters. This
includes non-United States people too! If you DO nothing about
this, then you must then be satisfied with the nothing we�re
getting from the governments. If you don�t ACT, then you have
no basis for honest complaint it�s taking too long to get
average humans anywhere in space and astronauts and cosmonauts
anywhere beyond Low Earth Orbit.

Let's taunt a Billionaire to Mars!

Think out there ACT down here... NOW!

Give a High School kid a reason to care... a spacewalk.


Bob... ;-{)


http://members.tripod.com/rhw007/


PS: Spread this message as far and wide as possible for greatest
impact.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                         Billy Cox Back In UFO Game?

From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
Date: 27 Jun 2001 19:02:13 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:39:50 -0400
Subject: Billy Cox Back In UFO Game?


Billy Cox has just published another UFO article in Florida
Today and is discussing a possible third.

Cox used to publish countless pro-UFO articles until he went on
a long hiatus. Part of the problem was Billy's observation of a
mere "tolerance" of UFO articles by many editors.

-----

Source: Florida Today

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/columnists/cox/062701cox.htm

June 27, 2001

UFOs Haunt Missile Crew
By Billy Cox

A Florida Today column

When you're a launch-control operator in charge of a single
missile fitted with a plutonium warhead packing enough yield
(three megatons) to enlarge Hiroshima's incineration by a factor
of 150, life in even the loneliest desert can get a little
intense. You remember the big things first.

You remember things like October 1962, when activating the go
codes - and a nuclear exchange - was literally at your
fingertips. As it was again in November 1963, when the president
got blown away and the first prime suspect was already locked
into a pre-targeted grid pattern. If you were at the Strategic
Air Command outpost near Roswell, N.M., you watched fuel
explosions destroy three Atlas silos, and you wondered what
would happen if it got down to launching live rounds.

You remember other crazy things, like the 24-hour shifts, which
actually worked out to about 27 after you added round-trip drive
time. You remember the toll baby-sitting ICBMs took on marriages
and other relationships, the divorces.

But it wasn't until last month, when Jerry Nelson of Cocoa Beach
read about the Disclosure Project going on in Washington, D.C.,
that he remembered something else.

In May, some 20 people claiming encounters with unidentified
flying objects while performing military or government duties
went public to demand open congressional hearings on this
largely classified phenomenon. One Air Force veteran, Robert
Salas, reported how UFOs buzzing missile silos at Malmstrom Air
Force Base managed to shut down more than a dozen Minuteman
nukes in Montana during March 1967.

Actually, more widely publicized UFO snooping into restricted
space around nuclear weapons systems occurred in the autumn of
1975. That's when security forces at Loring, (Maine), Wurtsmith
(Michigan), and Malmstrom (again) Air Force bases were scrambled
- in vain - to apprehend the intruders. But Nelson had never
heard of those events. And even though he was stationed at
Walker AFB on the outskirts of Roswell in the 1960s, he also
says he never heard of the alleged 1947 flying saucer crash near
the New Mexico cow town until several years ago.

What Nelson does recall is how, as a member of the 579th
Strategic Missile Squadron, his post at an ICBM silo called Site
9 sustained its own peculiar nocturnal security breaches during
a period of several months.

"The guards were scared," says Nelson, a retired pharmacist.
"These objects would hover over the silo and shine lights down
on them without making any noise. So I'd call the base and the
base would say, 'We'll take it under advisement,' but I never
got a chance to see it, because I couldn't leave my post."

One USAF veteran who got a look at something a little different
was missile facilities technician Bob Caplan, now living in
Rohnert Park, Calif. He didn't work with Nelson's crew, but late
one night on another shift, a guard at Site 9 asked the ranking
officer below to dim the security lights to cut the glare
because weird lights just beyond the perimeter were giving him
the willies. Caplan went topside to check it out.

After emerging into clear, moonless, pitch-black darkness,
Caplan says it took him a few moments to spot the silent
interloper. "It was definitely on the ground, and it was white
and very intense," he recalls. "It's hard to explain. It didn't
put a beam of light out, it was more concentrated, but not like
a sphere. More like a flat circle, like a halogen light that's
shining flat on the ground."

When Caplan and a guard swung their flashlights toward the thing
and approached, it vanished. Nothing was there. The light
reappeared seconds later, some 20 to 30 feet away, only to
disappear without a trace. Although Caplan never saw it again,
he was interrogated several days later by an Office of Special
Investigations agent. Caplan never saw the report, assuming one
was filed.

Gene Lamb of Oklahoma City was a 579th SMS deputy crew commander
who didn't see anything, but heard about and read UFO stories.
"One of those things supposedly landed north of Roswell," he
says. "It was reported by a highway patrolman who said it left a
triangulation pattern where its legs touched down. And there was
another (UFO) incident after that, a daylight sighting."

Even his crew commander witnessed UFO activity. Lamb says he
can't get into it, because his old buddy feels constrained by a
security oath.

Lamb, by the way, is the reunion coordinator for the 579th,
whose short life span ran from 1961 to 1965. Although the
assignment produced some lasting personal bonds, Lamb says not
everybody wants to attend get-togethers. "I've had guys tell me,
'I don't want to be discourteous, but what happened out there
ruined my life.' One even told me he suffered a nervous
breakdown afterward."

Well, at least we won the Cold War.


Grant Cameron


"The President did not know whether or not Gorbachev believed in
reincarnation. Perhaps the President in a previous life had been
the inventor of the shield."

           --A Top-Secret Memorandum of Conversation describing
           Reagan's defense of SDI to Chairman Gorbachev during
           their one on one Summit meetings in Geneva November
           20, 1985







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 28

              Re: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 21:46:50 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:43:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate - McCoy


 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 16:31:12 -0400
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:03:15 -0000

 >>>From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 07:32:43 -0400
 >>>Subject: Argentina: Cachi UFO Video Considered Legitimate

 >>>SOURCE: Diario "El Tribuno" de Salta (Argentina)
 >>>DATE: June 27, 2001

 >>>Specialist who analyzed video for 3 hours
 >>>Considers Cachi UFO Video to be legitimate

 >>>A specialist in the UFO phenomenon from Salta analyzed the video
 >>>made in Cachi and considers it to be legitimate. It shall be
 >>>showin at a world UFO conference.

 ><snip>

 >>>According to the Saltan ufologist, there are some curious
 >>>details about the Cachi case, such as the fact that the sighting
 >>>occured only a few hours away from the 54th anniversary of the
 >>>first official UFO report of the modern era on June 24th
 >>>1947 - the Kenneth Arnold sighting.

 >>Scott and list,

 >>I realize you are only passing on a translation, but... Bruce
 >>Maccabee probably will have a good laugh when he reads that
 >>someone (whose photo analysis expertise is not mentioned and his
 >>analysis techniques are not reported) decided after
 >>_three_hours_ this video is not only legitimate, but shows a
 >>"mother ship"(real scientific term, that).>
 >
 >>Now he's ready to broadcast this "finding" to the world. Sounds
 >>like pseudoscience to me.

 >It does sound a bit premature!



Hello all, Dick, Bruce,

Thank you both! As one who is tired of "The best ever UFO
video!", etc., etc., I appriciate your opinions. While Scott
Corrales is just the reporter, the Video has yet to be proven
real.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 28

              Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Young

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 01:11:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:46:24 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Young


Thanks everyone for the information regarding the New York City
UFO video supposedly taken from a helicopter.

 From a quick review of the available information the video
sounds bogus, but it will be interesting to hear what Jeff
Sainio has to add.

I first thought the video was bogus when catching it on the Fox
News Network Monday. It seems like a camera operator simply
couldn't keep up with something shooting around that fast. It's
like they say; "If seems too good to be true, it probably isn't
true."



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 >
   Jun > Jun 28

              Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:32:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:50:42 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Velez


 >From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday
 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:26:01 +0100

 >>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:37:21 -0400
 >>From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

 >>Does anyone have additional info on the alleged UFO video shown
 >>on Fox News Channel yesterday (Monday, June 26)? This video was
 >>taken from a helicopter and shows a flying saucer, possibly in
 >>New York City, partially behind a skyscraper. >Thanks,


 >I think you may find a copy of the clip you are referring to on
 >the UFO Scotland website.

 >Please find clip on top of this page:

 >http://www.ufoscotland.co.uk/video.htm

 >From what I have managed to find out about this clip, although
 >nothing should be taken as confirmed to date, It was allegedly
 >submitted to the SCI-Fi.com channel by a couple who were
 >overflying NY in a helicopter trip. According to the dialogue,
 >the women who recorded the footage wants to be anonymous as it
 >was not her boyfriend she was with on this trip. Suspicious
 >already right? <G>

<snip>

 >It has to be said that this clip is very interesting indeed and
 >when taken at face value, does look very real indeed. However
 >there does seem to be a few obvious problems with this clip
 >which I am sure you will pick up on after viewing it a few
 >times.

 >Please note that the footage cannot be streamed from the site
 >but can be downloaded and viewed via windows media player. Size
 >approx 5 megabytes.

 >Hope this helps, Kenny.


Hi Kenny, Dave, All,

Just as an FYI, the building in the video is one of the two
World Trade Center towers. From what I can tell from the view,
(appears to be facing -south- when the video starts) the "UFO"
is peeking out from behind the westernmost tower. (Tower 1)

I'm no video analyst. I'm not looking at the clip with the eyes
of an "expert." But I'll be damned if that bugger looks "real"
enough to me.

Interesting clip. Even more interesting is that Jeff Sainio
finds it 'interesting'. Maybe we got one here! Let's wait and
see what Jeff and others may have to say.

Bruce: You mentioned that something looked a little 'hokey' to
you about the clip in question. Could you elaborate on that a
little please?


Regards,

John Velez,

'Reporting from New Yawk'  <LOL> ;)


                      "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 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                        Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:36:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:52:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Velez


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?
 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:39:52 -0400

 >>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:37:55 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >>Since the initial phase of this project was essentially a visual
 >>examine of the dust particles and to make comparisons with the
 >>dust from other samples, sterile Q-tips was not an absolute
 >>necessity. To prevent the individual dust samples from becoming
 >>contaminated by local dust, the dust covered Q-tips were
 >>transferred directly from the zip-locked bags to small covered
 >>petrie dishes which could readily be examined by microscope
 >>without further disturbing the specimens.

 >>This type of study could have gone on indefinitely considering
 >>that even the smallest of the 51 dust samples sent to me
 >>contained literally thousands of potentially important particles
 >>to examine. Since high magnification video images of all 51 of
 >>these dust samples taken through the microscope will be made
 >>available to others to examine, maybe they will notice some
 >>particle(s) worthy of checking into further or possibly prove to
 >>be actual physical evidence for the alien abduction phenomena.

 >I'd suggest that any further study be done in truly blind
 >fashion. That is, there should be a numbered series of dust
 >bunny samples, and a numbered list of people who supplied them.
 >The people conducting the study, however, shouldn't know the
 >names of the people, which of them are abductees, or which
 >sample belongs to which person. Obviously, someone has to know
 >this, but the experimenter who examines the samples should _not_
 >have any of the information.

 >The experimenter (or experimenters - there really should be more
 >than one) should divide the samples into groups, making the
 >groupings only on the basis of whatever shows up in the
 >examination. Only then should the samples be matched with their
 >donors' names, and divided into samples from abductees, and
 >samples from non-abductees.

 >If the groups coincide with the abductee/non-abductee division,
 >then we've learned something. We know that a purely physical
 >examination of the material shows a difference between samples
 >that come from abductees, and samples that don't. I don't mean
 >to disrespect what John and Nick have done so far -- this was
 >pioneering work! -- but to make the study truly scientific, I do
 >think these extra steps are needed.


Hiya Greg,

I contacted Nancy Talbot who conducted the original study along
with Dr. Levengood. I've asked her if I can pass the samples we
collected on to her, and her people, so that they can have a go
at the material. (If) they do it. I spoke with her two weeks ago
but I haven't heard back from her yet. I'm keeping my digits
crossed.

I like your suggestions and wish we had the advantage of having
them when we (Nick and I) first took this project on. You know
more about this kind of stuff than I do. If you have a
microscope 'collecting dust' in a closet somewhere I'll send
-you- the samples! <LOL>

*It was good to see you 'in person' recently! :)

Warmest 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 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                 A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 04:19:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 14:01:19 -0400
Subject: A Case For Abduction - Debbie Jordan-Kauble


Hi All,

I mentioned Debbie Jordan-Kauble's name this past week in a post
to Katharina and it started me thinking about which cases I
thought made the best argument for the reality of UFO/alien
abduction. One that stands out prominently in my own mind is the
Debbie Jordan-Kauble case. ("Intruders" by Budd Hopkins)

Here is a case that has:

a. ground trace evidence (that was submitted for analysis to an
agricultural lab) which was found to have been baked at
incredibly high temperatures

b. it involved multiple witnesses - Deb's neighbors

c. her dog was exposed to the UFO and _died_ shortly afterwards
with symptoms that are reminiscent of radiation sickness. He
lost his fur in clumps, and developed open sores and the like

d. and the abduction itself involved multiple participants - Deb
and her mom, who remained immobilized and helpless throughout
the abduction

There aren't many abduction cases with that much 'hard' evidence
and witness testimony/corroboration. (Budd filled a book with
it!) I j

I wanted to put this case out there for comment because, IMHO,
it is stronger and better documented and speaks loudly for
the physical reality of UFO/alien abductions.

I have also had the pleasure of becoming friends with Debbie and
her husband and I'm here to testify that Deb is one of the
sweetest and most straightforward and open ladies that you'd
ever want to meet. She is a credible person who lacks the kind
of guile that a 'lie' of those proportions would require.

Just putting it out there for comment and consideration.

Dick? Kevin? Greg? Serge? What do you think of the merits of
this particular abduction case? For my money, I think it's one
of the _best_ yet for some reason one of the least discussed
cases that we have.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                        Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 08:26:29 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 14:08:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Friedman


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:47:14 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Barney Barnett [was: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit]
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:46:16 -0700

 >>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:31:21 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>Not only does it say nothing about a crash, but it gives no hint
 >>>of any extraordinary event. There is nothing in the diary but
 >>>the mundane, including the weather each day. I find it
 >>>extraordinary that Barney could have been involved in something
 >>>as exciting as this but give NO hint of it, even if that hint
 >>>was disguised in some fashion.

Kevin you very recently made an excellent argument for people
involved with high secruity programs not telling spouses. Barney
worked for the US government. He was a WW 1 Veteran.

 >>>Given the diary and the dates, we were trying to figure out how
 >>>Barnett could have been involved. We learned, through various
 >>>interviews that Barnett did get as far south as Carrizozo and as
 >>>far east as Roswell. Mainly this was for meetings and the like,
 >>>but again, there is nothing in the diary to confirm this.

During 1947 there were no trips noted in the diary East of
Socorro. There were many trips to the High Country (The Plains)

 >>>And, if we look at the diary closely, we find that the diary
 >>>says, on July 2, 1947, "Barney went to the high country near
 >>>Datil." This means, unfortunately, the crash would have had to
 >>>take place on July 1, not July 2.

 >>Kevin,

I can't follow this. Datil is on the way from the crash site
back to Magdalena and Socorro. I stayed there overnight with
John Carpenter, Don Berliner, Robert Bigelow and Gerald
Anderson. We went there from the site on the Farr ranch. Farr
got his mail in Datil. The ranch is over 120,000 acres. No
reason Barney couldn't have been at the crash site on July 2.

 >>Not necessarily. He may have camped over night and encountered
 >>the crashed craft on his way back to the office on the 3rd.
 >>Datil is near the Plains of San Augustin. There isn't enough
 >>detail here to tell much of anything but it is certainly
 >>possible that he was near the Plains on the 3rd. Do you have
 >>Barney's location on the 29th and 30th of May and June 1st and
 >>2nd.?

 >>Ed

 >Ed, List, -

 >Let's not invent scenarios without the benefit of evidence.
 >There is absolutely no evidence that Barnett ever camped out on
 >his trips, that he slipped out of town without telling his wife
 >(which, of course, eliminates the theory that he might have seen
 >the craft and bodies over toward Corona), that he stayed in
 >motels, or that he was gone overnight very often (September
 >17... "Barney went to L.B. Moore's ranch at Horse Springs...
 >didn't make it home.) All of these things can be suggested as a
 >way of keeping Barnett over in Datil (where I have been several
 >times, and even ate lunch there once). But finally, the diary
 >answers the question (which wouldn't have been asked had I
 >provided all the information for the July 2 date...) "...came
 >home from Datil at six o'clock."

 >There is nothing in the diary to suggest he was involved in any
 >extraordinary events in 1947. Although, if I remember correctly,
 >in the latest version of the cameraman's story, or in the
 >Hessemann version of it, the Alien Autopsy footage came from an
 >event at the end of May and took place close to Socorro so
 >Barnett wouldn't have had to go very far. (Ed, I'm writing from
 >memory here and really don't have the energy to go look this
 >stuff up, because without some better information and without
 >some independent corroboration, it just isn't worth the effort.
 >Call me closed mined, call me lazy, but without some better
 >evidence that can be verified, call me unimpressed.)


We need to recall that there was testimony about the Plains site
from neighbor Harold Baca, from Barney's boss and his wife (The
Danleys) from others in the area, as well as from Jean and Vern
Maltais, Alice Knight, from retired Colonel William Leed, from
Anthropologist Robert Drake,etc Gerald passed a polygraph
examination. Ace investigator Victor Golubic dug out other
Plains area testimony.

Much of this is in "Crash at Corona". There was also a CUFOS
publication reviewing  the battle between myself and Kevin and
other commentary in my paper Roswell Revisited and my response
to Kevin's response to that. Yes, Virginia , there really was a
crash in the Plains.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 28

             Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:24:41 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:05:04 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Ledger


 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:02:23 -0400
 >From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

 >>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:37:21 -0400
 >>From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

 >>Does anyone have additional info on the alleged UFO video shown
 >>on Fox News Channel yesterday (Monday, June 26)?

 >Sounds like the vid that was shown on SciFi channel last year:

 >http://www.scifi.com/happens/ufoletter.html

 >Note how the cameraman seems to anticipate the motion of the
 >"UFO".

So what, now we're going to blow-off this video, Terry, because
you feel that she's anticipating the UFO. That's pretty thin.
Let's not try to be the first off the mark with the ufologists,
we said it first, routine. Give me something better than that.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                          'Swamp Gas Times' Is Out

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:28:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:05:02 -0400
Subject: 'Swamp Gas Times' Is Out


Dear List,

A new book by Patrick Huyghe is out, called Swamp Gas Times,
My Two Decades on the UFO Beat.

I'm prejudiced, of course, but I'm really looking forward to
reading this one.

More info here:

http://www.anomalist.com/books/swamp.html

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 >
   Jun > Jun 28

                 Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... -

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 22:13:47 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:11:20 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... -


 >From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:03:46 -0600


 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 08:29:46 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:36:43 -0400
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:45:20 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>>>>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:43:16 -0400

Hello Sue,

<snip>

 >>>>>Hypnosis is so controversial that it remains useless as a tool
 >>>>>to study the reality of a phenomenon. All considered, I propose
 >>>>>that all data ralative to hypnosis be discarded.  What does that
 >>>>>leave us with?

 >Serge, I find your blanket statement more than a little
 >disturbing. In the past, your intelligence, your ability to
 >logically deduce has been demonstrated many times on this list.
 >So, why are you so adamantly advocating investigating the
 >probability of a 4th or 5th dimension using only methods that
 >address our 3 dimensions?  You are either not thinking clearly
 >(which, I hope is _not_ the case), or you are afraid.

<snip>

You got me all wrong.

I am thinking very clearly and I am not afraid, especially not
of questions and of questionnable methods.

<snip>

 >So, to summarize, "we believers" don't give a *hit what form or
 >method is used to determine the "reality" of our experiences.

<snip>

I can relate to that, but it is absolutely necessary to assume
this from start to finish and not end up with this statement:

"We believers" don't give a shit what form or method is used.

Hypnosis in abduction research? If you can't recall your
memories on a conscious level, drilling them out with hypnosis
is not necessarily the path to sanity.

Questions:

- What does one exactly want to know with hypnosis?

- What will one exactly learn from hypnosis?

The respective answers to these questions may be irreconciable.
Hypnosis is supposed to be a tool, not a method. The failure of
some abductologists to see the difference casts some of them in
the role of plumbers using chainsaws to perform brain surgery.

<snip>

 >I can understand terror. If you have children or grandchildren,
 >and you think about the possibility that _they_ are being
 >"visited," and you have no (nada, zip, zero) control over what
 >happens to them _while_ they are being visited (screaming for
 >you to come rescue them from their terror and pain) then you may
 >_begin_ to feel the terror that "we believers" have to deal with
 >from the time we are 5 or 6 years old.

<snip>

I would go see a doctor.

And then another one.

And another one.

A freaking professional.

Not Budd Hopkins. Not Whitley Streiber.

Most people obviously treat their pets better than their souls.
That's not my case.

Am I questioning the reality of abductions? Let me put it this
way: let's say I am driving my car on a nice sunday afternoon,
and then boom! I get hit by:

a. A moose

b. An elephant

c. Another car

d. A UFO

Using some experiencers logic, a and b lead to the veterinary, c
to the garage and d to a ufologist.

I say: they _all_ lead to the garage.

<snip>

 >Now, Serge, Kevin, John, listers... what difference does it make
 >if the experiences are occuring in the 4th, 5th, or 6th
 >dimension, OR are perpetrated by Satan's minions or fairies or
 >angels?  Does your butt still hurt?  I hope so.

<snip>

Bet you $10, Sue, that you go to see a priest in half of the
preceding cases.

It does matter what happens. It does matter to determine if it's
real or not. If it's not real, I don't think you need an
abductologist. If it's real, I don't think you need some
ignorant bastard who doesn't know the difference between a tool
and a method.

Since we are in great need of serious science, my question was a
serious one:

How does one establish the reality of an experience?

Both camps seem to be afraid to address it: the believers think
it a skeptic question (which it is not) and the skeptics are
much too afraid to look into it in detail in case, my God, this
could all be true.

Afraid of the questions... of the answers?

Of course, this goes with: "Let's be careful not to pick the
information but to assimilate it."

A tough one for everybody also.

But a nice way to get some place.

Regards,

Serge









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                 British Flying Saucer Bureau - Still Open!

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 29 Jun 2001 05:10:54 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:22:20 -0400
Subject: British Flying Saucer Bureau - Still Open!


Comment:  In his May 25th letter, Senator James M. Inhofe,
stated "On April 22, 2001, the British Flying Saucer Bureau,
which had been hunting for extraterrestrial activity for half a
century, closed its doors due to the lack of UFOs."

Not according to the message below.

-------

From: Richard Alexander rick.blackchip@virgin.net
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:42:14 +0100
To: black-triangle@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [black-triangle] British Flying Saucer Bureau - Correction


A letter has been published in the current (July 2001) edition
of the UK UFO magazine, from Dennis Plunkett, stating in no
uncertain terms that he has not informed anybody that the
British Flying Saucer Bureau has closed down and that reports to
that effect, circulated in the UK national newspaper "The Times"
in a report by Simon de Bruxelles - and passed on (in good
faith) via various go-betweens to this group are totally
erroneous.

-------








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                        Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 12:43:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:27:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Sandow


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:03:11 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >As I recall, when all this was going down, Nick was the only
 >"volunteer" willing to or having the opportunity of doing, the
 >work. Although I could be wrong about this, and even if I was,
 >I would doubt the availability of sufficient people willing to
 >do the work, able to do it, or even willing to think about doing
 >it.

 >Such has been the dilemma which is in part, a constituent of the
 >overall conundrum revolving around UFOs and the Abduction
 >Experience.

But still the scientific requirements don't change. And there in
fact is a serious research project going on, very privately, in
which every blind testing requirement is adequately met.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                    CCCRN News: 06-29-01 Circle Report #3

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:56:57 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:29:46 -0400
Subject: CCCRN News: 06-29-01 Circle Report #3


CCCRN NEWS
The E-News Service of the Canadian Crop Circle Research Network

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada

June 29, 2001

_____________________________


(UPDATE) CIRCLE REPORT #3 - BIGGAR, SASKATCHEWAN

Additional photos of the Biggar circles have been added to the
web site, taken by Susan Lehnert, daughter of the farmer and a
new field research assistant with CCCRN, and Brenda Love. The
rings have markedly faded since first found, but are still
visible.

http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/biggar01.html


____________________________


The Canadian Crop Circle Research Network is a non-profit
organization which investigates the crop circle phenomenon and
possibly related phenomena in Canada, creating a liason between
researchers, farmers, the public, the media and scientists in
trying to solve this ongoing enigma


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 Branches:
http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/contacts.html

Circle Phenomena in Canada 2001:
http://www.geocities.com/cropcirclecanada/circlescanada01.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 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                        Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 13:24:03 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:31:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Sandow


 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:27:41 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:39:52 -0400

 >All the dust samples had codes to match them to the individuals
 >that sent them to me. Even if my memory was perfect and I could
 >associate the names of the 17 dust bunny project participants to
 >the 51 dust samples, it wouldn't affect the scientific integrity
 >of my findings since I had no way of knowing for sure who were
 >in the final lists. As things actually turned out, many of the
 >participants in both original lists never sent me anything while
 >a few others not on any list I had (including a couple with no
 >names but known to John) did send me their dust samples.

 >Also, this study will not end when John gets my findings. A
 >video cassette with microimages of all 51 dust samples, without
 >the names of the participants (to protect the identity of those
 >with the dustiest homes?), will be made available to anyone to
 >examine and come to their own conclusions.

<snip>

Nick,

Thanks so much for this information. I'm impressed, and it's
good to know that things were done as correctly as possible.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                   PRA - James Randi Headed For Australia

From: John Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 13:37:29 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:35:07 -0400
Subject: PRA - James Randi Headed For Australia


Hi All,


Just some information for your files. James Randi will be in
Australia at the Brisbane's Powerhouse festival in August 2001.

***

"ATTENTION all spoon benders and palm readers.

Renowned US sceptic James Randi is offering a $1.9 million prize
to an Aussie who can prove he or she has supernatural abilities.

Those who fancy a shot at the prize will have their chance when
Mr Randi attends Brisbane's Powerhouse festival in August.

"This is a genuine offer to anyone in Australia who can prove
they have supernatural abilities," Mr Randi said.

"In most cases all they need to do is give a relatively simple
preliminary demonstration of their claim.

"If successful, that will be followed by a formal test.

If they pass that they can claim the $US1 million."

Anyone with special powers is eligible, including psychics,
mediums, fortune tellers, astrologers, mind readers and water
diviners.

"I won't be surprised if no one comes forward to be tested," Mr
Randi said.

"For all their boasting, these folk are reticent to prove their
cases."

Entry details are available at Mr Randi's website,
www.randi.org.

HAVE your say. Voteline, Page 19


REF: "Mind Boggling Prize"
         By JEREMY CALVERT
         The Herald Sun, Melbourne, Australia,
         28 June 2001, p11
        (1.5 Million Readers)

                          ***

HAVE your say. Voteline
Phone Lines

QUESTION ASKED:

"Do you believe some people have psychic powers?"

REF: The Herald Sun, Melbourne, Australia,
         28 June 2001, p19
        (1.5 Million Readers)

                          ***

NEXT DAY RESULT:

   YES   = 134   74.9%
    No   =  45   25.1%
Total   = 179  100.0%

Sample   = 179/1.5m = 0.012%

REF: The Herald Sun, Melbourne, Australia,
         29 June 2001, p19
        (1.5 Million Readers)

                          ***


Regards to all,


John Auchettl
PRA - Director


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 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                        Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 13:42:17 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:38:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Velez


 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:27:41 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:39:52 -0400

 ><snip>

 >>I'd suggest that any further study be done in truly blind
 >>fashion. That is, there should be a numbered series of dust
 >>bunny samples, and a numbered list of people who supplied them.
 >>The people conducting the study, however, shouldn't know the
 >>names of the people, which of them are abductees, or which
 >>sample belongs to which person. Obviously, someone has to know
 >>this, but the experimenter who examines the samples should _not_
 >>have any of the information.

 >>The experimenter (or experimenters - there really should be more
 >>than one) should divide the samples into groups, making the
 >>groupings only on the basis of whatever shows up in the
 >>examination. Only then should the samples be matched with their
 >>donors' names, and divided into samples from abductees, and
 >>samples from non-abductees.

 ><snip>

 >Thanks Greg for your very important comments.
 >
 >Closely examining the different dust samples for particles in
 >common was only one objective of the 'Dust Bunny' project.
 >Another important one was to search for particles one would not
 >expect to see in household dust. For example, any particle that
 >exhibited a high level of symmetry and had smooth surfaces (or a
 >rough surface that repeated in a uniform way, such as the
 >threads on a machine screw) would be considered as a potential
 >object of artificial (and possibily E.T. alien?) origin.

 >All the dust samples had codes to match them to the individuals
 >that sent them to me. Even if my memory was perfect and I could
 >associate the names of the 17 dust bunny project participants to
 >the 51 dust samples, it wouldn't affect the scientific integrity
 >of my findings since I had no way of knowing for sure who were
 >in the final lists. As things actually turned out, many of the
 >participants in both original lists never sent me anything while
 >a few others not on any list I had (including a couple with no
 >names but known to John) did send me their dust samples.

 >Also, this study will not end when John gets my findings. A
 >video cassette with microimages of all 51 dust samples, without
 >the names of the participants (to protect the identity of those
 >with the dustiest homes?), will be made available to anyone to
 >examine and come to their own conclusions.

 >My plan was to use the help of two other individuals with much
 >previous work experience using microscopes on the 'Dust Bunny'
 >project. Unfortunately, since dust samples continued to arrive
 >months after the intended start of the project and because of a
 >very lengthy strike at York University followed by the hectic
 >rush to catch up afterwards, these two other researchers,
 >Michael Smith and Karen Rethoret, never got to participate
 >directly.

 >I see no reason why the findings from this study, mine or those
 >of others who independently examined these dust samples, would
 >not be accepted as scientifically valid. Although the 'Dust
 >Bunny' project is indeed a pioneering effort, it is a major step
 >towards finding correct answers to questions regarding the
 >physical reality of the alien abduction phenomena.


 >Nick Balaskas

Hiya Nick,

A note just to thank you publicly once again for taking the time
to do this and all the other projects that you take on. You're
my "go to" guy whenever somebody sends me something "physical"
that needs to be checked out. Actually, there is nobody else!

You wrote:

 >Although the 'Dust Bunny' project is indeed a pioneering effort,
 >it is a major step towards finding correct answers to questions
 >regarding the physical reality of the alien abduction phenomena.

That's the way the boys downtown get things done!  ;)

Nick, finding 'correct answers' based on our own 'best work' is
what it's all about. It's a crying shame that we don't have the
$ or the access to a *multidisciplinary group of -independent-
experts and specialists. Finding truly independent analysts to
look at the scraps of physical evidence that materializes is
"Mission Impossible",

That's how unique and special you are Nick. We may have our
philosophical differences, but I want you to know how much I
appreciate having you there, and all that you do on your own
time. You _do_ the work and you don't do it for personal reward.
By my definition, it makes you another one of ufology's many
unsung heros.  You're certainly one of mine anyway.  :)


Best,

John Velez

*(Don't even mention NIDS. NIDS is an informational Black Hole
owned by a very private individual.)


                      "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 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                        Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:02:00 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:41:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Velez


 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:49:06 -0400
 >From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:39:52 -0400

 >>>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:37:55 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 >>>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >>>Since the initial phase of this project was essentially a visual
 >>>examine of the dust particles and to make comparisons with the
 >>>dust from other samples, sterile Q-tips was not an absolute
 >>>necessity. To prevent the individual dust samples from becoming
 >>>contaminated by local dust, the dust covered Q-tips were
 >>>transferred directly from the zip-locked bags to small covered
 >>>petrie dishes which could readily be examined by microscope
 >>>without further disturbing the specimens.

 >>>This type of study could have gone on indefinitely considering
 >>>that even the smallest of the 51 dust samples sent to me
 >>>contained literally thousands of potentially important particles
 >>>to examine. Since high magnification video images of all 51 of
 >>>these dust samples taken through the microscope will be made
 >>>available to others to examine, maybe they will notice some
 >>>particle(s) worthy of checking into further or possibly prove to
 >>>be actual physical evidence for the alien abduction phenomena.

 >>I'd suggest that any further study be done in truly blind
 >>fashion. That is, there should be a numbered series of dust
 >>bunny samples, and a numbered list of people who supplied them.
 >>The people conducting the study, however, shouldn't know the
 >>names of the people, which of them are abductees, or which
 >>sample belongs to which person. Obviously, someone has to know
 >>this, but the experimenter who examines the samples should _not_
 >>have any of the information.

 >>The experimenter (or experimenters - there really should be more
 >>than one) should divide the samples into groups, making the
 >>groupings only on the basis of whatever shows up in the
 >>examination. Only then should the samples be matched with their
 >>donors' names, and divided into samples from abductees, and
 >>samples from non-abductees.

 >>If the groups coincide with the abductee/non-abductee division,
 >>then we've learned something. We know that a purely physical
 >>examination of the material shows a difference between samples
 >>that come from abductees, and samples that don't. I don't mean
 >>to disrespect what John and Nick have done so far -- this was
 >>pioneering work! -- but to make the study truly scientific, I do
 >>think these extra steps are needed.


 >I truly don't understand why you even bothered responding to the
 >dust bunny e-mail at all Greg. Although you state that you don't
 >mean to disrespect the work of John and Nick, what exactly do
 >you mean? Did you bother providing your input when this
 >experiment first started? I haven't seen any previous input from
 >you concerning this research, but if I missed it, please correct
 >me with references.

 >Why do you begin your e-mail with the statement "any further
 >study", when this one isn't even finished yet!? That's the
 >problem with many people on this List, to many chiefs and not
 >enough Indians!

 >Anyone can sit and pick a project apart from the sidelines but
 >you're absolutely right, John and Nick actually did something
 >more than 'type their opinions and suggestions', they were the
 >pioneers that actually _took_ action on an idea. This is by all
 >means no perfect world and we don't seem to have scientists with
 >the necessary equipment banging on our doors begging us for
 >sample 'dust bunny' material. I'm sure all of us here could
 >think of ways to improve the study, but until any of us are
 >ready to take the initial steps that John and Nick have, why
 >bring those 'could haves' up?

 >Now in no way do I mean for this e-mail to be disparaging, but I
 >think more positive comments are needed.


Hi Todd, hi Greg,

I just want to nip a potential misunderstanding in the bud if I
may.

Greg is one of the brightest, most even-handed, and just plain
nicest human beings I have ever met. I honestly believe that
Todd has simply misread the intention or meaning of Greg's post.

Todd:

You know him only from this List, but I know Greg personally and
I'm telling you that he was not coming from where 'you thought'
he was coming from.  Trust me on this.  ;)

Greg: I greatly appreciate your thoughts always. I believe I
have already expressed my regret (in response to your post) that
Nick and I didn't have the advantage of your input when we first
decided to do this. Todd's a good guy and I'm sure the whole
thing is just a misread.

Let there be Peace, <LOL>

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 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:30:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:44:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Velez


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:11:56 -0500

 >List,

 >Anyone on this List still wondering how (or why) Corso could
 >have lied, given who he was, would do well to follow the ongoing
 >story concerning history professor Joseph Ellis. A good summary
 >of same can be found on p. 52 of the current issue of Time
 >magazine (July 2, 2001).

 >Ellis won the National Book Award in 1997 for his biography of
 >Thomas Jefferson, along with a Pulitzer Prize for another book
 >about the founding fathers of our country.

 >At the same time, he was telling his Mount Holyoke students that
 >he had served active duty in Vietnam as a platoon leader and
 >paratrooper, that his unit was nearby when the My Lai massacre
 >occurred, and that he served on Gen. William Westmoreland's
 >staff.

 >None of the latter was true. In fact, Ellis was doing graduate
 >work at Yale and teaching history at West Point during the time
 >he was supposed to have been in Vietnam.

 >Moral? People in high places sometimes lie. Get used to it.


Hi Sasquatch, hi All,

Geez Dennis, I'm no Corso proponent but, because you may find
one or three Priests who molest alter boys doesn't mean they all
do. What's your point? There are enough examples of pure BS in
the book to make your point directly, without having to resort
to the broad-brush paint job/generalization above.  ;)


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 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                   Re: Billy Cox Back In UFO Game? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 15:16:18 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:46:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Billy Cox Back In UFO Game? - Young


 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Grant Cameron <sqquishy@altavista.com>
 >Date: 27 Jun 2001 19:02:13 -0700
 >Subject: Billy Cox Back In UFO Game?

 >Billy Cox has just published another UFO article in Florida
 >Today and is discussing a possible third.

 >Cox used to publish countless pro-UFO articles until he went on
 >a long hiatus. Part of the problem was Billy's observation of a
 >mere "tolerance" of UFO articles by many editors.

<snip>

 >Gene Lamb of Oklahoma City was a 579th SMS deputy crew commander
 >who didn't see anything, but heard about and read UFO stories.
 >"One of those things supposedly landed north of Roswell," he
 >says. "It was reported by a highway patrolman who said it left a
 >triangulation pattern where its legs touched down. >>

Lamb didn't see anything, himself, but hear stories...
This one sound like the Socorro "landing" regurgitated fore the
umpteenth 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 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                       Re: Barney Barnett - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 17:16:31 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:49:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Salvaille


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:11:56 -0500

<snip>

 >Anyone on this List still wondering how (or why) Corso could
 >have lied, given who he was, would do well to follow the ongoing
 >story concerning history professor Joseph Ellis. A good summary
 >of same can be found on p. 52 of the current issue of Time
 >magazine (July 2, 2001).

 >Ellis won the National Book Award in 1997 for his biography of
 >Thomas Jefferson, along with a Pulitzer Prize for another book
 >about the founding fathers of our country.

 >At the same time, he was telling his Mount Holyoke students that
 >he had served active duty in Vietnam as a platoon leader and
 >paratrooper, that his unit was nearby when the My Lai massacre
 >occurred, and that he served on Gen. William Westmoreland's
 >staff.

 >None of the latter was true. In fact, Ellis was doing graduate
 >work at Yale and teaching history at West Point during the time
 >he was supposed to have been in Vietnam.

 >Moral? People in high places sometimes lie. Get used to it.

<snip>

And implicit in this moral:

You can pull this moral out of your hat only when some high
ranked official shows pro-UFO sympathies.

If the same dudes deny knowledge of the UFO reality (read my
lips), they _never_ lie.

The double standard issue is only apparent: only _one_ standard
ties both axioms together.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                       'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:26:27 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:55:24 -0400
Subject: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer


Hello List,

It may be of interest to see how Greer's first disclosure
campaign on the road was treated in the press. He held it in
Boulder, CO, on June 23rd, and the Boulder Daily Camera's
writeup I've obtained probably came out on the 24th.

-----

SPEAKER: ALIENS MONITOR EARTH
More than 600 UFO enthusiasts
hear N.C. man's theories

By Sandra Fish, Camera Staff Writer

They came from Tabernash, Fort Morgan and Aurora. They came from
Peyton, Berthoud and Boulder.

Who knows? Maybe some even came from outer space. This much is
certain: More than 600 UFO enthusiasts crowded into a University
of Colorado auditoreum intended for about 500 Saturday, sitting
on stairs, the floor and standing at the back of the room.

They came to see a two-hour video of testimony from former
government and military employees about the existence of
extraterrestrial beings and the government's monitoring of them.
It's part of Dr. Steven Greer's "Disclosure Project," in which
the North Carolina physician is trying to get Congress to hold
hearings on the government's interaction with alien life forms.

As a child, Greer witnessed a "disc-shaped craft" at close range
and began studying aliens. He said he thinks people from outer
space are monitoring Earth, in part to monitor weapons use.

"I think they are waiting for us to reach the early stages of
maturity, where we can live peacefully, so they can interface
with us," Greer said.

Katie Hofner of Fort Collins was among the hundreds who watched
Greer's video, a program that began a 17-city tour in Boulder.

"I think it's fascinating," she said. "It's very compelling
information."

Others weren't so enthusiastic. Maureen Murphy of Boulder handed
out fliers inviting people to "The Alien CoverUp," a panel from
noon to 1:30 p.m. today at the Boulder Public Library sponsored
by the Allies of Humanity.

"We don't disagree with Dr. Greer on the disclosure agenda,"
Murphy said. "We just disagree on the aliens' agenda. They're
taking women against their will, they're creating a race that
will have an allegiance to the visitors."

Greer said he's unfamiliar with that group's efforts.

Contact Sandra Fish at... or fishs@thedailycamera.com

-----

Considering that Boulder is a city that prides itself on its
intellectual and research institutions, the article might have
been worse. But it did the usual thing of keeping it so short
that it could not present any of the ex-military witnesses'
eye-witness testimony, nor their credentials and credibility.
Instead, the writer concentrated on Greer, trying to create the
impression it was just one-man's opinions. And it used the word
"enthusiasts," and even felt obliged to put "disc-shaped craft"
in quotes.

I think Greer would have done better if he had persuaded about
three of his better witnesses to accompany him on his road trip,
and let them each give about a 20-minute presentation, with
Greer speaking correspondingly less. He could pick different
ones for his different tour presentations. Then perhaps the
reporter would feel obliged to cover some of what they say, not
just a tiny piece of what Greer says.

In my opinion, it would be good if we could have at least three
groups of this general nature going around at the same time in
different parts of the country, helping drum up a popular demand
for disclosure and hearings.

Besides Greer, we might have a different group reflecting the
research of Budd Hopkins, Dave Jacobs... giving talks,
accompanied by a few of their experiencers who would speak out,
too. That would then give more academic backing to that side of
the UFO phenomenon, and hopefully allow them to receive more
complete news coverage than what Maureen Murphy of Boulder
received in the Daily Camera article.

A third group could be headed by someone like Dick Haines or
Stan Friedman, who would persuade 2 or 3 pilots or ex-pilots to
speak out with him at tour stops. This could be expanded to
include police officers, scientists  and other civilians who
enjoy more popular respect than the average John Doe.

Of course, many others besides the names mentioned above are
already doing what they can to bring about disclosure, along the
lines of their own understanding of the UFO phenomenon, and have
been doing so for many years. But just talking at UFO meetings,
posting on UFO e-mail lists, and writing books does not seem to
make noticeable progress. I do think that learning from Greer's
successes would be helpful -- how to attract attention to a UFO
disclosure meeting, how to jam pack a large auditoreum.
Unfortunately, it might require holding further press
conferences in Washington to get started, and having a large
nest egg to finance it all.


Jim Deardorff








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 29

              Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Dave

From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 22:33:58 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:03:10 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Dave


 >Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:32:16 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

 >>From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:26:01 +0100

 >>>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:37:21 -0400
 >>>From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

 >>>Does anyone have additional info on the alleged UFO video shown
 >>>on Fox News Channel yesterday (Monday, June 26)? This video was
 >>>taken from a helicopter and shows a flying saucer, possibly in
 >>>New York City, partially behind a skyscraper. >Thanks,


 >Hi Kenny, Dave, All,

 >Just as an FYI, the building in the video is one of the two
 >World Trade Center towers. From what I can tell from the view,
 >(appears to be facing -south- when the video starts) the "UFO"
 >is peeking out from behind the westernmost tower. (Tower 1)

 >I'm no video analyst. I'm not looking at the clip with the eyes
 >of an "expert." But I'll be damned if that bugger looks "real"
 >enough to me.

 >Interesting clip. Even more interesting is that Jeff Sainio
 >finds it 'interesting'. Maybe we got one here! Let's wait and
 >see what Jeff and others may have to say.

 >Bruce: You mentioned that something looked a little 'hokey' to
 >you about the clip in question. Could you elaborate on that a
 >little please?


Hi John,Kenny Errol et al,

I would like to share a few comments about this clip with you
all and also hear any other observations that can be brought
forward here regarding the NY helicopter footage.

I have managed to get a very good working copy of this clip and
have had a good look at this footage frame by frame.

On stripping the clip down to single frames, I noticed that only
one single frame had a more than obvious fault with it. This
frame was taken from the clip where the object/anomaly appears
from behind one of the Trade towers.

Unfortunately, I have one single frame which contradicts
completely, IMHO, what the video is trying to convince us of.

The problem is that in only one single frame, the object (saucer
shaped) is supposed to be behind part of the tower but is
obviously showing through so that the complete saucer shape can
be seen. This is an impossibility and I have a few stills of
this with enlargements to convince me further of this fact.

On finding this when all other frames seemed to be so perfect, I
cannot help but feel that the creator of this footage may well
have left this single frame in there to state what it really is.

I may be wrong but why should such a good convincing clip be let
down by such an obvious mistake. It completely contradicts the
rest of the obvious quality of the footage. Why?

Other points we have noticed is the sheer size of the object
when it is spotted behind the towers. Looks very large indeed
and yet when the object buzzes the helicopter, it appears to be
significantly smaller than the chopper itself. Shape shifting
UFOs?

I have also managed to capture one good still of the object
itself as it passes closest to the helicopter and it does look
quite small and appears metallic in structure. Almost moulded if
you get my meaning.

The final and very relevant point is the sheer speed that the
anomaly moves. It glides very smoothly indeed and again whilst
stripping the footage back to single frames, I noticed that the
anomaly only moves in every second frame. This means very little
to me actually but I was hoping that perhaps Bruce or anyone
with good editing knowledge, would see this as unusual in some
way. Why does this anomaly not move in every single frame when
it is so fast?

Anyway, going back to the sheer speed of the anomaly in the
clip. It is almost miraculous that the person with the camera
manages to track the object so well and keeps the anomaly in the
shot, almost dead centre for so long.

In a real situation, I feel that excitement itself would play a
very large part here not to mention the obvious calmness of the
helicopter occupants considering a], they have just allegedly
witnessed something very bizarre and unexplainable and b], they
almost got knocked out of the sky by the thing itself. Hmmm.

I personally would have to say that in my opinion, this footage
is a good hoax that is well done and fairly convincing. I would
love to believe that this footage was real in every sense but i
think the proof is in the single still frame where the ufo
should clearly be behind the building but isnt.

If anyone would like to see any of these still captures, I would
be happy to share them and also hear any further feedback about
this particular video clip.

Thanks for your time everyone and happy hunting,

 From your friend,

              Dave Ledger (UFO Scotland)

-
******************************************************************
If you see someone without a smile......give them one of yours :0)
******************************************************************
Posted by: Dave Ledger (mailto:dledger@ufoscotland.co.uk)
Visit "UFO SCOTLAND" at: http://www.ufoscotland.co.uk
<A HREF="http://www.ufoscotland.co.uk">UFO Scotland </A>
UFO SCOTLAND mailing list: mailto:UFOScotland-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UFO SCOTLAND Chatroom: http://irc.gasbubbles.com/ufoscotland.phtml
******************************************************************
THE TRUTH IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER!..................BUT HOW FAR?
******************************************************************
"The sands of time are trickling away from our dear mother Earth
and yet we continue to fight amongst ourselves and destroy our
natural enviroment,leaving all the mess for our children and their
children's children to inherit when we're gone."

-







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 29

                 Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday -

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:17:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:06:30 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday -


 >Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:32:16 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday


 >>>Does anyone have additional info on the alleged UFO video shown
 >>>on Fox News Channel yesterday (Monday, June 26)? This video was
 >>>taken from a helicopter and shows a flying saucer, possibly in
 >>>New York City, partially behind a skyscraper. >Thanks,


 >Just as an FYI, the building in the video is one of the two >
 >World Trade Center towers. From what I can tell from the view,
 >(appears to be facing -south- when the video starts) the "UFO"
 >is peeking out from behind the westernmost tower. (Tower 1)

ACtually it first appears between the twoers!

 >I'm no video analyst. I'm not looking at the clip with the eyes
 >of an "expert." But I'll be damned if that bugger looks "real"
 >enough to me.

 >Interesting clip. Even more interesting is that Jeff Sainio
 >finds it 'interesting'. Maybe we got one here! Let's wait and
 >see what Jeff and others may have to say.

 >Bruce: You mentioned that something looked a little 'hokey' to
 >you about the clip in question. Could you elaborate on that a
 >little please?

Can't be too specific at present... still investigation going
on. However, it always seems to me a bit strange that a young
lady who doesn't want to be identified because she doesn't want
her boyfriend to know that she was out helicoptering with
another guy... appears full face in the video! (And allows SciFi
to go public.)

Either this is one illogical lady or it is a clue to the
validity of the video. (What actor do you know who wants to be
unknown...  other than the guy some years ago who was the
'Unknown Comic' with a bag over his head?)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 29

             Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Bolton

From: David Bolton <David@bolton.sol.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 23:31:13 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:08:58 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Bolton


 >Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:32:16 -0400
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

 >I'm no video analyst. I'm not looking at the clip with the eyes
 >of an "expert." But I'll be damned if that bugger looks "real"
 >enough to me.

At the LAPIS conference in Preston (UK), last month, Jose
Escamilla and Jim Peters showed some interesting frames from
this video sequence.

The "saucer" pokes out from behind the tower - halts - and then
shoots further out to the right. But if you step, frame by
frame, through the part where the saucer is just about to shoot
further to the right - the "body" of the object can be seen
briefly overlapping the wall of the tower (ie. part of it can be
seen slightly "in front" of the wall).

This implies that the object has been superimposed on the video
footage in some way (probably digitally).

With the decreasing cost of computer video editing hardware &
software, this sort of thing is now well within the capabilities
of ordinary video hobbyists. We will probably see a lot more
videos of this ilk over the next few years.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                      Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:51:23 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:19:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Mortellaro


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?
 >Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 12:43:35 -0400

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:03:11 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>As I recall, when all this was going down, Nick was the only
 >>"volunteer" willing to or having the opportunity of doing, the
 >>work. Although I could be wrong about this, and even if I was,
 >>I would doubt the availability of sufficient people willing to
 >>do the work, able to do it, or even willing to think about doing
 >>it.

 >>Such has been the dilemma which is in part, a constituent of the
 >>overall conundrum revolving around UFOs and the Abduction
 >>Experience.

 >But still the scientific requirements don't change. And there in
 >fact is a serious research project going on, very privately, in
 >which every blind testing requirement is adequately met.

Indeed, I shall send you a copy of an article I wrote for
another venue which relates to this topic. In fact, I agree
wholeheartedly with your opine. Nick, however, from what limited
exposure I've had with him, leaves no doubt in what's left of my
mind, that if he embraces a project, it will be accomplished
within the bounds defined by the scientific process.

I refer only to the fact that Nick picked the job up and no one
else did. Zan Nick's vort zol zayn a brik volt men nisht gekent
adurkhgeyn.

Best,

Jim

PS: I never congratulated you on your union... mozel.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                       Re: Barney Barnett - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:56:29 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:23:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Mortellaro


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:11:56 -0500


 >List,

 >Anyone on this List still wondering how (or why) Corso could
 >have lied, given who he was, would do well to follow the ongoing
 >story concerning history professor Joseph Ellis. A good summary
 >of same can be found on p. 52 of the current issue of Time
 >magazine (July 2, 2001).

 >Ellis won the National Book Award in 1997 for his biography of
 >Thomas Jefferson, along with a Pulitzer Prize for another book
 >about the founding fathers of our country.

 >At the same time, he was telling his Mount Holyoke students that
 >he had served active duty in Vietnam as a platoon leader and
 >paratrooper, that his unit was nearby when the My Lai massacre
 >occurred, and that he served on Gen. William Westmoreland's
 >staff.

 >None of the latter was true. In fact, Ellis was doing graduate
 >work at Yale and teaching history at West Point during the time
 >he was supposed to have been in Vietnam.

 >Moral? People in high places sometimes lie. Get used to it.

List,

Moral? "Low people in high places sometimes lie. Get used to it.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                        Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Lemire

From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:06:21 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:26:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt? - Lemire


 >Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:02:00 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

 >>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:49:06 -0400
 >>From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Hunt?

<snip>

 >>I truly don't understand why you even bothered responding to the
 >>dust bunny e-mail at all Greg. Although you state that you don't
 >>mean to disrespect the work of John and Nick, what exactly do
 >>you mean? Did you bother providing your input when this
 >>experiment first started? I haven't seen any previous input from
 >>you concerning this research, but if I missed it, please correct
 >>me with references.

 >>Why do you begin your e-mail with the statement "any further
 >>study", when this one isn't even finished yet!? That's the
 >>problem with many people on this List, to many chiefs and not
 >>enough Indians!

 >>Anyone can sit and pick a project apart from the sidelines but
 >>you're absolutely right, John and Nick actually did something
 >>more than 'type their opinions and suggestions', they were the
 >>pioneers that actually _took_ action on an idea. This is by all
 >>means no perfect world and we don't seem to have scientists with
 >>the necessary equipment banging on our doors begging us for
 >>sample 'dust bunny' material. I'm sure all of us here could
 >>think of ways to improve the study, but until any of us are
 >>ready to take the initial steps that John and Nick have, why
 >>bring those 'could haves' up?

 >>Now in no way do I mean for this e-mail to be disparaging, but I
 >>think more positive comments are needed.

 >Hi Todd, hi Greg,

 >I just want to nip a potential misunderstanding in the bud if I
 >may.

 >Greg is one of the brightest, most even-handed, and just plain
 >nicest human beings I have ever met. I honestly believe that
 >Todd has simply misread the intention or meaning of Greg's post.

 >Todd:

 >You know him only from this List, but I know Greg personally and
 >I'm telling you that he was not coming from where 'you thought'
 >he was coming from. Trust me on this. ;)

 >Greg: I greatly appreciate your thoughts always. I believe I
 >have already expressed my regret (in response to your post) that
 >Nick and I didn't have the advantage of your input when we first
 >decided to do this. Todd's a good guy and I'm sure the whole
 >thing is just a misread.

 >Let there be Peace, <LOL>

 >John ;)

John and Greg,

Yes, I did truly misunderstand and for that I offer my sincere
apologies to you Greg. I truly tire of reading messages which
contain so much negativity and pessimism on this List that I
guess it's the mindset I take when reading posts here. I often
sit quitely by the wayside and I hate to see John get badgered
concerning abductees. Please accept my apology as I was truly
wrong.


Sincerely,

Todd Lemire








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                          Secrecy News -- 06/29/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 15:29:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:28:55 -0400
Subject: Secrecy News -- 06/29/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
June 29, 2001

**GAO: FBI MISLED CONGRESS ON WEN HO LEE
**CONGRESS CALLS FOR SENSIBLE SECURITY AT DOE


GAO: FBI MISLED CONGRESS ON WEN HO LEE

Testimony presented to Congress by FBI Assistant Director Neil
J. Gallagher about the Wen Ho Lee case was "inaccurate and
misleading," according to an investigation by the General
Accounting Office (GAO).

Mr. Gallagher assured Congress in 1999 that the FBI had full
confidence in the initial Inquiry which asserted that design
secrets of the W-88 nuclear warhead had been compromised at Los
Alamos and which identified Wen Ho Lee as an espionage suspect.

But such confidence was unwarranted.  The GAO found that Mr.
Gallagher "should have known that the FBI's Albuquerque Field
Office had concerns about the ... Inquiry."

A January 1999 communication from the FBI Albuquerque Field
Office, which spells out the defects in the Inquiry that
launched the Wen Ho Lee prosecution and which was in Mr.
Gallagher's possession, remains classified.

In response to the GAO review, Mr. Gallagher acknowledged that
his testimony was incomplete, but denied that it was inaccurate
or misleading.

The new GAO review was first reported by Vernon Loeb in the
Washington Post today.  The text of the GAO review is posted
here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/whl_gao.html

Several other assessments of the Wen Ho Lee case remain
outstanding.  The Justice Department's "Bellows report" on the
investigation up through March 1999 is still under
declassification review.

An FBI Office of Professional Responsibility report is being
withheld in its entirety as "law enforcement information," even
though it was initiated, in part, to respond to public concerns
about the conduct of the case.

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility
review, which commenced nine months ago, is still "in its
preliminary stages," according to Robert B. Lyon, Jr. of OPR.
"It would be premature to estimate when it will be completed,"
he said June 18.


CONGRESS CALLS FOR SENSIBLE SECURITY AT DOE

Congress is singing a remarkably new tune about security at the
Department of Energy.  Congressional appropriators now caution
DOE to make sure that its security procedures are cost-effective
and not counterproductive.

In a new report, the House Appropriations Committee sets the
stage by observing that "The Department's safeguards and
security programs seem to careen from one incident to another --
alleged loss of nuclear weapons secrets, misplaced computer hard
drives with classified information, and alleged discriminatory
actions toward visitors."

The modest reference to an "alleged" loss of nuclear weapons
secrets is a significant retreat from the past insistence by the
congressional Cox Committee and others that China simply "stole"
the nation's "most sophisticated nuclear weapons technology,"
including classified information on "every currently deployed
thermonuclear warhead in the U.S. ballistic missile arsenal."

The congressional furor over stolen nuclear secrets in 1999 led
to an indiscriminate ratcheting up of security at U.S. national
laboratories, including new restrictions on contacts with
foreign scientists, polygraph tests for thousands of lab
employees, re-review of millions of historical documents that
had already been declassified, and so forth.

But now Congress implicitly acknowledges that the security
frenzy it inspired has exceeded reasonable boundaries.

"The Committee urges the new Administration to review the
underlying basis for each of the Department's security practices
to determine if current procedures result in excessive costs
without commensurate protection for employees, facilities, and
national security programs."

This is an invitation to revisit and perhaps reverse some of the
more disruptive security policies that DOE has adopted under
congressional pressure in the last two years.

See excerpts on security policy from the House Appropriations
Committee report on the Energy and Water Appropriations Act
(House Report 107-112, June 26) here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/hac-doe.html

******************************
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

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 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                 Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:44:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:33:18 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday -


 >From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday
 >Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 22:33:58 +0100

 >>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:32:16 -0400
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

 >>>From: Dave Ledger <McDave01@btinternet.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday
 >>>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:26:01 +0100

 >>>>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:37:21 -0400
 >>>>From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>Subject: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

 >>>>Does anyone have additional info on the alleged UFO video shown
 >>>>on Fox News Channel yesterday (Monday, June 26)? This video was
 >>>>taken from a helicopter and shows a flying saucer, possibly in
 >>>>New York City, partially behind a skyscraper. >Thanks,


 >>Hi Kenny, Dave, All,

 >>Just as an FYI, the building in the video is one of the two
 >>World Trade Center towers. From what I can tell from the view,
 >>(appears to be facing -south- when the video starts) the "UFO"
 >>is peeking out from behind the westernmost tower. (Tower 1)

<snip>

 >I would like to share a few comments about this clip with you
 >all and also hear any other observations that can be brought
 >forward here regarding the NY helicopter footage.

 >I have managed to get a very good working copy of this clip and
 >have had a good look at this footage frame by frame.

 >On stripping the clip down to single frames, I noticed that only
 >one single frame had a more than obvious fault with it. This
 >frame was taken from the clip where the object/anomaly appears
 >from behind one of the Trade towers.

 >Unfortunately, I have one single frame which contradicts
 >completely, IMHO, what the video is trying to convince us of.

 >The problem is that in only one single frame, the object (saucer
 >shaped) is supposed to be behind part of the tower but is
 >obviously showing through so that the complete saucer shape can
 >be seen. This is an impossibility and I have a few stills of
 >this with enlargements to convince me further of this fact.

 >On finding this when all other frames seemed to be so perfect, I
 >cannot help but feel that the creator of this footage may well
 >have left this single frame in there to state what it really is.

Dear Don, List and Errol

Perhaps the creator wished to leave his "trademark" on the clip.
It may be that he wanted to have something there which would
make it obvious that it was a creation rather than an event. On
the one hand. On the other, I may be mistaken, but if memory
serves (which, with the amount of single malt Gripple and mood
altering drugs I take - simultaneously - may be a tad
ferblungit) but there is not one film, one picture or one story
in this sad conundrum which does _not_ contain some anomaly
which belies it's veracity.

What'd I say?

 >Snip

 >Other points we have noticed is the sheer size of the object
 >when it is spotted behind the towers. Looks very large indeed
 >and yet when the object buzzes the helicopter, it appears to be
 >significantly smaller than the chopper itself. Shape shifting
 >UFOs?

For what it is worth, and in light of the mud, the drugs and the
beer, not to mention the Gripple, never in my recall - has an
object I've observed changed shape, although it is not uncommon
to read of these cases and see them, particularly in the Groom
Lake film and some Mexican footage.

Under the affluence of inkahol, however, many things have
changed shape, including the gal I went to sleep with. Could'a
swored on a stack of Grolche bottle tops and a cheap Japanese
Scotch, that she looked like Pia Zadora when I passed out. On
recovering, however, she looked like... well, not Pia.

 >I have also managed to capture one good still of the object
 >itself as it passes closest to the helicopter and it does look
 >quite small and appears metallic in structure. Almost moulded
 >if you get my meaning.

There are people on this List who have opined over the
possibility that UFOs often make themselves look like other
objects, and not a one I've ever seen was anything but a
seamless and contiguous object... aka, molded. For what it ain't
worth.

 >The final and very relevant point is the sheer speed that the
 >anomaly moves. It glides very smoothly indeed and again whilst
 >stripping the footage back to single frames, I noticed that the
 >anomaly only moves in every second frame. This means very
little >to me actually but I was hoping that perhaps Bruce or
anyone >with good editing knowledge, would see this as unusual
in some >way. Why does this anomaly not move in every single
frame when >it is so fast?

Sadly, none of my numerous Ph.D.'s are in photo tomographic
monography so I cannot luminate this particular exaggeration of
the phenomenonanon. Sorry. Perhaps I should purchase yet another
degree, this one in UFO photo analysis.

Nah!

 >Anyway, going back to the sheer speed of the anomaly in the
 >clip. It is almost miraculous that the person with the camera
 >manages to track the object so well and keeps the anomaly in the
 >shot, almost dead centre for so long.

When I first saw the clip on the Sci-Fi Channel, the motion,
that is the displacement (again from seriously flawed memory) of
the camera was not required to be that much. If I am mistaken, I
apologize, something I do often here. And especially at home.

 >In a real situation, I feel that excitement itself would play a
 >very large part here not to mention the obvious calmness of the
 >helicopter occupants considering a], they have just allegedly
 >witnessed something very bizarre and unexplainable and b], they
 >almost got knocked out of the sky by the thing itself. Hmmm.

Unless it was a professional cameraman doing the shooting. And
unless also, the person taking the film did not recognize what
it was he was filming. When in 1998 I first saw a huge
triangular object overhead, I was so flustered I could not even
_find_ my camcorder. And when I looked thru my pair of binocs, I
shook so much I could not immediately see anything except
blurs. The truth is, when you see something truly extraordinary,
truly not normal and out of any paradigm one knows, it flusters
the hell out of you. And it is my perception that I've been
experiencing these events all my life. It is always a shock.
Always a trauma. Like seeing Pia for the very first time every
time you see her.

(sigh)

 >I personally would have to say that in my opinion, this footage
 >is a good hoax that is well done and fairly convincing. I would
 >love to believe that this footage was real in every sense but i
 >think the proof is in the single still frame where the ufo
 >should clearly be behind the building but isnt.

 >If anyone would like to see any of these still captures, I would
 >be happy to share them and also hear any further feedback about
 >this particular video clip.

 >Thanks for your time everyone and happy hunting,

Sir, may I ask for whatever you have and can share. During the
preparation of my own poor attempt at writing a book, I have
engaged the friendship and endearing confidence of someone
presently working at NASA. He's been assisting me with a good
deal of analysis, even of some of which we discuss here on
UpDates.

And thank you for being here. I mean that. And remember, Don...
Good single malt Scotch is born, not made.

Jim Mortellaro







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 30

             Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Blanton

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:52:18 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:34:48 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Blanton


 >Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:24:41 -0300
 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

 >>Note how the cameraman seems to anticipate the motion of the
 >>"UFO".

 >So what, now we're going to blow-off this video, Terry, because
 >you feel that she's anticipating the UFO. That's pretty thin.
 >Let's not try to be the first off the mark with the ufologists,
 >we said it first, routine. Give me something better than that.

Gee, Mr. Ledger, I only made an observation. I did not suggest a blow
job by anyone.

You look, you judge.

Warmest 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 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                          Re: Barney Barnet - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:07:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:36:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnet - Stacy


 >Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:30:12 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett

 >Hi Sasquatch, hi All,

 >Geez Dennis, I'm no Corso proponent but, because you may find
 >one or three Priests who molest alter boys doesn't mean they all
 >do. What's your point? There are enough examples of pure BS in
 >the book to make your point directly, without having to resort
 >to the broad-brush paint job/generalization above.  ;)


Hi, John,

I agree the Corso book condemns itself - to you and me. Others
seem to think it's the revealed truth because it came from
someone who was who he said he was (in part, anyway) and
seemingly had no reason to lie.

My point was simply that this sort of stuff happens on a regular
basis, Ellis being but the most current, visible example.
Actually, since I posted the above, a "journalist" (I can't
remember his name, Docker, I think) has published a sequel to
his smear book of Anita Hill, admitting that it was mostly a bag
of lies.

The moral? It ain't necessarily true just because it comes from
a high authority figure. Hey, even Presidents do it!

Claims (such as Corso's) still have to be backed up by evidence.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                 Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 21:37:02 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:42:08 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - McCoy


 >Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:26:27 -0700
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer

 >Hello List,

 >It may be of interest to see how Greer's first disclosure
 >campaign on the road was treated in the press. He held it in
 >Boulder, CO, on June 23rd, and the Boulder Daily Camera's
 >writeup I've obtained probably came out on the 24th.



Hello all, Jim,

Well, this is an example of why all of us who are asking just
what is going on, need to heed what Jim is pointing out.

 >SPEAKER: ALIENS MONITOR EARTH
 >More than 600 UFO enthusiasts
 >hear N.C. man's theories

 >By Sandra Fish, Camera Staff Writer

 >They came from Tabernash, Fort Morgan and Aurora. They came from
 >Peyton, Berthoud and Boulder.

 >Who knows? Maybe some even came from outer space. This much is
 >certain: More than 600 UFO enthusiasts crowded into a University
 >of Colorado auditoreum intended for about 500 Saturday, sitting
 >on stairs, the floor and standing at the back of the room.

 >They came to see a two-hour video of testimony from former
 >government and military employees about the existence of
 >extraterrestrial beings and the government's monitoring of them.
 >It's part of Dr. Steven Greer's "Disclosure Project," in which
 >the North Carolina physician is trying to get Congress to hold
 >hearings on the government's interaction with alien life forms.

 >As a child, Greer witnessed a "disc-shaped craft" at close range
 >and began studying aliens. He said he thinks people from outer
 >space are monitoring Earth, in part to monitor weapons use.

So did I, but I didn't want to form my own "disclosure" outfit,
as profitable  as it may be.

 >"I think they are waiting for us to reach the early stages of
 >maturity, where we can live peacefully, so they can interface
 >with us," Greer said.

Disarm so we can take over? interface? seems some folk are
getting more than in the face.

 >Katie Hofner of Fort Collins was among the hundreds who watched
 >Greer's video, a program that began a 17-city tour in Boulder.

I wonder if he's coming to Portland or Eugene Oregon? I'd love
to be a fly in the ointment.(they'd probably put me in the same
holding tank with Royce Meyers III.  and for that matter you
too, Jim.)

 >"I think it's fascinating," she said. "It's very compelling
 >information."

Why don't you ask a question, Dear, like just who the hell are
these "friendly" aliens. And, Dr. Greer, give us some compelling
evidence, and I mean a flyover by the Royal Trafalmadorian
Aerial Demonstration Team.

 >Others weren't so enthusiastic. Maureen Murphy of Boulder handed
 >out fliers inviting people to "The Alien CoverUp," a panel from
 >noon to 1:30 p.m. today at the Boulder Public Library sponsored
 >by the Allies of Humanity.

Maybe _this_ was the place to look for Aliens. Probably didn't
dawn on the  reporter, Ignoring the Tall guy with a freshly
scrubbed, grey green complexion going up the Libarary steps. Or
the Couple that must have come from a "Trek" convention and
didn't take off the pointed ears.<G>

 >"We don't disagree with Dr. Greer on the disclosure agenda,"
 >Murphy said. "We just disagree on the aliens' agenda. They're
 >taking women against their will, they're creating a race that
 >will have an allegiance to the visitors."

Well, maybe, somthing unpleasant is going on, and I do IMHO,
think there are Good  and Evil aliens, Angels,Demons et. al. and
I think we are inhabitants of a fallen world.

 >Greer said he's unfamiliar with that group's efforts.

 >Contact Sandra Fish at... or fishs@thedailycamera.com

 >-----

 >Considering that Boulder is a city that prides itself on its
 >intellectual and research institutions, the article might have
 >been worse. But it did the usual thing of keeping it so short
 >that it could not present any of the ex-military witnesses'
 >eye-witness testimony, nor their credentials and credibility.
 >Instead, the writer concentrated on Greer, trying to create the
 >impression it was just one-man's opinions. And it used the word
 >"enthusiasts," and even felt obliged to put "disc-shaped craft"
 >in quotes.

Greer's Ego won't let him do that, he has more Checks than
collateral in that account, however, and I feel it will catch up
with him. He loves being the fist Klown out of the little car. I
bet he drove the whole presentation.

Actually, I rather like "enthusiasts' better than "believers", I
am a Railroad, Airplane,  Automoblie,  and well, UFO too -
enthusiast.

 >I think Greer would have done better if he had persuaded about
 >three of his better witnesses to accompany him on his road trip,
 >and let them each give about a 20-minute presentation, with
 >Greer speaking correspondingly less. He could pick different
 >ones for his different tour presentations. Then perhaps the
 >reporter would feel obliged to cover some of what they say, not
 >just a tiny piece of what Greer says.

What? have sombody like, say George Filer take the spotlight?
Greer would have to step aside George's story of his epic
encounter in an Airforce re-fueler, _he_ was flying it_ has a
"real" feel to it, from a pliot's perspective, of course.
Greer's program is focused on what Greer has to say, not what
anyone else says.

 >In my opinion, it would be good if we could have at least three
 >groups of this general nature going around at the same time in
 >different parts of the country, helping drum up a popular demand
 >for disclosure and hearings.

Yes! great idea, with a caveat.

 >Besides Greer, we might have a different group reflecting the
 >research of Budd Hopkins, Dave Jacobs... giving talks,
 >accompanied by a few of their experiencers who would speak out,
 >too. That would then give more academic backing to that side of
 >the UFO phenomenon, and hopefully allow them to receive more
 >complete news coverage than what Maureen Murphy of Boulder
 >received in the Daily Camera article.

The problem is how would the media pick up the abuctee story? I
could see the usual sneering "X-Files" treatment. The Oregonian
newspaper had a article about the abuctee movement, a few years
back, with a focus on the wacky, not the possible.(Because in
the average media type's mind (narrow and rational as it thinks
it is) this _isn't_ possible - just in some delusional's mind.
It would take skillful handing, like hand feeding a
Velociraptor, (the media).

 >A third group could be headed by someone like Dick Haines or
 >Stan Friedman, who would persuade 2 or 3 pilots or ex-pilots to
 >speak out with him at tour stops. This could be expanded to
 >include police officers, scientists  and other civilians who
 >enjoy more popular respect than the average John Doe.

Yep, this one is good, just getting the _active_ pilots or cops
and scientists to do it will take my imaginary Velociraptor
handler, again. still a good idea.

 >Of course, many others besides the names mentioned above are
 >already doing what they can to bring about disclosure, along the
 >lines of their own understanding of the UFO phenomenon, and have
 >been doing so for many years. But just talking at UFO meetings,
 >posting on UFO e-mail lists, and writing books does not seem to
 >make noticeable progress. I do think that learning from Greer's
 >successes would be helpful -- how to attract attention to a UFO
 >disclosure meeting, how to jam pack a large auditoreum.
 >Unfortunately, it might require holding further press
 >conferences in Washington to get started, and having a large
 >nest egg to finance it all.

Well, Greer got his attention by being out front, and having a
bankroll, by some persons unknown. Like Dick Hall's troubles
with Calif. MUFON, who seem to want to attract the same airhead
attention and dollars as Greer.

The problem? No one wants to hear that there may be bad Aliens
or at least indifferent ones - that we are merely Gerbils of the
great unknown, at worst, we are actually involved with a great
cosmic battle of good and evil. As far as the cud-chewing public
goes, they like the idea of friendly ET, do not disturb me with
Idea that there may be a fellow cud-chewer that is a Wolf (or
Velociraptor) in cud chewer's clothing.

Jim, I think you have a good Idea, and if there is someone to
provide the Bucks we may have Buck Rogers yet. Sorry for being
so cynical, nothing personal. I'm not a pessimist, just a
realist.

GT McCoy


Reinterating: "We must all hang togeather or we will hang separately"
                        Attr. Benj Franklin









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Jun > Jun 30

              Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 01:00:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:45:56 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Velez


 >From: David Bolton <David@bolton.sol.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 23:31:13 +0100
 >Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

 >>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:32:16 -0400
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

 >>I'm no video analyst. I'm not looking at the clip with the eyes
 >>of an "expert." But I'll be damned if that bugger looks "real"
 >>enough to me.

 >At the LAPIS conference in Preston (UK), last month, Jose
 >Escamilla and Jim Peters showed some interesting frames from
 >this video sequence.

 >The "saucer" pokes out from behind the tower - halts - and then
 >shoots further out to the right. But if you step, frame by
 >frame, through the part where the saucer is just about to shoot
 >further to the right - the "body" of the object can be seen
 >briefly overlapping the wall of the tower (ie. part of it can be
 >seen slightly "in front" of the wall).

 >This implies that the object has been superimposed on the video
 >footage in some way (probably digitally).

 >With the decreasing cost of computer video editing hardware &
 >software, this sort of thing is now well within the capabilities
 >of ordinary video hobbyists. We will probably see a lot more
 >videos of this ilk over the next few years.

 >David G Bolton

Hello to both Dave's (Bolton & Ledger) hi All,

That's two for two re: the discrepancy in the video. Dave from
Scotland said that he has a good clean copy of this video clip.
I would be willing to reimburse any costs for either a CD or a
videotape plus mailing costs to get a clean copy to study on my
Powermac. I'm a skilled computer graphic artist and I have all
pro software, (Adobe Premier, Photoshop,etc.) and I'd love to
have a close look at this thing frame by frame myself. Contact
me privately if you can help me to secure a -clean- copy of the
video clip.

Both Daves should get together and figure out a way to post a
'common' webpage. To include a brief report from each of you,
stating what kind of software you used, the steps you followed
in your own analysis, etc. Along with single frame captures from
the video to illustrate what you both found. (In terms of the
UFO overlapping the building.) It would make a valuable and most
interesting Web offering. I could help you to create the
page(s.) Let me know.  ;)

Thanx to both Dave's.

Please let me know about how I might secure a clean copy of the
video clip to study on my own.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                 Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 01:50:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:51:10 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - Velez


 >Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:26:27 -0700
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer

 >Hello List,

 >It may be of interest to see how Greer's first disclosure
 >campaign on the road was treated in the press. He held it in
 >Boulder, CO, on June 23rd, and the Boulder Daily Camera's
 >writeup I've obtained probably came out on the 24th.

 >-----

 >SPEAKER: ALIENS MONITOR EARTH
 >More than 600 UFO enthusiasts
 >hear N.C. man's theories

 >By Sandra Fish, Camera Staff Writer

 >They came from Tabernash, Fort Morgan and Aurora. They came from
 >Peyton, Berthoud and Boulder.

 >Who knows? Maybe some even came from outer space. This much is
 >certain: More than 600 UFO enthusiasts crowded into a University
 >of Colorado auditoreum intended for about 500 Saturday, sitting
 >on stairs, the floor and standing at the back of the room.

 >They came to see a two-hour video of testimony from former
 >government and military employees about the existence of
 >extraterrestrial beings and the government's monitoring of them.
 >It's part of Dr. Steven Greer's "Disclosure Project," in which
 >the North Carolina physician is trying to get Congress to hold
 >hearings on the government's interaction with alien life forms.
<snip>


Hiya Jim,

Jim I don't always agree with everything you say but I'll be
damned if your heart isn't _always_ in the right place.  ;)

In an "ideal world" your idea would be Great. But we don't live
in an ideal world. I'm certain that before folks like Richard
Haines, Dave Jacobs, Budd Hopkins or Stan Friedman 'sign on' for
such a project that Dr.Greer would have to drop all the
"weapons" and "free energy" rhetoric.

Greer simply cannot go around talking like "he knows" what's on
the "alien's" minds, (ie; "... he thinks people from outer space
are monitoring Earth, in part to monitor weapons use) and expect
to be surrounded by serious people willing to rain their support
on him. Ain't gonna happen.

Maybe when enough people begin to realize that Greer's mouth is
hurting the effort much more than it is helping it, they'll dump
him and get someone competent in there to do the job. Greer is
killing this child in the cradle by making public pronouncements
such as the ones in the article. Who is going to take any of the
witnesses seriously with Greer so busy trashing all credibility
with his wild (and very public) proclamations on the front end?

Pisses me off _every time_ I hear stuff like that.

I'd like to send Dick Hall on that "disclosure tour." At least
Dick has actually been a part of a _successful_ effort to get
Gov't hearings on UFOs. Nothing like experience and a track
record to separate the Men from the Goats. And you know what
they say, "No goats, no glory!"  :)

Warmest regards,

John Velez, two-and-a-half cents worth!


                      "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 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                          Carter, Sheehan & Menzel

From: sqquishy@altavista.com
Date: 30 Jun 2001 00:06:41 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 19:02:12 -0400
Subject: Carter, Sheehan & Menzel


President Carter, Daniel Sheehan, and Donald Menzel

"Knowledge will Forever Govern Ignorance And a People Who Mean
to be their Own Governors Must Arm Themselves with the Power
Which Knowledge Gives"

The Words of President James Madison as inscribed on the Madison
Building in Washington D.C., where Daniel Sheehan claimed he was
allowed to view the classified section of the USAF UFO Project
Blue Book in 1977.

Shortly after Carter came to power in January 1977, Daniel
Sheehan,(1) then General Counsel to the United States Jesuit
National Headquarters -  National Office of Social Ministry in
Washington, D.C., was reportedly approached by Marcia S.
Smith,(2) Director of the Library of Congress's Science and
Technology Division  of the Congressional Research Service.

The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress is
a research group of more than 400 people who do research for
congress and the White House. They have played more than a
passing interest in the UFO problem over the years. Every one of
these UFO research efforts has been led by Marcia Smith.

Sheehan reported that he was asked by Smith "to participate in a
highly classified major evaluation of the UFO phenomena, and
extraterrestrial intelligence." A part of this effort involved
Sheehan being asked to use his position inside the Jesuit
community to obtain the UFO documents held in the Vatican
library. Sheehan made an approach to his contact at the Vatican,
and stated for the first time, he was turned down on a request
for information from the library.

Sheehan recalled the encounter with Marcia,  "she ( Marcia
Smith) informed me that she had been contacted by the Chairman
of the Science & Technology Committee of the House of
Representatives, (Congressman Olin Earl Teague) who in turn had
received a directive from the President of the United States,
informing the Committee that he ( Carter) in fact had personally
seen a UFO while he was in Georgia."

Marcia further informed Sheehan that Carter had approached the
House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee based
on information he had obtained from former CIA director George
Bush. Marcia Smith stated that Carter had approached Bush and
stated, "I want to have  the information that we have on UFOs
and extraterrestrial intelligence. I want to know about this as
President."

George Bush, according to Smith said,  "no . . . that he wasn't
going to give this to him . . . that this was information that
existed on a need to know basis only. Simple curiosity on the
part of the President wasn't adequate."

This Carter-Bush UFO question, referred to by Smith, was
probably asked during the first 45 minutes of a multi hour
briefing on November 19, 1976. This is the only time that Bush
and Carter met while Carter was President-elect. Bush was
replaced as DCI, once Carter became President, so there was
never a meeting between the two after Carter entered the White
House.

The 45 minute segment of the briefing given to the
President-elect, was described by the CIA as a briefing on
certain "exotic weapons and very closely held items relating to
sources and methods."

The then  Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) for President
Ford, George Bush, and his assistant Jennifer Fitzgerald,  took
Carter and Walter Mondale to the Carter living room to provide
the selected sensitive information. The other six senior agents
apparently weren't cleared for this part of the briefing. They
remained waiting in the Carter study till this key part of the
briefing was completed.

Once Carter had been denied the requested information on UFOs,
he decided to follow  a suggestion that Bush had made for
getting the information that Carter wanted on UFOs.

" If he was going to do this he would have to follow a different
procedure," stated  Sheehan, "that was going to involve all the
different branches of government in authorizing this
information, because they were afraid that President Carter was
going to somehow publically reveal this. Bush told him that he
was going have to go to the Science and Technology Committee of
the House of Representatives, in the legislative branch, and
have them ask  the Congressional Research Service to issue a
request to have certain documents declassified so that this
process could go on."

"They were," said Sheehan, "trying to stall this thing. That was
going to take a long time...the NSA, the CIA...all these groups
were going to hold back the documents. So the President much
chagrined, decided that rather than having a major confrontation
with Mr. Bush, (he) would  follow this process. He contacted the
Science and Technology Committee of the House of
Representatives. They in turn contacted the Library of Congress
Research Service, and they  undertook two major investigations.
1) To determine whether Extraterrestrial Intelligence existed in
our galaxy 2) What the relationship of this UFO phenomena might
be to Extraterrestrial Intelligence

Marcia Smith was at the time Analyst in Science and Technology,
Science Research Division, at the Congressional Research
Service. She was not ignorant about the field of UFOs and
classified research. Records show she had been  involved in at
least five UFO or SETI  related investigations  by the
Congressional Research Service.

In 1976, just before Carter  won the Presidential election Smith
wrote "Extraterrestrial Intelligence and Unidentified Flying
Objects: A Selected, Annotated Bibliography" for the Library of
Congress Congressional Research Service.

In 1975 and then in a 1978 update, Marcia Smith joined with Dr.
George Gatewood, Director of the Allegheny Observatory and the
NASA Ames research Center SETI Program office, to write a report
for the Congressional Research Service called "Life Beyond
Earth." This paper (later turned into a book), was  not about
UFOs. "The paper is," wrote Smith, "instead, a synthesis of past
and current thought on the possibility that there is
extraterrestrial life in the universe, together with discussions
of the possible impacts of making contact with it."

In 1976 Smith also coauthored a report called The UFO Enigma
which was produced for the Congressional Research Service. The
report was an overview of the U.S. government involvement in
solving the UFO puzzle, and information that had been released
under the Freedom of Information."

In 1983 Smith produced an updated report by the same name
updating the report with events that had occurred between 1976
and 1983.


Sheehan's contact with the CRS went only to Marcia Smith. It did
not extend to Smith boss, Dr. Jack Gibbons. Sheehan told this
writer that he was not even aware of whom Gibbons was. It is
assumed that Gibbons knew, and approved of the UFO related
reports that Smith was writing. This would extend to the secret
UFO report prepared for the House of Representatives, and
President Carter, if the story Sheehan tells is true.

This connection is important because following a long period as
the head of the Office of Technological Assessment for the
Congressional Research Service, Dr. Gibbons went on to become
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology in the
Clinton White House. As science advisor to President Clinton,
Gibbons dealt with the Rockefeller White House UFO initiated by
Lawrence Rockefeller. Despite his close relationship to the UFO
investigations that were being conducted by Marcia Smith, during
and just after the Carter administration, Gibbons strangely told
Rockefeller in 1993, that he was totally ignorant of the UFO
subject.

According to 1,000 pages of UFO documents released by the
Clinton Office for Science and Technology Policy, Gibbons
quickly overcame his claimed UFO ignorance. He not only met with
Rockefeller and his representatives about UFOs, but he headed up
a White House initiative to declassify documents that it was
hoped would reveal the true story of the events surrounding the
crash of an object near Roswell, New Mexico in July 1947.

Finally, in research to discovery if Smith produced a secret UFO
report for President Carter, a strange discovery was made. As
noted above, in 1976 Marcia Smith headed up a research report
prepared by the Congressional Research Service titled "The UFO
Enigma." Strangely, the very next year, 1977, a book using
exactly the same title "The UFO Enigma" was published by
Doubleday. The author was arch-debunker of UFOs,  Donald Menzel.

1.  Daniel Sheehan has been Legal Counsel on a number of
prominent cases in the past. He worked on Watergate, was one of
the counsel defending the New York Times on the Pentagon Papers,
was chief counsel on the Karen Silkwood Case which put an end to
the building of any new nuclear plants being started in the
United States. He was a key researcher exposing the Iran/Contra
scandal, and was a key counsel for the American Sanctuary
Movement.

2.Marcia Smith is a Specialist in Aerospace and
Telecommunications Policy for the Science Policy Research
Division of the Congressional Research Service, Library of
Congress, Washington, D.C. She has been at CRS since 1975,
serving as a policy analyst for the Members and committees of
the U.S. Congress on matters concerning U.S. and foreign
military and civilian space activities, and on
telecommunications issues (and formerly on nuclear energy). She
was Section Head for Space and Defense Technologies from
1987-1991, and Section Head for Energy, Aerospace and
Transportation Technologies from 1984-1985.

GC



"The President did not know whether or not
Gorbachev believed in reincarnation. Perhaps
the President in a previous life had been
the inventor of the shield." A Top-Secret
Memorandum of Conversation describing
Reagan's defense of SDI to Chairman
Gorbachev during their one on one Summit
meetings in Geneva November 20, 1985
Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
http://www.shopping.altavista.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 >
   Jun > Jun 30

              Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 08:18:42 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 19:48:14 -0400
Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories... - Randle


 >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:41:48 -0400
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:25:36 EDT
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>>Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:34:49 -0400
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>>>Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 19:18:36 -0400
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>>From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>>>>Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:36:43 -0400
 >>>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...

 >>>>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>>>>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:45:20 EDT
 >>>>>>Subject: Re: New Evidence Shows False Memories...
 >>>>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com


<snip>

John, List, All -

 >I was referring to the 'kind' of comments that (for instance)
 >Kevin Randle made recently in a posting. ("the _tales_ that
 >abductees tell" etc.) I don't know what you're talking about,
 >but I was talking to Katharina about being here to respond to
 >unfair or wrongful comments/statements about witnesses who
 >report UFO abduction. Where you got the 'spin' that you put on
 >it I have no idea.

 >John 'just me in here' Velez

First, I think I should point out that I made no comment, but I
did ask a question. A poorly phrased question, but a question
none the less. And, a question, that I might also point out, has
not been answered.

So, now I'll take things one more step because I read here about
all the research that is being conducted, or should be
conducted, or that isn't conducted. One of those reasons is that
some people will not cooperate with legitimate scientific
research because they don't happen to like the "tone" of the
research, the researchers themselves, or things that some of
those researchers might have said in the past. So, one of the
reasons that some research isn't conducted is because some
people don't want to see it conducted.

Now that I have made a rather vague allegation, let's see if I
can make a somewhat more pointed argument. Take, for example,
the idea that some of the abduction events might have been
precipitated by an episode of sleep paralysis. No, we're not
going to argue about anything other than sleep paralysis. We're
not going to entertain, at this point, theories that the alien
abductors are capable of inducing sleep paralysis to make the
abductions easier. We're just going to look at the symptoms of
the original abduction event and ask if they mirror sleep
paralysis. A simple enough theory to test because we know what
the symptoms of sleep paralysis are based on the information
contained in various psychological, refereed journals, from
various studies done in sleep clinics, and of course, Hufford's
work on The Terror that Comes in the Night.

In our study, meaning the one that Russ Estes, Bill Cone and I
conducted, we found that nearly 50% of those suggesting alien
abduction talked of symptoms that mirrored sleep paralysis. This
means only that about 50% mirrored sleep paralysis and nothing
more. The important point is that we asked a number of abduction
researchers to assist us by asking the same question of those
they knew. We would provide a benign questionnaire. All we
wanted to know was if this number, that is, 50% held up in their
abductee populations. We didn't even get the courtesy of a
reply.

Of course, we did look at Eddie Bullard's study of 1988. By
going through it carefully, it seemed that we could document
that between 17% to 21% of the cases could be related to sleep
paralysis. We have to remember here, however, that there wasn't
always complete information in Bullard's study and he had
surveyed the literature so that he hadn't talked to the victims
of abduction. Even so, just under a quarter of those in his
survey experienced an episode that might have been sleep
paralysis, or at least, mirrored sleep paralysis.

These two studies have supplied us with some useful information.
Sleep paralysis, or a phenomenon that acts like sleep paralysis,
is a factor in a large number of cases. More complete data might
help us learn a little more, and wouldn't that be a good thing?

In the past we, (Estes, Cone, and I) have reported on a number
of interesting points that deserve further evaluation. We have
suggested, for example, that John Mack has pointed out there is
a matching between the researcher and the abductee. Mack has
said that he thought Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs and Joe Nyman
"may pull out of their experiencers what they want to see. (See
Byrant, Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind, p. 217)" This is a
very important statement for what it suggests about some
research being conducted today. It suggests, very obliquely, a
partial solution for some of the reports and it is a statement
that certainly merits additional research.

When we interviewed Mack (and contrary to what Budd Hopkins has
reported elsewhere, we did interview Mack on video tape), he
said much the same thing. When he was questioned about this at
the Orange County MUFON meeting, he denied that he would have
ever said anything like this, though he had entertained the
thoughts. I won't discuss the ramifications of Mack's admission,
but they are staggering for what it says about abduction
research and John Mack.

This suggests another avenue of research that should be
conducted but probably won't be. Is Mack's observation correct,
and if it is, what does that tell us about abduction? Is there a
way to explain this "matching"?

I could go on, but my point is that some research just isn't
conducted for reasons that aren't very scientific. We could
learn much from a general survey of abductees. For example, is
there any connection between blood type and abduction? It would
seem to me that a random selection of abductees from the general
population would match the distribution of blood type in that
same population but if it doesn't, why not?

Think about that for just a moment. What if we learned that only
those with blood type A were abducted? Here is a physical trait
that is not visible to unaided scrutiny, but we learn that the
abductors are taking only those with a specific blood type.
Wouldn't that sort of information intrigue the scientific
community, and might it not provide a clue about abduction?

What about political party affiliation? College education? How
about right and left-handedness? All these things are not traits
that can be spotted from casual observation. If we found some
trends here, that could be studied without any pejorative
comments, that might tell us something about the nature of
abduction and the abductee population. Naturally, I can get no
cooperation for any of this because I'm not a "real" abduction
researcher.

It just seems to me that rather than put another hundred people
under hypnotic regression and attempt to learn what is buried in
their subconscious minds that these sorts of studies might be of
some benefit. Rather than adding another layer to the case study
of abduction, a survey or two that provides answers might tell
us something about the abductors and the abductees. We might
move a little closer to finding some answers.

I should point out here that Eddie Bullard's study was not
really about those reporting abduction but about the reports
they made. I Think we need to prepare a database of the traits
of those who have been abducted and see if there are any trends.
There could be some interesting clues hidden in this
information.

I certainly applaud the "Dust Bunny" research because I thought
it was a good idea when it was proposed. It is the sort of
moving away from case studies that I thought might advance our
understanding of abductions. I look forward to the completion of
the research, and I certainly believe that Nick should be
applauded for the work he has done to this point, and the John
should be applauded for his work in getting the whole thing off
the ground.

All this is a long-winded way to say that some research isn't
being conducted and some questions just aren't being answered.
It is also to point out that there are things that can be done,
areas that can be researched without intrusion into the lives of
the abductees. Surveys can be benign, completed at the leisure
of the abductee, and can even be relatively anonymous, though
for scientific purposes, there would have to be some way to
match the surveys to the abductees at some point.

So now back to the original question. John, all, what exactly is
your take on these reports of Satanic Ritual Abuse?


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 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                         Re: Barney Barnett - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:26:49 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 19:50:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Barney Barnett - Randle


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 08:26:29 -0300

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:47:14 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Barney Barnett
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Barney Barnett [was: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit]
 >>>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:46:16 -0700

 >>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:31:21 EDT
 >>>>Subject: Re: Easton Threatens Lawsuit
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>>Not only does it say nothing about a crash, but it gives no hint
 >>>>of any extraordinary event. There is nothing in the diary but
 >>>>the mundane, including the weather each day. I find it
 >>>>extraordinary that Barney could have been involved in something
 >>>>as exciting as this but give NO hint of it, even if that hint
 >>>>was disguised in some fashion.

 >Kevin you very recently made an excellent argument for people
 >involved with high secruity programs not telling spouses. Barney
 >worked for the US government. He was a WW 1 Veteran.

Which is not the same as working for a high security program,
and there is nothing in his background to suggest that he had
ever worked with highly classified material which, of course,
changes the equation. My point, however, is that there are no
hints in the diary, even if it doesn't mention a UFO crash.
Nothing that would lead us to suspect that anything
extraordinary had happened and I find that worrisome.

 >>>>Given the diary and the dates, we were trying to figure out how
 >>>>Barnett could have been involved. We learned, through various
 >>>>interviews that Barnett did get as far south as Carrizozo and as
 >>>>far east as Roswell. Mainly this was for meetings and the like,
 >>>>but again, there is nothing in the diary to confirm this.

 >During 1947 there were no trips noted in the diary East of
 >Socorro. There were many trips to the High Country (The Plains)

On which we agree. Talking with colleagues and others who held
similar jobs, we learned that Barnett did make those meetings,
including one in Roswell... all of which happened after 1947 and
is, I suppose irrelevant to our discussion here. I even
mentioned that there was nothing in the diary that suggested
this.

 >>>>And, if we look at the diary closely, we find that the diary
 >>>>says, on July 2, 1947, "Barney went to the high country near
 >>>>Datil." This means, unfortunately, the crash would have had to
 >>>>take place on July 1, not July 2.

 >>>Kevin,

 >I can't follow this. Datil is on the way from the crash site
 >back to Magdalena and Socorro. I stayed there overnight with
 >John Carpenter, Don Berliner, Robert Bigelow and Gerald
 >Anderson. We went there from the site on the Farr ranch. Farr
 >got his mail in Datil. The ranch is over 120,000 acres. No
 >reason Barney couldn't have been at the crash site on July 2.

Yes, but I thought the crash took place in the EVENING of July
2, but the diary would put Barnett on the scene on July 1, a day
too soon. If the crash happened on July 2, then he would have
been on the scene on July 3, which of course, the diary
eliminates.  So the timing was off if we accept the July 2 date
of the crash. And, we must remember that Gerald Anderson first
put the crash north of highway 60, then over by the Very Large
Array (which I always call the Whopping Huge Array), and finally
settled on the site near Horse Springs, apparently after he had
again consulted The Roswell Incident

But, let's even complicate the equation more. Barnett died in
1969 so that none of us ever spoke with him. We have only the
second-hand tales told by some very nice and sincere people who
heard Barnett tell the story. He was speaking of a crashed disk
and we have all assumed that it related to the Roswell crash and
that it took place in July 1947... but what if it didn't? What
if Barnett was talking of an event that took place a few years
later? What if it had nothing at all to do with the July 1947
crash? What if it was something else altogether? Just a thought.

 >>>Not necessarily. He may have camped over night and encountered
 >>>the crashed craft on his way back to the office on the 3rd.
 >>>Datil is near the Plains of San Augustin. There isn't enough
 >>>detail here to tell much of anything but it is certainly
 >>>possible that he was near the Plains on the 3rd. Do you have
 >>>Barney's location on the 29th and 30th of May and June 1st and
 >>>2nd.?

 >>>Ed

 >>Ed, List, -

 >>Let's not invent scenarios without the benefit of evidence.
 >>There is absolutely no evidence that Barnett ever camped out on
 >>his trips, that he slipped out of town without telling his wife
 >>(which, of course, eliminates the theory that he might have seen
 >>the craft and bodies over toward Corona), that he stayed in
 >>motels, or that he was gone overnight very often (September
 >>17... "Barney went to L.B. Moore's ranch at Horse Springs...
 >>didn't make it home.) All of these things can be suggested as a
 >>way of keeping Barnett over in Datil (where I have been several
 >>times, and even ate lunch there once). But finally, the diary
 >>answers the question (which wouldn't have been asked had I
 >>provided all the information for the July 2 date...) "...came
 >>home from Datil at six o'clock."

 >>There is nothing in the diary to suggest he was involved in any
 >>extraordinary events in 1947. Although, if I remember correctly,
 >>in the latest version of the cameraman's story, or in the
 >>Hessemann version of it, the Alien Autopsy footage came from an
 >>event at the end of May and took place close to Socorro so
 >>Barnett wouldn't have had to go very far. (Ed, I'm writing from
 >>memory here and really don't have the energy to go look this
 >>stuff up, because without some better information and without
 >>some independent corroboration, it just isn't worth the effort.
 >>Call me closed mined, call me lazy, but without some better
 >>evidence that can be verified, call me unimpressed.)


 >We need to recall that there was testimony about the Plains site
 >from neighbor Harold Baca, from Barney's boss and his wife (The
 >Danleys) from others in the area, as well as from Jean and Vern
 >Maltais, Alice Knight, from retired Colonel William Leed, from
 >Anthropologist Robert Drake,etc Gerald passed a polygraph
 >examination. Ace investigator Victor Golubic dug out other
 >Plains area testimony.

We must also remember that none of those witnesses saw anything
themselves but are all repeating what Barnett told them, which
means, there is but a single witness here. It is all traced back
to Barnett.

With the exception of Drake, who claims that he heard the story
from an unidentified cowboy when he, Al Dittert, Wes Hurt, and
Dan McKnight were returning from the Plains. In the first
version, Drake said that they discussed the story all the way
back to Albuquerque, but when Dittert, Hurt and McKnight, all of
whom I have interviewed (as has Tom Carey), said that they
remembered nothing about any of these conversations... then
Drake decided they hadn't discussed it at all.

We have been unable to find any uncontaminated, independent
corroboration of an event on the Plains. I think it is important
to remember that.

Yes, Gerald Anderson passed a polygraph examination, and he
forged the diary from his uncle, lied about his service with the
Navy SEALS, lied about the conversation that we had, forged a
telephone bill, lied about his anthropology teacher Winfred
Buskirk, said he had a degree in microbiology, and refused to
answer the tough questions. Oh, I forgot, he could read at age
five and was a child prodigy, and then said he couldn't read at
age five. Anderson should have been rejected as a witness years
ago, considering the stories that he was telling. At best, he
should now be nothing more than a footnote.

And finally, we must remember that none of this originated about
a crash on the Plains, but with Ed's suggestion that this had
something to do with the alien autopsy film. I believe that Stan
and I agree on the legitimacy of that film.

 >Much of this is in "Crash at Corona". There was also a CUFOS
 >publication reviewing  the battle between myself and Kevin and
 >other commentary in my paper Roswell Revisited and my response
 >to Kevin's response to that. Yes, Virginia , there really was a
 >crash in the Plains.

And then we could all read my response to Stan's response to my
response called, "Holy Cow, the revised revision has been
rerevised again."


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 >
   Jun > Jun 30

              Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau - Still Open! -

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 07:15:03 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 19:51:47 -0400
Subject: Re: British Flying Saucer Bureau - Still Open! -


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 29 Jun 2001 05:10:54 -0700
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: British Flying Saucer Bureau - Still Open

 >Comment:  In his May 25th letter, Senator James M. Inhofe,
 >stated "On April 22, 2001, the British Flying Saucer Bureau,
 >which had been hunting for extraterrestrial activity for half a
 >century, closed its doors due to the lack of UFOs."

 >Not according to the message below.

 >-------

 >From: Richard Alexander rick.blackchip@virgin.net
 >Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:42:14 +0100
 >To: black-triangle@yahoogroups.com
 >Subject: [black-triangle] British Flying Saucer Bureau - Correction

 >A letter has been published in the current (July 2001) edition
 >of the UK UFO magazine, from Dennis Plunkett, stating in no
 >uncertain terms that he has not informed anybody that the
 >British Flying Saucer Bureau has closed down and that reports to
 >that effect, circulated in the UK national newspaper "The Times"
 >in a report by Simon de Bruxelles - and passed on (in good
 >faith) via various go-betweens to this group are totally
 >erroneous.


Hello Bill:

I'm sure the message from Mr. Plunkett will come as a great
relief to the many members of his previously erstwhile UFO
group.


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 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                             'Global UFO Alert'

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:21:15 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 19:53:33 -0400
Subject: 'Global UFO Alert'


The celebration of the 1st International UFO Research Day was a
success. The reports sent to us to this day show that all the
activities held in Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico
had very good attendance from the general public.

The only sad set back was that a deadly earthquake affected the
scheduled activities in northern Chile, Peru, and Bolivia. In
solidiarity we grieve for the loss of life and property in those
countries.

The joint Global UFO Alert was also a success. Up to this date
we have received positive sighting reports of UFO's from
Argentina, Florida, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, US and
Colombia. In this regard we urgently need that you send your
sighting report as soon as possible. Different news agencies
from the participating countries are expecting a press release
of the results of the Global Alert this is why we need all your
cooperation. Remember that even if you did not observe any event
you should fill the following report. Copy of this press release
will be sent to all of you.


GLOBAL UFO ALERT
Organization: ________________
Person in charge of the UFO watch: _________________
Email of person in charge: ___________________
Date: June 23-24, 2001
From: 10:00PM to 2:00 AM
Location: ________________________
Average Temperature: ________________________
Weather: ________________________________
Describe sorroundings:__________________________
Observations:__________________________________
Results: ___________________________________
Evidence:  Yes_____ No _______
Describe type of evidence: _______________

Send to: www.ovni.net

Regards,

Orlando Pla
www.ovni.net

Quique Mario
www.ovni.org.ar

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Dr. Virgilio Snchez-Ocejo

Miami UFO Center
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/ufomiami/index.html
Chupacabras
http://ufomiami.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 >
   Jun > Jun 30

              Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 12:09:55 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 19:55:27 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday - Myers


 >From: David Bolton <David@bolton.sol.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 23:31:13 +0100
 >Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

 >>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:32:16 -0400
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Video Shown On Fox News Yesterday

 >>I'm no video analyst. I'm not looking at the clip with the eyes
 >>of an "expert." But I'll be damned if that bugger looks "real"
 >>enough to me.

 >At the LAPIS conference in Preston (UK), last month, Jose
 >Escamilla and Jim Peters showed some interesting frames from
 >this video sequence.


What really bothered me when seeing this video is that the
helicopter suffers no concussion from the object taking off in
what appears to be very close proximity to the helicopter and
the object appears to leave a smoke/jet trail.


Regards,

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 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 18:02:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 19:56:45 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Boulder Daily Camera' On Greer - Kaeser


I apparently missed the initial posting that included the entire
article on this event (although it appears that most of it was
included in the response posts). A short search found it, along
with a shorter synopsis, on their web site:

http://www.bouldernews.com/news/local/24lufo.html

http://www.bouldernews.com/news/local/25lzdgt.html


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 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                                Jaime Maussan

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 15:05:20 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 19:58:12 -0400
Subject: Jaime Maussan


Hi folks-

I'm looking for anyone out there in the field to comment on
Jaime Maussan's recent support of the Jonathan Reed Hoax. I'm
looking for people I can quote, your help is appreciated.
Thanks!

Regards,

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 >
   Jun > Jun 30

                                Sega On Mars!

From: John Tenney <jelt2000@email.msn.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 20:01:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 20:19:15 -0400
Subject: Sega On Mars!


Just to lighten up everyone's day.
----------------------------------------------

Newest NASA/JPL/Malin Space Science
Images Of Cydonia Region
Proof Positive!
Cartoon Horse On The Face On Mars!
As Well As A Popular Video Game Character!

06-30-2001

Michigan Anomalous Information Network
http://www.strangemichigan.com

 From the desk of Rev. John Tenney
For public release:

With the release of the newest images of the Cydonia region of
Mars, speculation on the existence of artificial Martian
artifacts has confirmed the existence of the loveable cartoon
horse, "Mr. Head". But the most exciting and controversial new
finding is the discovery of "Sonic the Hedgehog" (from the Sega
Videogame of the same name) next to "Mr. Head".

To view these incredible new images visit:

http://mainorg.tripod.com/jplsonic.html